Russian Invasion of Ukraine (2022): Thread 1 - Ukrainian Liars vs Russian Liars with Air and Artillery Superiority

How well is the combat this going for Russia?

  • ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Blyatskrieg

    Votes: 46 6.6%
  • ⭐⭐⭐⭐ A well planned strike with few faults

    Votes: 45 6.5%
  • ⭐⭐⭐ Competent attack with some upsets

    Votes: 292 42.1%
  • ⭐⭐ Worse than expected

    Votes: 269 38.8%
  • ⭐ Ukraine takes back Crimea 2022

    Votes: 42 6.1%

  • Total voters
    694
Status
Not open for further replies.
people thought the soviets were weak because of their pathetic performance in the winter war of 1939/1940 where they failed to defeat finland, a very tiny nation with a very small army, and took extreme casualties in the process, but performance in an offensive invasion abroad does not necessarily predict performance in a defensive war on home soil.

the red army managed to use the vast soviet territory as strategic depth to stall the german advance long enough to turn the eastern front into a battle of attrition, which allowed allied superiority in materiel and resources to kick in and eventually overwhelm the germans.
Finland was more of a defeat in victory rather than an outright defeat. The Soviets technically won the conflict and got a favourable treaty after the battle, it just took a humiliatingly long time and cost a ton of casualties. Here's some fun history on that war for those interested:

Stalin never wanted the war with Finland in the first place. He wanted to make a deal with them where he'd trade Soviet land for Finnish land around Leningrad, because he knew if the Nazis invaded they'd use Finland as a springboard to encircle Leningrad from, so Stalin wanted more space where he could reinforce the area. The original deal was the Finns would get even more land than the Soviets were getting, just less strategically valuable land.

This deal making failed for 2 reasons. The Finnish constitution at the time legally prevented them from doing this, but more importantly was that they didn't trust the Soviets. They were seen as just another version of the Russian Empire, and the Finns weren't too big on communism.

So Stalin would meet personally with delegate after delegate, offering better and better deals in order to get what he wanted, but the Finns still refused. He was deeply insulted that even him personally showing up to negotiations didn't move them an inch, so he decided to take the land by force. He staged a false flag attack where he fired an artillery shell on his own men, and then declared war on Finland (when Hitler did this with Poland, he fired on Poles dressed as Nazis instead firing on actual Nazis for the false flag).

He didn't want a long drawn out war at all. The thing to understand about Stalin is that he was a political mind, not a military mind. A long war with Finland means international scrutiny in a world where the Nazis are supposed to be the sole bad guy. More than anything, Stalin wants the focus on the Nazis, to weaken them as much as possible, so the Finn stuff had to be wrapped up fast. The problem is, the Finns are not the Poles, they understand warfare in a way Stalin didn't grasp. He forced his generals into a rush encirclement strategy, rather than the slow tank build up down the middle that they advised, because he wanted a quick end to the conflict. On top of that, he put the hack general (and one of his personal best friends) Voroshilov in charge of the operation. As you know, that strategy failed spectacularily.

You know the story. The snipers, the cocktails, the mass casualities in the snow, the skis, and so on, it was a global embarrassment. Following the huge delays, Stalin did some things he very rarely did. He apologized profusely to his generals for screwing the operation up, sacked Voroshilov, let them go with their original slower strategy, and watched them work. He also ordered a complete reorientation of the Red Army in order to better prepare them for the coming conflict.

In the end, the Finns were brought to the table by the Soviets to sign a treaty that was far harsher than what they were originally offered, but still a way better deal than any defeated power had the right to expect. Stalin still wanted the conflict over with as soon as possible to not further poison his relationship with the international community (as he'd already been kicked out of the League of Nations following the invasion), which turned out to be the exact right move because people basically forgot about the conflict soon after it ended. The Finns were still pissed though since a signifcant amount of territory was taken, and 1/3 of their economy was snatched from them just like that.

The outcomes of this conflict were significant.

The Red Army looked weak on a world stage, but the humiliation spurred them into getting way more organized and better prepared.

Finland was eager to join up with the Nazis to take back their land, but also because they had territorial ambitions beyond what was taken from them and they wanted to join in on the Nazi feeding frenzy. The Nazis, who were very angry with the Soviet attack on Finland (even though it was agreed they'd get that land in their pact) due to their Nordic origin, ironically did not understand how to fight the Soviets as well as the Finns did. While the Red Army was comparitively less disciplined, it was capable of learning and doing huge damage if given the opportunity.

