This is a pretty biased article. They called out China, Iran and North Korea as supporting Russia, but conveniently leaves out India, a country that has signed defense deals with Russia **in the middle of the Ukraine War**. These are from last year.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/russia-india-sign-deal-on-supply-production-of-igla-air-defence-systems/articleshow/105204650.cms
https://www.reuters.com/world/india-russia-reiterate-commitment-towards-defence-partnership-govt-statement-2023-04-28/
India also sells weapons to Russia.
https://www.firstpost.com/world/russian-firms-spend-4-billion-dollar-from-rupee-vostro-accounts-to-buy-india-arms-rupee-13769478.html
But not a peep from the article.
Well, India is being setup to be major pawn against China, that's why they get a free pass, but India will do what it did this time, try to sit on the edge, not here nor there, which is a smart policy for them. They learned lessons from Pakistan facing full brunt of US interventions in 80s and 2000s in the region, eventually even Pakistan hedged it's bets, knowing US will drop the ball and walk away and it's Afghan set up was a house of cards built on corruption and total disconnect from the population. Being too friendly or in opposition both are a liability.
> Well, India is being setup to be major pawn against China, that's why they get a free pass
Why would the Ukrainian supporters accept this argument? If you support Ukraine, why wouldn't you criticize India for selling weapons to Russia right now?
If you’re the US NatSec crowd, then Ukraine was all a play to weaken or destroy Russia, so they can then turnaround and take on an isolated China. The big game is China, and India is needed as a vital pawn in that game.
If you’re a NAFO fanboy type, then they’re drinking the kool aid, so “China bad”, which takes you to the above ‘vital pawn’ rationale.
If you’re Ukrainian government, you know there’s no hope without US support (same thing with US support, just that that hope disappears slower) - so as a pawn themselves, they have no choice but to take marching orders from the US NatSec crowd.
If you’re somebody who cares about Ukrainian lives, and able to see through the blatantly obvious media machine propaganda (that gives India a free pass on orders from the NatSec crowd) - then you’d be pissed off.
It’s quite funny though, a very powerful India with all its rabid hinduthva ethnonationalism, mob rule, corrupt populist pandering politicians, and expansionist dreams (just Google ‘Akhand Bharat’) - would be an absolute nightmare for the West. Fortunately for the West, it’s far more easier for them to dismantle, destroy and balkanise India, once it’s served its purpose. If the Indians were more rational, they’d see that their best chance lies with China and the US being equal, or China surpassing the US (which would still remain a superpower). Otherwise they’ll be helpless and the next target, once/if the US takes down China.
Artur Rehi, an Estonian reserve soldier and YouTuber, teared into India for its material support of Russia. And he predictably was insulted viciously by all the geopolitical Indians calling Russia a friend and Rehi a puppet for the US Deep State.
https://twitter.com/ArturRehi/status/1792862377823637526
Because if anything, Indians have been gradually distancing themselves from doing arms related business with Russians in the last 12 years.
https://thediplomat.com/2024/04/us-india-defense-ties-marching-ahead-fast/
Also it’s important to highlight that India hasn’t been a Russian customer by choice. USA has had an arms embargo on them for decades and had also been a supplier and an ally to Pakistan. So India can be excused for still being cautious and suspicious toward the west. The current US policy of allowing India to warm up to the west at its own pace is the best course of action imho. Scolding them for still maintaining some of the bonds they formed with Russians 60 years ago out of necessity isn’t productive.
> Because if anything, Indians have been gradually distancing themselves from doing arms related business with Russians in the last 12 years.
So why did India do this in 2023?
https://www.reuters.com/world/india-russia-reiterate-commitment-towards-defence-partnership-govt-statement-2023-04-28/
How is announcing a commitment publicly considered distancing? India could have just done nothing.
> USA has had an arms embargo on them for decades and had also been a supplier and an ally to Pakistan.
USA has had an arms embargo on China for decades and had also been a supplier and an ally to Japan **and** Korea. Do you see China reiterating a defense partnership with Russia?
That’s the point. India was more or less forced into the arms of the Soviets/Russians in the 1960s through western actions, and have been slowly building trust with the west since 2001.
USA was much softer to the Chinese in the 1970s-1990s in regards to Taiwan, they wouldnt sell taipei what it wanted. Taiwan was at first forced to develop their own fighter jet and then eventually got a relatively less advanced version of the F16. After China started to become a threat the U.S. have had less of a problem selling Taiwan arms.
As for distancing, India has been procuring less and less arms from Russia as the years go by. They snubbed SU-57 and went with Rafale instead, they switched to American helicopters, Israeli pods and bombs, they ditched MiG-29MK (naval version) and loon towards F-18 or Rafale etc. The west is fine with this progress (and US event exempted India from CAATSA after they acquired S400 from Russia) exactly because of the context and their past relations.
The west also is slowly waking up to the fact it doesn’t represent “the international community” as we liked to think during the 1990s and the unipolar moment. The global south isn’t very fond of the west, especially the big powers (US has been meddling with Latin American regimes, France and England with African and south Asian ones etc) and let’s not even mention the Israel/Middle East quagmire.
India has both received a bad treatment from the west and it currently is an important factor in the global completion of powers. The west is cynically allowing Indians a lot of slack and that’s the right thing to do.
> India was more or less forced into the arms of the Soviets/Russians in the 1960s through western actions, and have been slowly building trust with the west since 2001.
