4 ms·
Aye. Attackers need 3-to-1 to overpower defenders, unless you've got some serious force-multipliers -- or so goes the thinking. UA forces are doing a good job
by blaser-waffle 5y ago
Aye. Attackers need 3-to-1 to overpower defenders, unless you've got some serious force-multipliers -- or so goes the thinking.
UA forces are doing a good job holding out and fighting defensively, but a genuine attack will require serious concentrations of troops and equipment. Outside of local counterattacks, or maybe special forces raids (blow up rail lines, etc), large scale assaults probably aren't feasible.
You only need a few NLAWs and a yoga mat to sleep on if you're fighting in Kherzon, but you'll need a lot of fighting vehicles and gas if you want to launch an offensive. See also: Russian logistical problems.
- pmoriarty 5y agoUkraine attacking Russia would be akin to Finland attacking the USSR during the Winter War. It's like a mouse attacking a cat. The mouse might get lucky and survive an attack by a cat, but it has no chance of killing the cat. Ukraine is also likely to lose all Western support if it attacked Russia. If they survive at all (which is still very doubtful), they'll likely lick their wounds and try to rebuild their shattered country rather than go on the offensive in Russia proper.
- dekhn 5y agoExcept the cat is a paper tiger in this case. And my point was about mercenaries, not the Ukrainian military.
- euroderf 5y agoFinland did not "attack" Russia proper as such, but there were long-range ski patrols trying to cut the Murmansk railway. Also, Mannerheim kept Finnish troops out of the assault on Leningrad; the troops' remit was only to reclaim land taken in 1940. This was a wise move.