9 ms·

Like it took a night for the Russians to wipe out Ukraine (which has been lacking modern weapons)? The Russian invasion of Ukraine has shown how weak the Russia

by rmind 5y ago

Like it took a night for the Russians to wipe out Ukraine (which has been lacking modern weapons)? The Russian invasion of Ukraine has shown how weak the Russian army is in reality. They have no chance against NATO whatsoever. Poland and Baltics are also arming themselves to teeth now.

micromacrofoot 5y ago
Once the nuclear taboo is crossed it could happen near-instantly. I imagine Russia would prefer to be bordered by nuclear wastelands as a DMZ rather than EU states, which create a existential cultural threat just by existing. At that point you'd have to ask yourselves: who would risk nuclear escalation to retaliate for Latvia or Estonia? not the US. Would the UK bomb Russia with London on the line? probably not. Just about everyone has more to lose than Russia at this point, which is an incredibly dangerous situation to be in.
- david422 5y ago
  If nobody launches a nuclear retaliation, then Russia knows it can nuke with impunity. What are the rules they are playing with? Literally just hope they don't invade or nuke London first.
  - blub 5y ago
    Well, they probably can’t nuke Western Europe with impunity. But it’s not clear what NATO membership’s really worth for Eastern Europe. I’m from EE and I don’t understand why the US or the UK would risk their countries or even WE getting nuked for EE. I have the feeling that EE was accepted into NATO just to piss off the Russians and put some space between them and WE. Just like with Ukraine before it went sideways.
    - stjohnswarts 5y ago
      Because we know that we aren't far behind if such a madman is allowed to exist. It's better to go out with a boom than let a dictator win. --Love, an american
  - Koshkin 5y ago
    > invade or nuke London first I don't think that's the plan. Also, no one is going to use tactical nukes against a city. The last thing Putin wants is to look like a mere terrorist. (And no, the Russian forces aren't using terrorist tactics in Ukraine.) So, the first one will probably be used against a military installation (a weapons depot, a radar station, a war ship, etc.), most likely in Poland.
    - micromacrofoot 5y ago
      They're already committing war crimes in Ukraine.
- halfmatthalfcat 5y ago
  "Who would risk nuclear escalation as millions of people are wiped off the face of the Earth?" - I think if this question is being asked, it's only a matter of times before nukes fly beyond these select boarding countries as escalation would almost certainly continue. Putin is already declaring the sanctions as an act of war while NATO/EU countries begin to rearm.
- pmoriarty 5y ago
  "who would risk nuclear escalation to retaliate for Latvia or Estonia? not the US." If a President as unpredictable as Trump happens to be in office, I wouldn't be so sure. That's not to mention the drastically increased risk of accidents once even a one-sided nuclear war has begun. Think of how close the world came to nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis.[1] Once nukes start flying the risk grows much higher, even if there are still (presumably rational, cautious, and non-hawkish) adults in control. [1] - https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/lone-russian-submarine-captain-stopped-cuban-missile-crisis-destroying-world-165747 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/lone-russian-submar...
  - bushbaba 5y ago
    One could argue a crazy irrational leader is a better defense against the start of conflict than a rational leader
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > One could argue a crazy irrational leader is a better defense against the start of conflict than a rational leader One could argue anything, but I don't think there is a good argument for that position. In fact, I think it's painfully obvious that such a leader makes it less likely that efforts at avoiding conflict will be successful.
    - 1986 5y ago
      This was explicitly Nixon's approach, and it didn't really work at all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory
      - bushbaba 5y ago
        Got a great laugh that the 3 people mentioned are Nixon, Trump, and Putin.
- glogla 5y ago
  That is why NATO has doctrine of "launch everything we have once we see a first nuke fly" and why it is very public about it.
  - micromacrofoot 5y ago
    I would be shocked (and likely dead shortly after) if NATO launched all out nuclear retaliation for the sake of the baltic states. It's a very convenient threat until you're faced with the reality of pushing the button.
    - chasd00 5y ago
      i don't believe it would go from zero to nuclear instantly. However, the thought is in a NATO vs Russia fight either side will resort to nuclear weapons before surrender. The thinking is it would be hard to stop a fight from escalating to an eventual nuclear war.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > NATO has doctrine of "launch everything we have once we see a first nuke fly" and why it is very public about it. No, it doesn't, and, no, it isn't. NATO is very public about not saying what its specific response plan on various nuke scenarios is.
- onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
  They're NATO members. Nice try. If you think Russia can nuke a NATO population center and we're going to sit around and pretend like nothing happened, you're crazy. That's MAD.
  - micromacrofoot 5y ago
    I'm not so sure NATO membership matters as much as people think, at present it seems like a convenient excuse to not intervene. If the US retaliated with a bomb on Russian soil, would the expectation not be full-out nuclear war? Would it be smart for the US to enter that because Russia bombed Latvia?
    - toyg 5y ago
      Attacking a NATO member in a significant manner would trigger nuclear war. That's the actual meaning of the alliance, the treaties make retaliation compulsory, if the action is a clear attack by a nation-state. Refusing to carry it out would immediately result in effective disbandment of the alliance, with massive effects on the economy of Europe and the US.