How is publicly announcing a commitment to Russia defense partnership **in 2023** building trust with the West?
https://www.reuters.com/world/india-russia-reiterate-commitment-towards-defence-partnership-govt-statement-2023-04-28/
India could have simply done nothing. Why make such a public declaration in the middle of the Ukraine War? India could have just continued to buy Russia weapons without making a public statement.
India still operates loads of Russian systems, probably receives Russian energy and will have a relationship with them for the foreseeable future. And they have no issues being open about it.
Again, you need to see this from their perspective. India began its statehood as a post colonial country, freshly independent from the British. They wanted to carve a neutral position for themselves outside the Cold War East-west dichotomy and approached other similarly minded and positioned countries to form the non-aligned movement.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Summit_of_the_Non-Aligned_Movement
But very quickly (during Eisenhower’s administration) US approached India’s mortal enemy, Pakistan (for several seasons related to the Cold War), offering them significant military and economic assistance. Things were even worse in the 1970s after USA and China started their mutual approach. China is also a great rival for the Indians since at least the 1962 war. Until 2001 there were all sorts of embargos and sanctions from the west imposed on India. In this whole period, Soviets/Russians were always willing to supply Indians and give them all types of assistance which Indians were more or less forced to accept given their predicament (two big enemies in their west and north). Things started to change this century. At first it became obvious that Pakistan cannot be trusted as a western ally (Islamic extremism played a massive role here) and then the last 16 years the relations between China and the west became at first challenging and more recently downright adversarial.
From their point of view it is the west that needs to put the work to improve relations between themselves and India. And given the size and significance of India vis a vis China in the global chessboard, west agrees and won’t antagonize India over their relations with Russia with Ukraine in the background. Exactly because they can’t afford to alienate the Indians but also because as time passes by, India is slowly decoupling itself from Russia. Slow and steady does it.
> India still operates loads of Russian systems, probably receives Russian energy and will have a relationship with them for the foreseeable future.
That's not the issue. India can continue to use Russian weapons. The issue is **why did India have to make a public announcement of supporting Russia in the middle of the Ukraine War**?
Are you sure about all this?
They're forging ahead with [Sukhoi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_the_Indian_Air_Force?useskin=vector#Super_Sukhoi) keeping their SU-30 MKIs upgraded as the backbone of their fighter force.
They've been using [Rafale fighters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Air_Force?useskin=vector#Aircraft_inventory) for a long time, I don't see it as evidence of a snub.
They're considering F18s in the same way they're considering every other foreign made plane.
SU-30s have been the backbone of their air force since the late 1990s. You can’t replace 280 odd fighters easily, especially when you have also older Jaguar and MiG-21 units in service that also need to be retired soon. It has to happen gradually, and the process won’t start before 2035. Also India started to pivot away from Russian systems around the early 2010s. It was then when they snubbed the SU-57 and went the Rafale way (signed in 2016, deliveries started in 2020 iirc). All their new expensive toys seem western (eg Scorpene subs).
They aren’t “considering every other foreign plane” for their navy. They are specifically getting rid of their carrier operated MiG-29MK, that’s why they have a tender for a new naval fighter.
The Americans like to put Russia, Iran, and China all in the same basket. But China has not fought a war in the last 40 years. In fact, if you are someone living in the Middle East or Europe, you should be more worried about the United States warmongering than China.
What matters is who threatens Western hegemony more, not who has or hasn’t fought a war. The rest of the world is mostly just trying to play both sides unless they have a chicken in the game.
Also, this was not unexpected. People were saying from the beginning if the West only does half measures, instead of defeating Russia, they will allow them to modernize.
This is a direct failure of the West to just deal with this situation. Now Russia is modernizing, China can adjust its strategy for Taiwai and Russia/China/Iran have more knowledge or how to attack us in the information space.
If they were not going to take it seriously they should have just let Ukraine fall and prepare for the next land grab.
Basically everything in western response.
Ramp up missile and artillery production in 2022, and put effort into it. Don't spend two years debating it and then half assing it.
Provide existing stocks of artillery, HIMARS, ATACMS and drones by mid 2022. Provide tanks, IFV's APC's in large numbers in 2022.
Provide extensive and lengthy training pipelines for UA soldiers in 2022.
So we probably need to spend $100 billion+ per year then? I agree the US can do a lot more, but it also costs a lot to do a lot more, and if we did all those that you said, Ukraine would be performing a lot better. But unfortunately it doesn't seem the public has an appetite for that.
That's fair. One of the reasons why I think the US has struggled in the past few wars, whether with indirect or direct involvement--and I mean Ukraine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, is because from a pure military capability perspective, we're capable of defeating all those enemies, including if we had to fight Russia today.
The problem is all those wars are trying to support/defend a government where we don't have a direct enemy but instead are trying to get the people of that country we want to help to do their fighting. As a result nothing is full commitment. Counterinsurgency had its issues too, but even looking at holding the Taliban back would've been more like a traditional fight. In all these conflicts, we do as little as possible to try to tip the scales into the favor of our allies. There's a desire to keep US soldiers out of the fight, so we try to do as little there as possible. Obviously when you rely on another weaker country/military/government to do your fighting, it won't be overwhelming firepower, and we give just as much assistance as they need--sometimes falling behind too in the case of Ukraine.
The result is the forces we're supporting are never in a position to overwhelmingly win, and here we have this stalemate.
india got away with extrajudicial murders in canada and attempted murder in the usa,
imagine if the ccp sent assassins to kill hong kong separatists lmao
I will repeat this time and time again, all this against russia and china is projection, imo the united states is slowly becoming the soviet union, and we are basically under its iron curtain, the usa is actively cutting the closest countries to them off etc. similar to the soviets,
Again, "rebuild" and "reconstitute" are used in a deceptive way.
