The Invasion of Ukraine

[bob sterman]

Secondly, no serving member of the Russian armed forces have ever been involved in a similar operation involving the invasion of a state. Since 1992 they've done counterinsurgency against separatists (Chechnya), intervened in civil wars in neighboring countries (Moldova, Georgia), assisted in a counter insurgency campaign at the invitation of the government (Syria), and seized parts of Ukraine while its government had collapsed. The last time the Soviet Union was involved in a contested invasion was Hungary in 1956 (Czechoslovalkia in 1968 doesn't really count as its armed forces didn't fight back). Someone who was 18 in 1956 would be in their early 80s by now. Anyone senior enough to be involved in planning will be long dead. So as far as an operation the size of the invasion of Ukraine goes, the only Russian knowledge comes from book learning and trying to learn lessons from other states. The Russians have been flat track bullies, effective at fighting against far weaker foes, but hitherto had never tried anything as large and complex as invading Ukraine.

At the invitation of the government - but Afghanistan? Pretty large operation - and quite strongly contested I seem to remember.

[jimbob]

Even if he is old/crazy/ill or even if someone stated their opinion that he was this is not the same as him being an idiot.

Sure - idiot was plodder's word, not mine. I was just saying to Gfamily that searching the thread for the word "idiot" might not quite capture the sentiment that plodder was referring to - there have been plenty of posts suggesting that Putin has f.cked up bigtime in various ways, which could colloquially be summarised as "an idiot" (especially by somebody trying to be provocative, as plodder generally is).

The word 'idiot' has different connotations. It can mean someone of low intelligence. But it can also mean a fool, someone who acts unwisely, perhaps due to pride, laziness or greed.

We've spent many years on this board and the last one discussing why intelligent people sometimes make bad decisions. Of course we'll need to wait for the historians to work out what actually happened. But in the mean time I'll suggest two explanations.

First, all leaders run the risk that they'll set up bureaucratic feedback loops in which people who agree with the leader get heard, and those who disagree are silenced. One argument against autocracy is that this tendency can be unchecked as dissenters get fired, jailed or killed. Without an independent and critical media and opposition parties its very easy for a leader surrounded by flatterer to become somewhat divorced from reality.

Secondly, no serving member of the Russian armed forces have ever been involved in a similar operation involving the invasion of a state. Since 1992 they've done counterinsurgency against separatists (Chechnya), intervened in civil wars in neighboring countries (Moldova, Georgia), assisted in a counter insurgency campaign at the invitation of the government (Syria), and seized parts of Ukraine while its government had collapsed. The last time the Soviet Union was involved in a contested invasion was Hungary in 1956 (Czechoslovalkia in 1968 doesn't really count as its armed forces didn't fight back). Someone who was 18 in 1956 would be in their early 80s by now. Anyone senior enough to be involved in planning will be long dead. So as far as an operation the size of the invasion of Ukraine goes, the only Russian knowledge comes from book learning and trying to learn lessons from other states. The Russians have been flat track bullies, effective at fighting against far weaker foes, but hitherto had never tried anything as large and complex as invading Ukraine.

So add those two together, and there is no one who can state from experience what should happen, and a leadership that rewards sycophancy, and we have the recipe for some bad decision-making.

It's probably an underlying tendency for organisations to tend to groupthink. Especially hierarchical ones, and even more if it's someone like Putin in charge.

I doubt anyone would want to tell him bad news, or that his ideas are dangerous, which would lead him to possibly being less challenged in his ideas than competent medieval monarchs by their advisors. Partly because Putin doesn't have the security of hereditary position but a pretend election.

And his starting purges must be making the rest start to consider whether they'll be next and how to avoid getting arrested etc.

Hopefully he's set in train the events leading to his palace coup.

[Woodchopper]

I had a quick look around at what various people are saying about whether the Russian invasion is going to plan.

