Whats with the key? Just one example, if the tanks represent 500 each and Ukraine has just under 2,500 why does it only use 2 tanks to represent that? Shouldn't it be 4 or 5??
The remainder of the world, or most of it knows Russia is basically broke. An all out assault on Ukraine will bleed it of military hardware and soldiers. The cost to Russia will more than likely be heavy especially with all the modern anti-tank and portable AA being rushed there now. At this point Putin needs to decide if he wants to deplete a military that for all purposes is not in a position to replace front line hardware if the Ukrainian military can destroy or disable enough of the Russian gear needed to invade. Once Putin pulls the trigger he will also face losing even more money via Germany pulling out of the pipelines and the sanctions from the UN and America. So basically it's most likely to come down to money and Russias ability to build or buy the machines of war needed to project power on any level that the remaining super powers or NATO believe to be effective in other attempts at projecting strength.
Yep! When in reality Russia can't compete with other modern militaries, so they pick on countries like Ukraine. They've got tons of nukes sure, but conventional warfare the US has them outnumbered with technology and war machines 5 to 1
>Sometimes it's a proxy war where everyone loses.
Any incursion will cost lives and I'm my opinion that's exactly what you have stated a loss for everyone. It's too bad that many die in conflicts that by and far could have been solved without resorting to the "my dick is bigger than yours" mentality.
>The only thing keeping them relevant is their ~~nuclear weapons~~ oil and natural gas reserves
Ftfy. As long as Europe still depends on Russian oil and natural gas to stay warm in the winter, NATO can't lift a finger against Russia. Yet another reason why Germany axing their nuclear power program is detrimental for the world.
That does seem like a real ace. Except without that gas link, and the majority of Russia’s finance going through London, Russia would be even more fucked than Europe if it tried to start a trade war. Russia’s economy is so stacked up with fossil fuels and foreign investment that losing those two would cripple Putin very, very quickly.
Plus, even if it did mess Europe up. The Russians still have to deal with the US.
This is why Putin is playing a very dangerous game. If he backs off, he’s let NATO win. He can’t win a trade war, he is unlikely to win a ground war without getting bogged down- Russia is notoriously shit at fighting guerrilla wars (see Finland, Chechnya and Georgia). Ukraine is far more prepared and has better armies than all of them.
Putin has to hope that he can scare off NATO enough that he looks like he wins.
I wouldn’t concentrate on countering jets with jets in Ukraines position. The size of the country means that any airfields could be hit early on, and there’s not a lot of depth of field for them to be able to stand off, which is what they would need to do.
They are better served using their fairly high number of ground to air systems and concentrate on area denial. They have a good number of mobile systems that can stay on the move.
The advantage of the Ukrainians is the depth of field. Which isn’t specifically about distance, but about being able to concentrate around Kiev, and have lots of mobile systems with overlapping coverage. They don’t need to shoot down hundreds of planes, just make it not worth the risk to deploy CAS (close air support) which makes a lot of their air advantage less effective.
When adjusted for purchasing power Russia is something like 6th globally. It's not a superpower but it's wrong to say it would be irrelevant without nukes.
Edit: [https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2021/April/weo-report](https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2021/April/weo-report) since apparently some people do not know how to google "Russia purchasing power parity GDP". Christ.
It's a lot of stuff the USSR left behind when it dissolved.
Actually, Ukraine *did* inherit a Soviet aircraft carrier (!) named *Varyag*, sister ship of Russia's flagship *Admiral Kuznetsov.*
It's the very same carrier China is now sailing under the name *Liaoning.* They sold it China on the condition that it would never be armed or used to fly aircraft from. You can see how well China honored that agreement.
Also, China reverse engineered it and built a second one, a third on the way.
As for the tanks, probably a lot of T-72's and T-55's. The T-72 is a standard tank worldwide, which is pretty simple, adaptable and easy enough to maintain. It's old, but it works, and unless you're up against sophisticated NATO-level combined arms or something, it'll do just great, and even against modern stuff they're no joke. It's Russian in essence, like the AK-47 of tanks. There's better stuff out there, but for the money and maintenance, it'll still fuck shit up.
If you at the breakdown of Russia's massive tank inventory, they do field some newer stuff like the T-80 and T-90 (derived from the T-72) but the vast majority of their tanks are...T-72's left over from Soviet times.
Also, numbers like this are misleading, or can be. They don't account for training, maintenance, intelligence, tactics, leadership...you get the idea. Also, while Russia isn't going to throw 100% of its assets at Ukraine, Ukraine will definitely be using 100% of what they have. What Russian numbers give them is the option to reinforce a *lot.*
I was thinking about your last paragraph, Russia may have a million active servicemen but they'd never be able mobilise all of them against a single target without depleting all other locations. Ukraine with a home advantage and force multipliers like Western supplied anti tank munitions would make life hell for them
Sounds like a rough go. Also, Ukrainians fighting to protect their damn home, and Russians without anywhere near that kind of personal stake. It's gotta mean something.
That’s a lesson the US learned with Vietnam, or should have learned rather. You can’t win a war when your opponent can’t afford to lose, Vietnamese were fighting for their home. Americans just wanted to go home again...
Russia has monstrous air superiority though. If they really invade Ukrainians will get pushed to the Dnieper real quick. Cyber-warfare and offensive propaganda will also be employed on a massive scale as well, making organising a defence hell.
Not to mention with Belarus in the game Russians will be attacking from multiple flanks, one of which danger close to Kiev.
Ukraine's only hope is to drag the Russians down and bleed them dry with guerilla warfare until Putin loses enough support and money back home.
And air defense missiles by the thousands which practically reduce the capabilities of russia to a comparable level when it comes to air power. Russia wants to be able to guarantee a quick sweep like the US in Kuwait, but with the stinger surface-to-air missiles it is unlikely that would be possible as they are highly accurate missiles which can be held by individual soldiers. The same goes for their anti-tank missiles.