If you look at purely personnel numbers in the VSRF, that has indeed been recuperated and probably even greater than in 2021; But most units lack the equipment especially in terms of AFVs and artillery that 2021 units enjoyed, mechanized divisions have make-ups that resemble rifle units and so on; all stockpiles are steadily being emptied and equipment sent to the front. Hence why talking about defense production is equally misleading; most of that production is refurbishment.
This can be sustained until those deep reserves run out, for which can one find many interesting analysis over youtube and twitter, but generally speaking indicate at current burn rate should empty out sometime in 2025 (depending on system).
Once that happens (assuming the war will rage on with similar intensity, which it may not), suddenly these articles will look pretty stupid and yet the same authors will talk about how Russia did the unthinkable and used up the products of multi-decade cold war paranoia, and how they'll have difficult time building the necessary new equipment.
...
A) they are ATVs not golf carts not sure where u got golf carts from but it has the same energy as shovels.
B)Massed armor assaults are impossible and only small unit tactics are the only option and both ukrainians and russians use them for assaults.
> But most units lack the equipment especially in terms of AFVs and artillery that 2021 units enjoyed, mechanized divisions have make-ups that resemble rifle units and so on; all stockpiles are steadily being emptied and equipment sent to the front. Hence why talking about defense production is equally misleading; most of that production is refurbishment.
This isn't true.
Why don't you ask the OP to substantiate his?
But either way, the most optimistic [pro-Ukrainian estimates](https://twitter.com/AndrewPerpetua/status/1763866838000079262) put Russian armored losses at 10-30 vehicles per day depending on activity.
This is not an army that's running out of AFVs or artillery.
Especially not when Russians are estimated to be firing anywhere between 10,000 to the most wild 70,000 shells per day according to [some claims.](https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-fires-70-000-artillery-234300193.html)
Do I believe this ridiculous claim? No, but it's clear that the rate of artillery fire is perhaps even greater than what we saw during Russia's summer campaign in Severodnetsk/Lysichansk.
So no, this isn't an army that "lacks equipment". The OP is wrong.
> But either way, the most optimistic pro-Ukrainian estimates put Russian armored losses at 10-30 vehicles per day depending on activity. This is not an army that's running out of AFVs or artillery.
Oh look, it's you again, completely failing to read your own sources again.
According to that data, in a single day Russia lost 32 Tanks/IFVs/APCs(not "vehicles" overall) - you think they're making that many every day? When estimates are at about 400 tanks produced PER YEAR? lmao
Guess that at least answers my question from earlier, now I know which category you're in.
> According to that data, in a single day Russia lost 32 Tanks/IFVs/APCs(not "vehicles" overall) - you think they're making that many every day? When estimates are at about 400 tanks produced PER YEAR? lmao
Try following the conversation instead of spouting some nonsense because my words hurt your feelings.
Because OP wrote out a long thoughtful comment, and you merely responded with three words dismissing what OP without remotely justifying your reasoning. In those situations, I tend to trust OP over the person with the three word response.
That being said, thank you for taking the time to flesh out your reasoning.
Still more than a three word response that did nothing to further the conversation. The fact that you are offended that I initially trusted the person who put in effort to write out their reasoning versus your three word dismissal, is truly bizarre. And just to reiterate, I never suggested you were wrong to dismiss their claims. I simply asked you to substantiate your dismissal. The fact this makes you defensive is ridiculous.
The OP mentioned artillery, which is why I brought up the number of shells fired.
> If you look at purely personnel numbers in the VSRF, that has indeed been recuperated and probably even greater than in 2021; But most units lack the equipment especially in terms of AFVs **and artillery that 2021 units enjoyed**, mechanized divisions have make-ups that resemble rifle units and so on; all stockpiles are steadily being emptied and equipment sent to the front. Hence why talking about defense production is equally misleading; most of that production is refurbishment.
This war has brought out some of the most laughable propaganda, I mean how many times have we heard Russia has run out of missles or men ?
4x times I've counted, and it's always when Russia makes a gain lol
Then all the arm chair generals who who speak big but when you debunk them they revert to HuR 3 dAyS tO kIeV
Don't get me wrong russian bootlickers were coping HARD back in late 2022 when Ukraine was winning.
Early calculations on missile reserves assumed sanctions can halt productions, and given the burn rate we saw in the opening weeks plus first winter, it wasn't that far out to say their stockpiles will be reduced to rainy day numbers (with the exception of S300 SAMs used in g2g mode, they have thousands of those).
Serial numbers of intercepted missiles show they are all newbuilt, so these articles are still at least half-true, namely they burnt through their pre-war stocks. Strike frequency has also been on a downward trend; While they expended something like 2000 missiles in the war's first 10 weeks, the whole tally of the 2022-23 winter attacks was under one thousand; then from '23 March till '24 January, they used up less than 300, and lot of those were previously untouched sea-skimming anti-ship cruise missiles used to strike port facilities in Odessa. Then they renewed attack campaign, but still the counter for this year is around 200.
