Russian Ukrainian War

[WW2historian]

I thought the Kyiv independent and other Ukrainian sources bullshitted a lot, but apparently not as much as the Washington military think tank the ISW. Ukraine says about 800,000 Russians have been killed and wounded, but the ISW says it's anywhere from about 1 to 1.6 million. This war has lasted 36 month and they say Russian losses are 30 to 45k a month? 36x45000= 1,620,000 That's laughable.
" — whether intended to increase the current grouping or rotate out existing forces — is likely intended to sustain Russia’s tempo of operations despite heavy losses of about 30,000 - 45,000 causalities (combined killed and wounded) per month.[10] "

Institute for the Study of War

The Kremlin has launched an information operation that seeks to create the false impression that the Russian economy is performing well despite numerous continued indicators of macroeconomic distress.

www.understandingwar.org

 

[GaudaNaresh]

"Own Crimea=win" There is no doubt about that. The Germans had Crimea cut off (but not on the sea) and also had stronger army and the best General in WW2, Manstein in charge of taking Crimea. However they had a bitch of a time taking Crimea. Although they eventually took it, I believe it was a Pyrrhic and weakened Germany. To take Crimea and hold it, the Germans needed to first fully concentrate on taking the oil fields in the Caucasus because that would've cut off Crimea mostly for resupply from the sea. That would've made it easier to take Crimea without huge losses. The fact that the idiot Ukrainians tried to take Crimea showed just how frigging stupid they are.

Taking crimea by land is also a big problem - the 'neck' of crimea, where Crimea joins the Eurasian mainland, is a swampy, marshy mess of a land. Good luck moving armor through that terrain.

 

[WW2historian]

Taking crimea by land is also a big problem - the 'neck' of crimea, where Crimea joins the Eurasian mainland, is a swampy, marshy mess of a land. Good luck moving armor through that terrain.

NATO current troop strength is about 3.5 million. I believe NATO would suffer 100% causalities trying to take Crimea, and that's without any nukes being used.

 

[GaudaNaresh]

NATO current troop strength is about 3.5 million. I believe NATO would suffer 100% causalities trying to take Crimea, and that's without any nukes being used.

i dunno what their actual casualty rate of crimea would be, but crimea in my view, is the largest fortress on the planet with the same damn issues of a fortress : it has finite supplies. Crimea lacks water.
The landscape of Crimea is a steppe bounded by steep cliffs and narrow coast on the West & South, the the north and east being mostly the marshy,swampy mess of a connector to Eurasia.
If Crimea is very hard to get into (provided crimea is armed to the teeth), Crimea is also easy to starve out, provided you threaten its northern neck, because that is where its water comes from, from the Dneiper. Therefore, Russian land-bridge to Crimea connecting Dnieper is a *MUST* if crimea is to hold indefinitely.

As long as this neck connection is in Russian control, Crimea is impregnable : You cannot take it from the sea, its only northern route is blocked AND crimea has enough water to never be thirsted out.

This may also have been the ultimate objective of the failed/feinted Russian thrust at Kiev : to draw enough Ukrainian troops to the Kiev front that the Crimea front got weakened - the Ukros are not stoopid enough to directly weaken front with Russia itself or worse, Donbass ceasefire line. Yet, the deployed troops had to come from somewhere and that somewhere was southern Ukraine front with Crimea.

The parts of Kherson + Zapho that Russia currently holds, comes from Crimean peninsula breakout, not Donbass breakout in the south via Mariuopol ( i think they met in melitopol or something).


That is the only thing that makes sense of the Russian thrust to Kiev not being a failed game-ender move: to pull troops to Kiev to cause Crimean breakout, turning Crimea from a super-fortress of limited water to impregnable super-fortress with infinite water.

 

[Blademaster]

i dunno what their actual casualty rate of crimea would be, but crimea in my view, is the largest fortress on the planet with the same damn issues of a fortress : it has finite supplies. Crimea lacks water.
The landscape of Crimea is a steppe bounded by steep cliffs and narrow coast on the West & South, the the north and east being mostly the marshy,swampy mess of a connector to Eurasia.
If Crimea is very hard to get into (provided crimea is armed to the teeth), Crimea is also easy to starve out, provided you threaten its northern neck, because that is where its water comes from, from the Dneiper. Therefore, Russian land-bridge to Crimea connecting Dnieper is a *MUST* if crimea is to hold indefinitely.

As long as this neck connection is in Russian control, Crimea is impregnable : You cannot take it from the sea, its only northern route is blocked AND crimea has enough water to never be thirsted out.

This may also have been the ultimate objective of the failed/feinted Russian thrust at Kiev : to draw enough Ukrainian troops to the Kiev front that the Crimea front got weakened - the Ukros are not stoopid enough to directly weaken front with Russia itself or worse, Donbass ceasefire line. Yet, the deployed troops had to come from somewhere and that somewhere was southern Ukraine front with Crimea.

The parts of Kherson + Zapho that Russia currently holds, comes from Crimean peninsula breakout, not Donbass breakout in the south via Mariuopol ( i think they met in melitopol or something).


That is the only thing that makes sense of the Russian thrust to Kiev not being a failed game-ender move: to pull troops to Kiev to cause Crimean breakout, turning Crimea from a super-fortress of limited water to impregnable super-fortress with infinite water.

I disagree. Kiev was the center of gravity. Once Kiev was taken the support for Ukraine would have fallen apart and the political resistance would have melt away and allow Russia greater control over Ukraine with less cost.

 

[Soldier35]

Footage of the fall of a Russian Su-25 attack aircraft near the village of Zaitsevo in Donbass. According to Ukrainian media, the plane was shot down by a Ukrainian MANPADS. But when watching the video, you can notice inconsistencies: when the missile was launched from the MANPADS, the sky was covered with clouds, while at the time of the fall of the Su-25, the sky was clear. Also in the video, the flying plane catches fire before the MANPADS missile is launched. Perhaps the video used associative footage, but the launch of the MANPADS missile is shown from another episode of the battle. A search and rescue team was sent to the site of the Su-25 crash on an Mi-8 helicopter, which was covered by an Mi-35 helicopter. At the time of the evacuation of the pilot, the Russian Mi-8 helicopter was attacked by three Ukrainian FPV drones, judging by the video, the Ukrainian drones were unable to hit the helicopter and the pilot was evacuated.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIQlgu6eP6w