      - micromacrofoot 5y ago
        This logic doesn't really track... you think the US would directly invoke nuclear war for the sake of an agreement that includes baltic states because if it doesn't... it could hurt the economy? I have no doubt that "hurt the economy" would be preferred to "destroy parts of the country"
        ryukafalz 5y ago
        How is it the US "invoking nuclear war" if Russia nukes a US ally first? No, Russia's the one starting that war if they do that. Yes, the US would retaliate.
        toyg 5y ago
        NATO doesn't have multiple tracks - a member is a member. The US and their allies understood very well what that meant when they accepted those new members. NATO is about retaliation after external (and generally accepted to mean Russian, in practice) attack, or it isn't at all. This is not a case of Turkey whining about a few kurds blowing up a few police stations, this is the raison d'etre for the whole thing. Renouncing NATO duties would be the worst loss of dignity the US ever experienced, and would jeopardize its richest partner market, with uncalcolable losses.
- keepper 5y ago
  I hope it isn't, of course. ( the nuclear taboo). But, what this war has exposed is how bad the russian army is trained, and how not so great their equipment is. While a prolonged war would be hard for any country, they struggled from the get go. I hope this doesn't embolden the US and Europe to be more aggressive. I really hope that cooler heads eventually prevail. WRT to the really really far fetched ( I hope ), that Russia would launch any nuclear strike. The missile defense systems that NATO and the US have were built exactly to counteract Russian missiles in a situation like this. This will even accelerate the development of hypersonic interceptors ( afaik, already in final stages) . It would mean total annihilation of russia, as their in flight missies would be intercepted, and it would guarantee a total attack by the us. ( we as a nation tend to over react... and not go tit for tat ). I hope this never happens. The reason why countries need leadership changes often. And why stable leaders are needed everywhere :-/
- matthewdgreen 5y ago
  You'd have to ask yourself: once a country becomes so deranged that it's willing to nuke non-aggressive neighbors to remove a "threat", is it really safe to just back down and potentially show weakness to that nation? What if they decide that further strategic aims can be accomplished with additional nuclear strikes? I'm not saying I know the answer. But this is what strategists on the US/NATO side would be thinking about, and Russia sure knows they would be thinking about it. It would be madness to gamble on this strategy working out in the long run.
  - eternalban 5y ago
    The P5 issues a joint statement on Jan 3rd, 2022 that they won't use nuclear weapons. I am not sure if this is an annual announcement for P5 or just well wishes for 2022 by the nuclear armed permanent members of UNSC. (possibly /s) Obviously Russia would not start a nuclear war. It will simply take steps that either need to be conventionally opposed or dare US/NATO to go nuclear. Sanctions are hoped to collapse the economy of Russia and put the fear into the Chinese and other fence sitters. It's like running the clock down in a game. US probes for incremental steps (the famous "salami slicing") to ramp up counter force. Nothing should happen until we have Russia's promised counter-sanction response this Tuesday. After that next move is getting planes into Ukraine and possibly NFZ. What follows will be a non-nuclear hypersonic attack on NATO airfields used. And so on. Until someone lobs a nuke.
    - matthewdgreen 5y ago
      >Obviously Russia would not start a nuclear war. It will simply take steps that either need to be conventionally opposed or dare US/NATO to go nuclear. I think the major conclusion from the Ukraine war is that the Russian army is not in a particularly strong condition, and certainly would not fare well against superior NATO forces (particularly the air forces.) And this is assuming they are not further degraded by a long, bloody occupation in Ukraine. Nuclear first-use is a move from weakness, not strength.
      - eternalban 5y ago
- hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
  > who would risk nuclear escalation to retaliate for Latvia or Estonia? That's the very point of the existence of NATO. If NATO doesn't retaliate, it could as well not exist. Fortunately the Western reaction to Putin's invasion helped to unite NATO and everybody knows that if we give in, there is no reason why Putin should stop at any defined point.
- cpwright 5y ago
  >At that point you'd have to ask yourselves: who would risk nuclear escalation to retaliate for Latvia or Estonia? not the US. That is the point behind asking for US soldiers to be permanently based. They are a sign of commitment. An "engagement ring" if you will. Without the US soldiers there it becomes much easier to ignore an attack.
haughty 5y ago
HAD been lacking :). the most popular pet name in Ukraine right now is Bayraktar. But of course, as others mentioned, it will take only a few blown up 1$bln warships before things turn nuclear. Most likely Russians will have a demo nuclear 'test' in neutral waters sometimes this year. There aren't any 'cooler heads' to prevail in this situation - just bloodlust and enablement
swalsh 5y ago
Have the Russians proven they are weak? Certainly the war in the northeast has proven incompetent, but the war in the south seems like a far more solid military operation. It's also the more important operation, Odessa for example is a major logistical point for foreign military aid.
- indymike 5y ago
  > Have the Russians proven they are weak? Yes. They have shown they are not well organized, have poor leadership, have defective planning, are terrible at logistics, have poor discipline in the ranks.
  - tim333 5y ago