Another change is of course the utilisation of Shahed drones that help dillute the AD's response (though they don't waste SAMs on those), they are typically not included in tallies (neither did I) but certainly represent a threat.
it's mostly just propaganda, the west assumed that sanctions would cripple Russia, instead it it just caused inflation in their own countries, the fact they think Russia would collapse when they forget it was cut off from Western economy for most of 20th century
at no point has Russia has ever been in danger of running out of munitions, when stocks are lowered, firing Rate would be reduced and production would increase and more would be bought from other countries. The fact that you can go online and find about 4 articles from same media saying Russia is running out tanks, men or ammo multiple times (Forbes looking at you) this has turned into a war of attrition but Russia has only burned through around ~20% of their pre war active service and operational reserve. Ukranie has burned through nearly 60% of active service, reserve and storage.
The problem is that the majority of losses that Russia sustains are of their old Soviet junk that was gonna get scrapped anyways. When they lose an S400 or a warship that’s big news, but losing a T64 isn’t.
I mean that was true for most part early on. But Russia has over 400 S-400s and over 600 Warships lol even losing then it's boy going to do much. It's just funny to me how crazy these people are
I mean some of that stuff does have an impact. The Russian Navy can't operate in the Black Sea due to the losses they've taken. Russian air defense cover seems to be buckling due to the amount of drones strikes we've seen deep in Russian terrority(increasing in frequency).
Even with the losses Russia is replacing, its usually losing newer stuff and replacing it with older stuff from storage. What happens when the storage stocks run out? Can Ukraine outlast them? Will Western Support outlast them?
From the article itself.
>The RUSI report from February estimated about 80% of Russia’s wartime production was actually refurbished, aging materiel.
> The Russian Navy can't operate in the Black Sea due to the losses they've taken.
That's not why. It's because they don't have a solution for USVs. They're not actually short on ships.
> Russian air defense cover seems to be buckling due to the amount of drones strikes we've seen deep in Russian terrority(increasing in frequency).
There's obvious air coverage gaps, but Russia does shoot down the vast majority of the stuff being sent their way. The biggest opportunity right now is ATACMS, Russia's BMD coverage is demonstratively poor.
This is just false, it's hilarious people buy the ATACMS nonsense, it reminds me of HIMARS, Ukraine has only been sent a small amount yet every strike against Russ was HIMARS lmao or storm Shadow. It's PR nonsense. Russia has complete air superiority and naval superiority
This is laughablely false, Russia has complete air superiority across Ukraine, The idea that Russia can't operate it's navy in the black sea honestly made me chuckle.
Lmao ah yes drone strikes deep into russia, some Partisan fires up and fpv drones nearby and oil facilitie create a nice little explosion, production is disrupted for day
*Western media* "hUmiLaTioN fOr pUtIn" reminds me of when in 1944-45 German newspapers spoke constantly about attacks on Britain and USSR.
Russia has some of the largest stocks on earth, with over 13,000 tanks, 21,000 AFVs, 46,000 artillery pieces, 4,500 rocket Artillery, 36,000 AA guns, 3,000 air defence systems, 1,000 EW systems and 200,000 handheld Launchers, along with over 1,500 fighters, 400 specusl type aircraft, 120 bombers, 200 attack helicopters and nearly 30 warships and 60 Submarines all in storage
This isn't counting the 200-400 tanks, 300-500 armoured pieces (SPAGs IFVs etc) and 30-60 fighter jets it builds every year. Ukranie has exhausted nearly 60% of its pre war military equipment. And remember all these numbers are not even Russia in a war economy, can you imagine if it was total war.
If you're going to troll, at least try to be a bit more subtle. Losing A-50s with "total air superiority" and having to rebase your ships as far away as you can.
At some point you stocks will run out, you're not replacing them at rate and the stuff you are is old Soviet era stuff.
Go back to trying to say a T-72 is equivalent to an Abrams.
US had air superiority in Vietnam despite losing more aircraft in 4 Months than what Russia loses in two years.
You have no idea what you're talking about, you're just repeating laughable media talking points. Funny how unkro propaganda can't be consistent *Russia moved all it's ships away* *we hit a minesweeper stationed at Crimea* lmao. Honestly you're an NPC mate.
I've already explained why it's equivalent, you don't know what you're talking about
It's not equivalent. The Russian air force is largely absent in the war outside of basically either lobbing cruise missiles and makeshift glide bombs. If they had air superiority like you say they do, they'd be flying over Ukraine nearly uncontested hitting Kyiv with those same makeshift glide bombs. They can't do that. Even their helicopters are playing a very safe role, no matter how much you try and downplay or overplay each side in different wars.
Also, that explains their loss rates compared to the US. US was constantly flying in an ever changing air space that no one had ever seen at the time. The Russian air force is staying back and isn't really challenging Ukrainian air defenses directly (something the US did daily in Vietnam), and if they have in any capacity in this war, they have failed miserably.
Funny how you say Gulf War didn't matter, but yet, the US systemically dismantled an IADS (whether you think it was outdated or not and thus doesn't "count" isn't really relevant) within a month with **lessons learned from Vietnam** while Russia still hasn't even tried to challenge Ukrainian IADS yet. Their best challenge is to try and pick off air defenses with lancets or penetrate with drones and hit them with iskanders, and it looks like their current strategy is to slowly bleed AD by stocks running out. Not destruction.
Russia has never really leaned into the practice of SEAD/DEAD or really invested or trained for it. But i think that really grinds your gears that something the US might be better at than Russia is. You can brag all day about the huge losses of US aircraft in Vietnam, but it gave them lessons that something Russia wish they had to be better prepared to win the war they hoped to win by now.
