History in the Making: Russian Invasion

VikkiDp said:

The Russians are claiming the Ivan Khurs (intelligence gathering ship) was attacked near the Bosphorus Strait (Turkey)

I have one question - what was a intelligence gathering ship doing off the coast of Turkey?

Hmmm... it would be better to formulate the question as follows - if it's a intelligence ship and if it completes any tasks and maybe it's in a place where it's not supposed to be... , then..  Why??? Why reveal your location and shout to the world that you were attacked?

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

but Russians are very, VERY dumb.

mmm... first of all - do not underestimate them.

Secondly - sometimes (almost always) dumb and stupidity are more dangerous than intelligence.

But generally speaking, don't look for logic in their actions and don't try to understand it - it's just not there.

VikkiDp said:

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

but Russians are very, VERY dumb.

mmm... first of all - do not underestimate them.

Secondly - sometimes (almost always) dumb and stupidity are more dangerous than intelligence.

But generally speaking, don't look for logic in their actions and don't try to understand it - it's just not there.

I have to agree with you on this. We've all tried to understand the choices that the Russians have made since this started, from the decision to start the war in the first place to their subsequent strategy and tactics. 
 

Since we are interpreting their actions through the lens of our own personal logic, ethics and experiences, it's not possible. 
 

I think the biggest revelation for us is that they would still try to use World War I and II tactics against modern weapons. 

Floating Doc (Forum Supporter) said:

VikkiDp said:

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

but Russians are very, VERY dumb.

mmm... first of all - do not underestimate them.

Secondly - sometimes (almost always) dumb and stupidity are more dangerous than intelligence.

But generally speaking, don't look for logic in their actions and don't try to understand it - it's just not there.

I have to agree with you on this. We've all tried to understand the choices that the Russians have made since this started, from the decision to start the war in the first place to their subsequent strategy and tactics. 
 

Since we are interpreting their actions through the lens of our own personal logic, ethics and experiences, it's not possible. 
 

I think the biggest revelation for us is that they would still try to use World War I and II tactics against modern weapons. 

that last point is definitely peculiar. Its like they literally stuck their heads in the sand and didnt see anything for the last 40 years about modern warfare. How is that possible?

bobzilla said:

 

that last point is definitely peculiar. Its like they literally stuck their heads in the sand and didnt see anything for the last 40 years about modern warfare. How is that possible?

 

I think it goes back to the thought that they have a giant arsenal of world-ending weaponry and just assume that everyone would let them do whatever they want.  No need to fully develop stealth fighter technology or better tanks because if you are facing off (directly) against US/NATO, you are going to be very quick to go down the nuke route.  I almost think the Russian military mindset stuck to nukes so much that they never considered any other kind of conflict.  

Back to that stupidity comment, I think that is the concern that plays into Russia's hands.  They have nuclear weapons and they are crazy/stupid enough to use them.  

Understanding how the Russian military operates, and why it does so, is always difficult when looking at it from a Western perspective. Armies are reflections of the society they serve, and the Russian military is no exception.

First, consider that the average Russian conscript has a lower level of education than the average Western soldier. This is especially true of conscripts from the poorer and more remote non-Russian areas of the country. They serve for short periods of time, and training is rudimentary and poorly funded. This is amplified in more recent conscript groups, and especially among Wagner prisoner units. Outside of elite units, fear and survival are the only real motivations, and Russian NCOs and junior officers are not noted for their ability to lead from the front - too much chance of being fragged by the soldiers you've been tormenting. On top of that, alcoholism and drug use are common.

The Russians (as the Soviets before) look for and cultivate talent, pulling those capable of more advanced tasks and roles into specialized training, but this also serves to lower further the overall quality of those expected to do most of the fighting. Similarly, elite units are developed, but there is little human material available to rebuild them quickly after combat losses; these units are used a lot by the Russians, so when in combat they tend to suffer a lot of casualties.

None of this is to say that the Russians are stupid - they aren't. But their skilled leadership has to deal with two major handicaps: one, political influence over military decisions is often misaligned with military efficiency, and two, the quality of the forces under their command severely limits their options. For many years, the Russians have fought their battles with mass, both human and material, as a central tenet of their operational approach. This is necessary because they lack the motivated, skilled, and technologically advanced troops required to carry out more complex tactical and operational concepts on a large scale. Put simply, even a unit made up of sullen, drunk halfwits can be made to dig holes and shoot rifles in the general direction of the enemy, but that is often the limit of their military capability.