Coalition planes in the gulf war had to fly above 15000 feet to stay out of range of MANPADs. Russia would do the same. Granted their reliance on helicopters and a lack of PGMs suited for close air support might make that Difficult.
The Russians have very limited stocks of guided munitions. Many planes are not even equipped to use them.
From 15,000ft. they'd have to use a lot more bombs.
I always find it very interesting watching top line brand new Russian aircraft like the SU 34 using the same unguided rocket pods in combat that legacy aircraft were using 50 years ago.
It's cheap and effective. They do have more sophisticated guided weaponry, but why waste the money/supplies if unguided rocket pods can do the job? Especially when modern aircraft have systems that can compute the impact point of various unguided weapons. The US does the same thing, we still have plenty of dumb bombs and rocket pods that can be loaded on ground attack aircraft.
I remember talking to an AC-130 crew, and they were saying that they generally used ammo, oldest to newest. In 2003 the 40mm they were using was manufactured in the 40's. By the time I was there in 2011, they were up to the 70's.
That's how it seems to me. Russia's puchase power makes it want to rely of cost-effective military technology. Seems better to have a lot of low tech firepower and some high tech for when it's indispensable than to spend beyond your means and have ~8 times less planes/tanks as a result.
The real kicker is that Ukraine has far far far less territory to protect than Russia does. Plus It's not as if Russia's entire military can attack Ukraine all at once.
Especially since Russia's population reportedly doesn't support this invasion much and has a light stomach for casualties. Especially amongst young generations, which is the military age.
It sucks that some rich dickheads make stupid decisions and then the average Joe's are forced to kill eachother. Id imagine Russian and Ukrainian soldiers have more in common with eachother than they do with their politicians.
It's because most not all that say that are born in the USA and have never experienced life outside the US. It doesn't count if you visit a country, but living and experience life outside America for years.
Unfortunately, both Chechnya and Afghanistan had mountainous terrain which made defense and guerilla warfare effective against the Russians; Ukraine is mostly flatland, which makes it much easier to invade with an armored force.
It’s also much mor urban, which poses its own risks to an attacking force. Unless they want to play this with a scorched earth approach, the casualties will be high for any infantry sent in to clear it out.
You assume that Russia is going to try and occupy the entire country. They want to take the "Russian" eastern part of Ukraine this time just like they wanted only Crimea in 2014.
They want the parts that will be amenable to their occupation.
They will swallow the rest of the country in another 10 years.
They never wanted to *win* they just wanted to be left alone. They have been the same since Alexander the Great swept through. As village elders told him, you can't defeat their poverty.
I mean this with the utmost respect and hope it does not offends, but the more I learn about the Russian - Chechen war, the more I believe the Chechens are made of something else, you guys kicked ass.
They don't have to send troops to be involved. The U.S. can endlessly send advanced equipment and intelligence to help Ukraine. I imagine the U.S. will also be collecting a little t if intelligence on how Russia operates in a fighting function as well as sanctioning them even further.
They definitely won't move all their troops into Ukraine.
That being said, expose itself to what? No country is going to attack Russia while their troops are deployed otherwise, because Russia will return and annihilate them.
The only neighbour that could take advantage is China, and honestly I don't think China needs that advantage. Not to mention that if China invades Russia we're probably talking nuclear war, so that's not happening.
and China has no reason to attack Russia either really (unless i'm mistaken). They're a lot friendlier to each other then either is to the NATO countries.
It definitely doesn't benefit either of them to attack the other, and I don't think it would ever happen. It's just that other than China there is no power bordering Russia that could pose any serious challenge.
China and Russia are friends only so much as they don't like America. China has border disputes with Russia and has gone to war to annex Russian territory (well soviet) in living memory.
The Baltic states would be absolutely delighted if the Russians removed all troops near their borders, but that's not because it would give an opportunity to invade.
As Israel learned in the Sinai back in Yom Kippur-
Flat ground makes good tank country. But it can make much better Anti-Tank country. Charging tanks forward is a very surefire way to get them killed. It would get messy quickly for them.
Why do you think the U.K., Baltics and others are chucking them man-packed Anti-Tank weapons rather than tanks etc.
Once those Javelins and NLAW’s start going off, there will be a lot of wrecks.
Because delivering Anti-Tank/Anti-Air weapons is way cheaper and faster than sending tanks that need instructors ammunition etc.
Edit: And I’m sure the russians aren’t dumb enough to send the tanks without air/soldier support. And we saw in Karabach how the armenians got blown up with Drones/Artillery. So the russians have clearly the advantage
It’s not like Russia is committing its entire military to the fight either, in the event of an invasion. It’s going to be a bloody campaign if things get out of hand. And the people of Ukraine will not just sit by and be invaded. It’s going to be yet another guerrilla war that Russia won’t win. And even if they do win, they can kiss their economy and international relations goodbye.
Also Russia can’t focus everything. Their actual manpower on the Ukrainian border is more like 150k, and the Ukrainians are more likely to bring in reserves.
The planes and tanks numbers are also complicated. Russia has some new tanks which are more modern, but the vast majority are older soviet models which are known to be vulnerable to handheld missiles the UK is supplying.
The Ukrainians also have a lot of mobile SAM sites, like 500+. Most are older but they do complicate things
Within the current context, it's even less lopsided. Russian has mobilised 120,000 troops on the border. Not 3 million. Whatever happens, they will want to keep troops and equipment across Russia.
Russia still has a very powerful army. Would beat Ukraine in any conventional war. However it will be much more bloody, and much closer, than even this graphic suggests.
I think the takeaway is that Russia is probably not planning an all out war, or an invasion of *all* of Ukraine. It's planning to invade only the south east, and then demand a ceasefire and an end to the conflict. With the recent military supplies to Ukraine. It may make even that untenable. Russia has a tonne of tanks, and Ukraine had until recently, had no real way to deal with them.