There's academics like Michael Kofman who's field of study is Russian military forces. he doesn\t think its going well. Two of the most prominent scholars of strategy are Edward Luttwak and Lawrence Freedman. Luttwak thinks that Putin has Putin has check-mated himself, Freedman calls it a catastrophic adventure. Or for an alternative view here's Philipps O'Brien, Professor of Strategic Studies, who also thinks that Russia moving to a strategy of attrition is one of failure and desperation.

But what do academics know? Here's four former Supreme Allied Commander Europe who think talk at length on the mistakes made by Russian forces. If they are a bit American for you, how about a British former Chief of the Defence Staff on how Putin miscalculated his invasion of Ukraine.

But perhaps all the above are a bit strategic and militray. So here's the International Crisis Group (whose aim is to "prevent wars and shape policies that will build a more peaceful world"):

Most analysts – Ukrainian, Russian and Western – expected Russia’s larger, better-equipped army to rapidly overcome Ukraine’s smaller numbers. Instead, Russian forces turned out to be ill prepared and quickly demoralised, while Ukrainian soldiers and civilians have been far more determined and resourceful than Moscow appears to have anticipated. Ukraine has also used Western-supplied anti-tank weapons, air defences such as Stinger missiles, ordnance and body armour to dash Russian hopes of an easy win. Russian forces are having difficulty seizing and holding territory. Their advance from the north is long stalled; those in the east and south are encountering significant Ukrainian pushback.

Or alternatively Alexander Gabuev at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace thinks that the "Kremlin's disastrous move was itself rooted in lies, misconceptions and giant lapses of expertise & intelligence.".

I couldn't find anyone with with some expertise who doesn't think that the Russian invasion has been a multidimensional clusterfuckup. Would be really interesting if someone could find one.

[Woodchopper]

Secondly, no serving member of the Russian armed forces have ever been involved in a similar operation involving the invasion of a state. Since 1992 they've done counterinsurgency against separatists (Chechnya), intervened in civil wars in neighboring countries (Moldova, Georgia), assisted in a counter insurgency campaign at the invitation of the government (Syria), and seized parts of Ukraine while its government had collapsed. The last time the Soviet Union was involved in a contested invasion was Hungary in 1956 (Czechoslovalkia in 1968 doesn't really count as its armed forces didn't fight back). Someone who was 18 in 1956 would be in their early 80s by now. Anyone senior enough to be involved in planning will be long dead. So as far as an operation the size of the invasion of Ukraine goes, the only Russian knowledge comes from book learning and trying to learn lessons from other states. The Russians have been flat track bullies, effective at fighting against far weaker foes, but hitherto had never tried anything as large and complex as invading Ukraine.

At the invitation of the government - but Afghanistan? Pretty large operation - and quite strongly contested I seem to remember.

Yes, they didn't invade but were invited in and kept control of the cities. The Mujahidin also were far weaker then the Ukrainian armed forces. The former didn't have an airforce etc. The Soviet Union still lost.

[Aitch]

Nice to see some people taking recycling seriously, even in wartime.

[temptar]

Apropos of nothing, new to me term : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

[EACLucifer]

In the interests of being as open and honest as possible, I'm noting that it looks like there were some military targets near Retroville Mall at some point prior to the attack. Whether a ballistic missile is a proportionate response to the presence of four trucks - potentially four MLRS - is a different matter, however.

[EACLucifer]

Pro-Kremlin tabloid Komsomolskaya Pravda apparently reported some Russian casualty figures that are much closer to western estimates - almost ten thousand dead, just over sixteen thousand wounded. Obviously it's difficult to verify these, but one thing stands out and that's how low the WIA/KIA ratio is. That suggests either the wounded number is relatively undercounted, and/or that the Russians are losing a lot of people who could have been saved with proper medical attention. Reports of ambulances needing to be hosed out after trips to Belarus, and the disturbing lack of evidence of Russian combat medics points in the latter direction.

[Woodchopper]

Here’s a link.