In reply to 02Pilot :

I mean, I know these things but cant help but think that in the last 40 years they would have tried something different

Floating Doc (Forum Supporter) said:

VikkiDp said:

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

but Russians are very, VERY dumb.

mmm... first of all - do not underestimate them.

Secondly - sometimes (almost always) dumb and stupidity are more dangerous than intelligence.

But generally speaking, don't look for logic in their actions and don't try to understand it - it's just not there.

I have to agree with you on this. We've all tried to understand the choices that the Russians have made since this started, from the decision to start the war in the first place to their subsequent strategy and tactics. 
 

Since we are interpreting their actions through the lens of our own personal logic, ethics and experiences, it's not possible. 
 

I think the biggest revelation for us is that they would still try to use World War I and II tactics against modern weapons. 

I dont think this is true, it was talked about earlier in this thread. There were plenty of warnings leading up to the invasion. It wasnt hard to forsee the invasion would happen.

Im not saying you can view it through the lense of western perspective and motivations, but many people that were paying attention have predicted this was going to happen.

In reply to bobzilla :

Tried and succeeded are different things.

In reply to 02Pilot :

touche

bobzilla said:

In reply to 02Pilot :

I mean, I know these things but cant help but think that in the last 40 years they would have tried something different

It seems to me that in order for that to happen, those in power would have had to give up (at least some of) that power.  I'm guessing that's why it didn't happen.

stroker said:

bobzilla said:

In reply to 02Pilot :

I mean, I know these things but cant help but think that in the last 40 years they would have tried something different

It seems to me that in order for that to happen, those in power would have had to give up (at least some of) that power.  I'm guessing that's why it didn't happen.

 

That's the thing. A lot of leaders want their constituency to be barefoot and pregnant. Educated and empowered populations require more of their leaders and their leaders typically have shorter terms. 

OK, this is an interesting question:  Why the WWI style fighting?  And no, I would not say it is stupidity (mostly).

A good way to answer that is: Why was WWI fighting like that?  The primary reason why, as many might know, is the machine gun.  The machine gun made things like charges and calvary essentially useless (or at least, extremely costly).  The only fall back is to dig in and snipe, and that is what happened.

And this is where we wander into the constant back and forth, measure counter measure of war and weapons (which can also be seen in sports, business etc)

So, what ended trench warfare? (It will always exist to some extent of course)  The tank.  The tank can charge over trenches and is immune to machine guns.   OK, so the tank rules... well.  There are anti-tank guns, bazookas, and airplanes etc. as a bit of a counter, but for a long time, it was mostly other tanks....

....then there was the anti-tank missile (first developed by the Russians BTW).  This started to shift things a bit.  Then the missiles got better.  I am sure most can see where this is going. I don't think most realized HOW much better they got until very recently.  If missiles counter act tanks, what are you left with.  Trenches.

I would say, in supplement to what 02 has said, one of the primary reason why Russia has had to fall back to WWI style warfare, is corruption.  It's VERY much a thing in the Russian military, and seems to have had the biggest effect on one of the most technical areas, aviation.

I see the biggest failing in the Russian invasion, and thus it's military, is the very poor performance of the Russian Air Force in support of the invasion.  With a functioning Air Force, the Russians should have been able to take and maintain full air superiority over Ukraine.  This would have made a HUGE difference in what they were trying to do.  Charging forward with unsupported tanks through enemy territory of course was also a massive tactical blunder (wildly over confident... stupid... either or both?)

To comment on the Russians as fighters a bit.  They are historically an extremely tough people, and unfortunate, also rather brutal.  This obviously has worked very well for them when backed up to a wall, they will fight like badgers (demons, whatever).

One interesting aspect of this conflict though.  Who are they fighting?  The Ukrainians, whom interestingly enough, are what I sometimes refer to as more "Russian" than Russia because when most in the west think of Russians, they are essentially describing Ukrainians.

Guess what the Ukrainians do, when backed up to a wall?  They fight like "Russians".  (I obviously don't mean this as an insult).

Unfortunately, Ukraine has had similar issues as Russia with corruption. Whatever it's current state, because of where Ukraine is getting most of it's weapons, corruption will have far less of an effect on that so it's not nearly as impactful as it is with Russia.

It is hard to predict the future of that, but I think it is safe to say, and I am not sure where this analogy was first used, but a corrupt nation, is essentially one where everyone is out for themselves, rather than the country (with is pretty wildly ironic considering the USSR was supposed to be communist), which is like a hand with each of it's fingers doing it's own thing.

What happens to a hand, with it's independent fingers, in a fight?  In closes together and becomes a fist.  