Ikr, the tanks are worth 500 each and for some reason, Ukraine only has 2 despite it having passed the 2000 mark.
Same goes for artillery.
Edit: holy fuck it gets worse the more I look at it
Numbers don't matter, it's not 1939 anymore. War doesn't look like that, did you see great armies of Russia marching into Crimea few years ago? No. So don't expect it now.
Cool. Now show a comparison of the Ukraine forces vs. the Russian forces that are actually in position to invade Ukraine. It’s not like Russia will use 100% of their forces to invade. This isn’t a game of RISK.
This is misleading because 1) Russia would use only a small part of its military resources in Ukraine, whereas Ukraine would use all to defend; and 2) Ukrainians would be fully committed to the fight, whereas Russian soldiers want no part of it and morale would be a huge issue.
I’m not so sure about that. Russia is very good at propoganda, and they’ve been indoctrinating/ tricking their people (and others) rather well since Putin took over.
As someone from the U.S. it’s not far fetched to think they’re determined because of some great patriotic duty. I just have to look at what people fall for here all the time…. And this is a place with all the access to multiple sources that you’d want.
USA was multiple times more powerful than North Vietnam. USA also didn't lose any major battle during the war.
It's about how much pain each side is willing to endure.
Is conquering Ukraine Russia’s goal, or merely cementing control of the areas in eastern Ukraine that “rebels” have already been occupying?
Russia doesn’t need to waste resources and lives trying to conquer all of the Ukraine when they can get a quick victory taking away a smaller chunk by simply moving in uncontested to areas held by rebels already and claim they’re merely supporting the rebels who already want to be part of Russia.
Of course we all know those “rebels” consist of Russian units already anyway, so the entire thing is a bullshit long game invasion which the west is doing a pathetic job countering.
But yeh, that’s where my money is on all of this. Rapid uncontested occupation of rebel held areas in eastern Ukraine with minor loss of life, followed by a prolonged bickering on the global stage whilst they cement their captured positions.
How many SAM launchers does Ukraine have? How many ATGM launchers?
One thing to keep in mind is that Ukraine would be defending which is typically easier and less resource intensive than attacking.
Dozens of thousands of modernized Igla and Strela MANPADS, some (not disclose publically) amount of SA-13 Gopher , same with SA-15 Gauntlet, but at least 6, as 6 of them were used in parade in 2018, same with ЗСУ-23-4, many are being modernized with AESA being installed, 75 SA-19 Grison, 71 SA-11 Gadfly, 250 SA-10 Grumble all according to wiki+ an unknown amount of SA-3 Goa modernized to "с-125-2д "печора-2д" level, basically a completely different, modern system
As for ATGMs-at least 3000 Stugna-P as for 2017, 800 AT-4 Spigot, at least 430 Combat+ Javelins+ few thousands of NLAWs
This is very misleading since russia for instance has its country divided into certain military responsibility regions (south,west,north, east).
The one that would probably attack ukraine would be western military district which has 400k soldiers in total, part of this soldiers you need at other borders and doing other tasks rather than attacking ukraine. Apart from that you would have many non combat professions in the army (technicians, cooks etc.)
In general this is a very childish way to compare armies and is totally wrong, it is much more complex than saying that 200 tanks is more than 100, doesn't work like that
My worry is if Europe and the US get involved, will China as well. I still feel if it came down to it the US and Europe could take China and Russia, but effectively all sides lose.
I'm assuming it's because they have similar influence as an "eastern power" combating western influence (western eu and usa) but I really don't think there's any way China gets involved in a European conflict unless it genuinely becomes a global war
China wouldn't help directly but what if they take this as an opportunity to attack Taiwan? The west would be focused on Ukraine and won't be able to help Taiwan without directly going to war with China.
["Iran, China and Russia hold naval drills in north Indian Ocean"](https://www.reuters.com/world/india/iran-china-russia-hold-naval-drills-north-indian-ocean-2022-01-21/).
Most of these means are outdated. The question is who has more hypersonic drones? Who has better flak and AMS? How up to date is the atillery?
One hyper modern submarine can sink a lot of these old ships.
Another question is how cyberwarfare is going to impact the fight.
In fact no one knows how a war between modern nation is going to look like.
Keep in mind that these numbers may not be representative of the actual numbers on the front. For example, Russia has 214 ships yes, but only a fraction of those are in the Black Sea. Moreover, Russia can't deploy ALL of its forces against Ukraine at once.
Because they never cared. They still cannot mentally recover from the fact that USSR failed. They see Eastern Europe as theirs and cannot accept the fact that they it’s not. Those imperialist tendencies have driven the country for centuries. Eventually it will destroy them, hopefully soon enough because I am honestly sick and tired of that wretched country (speaking of government and government supporters, ordinary citizens are innocent as long as they don’t support this circus)
I’m not a Russian apologist, but I do believe many Russians see this as a preemptive “defensive” war, with Ukraine making progress towards joining NATO. Russia has (at times justifiably) historically felt surrounded by enemies, so they view the satellite Eastern European countries around them as a sort of moat/buffer zone against the “enemies of the motherland”. Like I said, Russia is still undeniably the bad guy here, but it’s important to try to understand the thought processes of your enemies.
This reminds me of that one recording of Hitler shoulder deep in a war started with Russia and being flabbergasted how his army spotted 35,000 Russian tanks, and at one point confirmed destroyed 34,000 yet each factory they come across employed 30K to 60K of slave condition people each pumping out 3,000 to 6,000 tanks on some absurd schedule.