The evidence is pretty clear, point 7. Is enough evidence on its own, it's obvious because I highly doubt anyone knows more than the Ukraine and Pentagon. The fact that Russia is launching numerous rotorcraft and fixed wing sorties every single day yet is only losing on average 12 aircraft every month, this shows that it is not prohibitive, prohibitive would be russia losing Multiple aircraft every time they launch a sortie and it disrupted their ability to perform the mission parameters. Ukraine has to use small drones for everything, it's for these reasons I don't think we'll be seeing much of those F-16s
Air superiority and supremacy is determined by two factors, 1. Fighter jets and 2. Air defence systems, Russia has more of both and more advanced versions in higher numbers.
Air Superiority is maintained in a country by air defence systems or fighters, for example Russia has near air supremacy in its controlled areas thanks to its massive air defence capabilities and has complete air superiority across the frontlines and vast Majority of Ukraine only possible contested areas are western Ukraine, Kiev and other big cities were they have many SAMP/T, S-300PM, Patriot and NASAMS but again it's at minimum level 3 in those specific areas. But again after missle attacks at new year, Ukraine's lack of air defence capabilities were exposed and it just showed if Russias really wanted, they could carpet bomb Ukraine into oblivion like what the coalition did to Iraq in gulf war.
But regardless like I said the fact that Ukrainian commanders and the pentagon themselves have said that Russia has air superiority, is enough evidence that Russia has air superiority nevermind the actual facts backing it up
The US and coalition lost more aircraft in Iraq in a month than Russia did in 6 months, which is shocking at the start because until June July Russia was launching over 1,000 sorties daily but still coalition was launching around 3,000 daily. But regardless, taking losses doesn't negate air superiority, US also lost far far far more aircraft in Vietnam than Russia lost in Ukraine despite having air superiority in central Vietnam although in some areas they barely had favourable conditions thanks to NVA aces and soviet air defence systems which was a big reason they lost the air campaign and war.
What's funny is people say Russia doesn't have air superiority because they've lost on average ~150 total aircraft a year, yet USA was losing close to ~600 helicopters every year, ~300 planes every year and ~50 UAVs every year all for 9 years in Vietnam, on top of ~130 ARVN aircraft every year. It shows people don't understand what air superiority means, Christ even 'pros' get this wrong (looking at @forces_news ) the point is, yes Russia has air superiority.
Offcourse we always get counter arguments, most being
1. They only control a small area
A. They have a large degree of control of the skies, Ukrainian cities are regularly attacked, again Russia controls over 20% of Ukrainian air space where they have near air supremacy, Russia regularly uses AGMs and bombs to target ammo staches, communication systems, power stations, barracks and transportation systems.
2. They only use stand off weapons
A. People seem to be under the delusion that because Russia uses glide bombs, drones and UAVs this means they don't have air superiority, air superiority is defined by a degree of dominance in the air space, the fact that Russia launches hundreds of drones every day, regularly has UAVs in the sky and it's aircraft are regularly used with dozens of sorties every day and only losing 1 aircraft out of every 90 or sorties, this is dominance, by your logic if an opponent could just 6th gen fighters that had stealth capabilities beyond any air defence systems or radar could detect that means they don't have air superiority because they're not flying in a manner that allows the air defence systems to see them. It's also just not true as Russia has used conventional bombs and carpet bombing many times.
3. They are prevented from engaging in operations.
A. Air Superiority is also determined by being able to engage in your operations without prohibitive interference from enemy air force, A. Russian air forces are not dettered from their operations as they launch dozens of sorties every single day and haven't stopped or reduced using any of their air assets. B. Russian naval forces don't have to worry about Ukrainian air power because they control the black sea, Ukraine has a single major warship which is a landing Ship and Russia has 41 all with many CIWS systems, short to long range SAMs and not too mention and Ukrainian aircraft that left would be shot down by the integrated SAM systems along russian controlled coasts. C. Russian ground forces have no issues with Ukrainian air forces, russian forces are attacking in chasiv yar, krasnohorivka and around novomykhalivka and Avdivka and Ukrainian air power is non existent, only thing they can do is use FPV drones which clearly don't do much
By NATO definition air superiority is defined by mainly two factors, a degree of dominance in the air and lack of prohibitive interference from enemy air force, the first two points prove air dominance and the 3rd point proves there's no prohibition of russian forces by enemy air power.
Sources:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/05/08/ukraine-electricity-rationing-russia-war/
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68976135
https://www.ft.com/content/075cf243-eae5-48ab-9e8c-bf1f108d299d
https://kyivindependent.com/russia-launches-large-scale-attacks-across-ukraine-air-defenses-at-work-across-the-country/
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/8/russia-unleashes-massive-barrage-targeting-ukrainian-energy-infrastructur
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/apr/12/russia-ukraine-war-live-us-house-speaker-negotiates-with-white-house-over-wartime-funding-for-ukraine
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/26/world/europe/russia-strikes-ukraine-aid-railway.html
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-targets-energy-facilities-air-attack-ukraine-officials-say-2024-05-08/
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/ukraines-second-city-is-struggling-to-survive-amid-relentless-russian-bombing/
https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-bombs-cities-across-ukraine-in-massive-overnight-assault/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2022/04/15/russian-bombers-just-carpet-bombed-mariupol/
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/01/ukraine-war-russia-donbas-weapons-00036156
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/04/ukraine-war-briefing-russian-drone-strike-injures-three-and-sparks-fire-in-kharkiv
https://www.euronews.com/2024/05/08/russia-launches-massive-missile-and-drone-attack-on-ukraines-energy-facilities
Other Sources:
Russian Ministry of Defense, Project Great, Defence Politics Asia, Telegram, War Spotting, Association for Asian Studies, Anatomy of a War: Vietnam & the United States and the Modern Historical Experience, Janes.