The Russian pro-government newspaper cites leaked official casualty figures of 9 861 Russian soldiers killed in Ukraine and 16 153 injured.
https://twitter.com/yarotrof/status/150 ... 72648?s=21

The numbers seem to correspond with equipment losses.

In comparison, the Soviet Union casualty figures in Afghanistan were about 15 000 killed and 35 000 wounded over eleven years.

US losses in Vietnam were 58 281 killed and 153 372 over ten years, and about 7 000 US soldiers were killed since 2001 in Afghanistan and Iraq etc.

[EACLucifer]

Here’s a link.

The Russian pro-government newspaper cites leaked official casualty figures of 9 861 Russian soldiers killed in Ukraine and 16 153 injured.
https://twitter.com/yarotrof/status/150 ... 72648?s=21

The numbers seem to correspond with equipment losses.

In comparison, the Soviet Union casualty figures in Afghanistan were about 15 000 killed and 35 000 wounded over eleven years.

US losses in Vietnam were 58 281 killed and 153 372 over ten years, and about 7 000 US soldiers were killed since 2001 in Afghanistan and Iraq etc.

It looks like it's been taken down now, but it was definitely up initially. Another possibility is that the figures are a wild guess by a disgruntled employee or hacker.

[Stranger Mouse]

Here’s a link.

The Russian pro-government newspaper cites leaked official casualty figures of 9 861 Russian soldiers killed in Ukraine and 16 153 injured.
https://twitter.com/yarotrof/status/150 ... 72648?s=21

The numbers seem to correspond with equipment losses.

In comparison, the Soviet Union casualty figures in Afghanistan were about 15 000 killed and 35 000 wounded over eleven years.

US losses in Vietnam were 58 281 killed and 153 372 over ten years, and about 7 000 US soldiers were killed since 2001 in Afghanistan and Iraq etc.

It looks like it's been taken down now, but it was definitely up initially. Another possibility is that the figures are a wild guess by a disgruntled employee or hacker.

If the figures were correct wouldn’t it mean that about 1 in 8 of their troops have been killed or injured?

[EACLucifer]

Here’s a link.

The Russian pro-government newspaper cites leaked official casualty figures of 9 861 Russian soldiers killed in Ukraine and 16 153 injured.
https://twitter.com/yarotrof/status/150 ... 72648?s=21

The numbers seem to correspond with equipment losses.

In comparison, the Soviet Union casualty figures in Afghanistan were about 15 000 killed and 35 000 wounded over eleven years.

US losses in Vietnam were 58 281 killed and 153 372 over ten years, and about 7 000 US soldiers were killed since 2001 in Afghanistan and Iraq etc.

It looks like it's been taken down now, but it was definitely up initially. Another possibility is that the figures are a wild guess by a disgruntled employee or hacker.

If the figures were correct wouldn’t it mean that about 1 in 8 of their troops have been killed or injured?

Yes. It puts them at about the same rate of loss as the Battle of Normandy, or about 40% of the Allied rate of loss during the Battle of the Somme. That's not adjusted for size of army.

In absolute terms, its two thirds of what the Soviets lost in Afghanistan.

It's also congruous with other reports, things like reports of two thousand five hundred bodies recovered through Gomel alone.

[EACLucifer]

Komsomolskaya Pravda is claiming they were hacked, which is quite plausible - so it's quite possible the numbers are just a guess, and that explains things like the really odd killed to wounded ratio.

On the other hand, it is in the ballpark of western estimates - US were estimating 7000KIA days ago.

Also worth noting that losses aren't just killed and wounded, but killed, wounded, captured/deserted and missing. Also worth noting that Russian Army figures wouldn't include losses by VVS, Rosgvardia, naval infantry, PMCs or fascist occupation militias.

[Woodchopper]

Yes. It puts them at about the same rate of loss as the Battle of Normandy, or about 40% of the Allied rate of loss during the Battle of the Somme. That's not adjusted for size of army.

Which is in line with what we should expect.