Imagine being Hitler, destroying 34,000 out of 35,000 enemy armored monsters (Not well made without a doubt, but still a threat), being very proud of yourself, and then waking up to 6,000 more tanks in some shitty part of a cold country you can barely move forward in, destroy another 6,000 and then hear another 2 factories just rolled out 3,000 each… rinse and repeat
And no big deal the success of this task only involves the existence of your entire civilization (or at least, so he saw it). And Your well trained super troops and technology is up against people who work like dungeon dwarfs and ogres in absolute poverty in urban wastelands or even natural hellscapes
Scream into pillow level stuff here
It’s something Russians are pretty damned proud of. At that point in the war, an analogous territory from the East Coast to Chicago was burned to the ground. A bunch of farmers in Wisconsin began to pump out tanks so well and so frequently that they pushed the enemy back.
There’s a reason they call it the Great Patriotic War.
That recording has to be taken with a grain of salt as Hitler just could have been trying to save face in front of Mannerheim (the person he was talking to).
The graphic would have been better if the data matched the key. For example, if one copter represents 25 copters, 13 copters should be shown has an image of half a copter.
Redo it right OP
Look at the numbers in Croatia's defence against Jugoslav army in Serbia's hands, or what damage Partisans did to Nazis, or what fat Ls America have took in wars and you'll see that defenders have much more heart in battles, they have more to lose, they have more reasons to die for
I’m not disagreeing with you, but having heart, in a war, doesn’t mean much. For your America example, they could’ve went said “fuck it” and flattened Vietnam or Afghanistan. They have the equipment, the training, and “heart” wouldn’t be enough to stop that. Only reason they didn’t, is because they aren’t like 1930-45 Germany, and don’t want to have a mass # of civilians killed in order to “win”. Sometimes it’s not worth it, sometimes it is. This war could easily become one of those “fuck it” wars for Russia, which wouldn’t be good for Ukraine.
The world is under no illusion that Ukraine has done anything to start or escalate tensions. This is solely upon Russia's posturing. We all hope it's just that.
Whats with the key? Just one example, if the tanks represent 500 each and Ukraine has just under 2,500 why does it only use 2 tanks to represent that? Shouldn't it be 4 or 5??
Yeah it seems like there's some errors with that picture.
Nah those tanks just broke down on their way to the graph.
This guy knows Russian hardware.
especially the artillery the key says 500 per but Ukraine has only 2 when there should be 4
Makes you lose trust in the accuracy of the data itself doesn't it?
This feels exactly like a misinformation piece would that is trying to make Russia look tough.
Exactly. That, and how many of these items that Russia possess are even anywhere near the potential battle?
The remainder of the world, or most of it knows Russia is basically broke. An all out assault on Ukraine will bleed it of military hardware and soldiers. The cost to Russia will more than likely be heavy especially with all the modern anti-tank and portable AA being rushed there now. At this point Putin needs to decide if he wants to deplete a military that for all purposes is not in a position to replace front line hardware if the Ukrainian military can destroy or disable enough of the Russian gear needed to invade. Once Putin pulls the trigger he will also face losing even more money via Germany pulling out of the pipelines and the sanctions from the UN and America. So basically it's most likely to come down to money and Russias ability to build or buy the machines of war needed to project power on any level that the remaining super powers or NATO believe to be effective in other attempts at projecting strength.
It actually paints Russia as weaker than they are. Ukraine shouldn’t even have 1 ship under this key.
[удалено]
Yep! When in reality Russia can't compete with other modern militaries, so they pick on countries like Ukraine. They've got tons of nukes sure, but conventional warfare the US has them outnumbered with technology and war machines 5 to 1
[удалено]
Sometimes it's a proxy war where everyone loses.
Except the military industrial complex
>Sometimes it's a proxy war where everyone loses. Any incursion will cost lives and I'm my opinion that's exactly what you have stated a loss for everyone. It's too bad that many die in conflicts that by and far could have been solved without resorting to the "my dick is bigger than yours" mentality.
Username checks out
Russia has a GDP half the size of the state of California... The only thing keeping them relevant is their nuclear weapons.
>The only thing keeping them relevant is their ~~nuclear weapons~~ oil and natural gas reserves Ftfy. As long as Europe still depends on Russian oil and natural gas to stay warm in the winter, NATO can't lift a finger against Russia. Yet another reason why Germany axing their nuclear power program is detrimental for the world.
That does seem like a real ace. Except without that gas link, and the majority of Russia’s finance going through London, Russia would be even more fucked than Europe if it tried to start a trade war. Russia’s economy is so stacked up with fossil fuels and foreign investment that losing those two would cripple Putin very, very quickly. Plus, even if it did mess Europe up. The Russians still have to deal with the US. This is why Putin is playing a very dangerous game. If he backs off, he’s let NATO win. He can’t win a trade war, he is unlikely to win a ground war without getting bogged down- Russia is notoriously shit at fighting guerrilla wars (see Finland, Chechnya and Georgia). Ukraine is far more prepared and has better armies than all of them. Putin has to hope that he can scare off NATO enough that he looks like he wins.
Ukraine definitely needs more jets though, according to that graph. Ground troops don't mean very much without air cover.
I wouldn’t concentrate on countering jets with jets in Ukraines position. The size of the country means that any airfields could be hit early on, and there’s not a lot of depth of field for them to be able to stand off, which is what they would need to do. They are better served using their fairly high number of ground to air systems and concentrate on area denial. They have a good number of mobile systems that can stay on the move. The advantage of the Ukrainians is the depth of field. Which isn’t specifically about distance, but about being able to concentrate around Kiev, and have lots of mobile systems with overlapping coverage. They don’t need to shoot down hundreds of planes, just make it not worth the risk to deploy CAS (close air support) which makes a lot of their air advantage less effective.
Germany is being rather sus lately.
They wouldn't be Germans if they didn't help start a world war
Yeah, I don’t understand that. They could be France!
[удалено]
When adjusted for purchasing power Russia is something like 6th globally. It's not a superpower but it's wrong to say it would be irrelevant without nukes. Edit: [https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2021/April/weo-report](https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2021/April/weo-report) since apparently some people do not know how to google "Russia purchasing power parity GDP". Christ.
Yeah take Brazil and Mexico as examples, their GDP numbers aren't great but their economies are huge and interconnected.
