|
|
|
|
|
|
by lettergram
1483 days ago
|
|
|
> do not, and anyone else not trying to be contrarian and edgy on the back's of a humanitarian catastrophe does not either. Russia's goal was a blitzkrieg surprise win, measured in hours, taking over the capital and the government, before the West could even muster up sanctions. Where does that assumption come from? No Russian source has ever said that. The only sources I’ve seen were the US propaganda arm. Putin said that they were now in a defensive war with the west (his words, not mine). I don’t think they expected that to be over any time soon. But just for fun let’s assume you’re correct. Their objective is to conquer Ukraine..? It still doesn’t change the fact Ukraine isn’t winning. They’ve lost territory, most of the military assets, and the territory they’ve lost thus far is their most productive (industry and agriculture is based around the coast). By no measure is that trending toward victory. Now my position on this — Recall, Ukraine had one of the largest standing armies prior to this war. Order of magnitude more prepared than Iraq in the 90s or 2000s. With better equipment, heavily entrenched and much larger by land mass. I don’t think there’s any way that Russia expected to conquer Ukraine with 50k troops (1/5 the size of Ukraine’s standing army) in 90 days. But I also don’t think Ukraine is the only theater of battle. The real war is the war of logistics and in that, Russia is far better prepared and capable. |
|
|
Russian started the war with roughly 100 BTGs. These have roughly 1k troops when fully equipped (as you would expect before the start of hostilities). They've added another 10-15 BTGs to replace the 45 or so that have been attritted by Ukrainian forces. So no, they didn't expect to conquer Ukraine with 50K troops, but closer to twice that.
RuAF also tried to decapitate Ukraine by seizing Hostomel with airborne troops, and then rushing Kiev with troops located very closely in Belarus. You don't commit airborne troops like this when you don't have a)strategic surprise, b) tactical surprise, c) air supremacy. Russia expected a quick coup de main, and when the VdV got wrecked in Hostomel, they lost the war.
Since the invasion in February, Ukraine has recovered most of the territory they lost in the north. In the south, the RuAF has made minimal gains past the lines of the 2014 conflict.
You believe that Ukraine has lost most of their military assets? They currently have more tanks than when the war started, due to how many they've captured from Russia. Not to mention what has been contributed by NATO (Poland/Czechia etc.). They still have a well functioning and effective air force that has prevented the Russian air force from exerting control over the battlefield. They even managed to sink the flagship of the Black Sea Fleet.
Russia has lost over 30k dead, and roughly 3x that as WIA. Over 1000 tanks. Over 350 aircraft (counting helicopters). Thousands of BMPs, MTLBs, BMDs, artillery, trucks, all destroyed. The RuAF has culminated.
All Russia has achieved is shelling indiscriminately. They haven't shown the ability to hold terrain, to resupply their troops, to prevent the Ukrainians from doing anything they want. They couldn't even reduce Mariupol's garrison for three months.
Russia's military, outside of it's nukes is a Potemkin affair.