(BTW I would be SUPER interested in Vikki's opinion on this perspective)

There is a video of a drone boat hitting the Ivan Khurs (from the boat, obviously cuts off on contact).  Not sure if this is from the original attack, or a new one.  Whatever the case, I suspect the Ivan Khurs has a lot more seawater on the inside than it used to!

Prigozhin warns the Russian elites that they better get there son's in the war if they don't want another 1917 revolutions.   (This man is STILL alive!!!)

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

stroker said:

bobzilla said:

In reply to 02Pilot :

I mean, I know these things but cant help but think that in the last 40 years they would have tried something different

It seems to me that in order for that to happen, those in power would have had to give up (at least some of) that power.  I'm guessing that's why it didn't happen.

 

That's the thing. A lot of leaders want their constituency to be barefoot and pregnant. Educated and empowered populations require more of their leaders and their leaders typically have shorter terms. 

I would say that leaders would like an educated an empowered populace, while rulers would like an ignorant and dependent populace.

bobzilla said:

Floating Doc (Forum Supporter) said:

VikkiDp said:

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

but Russians are very, VERY dumb.

mmm... first of all - do not underestimate them.

I have to agree with you on this. We've all tried to understand the choices that the Russians have made since this started, from the decision to start the war in the first place to their subsequent strategy and tactics.

that last point is definitely peculiar. Its like they literally stuck their heads in the sand and didnt see anything for the last 40 years about modern warfare. How is that possible?

To add onto aircooled's excellent comment above- another focal point to add I feel, is the propaganda the average Russian consumes which was also touched on by jmabarone; they always reminded themselves of the thousands of warhouses of Cold-war era tanks and material, always were reminded of the mountain of guns and conscripts from the cold war, and placated themselves with the myth that when push came to shove they'd down Europe in bodies. These ideals all blended together into this myth of invincibility not of the person thinking them, but more of "the state" or "the state of being Russian"- so when they invaded they had this idea that eventually they'd solve all problems with enough metal, bodies, and artillery.

This explains the segway into WW1/WW2 tactics; a $78K Javelin missile taking out a $3 million dollar T-80 is a bad trade, especially when Russian Commanders (thinking stocks were endless) were throwing them into cities and open fields without infantry support or anti-drone defenses. $200 Amazon quadcopters are dropping grenades relentlessly on platoons. Operable airframes are racking up flight and sortie hours but without replacements or proper maintenance. You get into this region where everything you have to throw at this nation has a hard, cheap counter- AGTMs, drones, Patriot missile defense- but you don't really anything against THAT, because Russia never had the science or the material to really counter 30+ years of Western military development. So the best you can do is what's cheapest- you dig the dirt and entrench as "cheap" armor against bullets with no armor protection, you scurry for whatever tank chassis you can equip anti-air weapons to so you can provide supporting fire and anti-drone defense, and you begin doing whatever you can to keep your remaining jets grounded until a target presents that actually demands their use.

EDIT: "smekalka" is also what I was thinking of; basically "solving a complex issue with a Russian simple solution" is also a big part of their propaganda.

that last point is definitely peculiar. Its like they literally stuck their heads in the sand and didnt see anything for the last 40 years about modern warfare. How is that possible?

I am pretty sure a lot of people in Russia became very rich stuffing their own pockets while waiting for a war they thought would never come.

aircooled said:

Prigozhin warns the Russian elites that they better get there son's in the war if they don't want another 1917 revolutions.   (This man is STILL alive!!!)

Here's the video in case anyone is interested. Standard disclaimers about context and spin and critical thinking apply.

And he airs some pretty interesting thoughts here that aren't exactly complimentary toward various russian leaders:

In reply to DarkMonohue :

I'm a little surprised that Prigozhin hasn't fallen off a tall building yet.

aircooled said:

 if they don't want another 1917 revolutions.   

If only we could have another 1917 revolution.

red_stapler said:

aircooled said:

 if they don't want another 1917 revolutions.   

If only we could have another 1917 revolution.

Hell yeah!! Killing 7 million people, most of them civilians and many for protesting against their government, sounds like a great time...

/sarcasm

I think I'd rather see them try a 1776-style revolution. 

Toyman! said:

red_stapler said:

aircooled said:

 if they don't want another 1917 revolutions.   

If only we could have another 1917 revolution.

Hell yeah!! Killing 7 million people, most of them civilians and many for protesting against their government, sounds like a great time...

/sarcasm

I think I'd rather see them try a 1776-style revolution. 

 

 

Point being, people are a eager to proclaim "they should overthrow Putler!" without considering what that historically looks like.