@Mr E. Grifter
Will answer only the unique parts since things like troop numbers and morale in general we've already exhausted before the autistic online slap fight range where we repeat ourselves at each other until one side quits out of boredom.
The Taliban and Afghanistan examples are entirely off-base. Not only because this isn't any form of guerilla war or because of the numbers involved, but because the core point about being able to fade into a civilian population that hates you is flatly wrong. There's no hostile guerilla force going on behind Russian lines that isn't effectively meaningless. No resistance to 'occupation'. The Russian front at Kharkov didn't collapse because of an ungovernable populace that refused to cooperate but because there was next to no one there. In Novorossiya the population is at best apathetic like all the people they quizzed in Izyum, at worst actively in support of them. This is known to the Ukrainians themselves which is why there's dozens of telegrams dedicated to finding traitors to be dealt with and reprisal attacks against 'collaborators' the second they come in. This isn't the US in desert shithole #46 where you and the population have nothing in common and you can only hold them by force, you have a similar population to work with. This is closer to a civil war than anything else. This means that if there's a stable frontline, if it bends it'll be because of outside pressure, not internal collapse. If you've an apathetic populace what matters is if you can hold the line, which even you admit can be achieved with a reservist or conscript force.
You aren't really addressing what I was saying here, this is a strange tangent - but I will address it by fleshing out my point more, My comparison with the Taliban and guerilla warfare was that poorly trained and equipped soldiers in those circumstances are far harder to pin down and destroy because they can use the human environment to disguise themselves, or hide amongst the wider population. They can use local knowledge and resources to their advantage. The Russian conscripts would have none of that which can give some advantages to guerilla style fighters, because the local population fucking hates them.
You can see that this idea that in "novorossiya" (which doesn't exist, it's called Ukraine) people are apathetic is just untrue. There are active resistance movements, and you can see in the areas where people ended up trapped instead of leaving that they are clearly very thankful for Ukraine arriving. It's just a nonsense to say this is a civil war.
A man with a broom can hold the line, it just depends what enemies they are coming up against - based on information about the equipment, training, logistics and leadership available to Russian conscripts I do not believe they can hold the line unsupported. I do not believe the Russian forces that are currently in Ukraine could properly support those conscripts.
The use of a quickly trained force to plug gaps and hold territory is how the Ukraine managed to stabilize past July. Taking everything said about the Russian supply situation as wrote, the arguing over which'd again just get us into pseud numbers games based on my or your cherrypicked articles, we're again put in the same situation. Russia doesn't need to produce overwhelming amounts nor to achieve peak logistical abilities. What they need to do is overperform a state that has essentially no production to speak of and allies that also have significantly less production than Russia by orders of magnitude and unlike Russia don't have an existential incentive to pour these resources in. The one exception is the US which has an overwhelming advantage, but slow production and has given no indication of a coming ramp-up in manufacturing, not even in word. Russia doesn't have to supply people from across the world, it needs to supply directly across its borders in a state to be soon of military footing in such a situation where unlike with Ukraine, none of its manufacturing or inland logistical sites are at risk of any kind of plausible attack.
The idea Russia has better production capacity than the West minus the US is laughable. It's just wrong, it's not even an argument. Again, Russian industry for even consumer grade vehicles that rely on basic electronics are on their arse - the idea they are somehow maintaining or ramping up production of military equipment, especially that which is of good quality, is farcical.
Your arguments hinge by and large on there being a meaningful, decisive difference between Ukrainians and Russians in morale, ability and equipment that'd go past the observable economic and demographic factors. The reality is though that Ukrainians are temporarily embarrassed Russians already in a state of a total war with a finite supply of Western equipment and who's ability to wage a long conflict of attrition rests entirely on continued handouts given their 35+% rate of economic downturn over the course of just the first year. Failing total collapse on the homefront leading to a humiliating peace deal or Western military support in the coming years equal to or exceeding what they've sent this year which is physically unlikely, the numbers point only towards eventual Russian victory, the question being how crippled they'll be by the end. Will drop it here to avoid bible-length internet slap fights, but in the short term, we're of the same mind that Russia will continue suffering losses and pushback, and in the mid to long-term the position of either will be born out by the facts.
There is a decisive difference, but it goes deeper than those three factors. However, I will address them:
Moral
In Russia they were offering huge incentives to try and hire people prior to the mobilisation. Massive amounts of rubles, and they still couldn't recruit enough volunteers for the war. Clearly, if people were chomping at the bit to get into the war in Ukraine, why not fight and get paid for it? No, they don't want to go. Now they've been mobilised that is not going to magically change.
Contrast, the TDF in the opening days of the war were taking horrendous casualties and had that many volunteers regardless of their losses sustained that they had to turn people away.
You can try and claim that we don't know if moral is different, but we do. It's clear as day.
Equipment/Supplies -
First off, the supplies of equipment from the West - and we're talking the unsexy stuff like medical equipment, uniforms, boots, helmets, body armour... - were plentiful and now when you see Ukrainians in any sort of frontline role they look well equipped. I mean we talked about the rusted AKs, and sure the one viral PR thing that looked bad got new AKs, but what about the ones that didn't get into the news?
Telling people to bring their own equipment, because they don't have sleeping bags. Bring tampons because we don't have first field dressings. I have seen Russian POWs whose boots are a pair of weird slipper things. If you do not think this basic kit and equipment doesn't make all the difference in field conditions - especially in the winter - I have a news for you. Bashering up in the snow is grim, it's awful, and without proper equipment even a fit man - rather than a conscript - is going to go down just from the environment.
Second, TDF because you know they were initially in the local area and from it - they can be relatively self sufficient in food, in sleep in houses, they know the area they know the people. Their neighbours can give them info, they can hide and lay traps in buildings. Their ability to navigate the human environment would be above and beyond that of any Russian soldier. That's not even getting into the ease of use ATGMs...
Ability:
Ignoring the obvious effects the above would have on your ability to fight, it is clear that your average Russian soldier probably doesn't have a toilet back home. They look like Nazi propaganda cartoons of slavs, or they're not Russian but some sort of Asian. Whereas Ukrainian soldiers are taken from a wide slice of society - and the human capital that is invested into them shows. Militaries aren't just big tough blokes who shoot guns, they need all sorts to work effectively - yet would you trust any of those Russians to look after a pet hamster, or clean a toilet? No. So yes, my determination from that is your average Ukrainian soldiers ability to adapt and outthink the downtrodden chimps they're fighting against is not to be ignored.
Then the rest is just the usual tripe about how the worlds most advanced economies couldn't possibly supply Ukraine for long enough to outcompete Russia a nation that relies on pulling fossil fuels out the ground and selling them, and whose advanced manufacturers are reliant on parts from other nations primarily the West. How you can to that conclusion is beyond me, but I guess when we see this play out and you're completely wrong I can have a chuckle about that too.
tass.com