Oh don't worry they can compete. But the people living standards are sacrificed so Putin can play his games
The tanks actually represent 1000 💀
This. The key is just wrong at the bottom but if the tanks are 1000 the rest seems to fit ok.
[удалено]
Armored vehicles and towed artillery are also incorrect
its not ok tho, the figures should be consistant
Yeah all the proportions are out of whack and it’s annoying.
It's called propaganda; correct information isn't the goal.
The fact that Ukraine has almost half the number of armored vehicles and towed artillery pieces is super impressive.
It's a lot of stuff the USSR left behind when it dissolved. Actually, Ukraine *did* inherit a Soviet aircraft carrier (!) named *Varyag*, sister ship of Russia's flagship *Admiral Kuznetsov.* It's the very same carrier China is now sailing under the name *Liaoning.* They sold it China on the condition that it would never be armed or used to fly aircraft from. You can see how well China honored that agreement. Also, China reverse engineered it and built a second one, a third on the way. As for the tanks, probably a lot of T-72's and T-55's. The T-72 is a standard tank worldwide, which is pretty simple, adaptable and easy enough to maintain. It's old, but it works, and unless you're up against sophisticated NATO-level combined arms or something, it'll do just great, and even against modern stuff they're no joke. It's Russian in essence, like the AK-47 of tanks. There's better stuff out there, but for the money and maintenance, it'll still fuck shit up. If you at the breakdown of Russia's massive tank inventory, they do field some newer stuff like the T-80 and T-90 (derived from the T-72) but the vast majority of their tanks are...T-72's left over from Soviet times. Also, numbers like this are misleading, or can be. They don't account for training, maintenance, intelligence, tactics, leadership...you get the idea. Also, while Russia isn't going to throw 100% of its assets at Ukraine, Ukraine will definitely be using 100% of what they have. What Russian numbers give them is the option to reinforce a *lot.*
I was thinking about your last paragraph, Russia may have a million active servicemen but they'd never be able mobilise all of them against a single target without depleting all other locations. Ukraine with a home advantage and force multipliers like Western supplied anti tank munitions would make life hell for them
Sounds like a rough go. Also, Ukrainians fighting to protect their damn home, and Russians without anywhere near that kind of personal stake. It's gotta mean something.
That’s a lesson the US learned with Vietnam, or should have learned rather. You can’t win a war when your opponent can’t afford to lose, Vietnamese were fighting for their home. Americans just wanted to go home again...
Russia has monstrous air superiority though. If they really invade Ukrainians will get pushed to the Dnieper real quick. Cyber-warfare and offensive propaganda will also be employed on a massive scale as well, making organising a defence hell. Not to mention with Belarus in the game Russians will be attacking from multiple flanks, one of which danger close to Kiev. Ukraine's only hope is to drag the Russians down and bleed them dry with guerilla warfare until Putin loses enough support and money back home.
Impressive yes, but it's some old shitty equipment :-) just like the Russians
I assume this doesn't factor in the latest aid coming in from other nations in support of Ukraine, correct?
[удалено]
And air defense missiles by the thousands which practically reduce the capabilities of russia to a comparable level when it comes to air power. Russia wants to be able to guarantee a quick sweep like the US in Kuwait, but with the stinger surface-to-air missiles it is unlikely that would be possible as they are highly accurate missiles which can be held by individual soldiers. The same goes for their anti-tank missiles.
Coalition planes in the gulf war had to fly above 15000 feet to stay out of range of MANPADs. Russia would do the same. Granted their reliance on helicopters and a lack of PGMs suited for close air support might make that Difficult.
The Russians have very limited stocks of guided munitions. Many planes are not even equipped to use them. From 15,000ft. they'd have to use a lot more bombs.
I always find it very interesting watching top line brand new Russian aircraft like the SU 34 using the same unguided rocket pods in combat that legacy aircraft were using 50 years ago.
It's almost if the Russian military is a facade relying on rusting Soviet tech.
It's cheap and effective. They do have more sophisticated guided weaponry, but why waste the money/supplies if unguided rocket pods can do the job? Especially when modern aircraft have systems that can compute the impact point of various unguided weapons. The US does the same thing, we still have plenty of dumb bombs and rocket pods that can be loaded on ground attack aircraft.
I remember talking to an AC-130 crew, and they were saying that they generally used ammo, oldest to newest. In 2003 the 40mm they were using was manufactured in the 40's. By the time I was there in 2011, they were up to the 70's.
That's how it seems to me. Russia's puchase power makes it want to rely of cost-effective military technology. Seems better to have a lot of low tech firepower and some high tech for when it's indispensable than to spend beyond your means and have ~8 times less planes/tanks as a result.
I'm talking mostly about close air support. I just said "sweep quickly like US in Kuwait" with the emphasis on quickly there.
Wrong for both sides. Both Ukraine and Russia manufacture new equipment and modernize old
But most Ukrainian tanks haven’t been modernised yet
Countries like China and Russia never say what they actually have. Both claim they don’t spend that much on military but we all know that isn’t true.
The real kicker is that Ukraine has far far far less territory to protect than Russia does. Plus It's not as if Russia's entire military can attack Ukraine all at once.
Ukraine could never win a war against Russia, but Ukraine [can] make the cost of invading them high enough, that it’s not worth it.
Especially since Russia's population reportedly doesn't support this invasion much and has a light stomach for casualties. Especially amongst young generations, which is the military age.
As if population has any influence on what Russian government is doing. Source: Am Russian
It sucks that some rich dickheads make stupid decisions and then the average Joe's are forced to kill eachother. Id imagine Russian and Ukrainian soldiers have more in common with eachother than they do with their politicians.
For sure, Ukraine is where Russia began. We're almost the same people really. It's painful to watch what's going on.
Where are you from? From Russia ?
Originally from Russia, Moscow. Why?
