10 ms·

If this war has shown one thing it’s that the thing that matters most is mass: Massed artillery fire, millions of shells, thousands of armoured vehicles, and s

If this war has shown one thing it’s that the thing that matters most is mass: Massed artillery fire, millions of shells, thousands of armoured vehicles, and so on. A couple of glorified regiments, green ones at that? That’s not it. No matter the quality of the gear and training. The West is not prepared for industrial warfare, and inexplicably to me they are barely trying to change that. Massed hot air but not much to show for it. (And besides, the fact that in Bakhmut the Ukrainian army with plenty of Western gear and training got beat by Wagner plus artillery support alone should get you to question the notion of qualitative superiority. And I just don’t understand how people can come to the conclusion that the Russian forces in Ukraine are depleted when they’ve at least doubled in size, and gear just keeps pouring in.) Ultimately, we don’t have to fight here, by all acounts Ukrainians are going to show us in a few days what they can or cannot do. And then we’ll see.

avereveard 3y ago
> The West is not prepared for industrial warfare The west cleared the floor with massed russian equipment, twice, maintaining 1:100 attrition rate while crossing an ocean. But the rest of the post is not far off. ukr is on the back footing, and fog of war is very unidirectional, which means we're consuming propaganda, and its best not to form opinion out of it. > plenty of Western gear one fact tho remains, which is that we haven't seen yet combat footage from ifv and tanks delivered, so ukr forces are not yet fully committed, which seems positive.
tptacek 3y ago
This would be a more compelling summation if you could accompany it with a case for how Bakhmut was more important strategically than Kherson, whose strategic importance seems pretty obvious even to a layperson, which Russia was fiercely committed to holding, and which Ukraine took through a campaign of industrial warfare.
- rainworld 3y ago
  Having failed to turn Nikolaev (and apparently no intent to take it by force), Kherson held little strategic value for Russia at that point.* Promising to never leave Kherson was political folly, something Ukrainians tried to make as costly as possible. However, they largely failed at that. Those who paid attention saw column after Ukrainian column get mauled by VDV artillery. There was indeed a moment where Ukraine took some land but in the end nothing came of it but pain. But certainly they did keep on the pressure (plus some other things), and so in the end Russians made the militarily prudent but politically very difficult decision (causing a period of widespread doom and gloom among supporters of Russia) to leave in good order. Ukrainians were apparently as surprised as almost anyone else. * I know people don’t want hear it but the taking of Odessa and the rest of the coast will very likely still happen, eventually. Probably not via Kherson, preferably without force.
  - lisasays 3y ago
    Having failed to turn Nikolaev (and apparently no intent to take it by force), Not only did they absolutely intend to take Mikolaiv - they were expecting to positively waltz their way through it, on their way to waltzing through Odesa, where their countrymen were surely waiting to welcome them with thronging parades, offering bread, salt and flowers.
  - mandelken 3y ago
    > * I know people don’t want hear it but the taking of Odessa and the rest of the coast will very likely still happen, eventually. Probably not via Kherson, preferably without force. Genuinly curious, because this is the first time I read this. How do you see the taking of Odessa by Russia as very likely? It's their main port, I don't see how Ukraine would be able to survive without it.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    It's easy to find dozens of sources about the strategic importance of Kherson, which is also evident from a glance at a map, and Kherson is also ten times larger than Bakhmut, so this doesn't really respond to my question. Without any expertise in war, or the region, I can still say that it looks like your arguments say that when Ukraine loses territory, it's a strategic disaster, but when Russia loses territory, it never meant to have that territory. If I can defend that argument, weak as my grasp on this subject is, your own position might be pretty flimsy.
    - _kbh_ 3y ago
      > I can still say that it looks like your arguments say that when Ukraine loses territory, it's a strategic disaster, but when Russia loses territory, it never meant to have that territory. If I can defend that argument, weak as my grasp on this subject is, your own position might be pretty flimsy. It’s because he’s here to try push public opinion about why Ukraine is losing, he is not here to engage in honest arguments. Look through his post history and you will seem summarily dismiss any evidence Russia has worse casualties or is in anyway losing this war.
    - rainworld 3y ago

avereveard 3y ago

> The West is not prepared for industrial warfare The west cleared the floor with massed russian equipment, twice, maintaining 1:100 attrition rate while crossing an ocean. But the rest of the post is not far off. ukr is on the back footing, and fog of war is very unidirectional, which means we're consuming propaganda, and its best not to form opinion out of it. > plenty of Western gear one fact tho remains, which is that we haven't seen yet combat footage from ifv and tanks delivered, so ukr forces are not yet fully committed, which seems positive.

tptacek 3y ago

This would be a more compelling summation if you could accompany it with a case for how Bakhmut was more important strategically than Kherson, whose strategic importance seems pretty obvious even to a layperson, which Russia was fiercely committed to holding, and which Ukraine took through a campaign of industrial warfare.

rainworld 3y ago
Having failed to turn Nikolaev (and apparently no intent to take it by force), Kherson held little strategic value for Russia at that point.* Promising to never leave Kherson was political folly, something Ukrainians tried to make as costly as possible. However, they largely failed at that. Those who paid attention saw column after Ukrainian column get mauled by VDV artillery. There was indeed a moment where Ukraine took some land but in the end nothing came of it but pain. But certainly they did keep on the pressure (plus some other things), and so in the end Russians made the militarily prudent but politically very difficult decision (causing a period of widespread doom and gloom among supporters of Russia) to leave in good order. Ukrainians were apparently as surprised as almost anyone else. * I know people don’t want hear it but the taking of Odessa and the rest of the coast will very likely still happen, eventually. Probably not via Kherson, preferably without force.
- lisasays 3y ago
  Having failed to turn Nikolaev (and apparently no intent to take it by force), Not only did they absolutely intend to take Mikolaiv - they were expecting to positively waltz their way through it, on their way to waltzing through Odesa, where their countrymen were surely waiting to welcome them with thronging parades, offering bread, salt and flowers.
- mandelken 3y ago
  > * I know people don’t want hear it but the taking of Odessa and the rest of the coast will very likely still happen, eventually. Probably not via Kherson, preferably without force. Genuinly curious, because this is the first time I read this. How do you see the taking of Odessa by Russia as very likely? It's their main port, I don't see how Ukraine would be able to survive without it.
- tptacek 3y ago
  It's easy to find dozens of sources about the strategic importance of Kherson, which is also evident from a glance at a map, and Kherson is also ten times larger than Bakhmut, so this doesn't really respond to my question. Without any expertise in war, or the region, I can still say that it looks like your arguments say that when Ukraine loses territory, it's a strategic disaster, but when Russia loses territory, it never meant to have that territory. If I can defend that argument, weak as my grasp on this subject is, your own position might be pretty flimsy.
  - _kbh_ 3y ago
    > I can still say that it looks like your arguments say that when Ukraine loses territory, it's a strategic disaster, but when Russia loses territory, it never meant to have that territory. If I can defend that argument, weak as my grasp on this subject is, your own position might be pretty flimsy. It’s because he’s here to try push public opinion about why Ukraine is losing, he is not here to engage in honest arguments. Look through his post history and you will seem summarily dismiss any evidence Russia has worse casualties or is in anyway losing this war.
  - rainworld 3y ago