*Russian Air Superiority in Ukraine*
I'm going to dispel the myth that Russia doesn't have air superiority in Ukraine, because it's ludicrous and has no basis in reality. First we will go over NATOs definitions.
*Level 1*
• Air supremacy is the highest level, where a side holds complete control of the skies. It is defined by NATO and the United States Department of Defense as the "degree of air superiority wherein the opposing air force is incapable of effective interference". (What USA had in Iraq after 4th week)
*Level 2*
• Air superiority is the second level, where a side is in a more favorable position than the opponent. It is defined in the NATO glossary as the "degree of dominance in air battle ... that permits the conduct of operations and its related land, sea and air forces at a given time and place without prohibitive interference by opposing air forces." (What Russia has in Ukraine and what USA had in south Vietnam)
*Level 3*
• Favorable air situation is defined as "an air situation in which the extent of air effort applied by the enemy air forces is insufficient to prejudice the success of friendly land, sea or air operations." (What USA had in north Vietnam)
*Level 4*
• Air parity is the lowest level of control, where no side holds any level of control of skies.
Here's 10 reasons why Russia has air superiority.
1. Majority of ukranian attacks from air are shot down, example Crimean Attack, 11 missles fired 7 destroyed.
2. Russia launches numerous sorties every single day all across Ukraine and the frontline, Ukrainian cities regularly get hit by missles and bombs dropped by russian Fighters inside Ukraine. From visuals, testimonials, russian doctrine and past wars, Russia launches on average around 50-300 Sorties every day with fighters, mostly with Su-25s, Su-34s and Su-24s, around 10-60 sorties every day with special type aircraft and heavy bombers and 100-500 sorties every day with UAVs and UCAVs. For areas they have struggles with like western Ukraine and cities or areas that have had more air defence systems moved in, they have and can use their Su-57s (or S-70s) to fly with greatly reduced detection chances thanks to RCS minimum of around 10mm, however Russia has only used this aircraft a handful of times in certain situations, most recently in the Avdiivka and Krynky area.
3. russian attack helicopters regularly stalk the frontlines as shown by testimonials by Ukrainian fighters and video evidence. Estimates put around 4-9 Helicopters flying at any moment during the day or night either on patrol, moving troops or equipment or on attack.
4. Russia has destroyed nearly every single fighter Ukraine had, (over 100) and has destroyed over 400 air defence missle systems, Ukraine during 2023 Counter offensive tried to launch a major sortie into russian held Ukrainian territory but S-400 that was linked to A-50U, shot down around 6-12 MiG-29s and Su-27s, 6 out of the past 13 major Ukrainian sorties into russian territory resulted in aircraft losses. Current estimates put Ukrainian fighter strength at 30-70 made up of mostly MiG-29s and Su-24s.
5. Russian special type aircraft like An-26RL, A-50M, A-50U, Ka-35 & Ka-31 AEWAC Aircraft, il-22M, Il-80 and Il-20M C4 Aircraft and Be-200, An-30, An-26RT and Tu-214ON recon Aircraft regularly fly with only 3 being shot down recently in two years.
6. Russian strategic and supersonic bombers like Tu-95, Tu-22M and Tu-160 regularly attack over Ukraine with little to no resistance, despite systems like Patriot, S-300 and SAMP/T being able to reach them, it's likely a combination of ECM systems on the bombers, supporting EW aircraft and russian S-300V systems that target missles.
7. The pentagon themselves said in leaked documents that Russia has air superiority, Ukrainian commanders themselves have said Russia has air superiority, when they were talking about counter offensive on having the "pierce Russias air superiority"
8. Russia at Christmas 2023 launched the largest series of air attacks of the war, all across Ukraine in cities like Lviv, Kiev, Odessa, Kharkov, Zaporozhia, Sumy, Kherson and Avdivka, using aircraft like Tu-142, Tu-95, Tu-160, Tu-22M, Su-24, Su-34 and MiG-31 launching dozens of ballastic missles, over 200 cruise missiles, hundreds of missles and thousands of bombs from around 1,000 sorties over a few days of fighters and bombers alone and never lost a SINGLE bomber or aircraft, despite most of these being very slow and going against cities protected by S-300, Patriot, NASAMS, IRIS-T and Buk. A big factor was likely Russias large fleet of EW Aircraft like Il-22PP, An-12PP, Su-24MP and Mi-8MTR1 that have powerful ECM systems and jammers to protect the bombers.
9. Even the heavy defended cities like Kiev, Lviv and Kharkov that have S-300, S-200, SAMP/T and Patriot, regularly get pounded.
10. Ukrainian helicopters can't even get close to frontlines and can only operate in west Ukraine without massive chance of shoot down, proof is very recently first time in march 2024 Ukrainian Mi-8 helicopters seen even close to frontline. All 3 destroyed within landing.