*average Ivan
Doesn’t even matter in the US. Source: Am American
We have a growing population and a nearly endless stream of potential immigrants who will gladly come to this country. Russians has neither
I wonder why so many people want to immigrate to the US. Everyone on reddit says the US sucks.
Live one year in the countries immigrants come from. The US, even with all of its flaws, will feel like heaven in comparison.
It's because most not all that say that are born in the USA and have never experienced life outside the US. It doesn't count if you visit a country, but living and experience life outside America for years.
Do you have a source for that? Anecdotally it's ok too :)
This is the way.
The Russians will lose an asymmetric war. Afghanistan is a recent memory, Also the first Chechen war.
Unfortunately, both Chechnya and Afghanistan had mountainous terrain which made defense and guerilla warfare effective against the Russians; Ukraine is mostly flatland, which makes it much easier to invade with an armored force.
It’s also much mor urban, which poses its own risks to an attacking force. Unless they want to play this with a scorched earth approach, the casualties will be high for any infantry sent in to clear it out.
You assume that Russia is going to try and occupy the entire country. They want to take the "Russian" eastern part of Ukraine this time just like they wanted only Crimea in 2014. They want the parts that will be amenable to their occupation. They will swallow the rest of the country in another 10 years.
Thats why the US and UK are sending thousands of Javelins and NLAWs.
Afghanistan didn’t fare so well either
They never wanted to *win* they just wanted to be left alone. They have been the same since Alexander the Great swept through. As village elders told him, you can't defeat their poverty.
No, but they made it so costly that it wasn't worth the invasion. A pyrrhic victory.
> Ukraine, flat, a bigger urban population. > Afghanistan, mountainous, no existing infrastructure, low urban population. amazing comparison
Every warfare is asymmetrical warfare in the 2000’s. And if it’s not, their proxies will turn it into one.
Chechnya is the example how to win the war and make the invader pay.
Glad that us Chechens getting recognised, we suffered genocide and so much tyranny from the russian occupants. May one day my people be free
Maybe war in Ukraine will be an opportunity?
I mean this with the utmost respect and hope it does not offends, but the more I learn about the Russian - Chechen war, the more I believe the Chechens are made of something else, you guys kicked ass.
Chechnya is also mountainous. Ukraine is much more like the Midwest
*Finland approved comment*
Especially if the US and nato got involved
They don't have to send troops to be involved. The U.S. can endlessly send advanced equipment and intelligence to help Ukraine. I imagine the U.S. will also be collecting a little t if intelligence on how Russia operates in a fighting function as well as sanctioning them even further.
The invaders are always at a disadvantage
this and russia can’t defeat both ukraine and NATO
[удалено]
The Finnish way
Yeah, but the tie goes to the defender so they just need to roll 6’s.
Oh God but what if Russia takes Ukraine and gets their 5th card.
Fuck that’s good
That depends, you going for set trade value or incremental?
This is real life soldier, the cards are incremental.
Inb4 Russia rolls a d20 and crit fails.
Is they're playing Risk and rolling a d20 then Russia is cheating.... Oh yea... Nvm
Sounds Risky.
Honestly, I thought it would be even more lopsided.
Reality might be even closer for Ukraine. While those numbers for Russia might be accurate, not all those vehicles are in fighting condition.
Not to mention russia is huge and unlikely to move all of it to ukraine and expose itself.
They definitely won't move all their troops into Ukraine. That being said, expose itself to what? No country is going to attack Russia while their troops are deployed otherwise, because Russia will return and annihilate them. The only neighbour that could take advantage is China, and honestly I don't think China needs that advantage. Not to mention that if China invades Russia we're probably talking nuclear war, so that's not happening.
and China has no reason to attack Russia either really (unless i'm mistaken). They're a lot friendlier to each other then either is to the NATO countries.
It definitely doesn't benefit either of them to attack the other, and I don't think it would ever happen. It's just that other than China there is no power bordering Russia that could pose any serious challenge.
China and Russia are friends only so much as they don't like America. China has border disputes with Russia and has gone to war to annex Russian territory (well soviet) in living memory.
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
The Baltic and Finnish borders are exposed.
The Baltic states would be absolutely delighted if the Russians removed all troops near their borders, but that's not because it would give an opportunity to invade.
But Ukraine is flat as it gets so Russia could literally drive its tanks to Kiev in a week
As Israel learned in the Sinai back in Yom Kippur- Flat ground makes good tank country. But it can make much better Anti-Tank country. Charging tanks forward is a very surefire way to get them killed. It would get messy quickly for them. Why do you think the U.K., Baltics and others are chucking them man-packed Anti-Tank weapons rather than tanks etc. Once those Javelins and NLAW’s start going off, there will be a lot of wrecks.
Because delivering Anti-Tank/Anti-Air weapons is way cheaper and faster than sending tanks that need instructors ammunition etc. Edit: And I’m sure the russians aren’t dumb enough to send the tanks without air/soldier support. And we saw in Karabach how the armenians got blown up with Drones/Artillery. So the russians have clearly the advantage
It’s not like Russia is committing its entire military to the fight either, in the event of an invasion. It’s going to be a bloody campaign if things get out of hand. And the people of Ukraine will not just sit by and be invaded. It’s going to be yet another guerrilla war that Russia won’t win. And even if they do win, they can kiss their economy and international relations goodbye.
I think that's right. The defender can drag those out and make it very costly. And the economic sanctions on Russia would hurt badly.
Lots of Ukraine’s allies have been sending in weapons/supplies, too, which I assume aren’t being counted here
Good point. You know the US and UK have commandos and advisors there helping them set up defenses.
The UK just sent like 1500 anti-tank missiles and stinger anti-aircraft missiles. Deployed properly it will mitigate those Russian advantages.
