3 ms·

I've read reports that initially Russia had total of 190k troops of which 80k were BTGs, against Ukraine which has the second largest army in Europe after Russi

by oxff 4y ago

I've read reports that initially Russia had total of 190k troops of which 80k were BTGs, against Ukraine which has the second largest army in Europe after Russia, supported materially by NATO and has active duty of 200k. The numbers make it look like Russia went in undermanned against a defender and has taken substantial land mass from Ukraine so far. Before the war I assumed Ukraine would win. That they've lost so much land to Russia has been a surprise to me. So these "Russia is underperforming" ideas seem just weird to me.

spacemanmatt 4y ago
The conclusion of underperformance is based on the number of weapons and soldiers Russia is deploying and losing for the relatively small gains they are making. Even those who flatly said Russia's estimate of 3 days was fantasy did not expect Ukraine to do this well.
- oxff 4y ago
  I guess I differ in that I expected Ukraine to do better initially so it's been a surprise to me.
  - spacemanmatt 4y ago
    I felt similarly until I started watching Denis Davydov do analysis on youtube. He illustrates pretty clearly the asymmetries of this war.
czzr 4y ago
If you truly thought Ukraine would win then you’re an outlier - the consensus expectation was that Ukraine would fall relatively quickly to Russia.
irthomasthomas 4y ago
I havent followed the news but they where pushing this story after a couple of days, which makes me think there isn't much substance too it. If Ukraine is doing well, it's because Ukraine is being armed by NATO. This is probably one of the best wars ever, from an arms dealing perspective.
rossdavidh 4y ago
It sounds like you're expectation of how Ukraine would do, is very different from that which Putin was planning on, or he would have prepared his people for a long and grueling conflict. To me, it looks a lot like GWB's perspective headed into the Iraq war, expecting it to be quick and easy with few casualties. Even if/when Russia defeats the Ukrainian military (a big "if" at this point), they would have an ongoing problem trying to govern it, or prop up a more (to them) suitable government. It is difficult to picture a successful outcome for them at this point, if Ukraine decides to keep fighting.
brokenkebab2 4y ago
At beginning of the war Russia had more equipment, and materiel on every row: much more tanks, and armored vehicles, overwhelmingly more planes, vast amount of rockets vs close to zero in UA army. Also, "supported materially by NATO" is a misleading statement unless narrowed down to more specific areas. At that moment most analytics in the West expected Russia to win quickly, and few people were willing to vouch for sending substantial military aid after the debacle in Afghanistan. Javelins, NLAWs (from US, and UK, not NATO), but other stuff was mostly non-lethal, and frankly almost symbolic. It took quite some time before it became obvious that Ukrainian army fights effectively, and Ukraine is absolutely not in mood to surrender, when other NATO countries started to promise weapons. But even now many of these promises are yet to be fulfilled. Meanwhile after failing in wider campaign, Russia concentrated forces in smaller theater, and in Donbass they have now reportedly 10-15x advantage in artillery firepower. Note, btw that most of the territory Russians managed to capture is in the Ukraine's south which is grassy plains - arguably very hard to protect while enemy dominates in the air, no matter how much personnel you have.

by oxff 4y ago

spacemanmatt 4y ago

The conclusion of underperformance is based on the number of weapons and soldiers Russia is deploying and losing for the relatively small gains they are making. Even those who flatly said Russia's estimate of 3 days was fantasy did not expect Ukraine to do this well.

oxff 4y ago
I guess I differ in that I expected Ukraine to do better initially so it's been a surprise to me.
- spacemanmatt 4y ago
  I felt similarly until I started watching Denis Davydov do analysis on youtube. He illustrates pretty clearly the asymmetries of this war.

czzr 4y ago

If you truly thought Ukraine would win then you’re an outlier - the consensus expectation was that Ukraine would fall relatively quickly to Russia.

irthomasthomas 4y ago

I havent followed the news but they where pushing this story after a couple of days, which makes me think there isn't much substance too it. If Ukraine is doing well, it's because Ukraine is being armed by NATO. This is probably one of the best wars ever, from an arms dealing perspective.

rossdavidh 4y ago

It sounds like you're expectation of how Ukraine would do, is very different from that which Putin was planning on, or he would have prepared his people for a long and grueling conflict. To me, it looks a lot like GWB's perspective headed into the Iraq war, expecting it to be quick and easy with few casualties. Even if/when Russia defeats the Ukrainian military (a big "if" at this point), they would have an ongoing problem trying to govern it, or prop up a more (to them) suitable government. It is difficult to picture a successful outcome for them at this point, if Ukraine decides to keep fighting.

brokenkebab2 4y ago

At beginning of the war Russia had more equipment, and materiel on every row: much more tanks, and armored vehicles, overwhelmingly more planes, vast amount of rockets vs close to zero in UA army. Also, "supported materially by NATO" is a misleading statement unless narrowed down to more specific areas. At that moment most analytics in the West expected Russia to win quickly, and few people were willing to vouch for sending substantial military aid after the debacle in Afghanistan. Javelins, NLAWs (from US, and UK, not NATO), but other stuff was mostly non-lethal, and frankly almost symbolic. It took quite some time before it became obvious that Ukrainian army fights effectively, and Ukraine is absolutely not in mood to surrender, when other NATO countries started to promise weapons. But even now many of these promises are yet to be fulfilled. Meanwhile after failing in wider campaign, Russia concentrated forces in smaller theater, and in Donbass they have now reportedly 10-15x advantage in artillery firepower. Note, btw that most of the territory Russians managed to capture is in the Ukraine's south which is grassy plains - arguably very hard to protect while enemy dominates in the air, no matter how much personnel you have.