    In fairness to the Russian military they are probably pretty unmotivated. A lot of them seem to have no idea why they were there having been told they were taking part in exercises. Also had Putin let on they were suppose to kill their peaceful neighbours for his self aggrandisement they probably would not have been enthusiastic.
- ransom1538 5y ago
  "Certainly the war in the northeast has proven incompetent," Eh. I don't understand others military analysis. Russia is doing the right thing to just sit a convoy north of Kyiv. Ukraine doesn't have air power anyway. If they rolled into Kyiv it would be a urban combat meat grinder. They are better off waiting until the forces from the south and east meet south of Kyiv. Then they can surround Kyiv and shell it to rubble [what they learned in berlin]. Wait for white flags, then roll it. Ukraine needs to wipe out that northern convoy NOW.
  - criddell 5y ago
    Do you think the recent shipments from the US of 17,000 anti-air and anti-tank missiles is enough to alter the calculation by much?
    - 5y ago
ekianjo 5y ago
> The Russian invasion of Ukraine has shown how weak the Russian army is in reality You might want to hold your judgment until things are over. You don't judge a football match after the first 10 minutes are passed.
- hypertele-Xii 5y ago
  Unlike a sports game with voluntary competitors, you should judge a military operation early, preferably even before the aggressor plans it. Sounds like Art of War 101.
  - paganel 5y ago
    For what it's worth Russia's start of WW2 was a disaster, they only started to recover about one year into it.
    - noir_lord 5y ago
      > they only started to recover about one year into it. With massive aid from...the United States. Somehow I don't see the US running arctic convoys round the clock to re-supply the Russians this time.
      - blisterpeanuts 5y ago
        China is providing some kinds of assistance, for example they are substituting their own (and India's) banking system for the SWIFT cut-off. So far, no military assistance, but that is not really needed; the RF has a huge military of which only a tiny fraction has been committed to the Ukraine action.
    - rasz 5y ago
      Russia's start of WW2 was on September 17 of 1939 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland and they did pretty great taking half of Poland, as agreed in Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, in less than a month. They cemented this victory and cooperation with Hitler in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Frontier_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Frontier.... They had full two years of successes until June 1941 Barbarossa. Did you perhaps grew up under Russian occupation, like I did, and not learn in school about Molotov–Ribbentrop Pacts? We were only taught the part after 1941 where Russia gloriously liberates Europe.
noelsusman 5y ago
Ukraine didn't have modern weapons in 2014, but they do now. Regardless, I don't think anyone has ever thought the post-Soviet Russian military could take on NATO in conventional warfare, but that doesn't matter because they have nukes.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > Ukraine didn't have modern weapons in 2014, but they do now. And the Ukrainians don't even have a full complement of modern weapons. IIRC, they're mainly getting sent infantry heavy-weapons at the very last minute. Even the US was pretty stingy with things like Javelins until very recently, out of fear of "provoking" the Putin. Since the Baltics are in NATO, I doubt they'll have as many issues with getting more/better weapons. Hopefully they'll also take some lessons from Ukraine (e.g. really, really beef up their reserve forces and military training for their civilian population). Also, since they're actually in NATO, they can hopefully count on better support from their allies than what the Ukrainians have gotten.
CapricornNoble 5y ago
>>>The Russian invasion of Ukraine has shown how weak the Russian army is in reality. For context: Germany invaded Poland (population ~31 million) with 60+ divisions, and that invasion required almost a month to succeed, with the Soviets jumping in partway through to quicken the end. Russia has invaded Ukraine (population ~41 million) with ~13 divisions, less favorable weather, and vastly more urbanized terrain to fight through. While they have made some absolutely embarrassing mistakes, they are fielding the largest army seen in a generation, and still conducting offensive operations. Not even the US has put 13 divisions into a theater since....Vietnam? Korea? Desert Storm was ~9 US divisions + allies. The big difference is we can show up with ~9 divisions that will be well-supplied and well-motivated anywhere in the world (and with endless air support to make up in bombs what we might lack in manpower), while Russia has a terribly motivated and already-hungry army even in their own backyard, and surprisingly not enough ordnance to make up for it.
- moralestapia 5y ago
  Great comment. Some fresh air among a sea of armchair generals that think they could take control of Ukraine in 24 hours "if they wanted to".
  - ericmay 5y ago
    Well, by all accounts (and I'd love to read others that diverge from this) this was actually Russia's exact strategy. Move to Kyiv quickly, destroy the existing government, install a new puppet government, and announce it to the world quickly before the west could react. Russia doesn't have the manpower deployed to actually occupy Ukraine. 200,000 soldiers is not enough when the Ukrainian state is actively resisting. This is why they tried some absolutely suicidal paratrooper missions and they are having all of these apparent logistical issues (again if there are other sources I'd like to learn more please share). I think if I were to summarize the "Russia is failing" narrative it's that Russia expectations of a quick, easy victory were completely unmet, and now even if Russia does want to occupy Ukraine it's not going to be the quick and easy decapitation strike that they thought it would.