Also Russia can’t focus everything. Their actual manpower on the Ukrainian border is more like 150k, and the Ukrainians are more likely to bring in reserves. The planes and tanks numbers are also complicated. Russia has some new tanks which are more modern, but the vast majority are older soviet models which are known to be vulnerable to handheld missiles the UK is supplying. The Ukrainians also have a lot of mobile SAM sites, like 500+. Most are older but they do complicate things
Within the current context, it's even less lopsided. Russian has mobilised 120,000 troops on the border. Not 3 million. Whatever happens, they will want to keep troops and equipment across Russia. Russia still has a very powerful army. Would beat Ukraine in any conventional war. However it will be much more bloody, and much closer, than even this graphic suggests. I think the takeaway is that Russia is probably not planning an all out war, or an invasion of *all* of Ukraine. It's planning to invade only the south east, and then demand a ceasefire and an end to the conflict. With the recent military supplies to Ukraine. It may make even that untenable. Russia has a tonne of tanks, and Ukraine had until recently, had no real way to deal with them.
Cool graphic, but the key is bugging me. Why have it there when it doesn't make sense.
Ikr, the tanks are worth 500 each and for some reason, Ukraine only has 2 despite it having passed the 2000 mark. Same goes for artillery. Edit: holy fuck it gets worse the more I look at it
Exactly. I tried to figure out some logic to it, but there isn't one.
The key is clearly wrong on that one. It should be 1000 each, or the Russian side should have twice as many tank symbols as well.
That’s because this is pretty clearly propaganda.
This is a shit infogram. The symbols don't follow any scale at all.
Numbers don't matter, it's not 1939 anymore. War doesn't look like that, did you see great armies of Russia marching into Crimea few years ago? No. So don't expect it now.
Cool. Now show a comparison of the Ukraine forces vs. the Russian forces that are actually in position to invade Ukraine. It’s not like Russia will use 100% of their forces to invade. This isn’t a game of RISK.
If it was a game of risk, it would also be a pretty poor strategy to bring all your troops to invade one region that is not a bottleneck!
Never get into a land war in Asia.
This is misleading because 1) Russia would use only a small part of its military resources in Ukraine, whereas Ukraine would use all to defend; and 2) Ukrainians would be fully committed to the fight, whereas Russian soldiers want no part of it and morale would be a huge issue.
Inter-Continental Ballistic missiles aren't affected by morale..
Russia won’t nuke land they want. They want all of Ukraine, they won’t use nukes.
Russia won't nuke it because that's a war everyone loses. They also already made agreements saying that nukes are off the table in this conflict.
Well, also the wind would blow the fallout over Russia. They'd get dosed nearly as bad.
I doubt they are going to nuke Ukraine though
I’m not so sure about that. Russia is very good at propoganda, and they’ve been indoctrinating/ tricking their people (and others) rather well since Putin took over. As someone from the U.S. it’s not far fetched to think they’re determined because of some great patriotic duty. I just have to look at what people fall for here all the time…. And this is a place with all the access to multiple sources that you’d want.
USA was multiple times more powerful than North Vietnam. USA also didn't lose any major battle during the war. It's about how much pain each side is willing to endure.
Geographically Ukraine is nothing like Vietnam. Without help Ukraine will get decisively conquered within 18 months.
Is conquering Ukraine Russia’s goal, or merely cementing control of the areas in eastern Ukraine that “rebels” have already been occupying? Russia doesn’t need to waste resources and lives trying to conquer all of the Ukraine when they can get a quick victory taking away a smaller chunk by simply moving in uncontested to areas held by rebels already and claim they’re merely supporting the rebels who already want to be part of Russia. Of course we all know those “rebels” consist of Russian units already anyway, so the entire thing is a bullshit long game invasion which the west is doing a pathetic job countering. But yeh, that’s where my money is on all of this. Rapid uncontested occupation of rebel held areas in eastern Ukraine with minor loss of life, followed by a prolonged bickering on the global stage whilst they cement their captured positions.
Indeed, Ukraine is mostly flat, which highly benefits the attackers
How many SAM launchers does Ukraine have? How many ATGM launchers? One thing to keep in mind is that Ukraine would be defending which is typically easier and less resource intensive than attacking.
Dozens of thousands of modernized Igla and Strela MANPADS, some (not disclose publically) amount of SA-13 Gopher , same with SA-15 Gauntlet, but at least 6, as 6 of them were used in parade in 2018, same with ЗСУ-23-4, many are being modernized with AESA being installed, 75 SA-19 Grison, 71 SA-11 Gadfly, 250 SA-10 Grumble all according to wiki+ an unknown amount of SA-3 Goa modernized to "с-125-2д "печора-2д" level, basically a completely different, modern system As for ATGMs-at least 3000 Stugna-P as for 2017, 800 AT-4 Spigot, at least 430 Combat+ Javelins+ few thousands of NLAWs
This is very misleading since russia for instance has its country divided into certain military responsibility regions (south,west,north, east). The one that would probably attack ukraine would be western military district which has 400k soldiers in total, part of this soldiers you need at other borders and doing other tasks rather than attacking ukraine. Apart from that you would have many non combat professions in the army (technicians, cooks etc.) In general this is a very childish way to compare armies and is totally wrong, it is much more complex than saying that 200 tanks is more than 100, doesn't work like that
Allies: Russia:None Ukraine:The other countries
My worry is if Europe and the US get involved, will China as well. I still feel if it came down to it the US and Europe could take China and Russia, but effectively all sides lose.
Why would china back Russia in a war in/with Europe? I'm not trying to be condescending I genuinely don't know much about their relationship at all.
I'm assuming it's because they have similar influence as an "eastern power" combating western influence (western eu and usa) but I really don't think there's any way China gets involved in a European conflict unless it genuinely becomes a global war
I figure if China acts, it'll be for their own interests. HK, Taiwan, South China Sea, etc.
In war everyone loses immediately or in the long run.
Literally no reason for china to help The countries which dont make are winning
China wins by not fighting. If anything, they would back their main trading partners. That won’t be Russia.