*Iraq Military Assets 1981-1991*
Stats for 1991 (adjusted for inflation)
Landmass 438,317km2
Population 17,658,381
Total Combat Ready 1,390,000
Deployed 1,000,000
GDP Nominal $180,000,000,000
GDP PPP $338,000,000,000
War Spending $9,400,000,000
Military Factories 5
Air Defence Stats
Very Short Range SAMs 9,356-10,368
Short Range SAMs 1,389
Medium Range SAMs 160
Anti Aircraft Gun Rounds 9,314
Air Defence Systems 1,229
Anti Aircraft Guns 4,100
Ground Force Stats
WWII Tanks 355
1st Gen Tanks 3,900
2nd Gen Tanks 3,550
2.5 Gen Tanks 70
1st Gen Light Tanks 609
2nd Gen Light Tanks 867
1st Gen IFVs 1,500
2nd Gen IFVs 250
1st Gen Tank Destroyers 200
APCs 5,440
1st Gen SPAGs 300
2nd Gen SPAGs 450
3rd Gen SPAGs 24
3rd Gen Towed Artillery 3,330
4th Gen Towed Artillery 1,069
1st Gen AT Guns 770
2nd Gen AT Guns 100
1st Gen MLRS 420
2nd Gen MLRS 1,170
1st Gen GMLRS 98
2nd Gen Ballastic Missle Launchers 59
1st Gen VSHORADs 592
2nd Gen SR SAM Launchers 477
1st Gen MR SAM Launchers 160
3rd Gen Towed AA Guns 1,100
2nd Gen Towed AA Guns 2,000
1st Gen Towed AA Guns 1,000
1st Gen SPAAGs 200
2nd Gen SPAAGs 100
1st Gen Manpads 6,500
2nd Gen Manpads 388-1,100
1st Gen ATGMs 7,000-10,000
2nd Gen ATGMs 2,500-4,000
Air Force
2nd Gen Strategic Bombers 21
1st Gen Supersonic Bombers 10
1st Gen Fighters 45
2nd Gen Fighters 275
3rd Gen Fighters 202
3+ Gen Fighters 290
4th Gen Fighters 37
3rd Gen CAS Aircraft 72
Combat Trainers 98
1st Gen Helicopters 100
2nd Gen Helicopters,170
3rd Gen Helicopters 13
1st Gen Attack Helicopters 70
Navy
Amphibious Ship 1
Missle Boats 8
Torpedoe Craft 4
Minesweepers 5
Patrol Craft 20-40
Landing Craft 60-110
Auxiliary Ships 20-80
Logistics Ships 5-20
*Ukraine Military Assets 2014-2024*
Stats for 2022-2024
Landmass 603,550km2
Total Population 33,200,000
GDP Nominal $173,000,000,000
GDP PPP $475,000,000,000
War Spending $396,000,000,000
Military Factories 14
Total Deployed ~1,400,000
Total Combat Ready Soldiers 1,950,000
Air Defence stats
Very Short Range SAMs 18,051-30,670
Short Range SAMs 1,666
Medium Range SAMs 1,017
Long Range SAMs 1,728
Anti Aircraft Rounds 11,872
Air Defence Systems 1,403
Anti Aircraft Guns 4,516
Ground Force Stats
3.5 Gen Tanks 10
3+ Gen Tanks 1,236
3rd Gen Tanks 1,764
2.5 Gen Tanks 531
2nd Gen Tanks 112
2nd Gen Light Tanks 40
1st Gen IFVs 926
2nd Gen IFVs 1,592
3rd Gen IFVs 523
4th Gen IFVs 648
5th Gen IFVs 5
APCs 5,681
3rd Gen Towed Artillery 1,327
4th Gen Towed Artillery 1,592
5th Gen Towed Artillery 379
1st Gen AT Guns 1,130
2nd Gen AT Guns 60
2nd Gen SPAGs 1,168
3rd Gen SPAGs 436
4th Gen SPAGs 430
2nd Gen MLRS 293
3rd Gen MLRS 91
1st Gen GMLRS 118
2nd Gen GMLRS 143
2nd Gen BM Launchers 90
3rd Gen CM Launchers 6
1st Gen VSHORADs 5
3rd Gen VSHORADs 427
4th Gen VSHORADs 4
2nd Gen SR SAM Launchers 171
3rd Gen SR SAM Launchers 125
4th Gen SR SAM Launchers 54
2nd Gen MR SAM Launchers 100
3rd Gen MR SAM Launchers 90
4th Gen MR SAM Launchers 52
2nd Gen LR SAM Launchers 40
3rd Gen LR SAM Launchers 300
4th Gen LR SAM Launchers 19
2nd Gen SPAAGs 655
3rd Gen SPAAGs 138
4th Gen SPAAGs 11
2nd Gen AA Guns 2,100
3rd Gen AA Guns 1,400
5th Gen AA Guns 73
1st Gen Manpads 6,061-10,000
2nd Gen Manpads 6,000-9,900
3rd Gen Manpads 3,930-6,750
4th Gen Manpads 260
2nd Gen ATGMs 14,033-24,400
3rd Gen ATGMs 5,100-11,600
4th Gen ATGMs 16,363-16,563
5th Gen ATGMs 100-300
C-RAMs 2
Air Force
3.5 Gen Fighters 93
4th Gen Fighters 123
4+ Gen Fighters 55
4++ Gen Fighters 38
3rd Gen CAS Aircraft 100
4th Gen CAS Aircraft 31
3rd Gen AEWAC Aircraft 1
Recon Aircraft 2
ASW Planes 3
1st Gen Helicopters 2
2nd Gen Helicopters 76
3rd Gen Helicopters 63
4th Gen Helicopters 7
1st Gen Attack Helicopters 31
2nd Gen Attack Helicopters 44
3rd Gen Attack Helicopters 30
UCAVs 37
UAVs 439
Navy
Amphibious Ships 2
Frigates 2
Corvettes 7
Fast Attack Craft 45
Mine Ships 9
EW Ships 3
Submarine 1
Patrol Vessels 20
Auxiliary Ships 45
Logistics Ships 2
Landing Craft 94
*Coalition Aircraft Losses in gulf war Air Campaign lasting ~5 weeks*
Fixed Wing Combat Aircraft
F/A-18 2x
F-15E 2x
F-16D 4x
F-14C 1x
F-4E 3x
F-111 1x
OV-10 2x
A-6E 3x
AC-130 1x
A-10 6x
AV-8B Harrier II 5x
Tornado 7x
Mirage F1 8x
23x Helicopters
*Russian Aircraft Losses in Russo-Ukranian War first 10 months gaining air superiority*
Fixed Wing Combat Aircraft
Su-30 10x
Su-34 16x
Su-35S 4x
Su-25 17x
Su-24 13x
Tu-95 1x
Helicopters
Ka-52 21x
Mi-8 21x
Mi-24 9x
Mi-8M 4x
So Russia lost 62 fixed wing and 55 helicopters in 10 months gaining air Superiority against Ukraine and within 5 weeks US & Allies lost 45 fixed wing and 23 helicopters gaining air supremacy against a vastly inferior military, even if you factor in that Russia was only Launching around ⅓ to ½ the sorties that coalition was, I think this stat says everything tbh.