by rmind 5y ago

micromacrofoot 5y ago

Once the nuclear taboo is crossed it could happen near-instantly. I imagine Russia would prefer to be bordered by nuclear wastelands as a DMZ rather than EU states, which create a existential cultural threat just by existing. At that point you'd have to ask yourselves: who would risk nuclear escalation to retaliate for Latvia or Estonia? not the US. Would the UK bomb Russia with London on the line? probably not. Just about everyone has more to lose than Russia at this point, which is an incredibly dangerous situation to be in.

david422 5y ago
If nobody launches a nuclear retaliation, then Russia knows it can nuke with impunity. What are the rules they are playing with? Literally just hope they don't invade or nuke London first.
- blub 5y ago
  Well, they probably can’t nuke Western Europe with impunity. But it’s not clear what NATO membership’s really worth for Eastern Europe. I’m from EE and I don’t understand why the US or the UK would risk their countries or even WE getting nuked for EE. I have the feeling that EE was accepted into NATO just to piss off the Russians and put some space between them and WE. Just like with Ukraine before it went sideways.
  - stjohnswarts 5y ago
    Because we know that we aren't far behind if such a madman is allowed to exist. It's better to go out with a boom than let a dictator win. --Love, an american
- Koshkin 5y ago
  > invade or nuke London first I don't think that's the plan. Also, no one is going to use tactical nukes against a city. The last thing Putin wants is to look like a mere terrorist. (And no, the Russian forces aren't using terrorist tactics in Ukraine.) So, the first one will probably be used against a military installation (a weapons depot, a radar station, a war ship, etc.), most likely in Poland.
  - micromacrofoot 5y ago
    They're already committing war crimes in Ukraine.
halfmatthalfcat 5y ago
"Who would risk nuclear escalation as millions of people are wiped off the face of the Earth?" - I think if this question is being asked, it's only a matter of times before nukes fly beyond these select boarding countries as escalation would almost certainly continue. Putin is already declaring the sanctions as an act of war while NATO/EU countries begin to rearm.
pmoriarty 5y ago
"who would risk nuclear escalation to retaliate for Latvia or Estonia? not the US." If a President as unpredictable as Trump happens to be in office, I wouldn't be so sure. That's not to mention the drastically increased risk of accidents once even a one-sided nuclear war has begun. Think of how close the world came to nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis.[1] Once nukes start flying the risk grows much higher, even if there are still (presumably rational, cautious, and non-hawkish) adults in control. [1] - https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/lone-russian-submarine-captain-stopped-cuban-missile-crisis-destroying-world-165747 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/lone-russian-submar...
- bushbaba 5y ago
  One could argue a crazy irrational leader is a better defense against the start of conflict than a rational leader
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > One could argue a crazy irrational leader is a better defense against the start of conflict than a rational leader One could argue anything, but I don't think there is a good argument for that position. In fact, I think it's painfully obvious that such a leader makes it less likely that efforts at avoiding conflict will be successful.
  - 1986 5y ago
    This was explicitly Nixon's approach, and it didn't really work at all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory
    - bushbaba 5y ago
      Got a great laugh that the 3 people mentioned are Nixon, Trump, and Putin.
glogla 5y ago
That is why NATO has doctrine of "launch everything we have once we see a first nuke fly" and why it is very public about it.
- micromacrofoot 5y ago
  I would be shocked (and likely dead shortly after) if NATO launched all out nuclear retaliation for the sake of the baltic states. It's a very convenient threat until you're faced with the reality of pushing the button.
  - chasd00 5y ago
    i don't believe it would go from zero to nuclear instantly. However, the thought is in a NATO vs Russia fight either side will resort to nuclear weapons before surrender. The thinking is it would be hard to stop a fight from escalating to an eventual nuclear war.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > NATO has doctrine of "launch everything we have once we see a first nuke fly" and why it is very public about it. No, it doesn't, and, no, it isn't. NATO is very public about not saying what its specific response plan on various nuke scenarios is.
onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
They're NATO members. Nice try. If you think Russia can nuke a NATO population center and we're going to sit around and pretend like nothing happened, you're crazy. That's MAD.
- micromacrofoot 5y ago
  I'm not so sure NATO membership matters as much as people think, at present it seems like a convenient excuse to not intervene. If the US retaliated with a bomb on Russian soil, would the expectation not be full-out nuclear war? Would it be smart for the US to enter that because Russia bombed Latvia?