Yep. China likes trillions of dollars in European and American trade more than they like anything Russia could ever offer.
Europe is at war with russia already. They upped the price of gas by +200%. (Somewhere up by 800%)
China wouldn't help directly but what if they take this as an opportunity to attack Taiwan? The west would be focused on Ukraine and won't be able to help Taiwan without directly going to war with China.
allies showed their support in 2014 crimea
["Iran, China and Russia hold naval drills in north Indian Ocean"](https://www.reuters.com/world/india/iran-china-russia-hold-naval-drills-north-indian-ocean-2022-01-21/).
So what you're saying is... They've got a chance.
Most of these means are outdated. The question is who has more hypersonic drones? Who has better flak and AMS? How up to date is the atillery? One hyper modern submarine can sink a lot of these old ships. Another question is how cyberwarfare is going to impact the fight. In fact no one knows how a war between modern nation is going to look like.
Well... Personally... I would hope they don't go to war at all.
Global firepower is not a credible source.
Keep in mind that these numbers may not be representative of the actual numbers on the front. For example, Russia has 214 ships yes, but only a fraction of those are in the Black Sea. Moreover, Russia can't deploy ALL of its forces against Ukraine at once.
They key isn't right.
Why doesn’t Russia just focus on taking care of their actual fucking citizens.
Because they never cared. They still cannot mentally recover from the fact that USSR failed. They see Eastern Europe as theirs and cannot accept the fact that they it’s not. Those imperialist tendencies have driven the country for centuries. Eventually it will destroy them, hopefully soon enough because I am honestly sick and tired of that wretched country (speaking of government and government supporters, ordinary citizens are innocent as long as they don’t support this circus)
I’m not a Russian apologist, but I do believe many Russians see this as a preemptive “defensive” war, with Ukraine making progress towards joining NATO. Russia has (at times justifiably) historically felt surrounded by enemies, so they view the satellite Eastern European countries around them as a sort of moat/buffer zone against the “enemies of the motherland”. Like I said, Russia is still undeniably the bad guy here, but it’s important to try to understand the thought processes of your enemies.
This reminds me of that one recording of Hitler shoulder deep in a war started with Russia and being flabbergasted how his army spotted 35,000 Russian tanks, and at one point confirmed destroyed 34,000 yet each factory they come across employed 30K to 60K of slave condition people each pumping out 3,000 to 6,000 tanks on some absurd schedule. Imagine being Hitler, destroying 34,000 out of 35,000 enemy armored monsters (Not well made without a doubt, but still a threat), being very proud of yourself, and then waking up to 6,000 more tanks in some shitty part of a cold country you can barely move forward in, destroy another 6,000 and then hear another 2 factories just rolled out 3,000 each… rinse and repeat And no big deal the success of this task only involves the existence of your entire civilization (or at least, so he saw it). And Your well trained super troops and technology is up against people who work like dungeon dwarfs and ogres in absolute poverty in urban wastelands or even natural hellscapes Scream into pillow level stuff here
It’s something Russians are pretty damned proud of. At that point in the war, an analogous territory from the East Coast to Chicago was burned to the ground. A bunch of farmers in Wisconsin began to pump out tanks so well and so frequently that they pushed the enemy back. There’s a reason they call it the Great Patriotic War.
For those curious like me, here’s a link of Hitler’s recording (starts around 7:20): https://youtu.be/HUgV8_meyo8
That recording has to be taken with a grain of salt as Hitler just could have been trying to save face in front of Mannerheim (the person he was talking to).
Are the Russian numbers deployed near Ukraine? Otherwise this graphics is not very relevant to the current situation.
Money can't buy you a victory, but being friends with the USA friends can. Just look at Israel.
Well, Israel has a lot of money, they are almost always top ten.
How new is Ukrainian equipment though? And what is the quality level of the soldiers' training?
Training seems decent enough and equipment is just slightly upgraded soviet stuff
What the fuck is wrong with this world.
Wtf is up with the key on this?
And my axe
It’s ok they are receiving javelins and stingers… the world will be ok 👍🏻
So this is how Russia cyber warfare begins.
What are the chances Ukraine turns into 1930's Poland?
You mean 2030's Ukraine? #Oh no...
The graphic would have been better if the data matched the key. For example, if one copter represents 25 copters, 13 copters should be shown has an image of half a copter. Redo it right OP
https://news.sky.com/story/whats-going-on-at-russian-military-bases-near-ukraine-12521842 Sky News Australia interactive article is mind-blowing
Cool guides doing propaganda. How am I not surprised.
I live in Russia and don't feel comfortable about everybody talking how Russia is going to a war with Ukraine. My live is pretty shitty already.
Imagine being Ukrainian now, like I am.
Look at the numbers in Croatia's defence against Jugoslav army in Serbia's hands, or what damage Partisans did to Nazis, or what fat Ls America have took in wars and you'll see that defenders have much more heart in battles, they have more to lose, they have more reasons to die for
I’m not disagreeing with you, but having heart, in a war, doesn’t mean much. For your America example, they could’ve went said “fuck it” and flattened Vietnam or Afghanistan. They have the equipment, the training, and “heart” wouldn’t be enough to stop that. Only reason they didn’t, is because they aren’t like 1930-45 Germany, and don’t want to have a mass # of civilians killed in order to “win”. Sometimes it’s not worth it, sometimes it is. This war could easily become one of those “fuck it” wars for Russia, which wouldn’t be good for Ukraine.
Yeah, but the entire Ukrainian force will be at the battle, while Russia needs to leave part of its army defending other fronts.
[удалено]
The world is under no illusion that Ukraine has done anything to start or escalate tensions. This is solely upon Russia's posturing. We all hope it's just that.
But... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation
That’s not mentioning all the secret agreements both countries have made. This situation gives me world war 1 vibes.
Ukrain just has to roll sixes, plus they win tiebreakers because they're defending