Most people in Europe or North America have become used to wars which in which western armed forces are enormously more powerful than their adversaries. If British or American troops have and problems they can just call up an airstrike. It’s a hitech version of Blackadder at Mboto Gorge.

Something like 10 000 deaths in a few weeks is much closer to what we should expect when the two adversaries both have enormous destructive potential. I expect that thousands of Ukrainian soldiers have also lost their lives.

Those thousands of soldiers on both sides is horrific enough. But if it carries on and every city street becomes a battle ground we can expect civilian casualties to be several times higher than military. There could be tens or even hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths before it’s over.

[Bird on a Fire]

I had a quick look around at what various people are saying about whether the Russian invasion is going to plan.

There's academics like Michael Kofman who's field of study is Russian military forces. he doesn\t think its going well. Two of the most prominent scholars of strategy are Edward Luttwak and Lawrence Freedman. Luttwak thinks that Putin has Putin has check-mated himself, Freedman calls it a catastrophic adventure. Or for an alternative view here's Philipps O'Brien, Professor of Strategic Studies, who also thinks that Russia moving to a strategy of attrition is one of failure and desperation.

But what do academics know? Here's four former Supreme Allied Commander Europe who think talk at length on the mistakes made by Russian forces. If they are a bit American for you, how about a British former Chief of the Defence Staff on how Putin miscalculated his invasion of Ukraine.

But perhaps all the above are a bit strategic and militray. So here's the International Crisis Group (whose aim is to "prevent wars and shape policies that will build a more peaceful world"):

Most analysts – Ukrainian, Russian and Western – expected Russia’s larger, better-equipped army to rapidly overcome Ukraine’s smaller numbers. Instead, Russian forces turned out to be ill prepared and quickly demoralised, while Ukrainian soldiers and civilians have been far more determined and resourceful than Moscow appears to have anticipated. Ukraine has also used Western-supplied anti-tank weapons, air defences such as Stinger missiles, ordnance and body armour to dash Russian hopes of an easy win. Russian forces are having difficulty seizing and holding territory. Their advance from the north is long stalled; those in the east and south are encountering significant Ukrainian pushback.

Or alternatively Alexander Gabuev at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace thinks that the "Kremlin's disastrous move was itself rooted in lies, misconceptions and giant lapses of expertise & intelligence.".

I couldn't find anyone with with some expertise who doesn't think that the Russian invasion has been a multidimensional clusterfuckup. Would be really interesting if someone could find one.

Thanks very much for pulling all these together, Woodchopper. It certainly seems like there have been many sources of failure, and that the Russian invasion is doing less well than a lot of us in the west feared.

Whether or not that's good news, I suppose, will depend on what Putin wanted to get out of the invasion and what he might hope to come away with now. Given Russia's inability to win an attritional war they'll presumably either escalate or seek a face-saving way to de-escalate.

My own Twitter has been full of RTs of similar takes, along with what Philipps O'Brien calls "war p.rn". The take - Putin done goofed - seems pretty reasonable based on what we know. But I do confess to being a bit uncomfortable at the quantity of war footage ordinary non-experts are sharing. It's clearly a good thing for journalists and analysts and OSINT types etc. to be able to view and verify primary sources. But a timeline that's just all sorts of random folk saying vague things like "You must watch this" followed by some POWs crying or a tank exploding or whatever gives me the heebie-jeebies.

So, while I think he posted in an unnecessarily wind-uppy way, I do share some of plodder's uncomfortableness with some of the online discussion of the invasion. In the context of level-headed analysis, understanding eg missile capabilities and drone tactics etc can be useful detail; without that context, it can look a bit prurient. And I suspect that one of the causes of miscommunication is that many people are getting 99% of their worldview-shaping coverage from analysts on twitter, and then occasionally popping in here to comment on something-or-other they particularly want to discuss. For those of us who wouldn't even know where to start looking for Unbiased War Experts in the twattersphere this kind of digest is pretty useful, or at least a brief explanation of if/how what's being discussed actually matters to the big picture.