  - toyg 5y ago
    Attacking a NATO member in a significant manner would trigger nuclear war. That's the actual meaning of the alliance, the treaties make retaliation compulsory, if the action is a clear attack by a nation-state. Refusing to carry it out would immediately result in effective disbandment of the alliance, with massive effects on the economy of Europe and the US.
    - micromacrofoot 5y ago
      This logic doesn't really track... you think the US would directly invoke nuclear war for the sake of an agreement that includes baltic states because if it doesn't... it could hurt the economy? I have no doubt that "hurt the economy" would be preferred to "destroy parts of the country"
      - ryukafalz 5y ago
        How is it the US "invoking nuclear war" if Russia nukes a US ally first? No, Russia's the one starting that war if they do that. Yes, the US would retaliate.
      - toyg 5y ago
        NATO doesn't have multiple tracks - a member is a member. The US and their allies understood very well what that meant when they accepted those new members. NATO is about retaliation after external (and generally accepted to mean Russian, in practice) attack, or it isn't at all. This is not a case of Turkey whining about a few kurds blowing up a few police stations, this is the raison d'etre for the whole thing. Renouncing NATO duties would be the worst loss of dignity the US ever experienced, and would jeopardize its richest partner market, with uncalcolable losses.
keepper 5y ago
I hope it isn't, of course. ( the nuclear taboo). But, what this war has exposed is how bad the russian army is trained, and how not so great their equipment is. While a prolonged war would be hard for any country, they struggled from the get go. I hope this doesn't embolden the US and Europe to be more aggressive. I really hope that cooler heads eventually prevail. WRT to the really really far fetched ( I hope ), that Russia would launch any nuclear strike. The missile defense systems that NATO and the US have were built exactly to counteract Russian missiles in a situation like this. This will even accelerate the development of hypersonic interceptors ( afaik, already in final stages) . It would mean total annihilation of russia, as their in flight missies would be intercepted, and it would guarantee a total attack by the us. ( we as a nation tend to over react... and not go tit for tat ). I hope this never happens. The reason why countries need leadership changes often. And why stable leaders are needed everywhere :-/
matthewdgreen 5y ago
You'd have to ask yourself: once a country becomes so deranged that it's willing to nuke non-aggressive neighbors to remove a "threat", is it really safe to just back down and potentially show weakness to that nation? What if they decide that further strategic aims can be accomplished with additional nuclear strikes? I'm not saying I know the answer. But this is what strategists on the US/NATO side would be thinking about, and Russia sure knows they would be thinking about it. It would be madness to gamble on this strategy working out in the long run.
- eternalban 5y ago
  The P5 issues a joint statement on Jan 3rd, 2022 that they won't use nuclear weapons. I am not sure if this is an annual announcement for P5 or just well wishes for 2022 by the nuclear armed permanent members of UNSC. (possibly /s) Obviously Russia would not start a nuclear war. It will simply take steps that either need to be conventionally opposed or dare US/NATO to go nuclear. Sanctions are hoped to collapse the economy of Russia and put the fear into the Chinese and other fence sitters. It's like running the clock down in a game. US probes for incremental steps (the famous "salami slicing") to ramp up counter force. Nothing should happen until we have Russia's promised counter-sanction response this Tuesday. After that next move is getting planes into Ukraine and possibly NFZ. What follows will be a non-nuclear hypersonic attack on NATO airfields used. And so on. Until someone lobs a nuke.
  - matthewdgreen 5y ago
    >Obviously Russia would not start a nuclear war. It will simply take steps that either need to be conventionally opposed or dare US/NATO to go nuclear. I think the major conclusion from the Ukraine war is that the Russian army is not in a particularly strong condition, and certainly would not fare well against superior NATO forces (particularly the air forces.) And this is assuming they are not further degraded by a long, bloody occupation in Ukraine. Nuclear first-use is a move from weakness, not strength.
    - eternalban 5y ago
hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
> who would risk nuclear escalation to retaliate for Latvia or Estonia? That's the very point of the existence of NATO. If NATO doesn't retaliate, it could as well not exist. Fortunately the Western reaction to Putin's invasion helped to unite NATO and everybody knows that if we give in, there is no reason why Putin should stop at any defined point.
cpwright 5y ago
>At that point you'd have to ask yourselves: who would risk nuclear escalation to retaliate for Latvia or Estonia? not the US. That is the point behind asking for US soldiers to be permanently based. They are a sign of commitment. An "engagement ring" if you will. Without the US soldiers there it becomes much easier to ignore an attack.