Mannerheim knew how to switch it up enough to prevent the Soviets from fully getting their footing, the Nazi leadership meanwhile, genuinely thought the Slavic people were subhumans incapable of adaption. Another thing Finns understood is how to hedge, since they actually refused to directly participate in the encirclment of Leningrad in huge numbers because they knew if the Soviets won, that they'd never be forgiven. Betraying the Nazis when the war turned, and giving up even more land (along with refusing to join the capitalist block post war) saved Finland from the fate of many other nations post war. Stalin said the Finnish people owed a lot to Mannerheim after WW2.

The Winter War is a hugely important, if underdiscussed chapter in WW2 beyond deformed sniper memes.
 
Last edited:
Article

NATO, Ukraine autonomy pose diplomatic challenges for Biden​

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden said this week the U.S. would take a more direct role in diplomacy to address Vladimir Putin’s concerns over Ukraine and Europe, part of a broader effort to dissuade the Russian leader from a destabilizing invasion of Ukraine.

But any negotiations to peacefully resolve Europe’s tangled East-West rivalries will present minefields for the U.S. president.

Administration officials have suggested that the U.S. will press Ukraine to formally cede a measure of autonomy to eastern Ukrainian lands now controlled by Russia-backed separatists who rose up against Kyiv in 2014. An undefined “special status” for those areas was laid out in an ambiguous, European-brokered peace deal in 2015, but it has never taken hold.

Biden also will have to finesse Ukraine’s desire to join NATO. The U.S. and NATO reject Putin’s demands that they guarantee Ukraine won’t be admitted to the Western military alliance.

But senior State Department officials have told Ukraine that NATO membership is unlikely to be approved in the next decade, according to a person familiar with those private talks who spoke on condition of anonymity.

For Biden, the challenge will be encouraging Kyiv to accept some of the facts on the ground in eastern Ukraine, without appearing to cave to Putin — a perception that could embolden the Russian leader and unleash a fresh line of condemnations by Republicans as Biden’s popularity is already in decline.

Ukraine may be asked “can you make some step forward on these areas,” said Steven Pifer, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. That could include measures such as allowing the Russia-allied Donbas region to control its own health care, police and schools, he said.

“But I don’t see Washington pushing the Ukrainians to take steps that would compromise their sovereignty or the ability of the national government when it came to making decisions,” Pifer said.

Biden made his offers of American diplomacy as part of a two-hour online session with Putin on Tuesday. Biden offered U.S. participation in negotiation efforts alongside Europeans, not just to settle the conflict in eastern Ukraine but to address Putin’s larger strategic objections to NATO expanding membership and building military capacity ever closer to Russia’s borders.

On Thursday, Biden is due to speak to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Ukraine, which has deep cultural and historic ties with Russia, has in recent years sought closer integration with the West and membership in NATO. The alliance has held out the promise of membership but it has declined to set a timeline. Even before the current crisis, Ukraine was a long way from joining.

Since 2014, however, when Russia invaded and annexed Crimea and then threw its weight behind the armed separatists in Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region, the United States and other NATO members have been helping Ukraine build up its defenses.

National security adviser Jake Sullivan stressed at a White House briefing after Biden’s call with Putin that “there was the delivery of defensive assistance to Ukraine just very recently, and that will continue.”

Pentagon press secretary John Kirby said Wednesday the last items in the administration’s latest $60 million package of security assistance to Ukraine are arriving there this week and consist mainly of small arms and ammunition.

The call between Biden and Putin took place as tensions grew over the threat of Russian forces again rolling into Ukraine. Putin denies any such intention and charges that it is NATO strengthening its hold in former Soviet republics that is threatening Russia.
"Administration officials have suggested that the U.S. will press Ukraine to formally cede a measure of autonomy to eastern Ukrainian lands now controlled by Russia-backed separatists who rose up against Kyiv in 2014."
 
Russia has never won a war with any sort of tactical genius or strategy beyond simply outlasting the enemy through attrition. Nobody ever looks at Russia for cunning generals or implementing new cutting edge technology. They only rose to prominence during the 50's as a global superpower for due to happen stance as every other developed nation beside America had destroyed themselves. Whenever another nation comes along with any sort of bone to pick with the Russians they usually end up losing outright or just simply take the beating. Happened with the Mongolians, Japanese, Germans, Swedish, and even the Finnish. I will give them credit for simply still managing to exist despite all of these humiliations and Stalin was good at keeping his country stable post-war and maintaining it's scavenged influence/power, however it's not not hard to see why lots of people throughout history have labeled Russia as weak and militarily retarded.
Ukraine conflict since 2014, the second checnyan war, the Russia Georgian conflict even during the initial invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 former Soviet afghan Russian advisors we're assisting us.