[Bird on a Fire]

Here's four former Supreme Allied Commander Europe who think talk at length on the mistakes made by Russian forces.

btw, this link doesn't go anywhere

[Woodchopper]

Here's four former Supreme Allied Commander Europe who think talk at length on the mistakes made by Russian forces.

btw, this link doesn't go anywhere

Apologies, here's the link: https://www.csis.org/analysis/nato-line ... er-saceurs

[lpm]

My own Twitter has been full of RTs of similar takes, along with what Philipps O'Brien calls "war p.rn". The take - Putin done goofed - seems pretty reasonable based on what we know. But I do confess to being a bit uncomfortable at the quantity of war footage ordinary non-experts are sharing. It's clearly a good thing for journalists and analysts and OSINT types etc. to be able to view and verify primary sources. But a timeline that's just all sorts of random folk saying vague things like "You must watch this" followed by some POWs crying or a tank exploding or whatever gives me the heebie-jeebies.

So, while I think he posted in an unnecessarily wind-uppy way, I do share some of plodder's uncomfortableness with some of the online discussion of the invasion. In the context of level-headed analysis, understanding eg missile capabilities and drone tactics etc can be useful detail; without that context, it can look a bit prurient. And I suspect that one of the causes of miscommunication is that many people are getting 99% of their worldview-shaping coverage from analysts on twitter, and then occasionally popping in here to comment on something-or-other they particularly want to discuss. For those of us who wouldn't even know where to start looking for Unbiased War Experts in the twattersphere this kind of digest is pretty useful, or at least a brief explanation of if/how what's being discussed actually matters to the big picture.

No point in trying to change the human race overnight.

We treat war as entertainment. WW2 movies. Books about SAS killers. Video games.

There'll be Ukraine war movies soon enough. Spielberg will do the Band of Brothers mini series.

Obviously waging war on your neighbour is infinitely worse.

Long term humanity needs to be disgusted by war for us to have a future on this planet. I think this is happening, because for every thigh rubbing tank explosion there are several refugee pictures or Mariupol pictures. Have faith that pacifism will eventually win.

[lpm]

Speculation about Ukraine counter attacks are intriguing.

[dyqik]

Speculation about Ukraine counter attacks are intriguing.

They might be if you told us where to find them.

[Stranger Mouse]

Speculation about Ukraine counter attacks are intriguing.

John Sweeney seems to have heard convincing reports that the Russian forces are surrounded at Bucha which is unexpected. If true it’s good news although I would prefer good news like (Vladimir Putin realises he’s wrong and withdraws Russian forces)

https://twitter.com/johnsweeneyroar/sta ... 13605?s=21

[Stranger Mouse]

Speculation about Ukraine counter attacks are intriguing.

They might be if you told us where to find them.

May be referring to this. Or may not. We will never know. https://twitter.com/johnsweeneyroar/sta ... 13605?s=21

[lpm]

Speculation about Ukraine counter attacks are intriguing.

They might be if you told us where to find them.

Absolutely not. We mustn't do this.

If we all look at the same things we'll just reinforce each other. All it'll become is "yes I've seen that too". One piece of info will appear to be many.

It's a common pitfall in analysis.

Let's look with more diversity.

[Woodchopper]

Speculation about Ukraine counter attacks are intriguing.

There have been some limited local counterattacks for a while, and Ukraine has regained a bit or territory in the South and East. Around Kyiv what they seem to have been doing is going behind the Russian forward units, attacking Russian supply bases and convoys, and then withdrawing.

[bjn]

An uncanny youtube monologue from Russian MP Alexander Nevzorov from 2021 on the (then) future invasion of the Ukraine. He thinks it will destroy the Russian Federation, he rips into the Russian military and government, highlighting their long established corruption and their incompetence. He says it will end with Putin calling Biden "asking to send the US Marines to protect Moscow".