haughty 5y ago

HAD been lacking :). the most popular pet name in Ukraine right now is Bayraktar. But of course, as others mentioned, it will take only a few blown up 1$bln warships before things turn nuclear. Most likely Russians will have a demo nuclear 'test' in neutral waters sometimes this year. There aren't any 'cooler heads' to prevail in this situation - just bloodlust and enablement

swalsh 5y ago

Have the Russians proven they are weak? Certainly the war in the northeast has proven incompetent, but the war in the south seems like a far more solid military operation. It's also the more important operation, Odessa for example is a major logistical point for foreign military aid.

indymike 5y ago
> Have the Russians proven they are weak? Yes. They have shown they are not well organized, have poor leadership, have defective planning, are terrible at logistics, have poor discipline in the ranks.
- tim333 5y ago
  In fairness to the Russian military they are probably pretty unmotivated. A lot of them seem to have no idea why they were there having been told they were taking part in exercises. Also had Putin let on they were suppose to kill their peaceful neighbours for his self aggrandisement they probably would not have been enthusiastic.
ransom1538 5y ago
"Certainly the war in the northeast has proven incompetent," Eh. I don't understand others military analysis. Russia is doing the right thing to just sit a convoy north of Kyiv. Ukraine doesn't have air power anyway. If they rolled into Kyiv it would be a urban combat meat grinder. They are better off waiting until the forces from the south and east meet south of Kyiv. Then they can surround Kyiv and shell it to rubble [what they learned in berlin]. Wait for white flags, then roll it. Ukraine needs to wipe out that northern convoy NOW.
- criddell 5y ago
  Do you think the recent shipments from the US of 17,000 anti-air and anti-tank missiles is enough to alter the calculation by much?
  - 5y ago

ekianjo 5y ago

> The Russian invasion of Ukraine has shown how weak the Russian army is in reality You might want to hold your judgment until things are over. You don't judge a football match after the first 10 minutes are passed.