If we want to go back to the time of the Tsars we can look at the first Crimean war where Russian cossack's humiliated the British light brigade. Second let's ignore the hundreds of plus years of imperial Russian military history.

The entire nation is forged by centuries of conflict. The idea that Russia only wins wars due to numerical advantage is retarded.
 
To my knowlege there has been no appreciable change in technology for dealing with winter and all the problems that entails since World War 2. Supply chains still rely on trucks, cold is dealt with by giving the soldiers coats and gloves, snow still gets into shit and freezes your feet off if you are not careful. Etc. The issues of fighting in the winter are the same today as they were back then. It fucking sucks. Especially for the invader.
I mean now we have improved air freight, you can drop supplies in via helicopter/drones now. In 1940 your average highway was at best if you were lucky and it was paved was a 2 Lane highway. Most freight trains were still steam engines, and your rail system was subpar.

You go to Russia today and western Russian roads are more akin to driving in Pennsylvania. Sure they may have cracks, and crumbling bridges and roads here or there. But these bridges and roads are designed to handle 53 ft trailers and cab over big rigs. They're designed to handle the large amount of Russian suv and car traffic. Large Jet engine military cargo aircraft allow a remote airfield to be able to unload a full sized battalion in a matter of hours can disembark and set up HQ at a shitty muddy airstrip if needed.

Russian is a country that has enough logistical power that if they want to move a couple of army corps within a matter of 72 hours from Vladivostok and Volgograd to st Petersburg they have the capacity and capability to do such thing.
 
Article

NATO, Ukraine autonomy pose diplomatic challenges for Biden​


"Administration officials have suggested that the U.S. will press Ukraine to formally cede a measure of autonomy to eastern Ukrainian lands now controlled by Russia-backed separatists who rose up against Kyiv in 2014."
I knew you guys would have the article. I tried to look this up and for some reason I only got like 3 paragraphs, none of them mentioning "cede a measure of autonomy."
 
Article

NATO, Ukraine autonomy pose diplomatic challenges for Biden​


"Administration officials have suggested that the U.S. will press Ukraine to formally cede a measure of autonomy to eastern Ukrainian lands now controlled by Russia-backed separatists who rose up against Kyiv in 2014."
The slow, boring version of the salami-slicing plan.
 
If Russia does invade Western Europe might be a Putin version of the old plan aka seven days to the river rhine
The potential success of the original plans were debatebale at best. Given the tactical and strategic changes since the collapse of the Iron Curtain, any attempt by the modern Russian forces to do anything resembling the Soviet plans would be utterly catastrophic at best.
 
The potential success of the original plans were debatebale at best. Given the tactical and strategic changes since the collapse of the Iron Curtain, any attempt by the modern Russian forces to do anything resembling the Soviet plans would be utterly catastrophic at best.
Either way it’s going to be a shot show for anyone
 
All the people opining about how easy it is to fight a war in Winter have clearly never had to sit in a foxhole as you huddle into yourself to conserve warmth and let the snow slowly bury you as it improves insulation. It fucking sucks, and no amount of paved roads will fix that.
Winter wars suck, so do jungle wars, and desert wars too. The one perk of a winter war is at the very least all that gear at the very least will keep you warm.
 
  • Dislike
Reactions: George Lucas
The gear keeps you from dying. I question how warm it makes you.
Well as someone who has worn kevlar vests it's not a breathable fabric and it's warm. Chances are you're wearing 2/3 layers when it comes to ones pants and if it's cold most likely one is carrying gloves, armor, all that gear in the wintertime and in cold snowy weather that gear definitely is better to carry then if it's 80f+ degrees outside
 
Horseshit, it's just Putin doing saber rattling again. In the state of "imminent war", Putin gets support at home, Ukraine gets western weaponry and equipment. If war happens Putin gets fucked with sanctions, takes casualties from the fighting and has to manage a territory populated by people who mostly hate Russia. Nobody wins from that!

Putin isn't a retard, he knows this would backfire at him!
Nobody in Russia even knows there's forces being massed at the border and nobody thinks a war with Ukraine is a good idea.
 
Well as someone who has worn kevlar vests it's not a breathable fabric and it's warm. Chances are you're wearing 2/3 layers when it comes to ones pants and if it's cold most likely one is carrying gloves, armor, all that gear in the wintertime and in cold snowy weather that gear definitely is better to carry then if it's 80f+ degrees outside
SAPIs aren't precisely snuggly.

But between freezing to death, which is supposed to be euphoric right at the end, and dying of dengueyellowjackmalariariverblindnessaids while being eaten alive by centipedes. . . yeah I'll take cold steppe over muggy jungle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back