hypertele-Xii 5y ago
Unlike a sports game with voluntary competitors, you should judge a military operation early, preferably even before the aggressor plans it. Sounds like Art of War 101.
- paganel 5y ago
  For what it's worth Russia's start of WW2 was a disaster, they only started to recover about one year into it.
  - noir_lord 5y ago
    > they only started to recover about one year into it. With massive aid from...the United States. Somehow I don't see the US running arctic convoys round the clock to re-supply the Russians this time.
    - blisterpeanuts 5y ago
      China is providing some kinds of assistance, for example they are substituting their own (and India's) banking system for the SWIFT cut-off. So far, no military assistance, but that is not really needed; the RF has a huge military of which only a tiny fraction has been committed to the Ukraine action.
  - rasz 5y ago
    Russia's start of WW2 was on September 17 of 1939 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland and they did pretty great taking half of Poland, as agreed in Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, in less than a month. They cemented this victory and cooperation with Hitler in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Frontier_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Frontier.... They had full two years of successes until June 1941 Barbarossa. Did you perhaps grew up under Russian occupation, like I did, and not learn in school about Molotov–Ribbentrop Pacts? We were only taught the part after 1941 where Russia gloriously liberates Europe.

noelsusman 5y ago

Ukraine didn't have modern weapons in 2014, but they do now. Regardless, I don't think anyone has ever thought the post-Soviet Russian military could take on NATO in conventional warfare, but that doesn't matter because they have nukes.

tablespoon 5y ago
> Ukraine didn't have modern weapons in 2014, but they do now. And the Ukrainians don't even have a full complement of modern weapons. IIRC, they're mainly getting sent infantry heavy-weapons at the very last minute. Even the US was pretty stingy with things like Javelins until very recently, out of fear of "provoking" the Putin. Since the Baltics are in NATO, I doubt they'll have as many issues with getting more/better weapons. Hopefully they'll also take some lessons from Ukraine (e.g. really, really beef up their reserve forces and military training for their civilian population). Also, since they're actually in NATO, they can hopefully count on better support from their allies than what the Ukrainians have gotten.

CapricornNoble 5y ago

>>>The Russian invasion of Ukraine has shown how weak the Russian army is in reality. For context: Germany invaded Poland (population ~31 million) with 60+ divisions, and that invasion required almost a month to succeed, with the Soviets jumping in partway through to quicken the end. Russia has invaded Ukraine (population ~41 million) with ~13 divisions, less favorable weather, and vastly more urbanized terrain to fight through. While they have made some absolutely embarrassing mistakes, they are fielding the largest army seen in a generation, and still conducting offensive operations. Not even the US has put 13 divisions into a theater since....Vietnam? Korea? Desert Storm was ~9 US divisions + allies. The big difference is we can show up with ~9 divisions that will be well-supplied and well-motivated anywhere in the world (and with endless air support to make up in bombs what we might lack in manpower), while Russia has a terribly motivated and already-hungry army even in their own backyard, and surprisingly not enough ordnance to make up for it.

moralestapia 5y ago
Great comment. Some fresh air among a sea of armchair generals that think they could take control of Ukraine in 24 hours "if they wanted to".
- ericmay 5y ago
  Well, by all accounts (and I'd love to read others that diverge from this) this was actually Russia's exact strategy. Move to Kyiv quickly, destroy the existing government, install a new puppet government, and announce it to the world quickly before the west could react. Russia doesn't have the manpower deployed to actually occupy Ukraine. 200,000 soldiers is not enough when the Ukrainian state is actively resisting. This is why they tried some absolutely suicidal paratrooper missions and they are having all of these apparent logistical issues (again if there are other sources I'd like to learn more please share). I think if I were to summarize the "Russia is failing" narrative it's that Russia expectations of a quick, easy victory were completely unmet, and now even if Russia does want to occupy Ukraine it's not going to be the quick and easy decapitation strike that they thought it would.