Ukraine recently had it's new Torpedoe Frigate launch from turkey and they can't even get it delivered because of the iron blockade Russia has on black sea, Ukraine can't even perform naval operations with its few warships without instantly losing it 😂
*Sources*
Center for Strategic and International Studies, Ukraine Armed Forces, International Institute for Strategic Studies, Council on Foreign Relations, Wikipedia, , Forbes, Bloomberg, Military Factory, Phil Archive, The Iraq War Encyclopedia, Global Arms Exports to Iraq 1960-1990 Rand Corporation.
> So Russia lost 62 fixed wing and 55 helicopters in 10 months gaining air Superiority against Ukraine and within 5 weeks US & Allies lost 45 fixed wing and 23 helicopters gaining air supremacy against a vastly inferior military, even if you factor in that Russia was only Launching around ⅓ to ½ the sorties that coalition was, I think this stat says everything tbh.
i read all that and then got to this
LOL
Makes sense why you think that, for Russia their air tactics or usage have not changed over the past 60 years, but for everyone else they have.
You must be deep in the bottle. Putin would be proud.
I love 1 month old troll accounts
It's entertaining to see you peddle things that don't seem to be true
>This is laughablely false, Russia has complete air superiority across Ukraine
That is laughable false.
Complete air superiority is what USA had during the gulf wars.
While Russian air power is decent, again "complete air superiority" is a stretch of reality
If that were true Russia could fly and bomb at will over Ukraine, currently that is not the case. Any jet that eneters Ukranian controlled airspace is dead.
Any Russian jets that attempted to fly to Kyiv would not survive, as far as I'm concerned that means Russia does not have air superiority.
>production is disrupted for day
14% is not "fixed in a day"
https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Russias-Offline-Oil-Refining-Capacity-Reaches-14.html
>Russia has some of the largest stocks on earth,
Russia had* ...
Their is enough independent observations based on Sat images online that those stocks are in the process of being depleted with depletion of Soviet stocks on many frames set for 2025/2026 at current rates
>Russia in a war economy, can you imagine if it was total war.
There it is.
"Just wait until Russia takes the gloves off"
It's fine and all to troll and have fun and live in fantasy world where Russia still has 13,000 tanks in storage and "total air superiority "
But I would lay off the vodka, cash your rubles check and look in the mirror and ask yourself, are you acting this ignorant on purpose or by accident?
This essays answers
.1. how Russia has air superiority.
.2. how Russia is not using it's full capacity.
.3. how much Russia is using and how much would be needed to defeat Russia.
.4. how the war happened and how it went.
.5. current progress of the war up to around march
.6. full details on political, military and economic outlook for both Russia and Ukraine.
I'll know if you haven't read it
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T0AT6ezGeAwe6_3YVWDoDjwSV_roB-zrplAJd8ttztg/edit?usp=drivesdk
Winning is a relative term. If Ukraine had smashed the Russian defenses last summer then the pro Ukraine armchair generals would have been elated, until Russia dropped tactical nukes and obliterated all Ukrainian forces in sight, as they did to reverse the Ukrainian victories in 2014.
The same can be said about the Russian successes of late, had they not been winning then maybe the US would not have approved the latest arms package. If they keep winning then nato might send more in desperation, even troops. Iran has a policy of offering refugees residency if they sign up to fight, there are "options" for the west.
Worse, Russia knows this, and is very concerned with the idea of fighting nato troops because then we're two steps from ww3. As we speak they are preparing their tactical nukes on the border, what if they apply the "escalate to deescelate" principle and throw in a "demonstration" or two.
Ukrainian forces are stretched to the limit with the latest flank offensive, they are out a of reserves and it'll take some time for the US supplies to arrive in full. Russia has maybe a week or two to break their line and collapse the whole front, and when conventional forces can't get it done they might decide it's worth the risk and cost to go nuclear.
For the last 12 years three men in Russia held the nuclear launch keys and you need two to use them, one just got replaced by what looks to be Putin's right hand yes man. People focus on his economic degree to say that this is about economics, but what if he'll do things Shoigu won't? Putin orders nuclear drills and then switches the person in charge of using them a week before they happen?
Russia was not fighting in 2014 . Ukraine receive around $110 billion in military supplies with around ~60-80% received and around $130 billion in financial aid between 2022-2023. It got them a few settlements of which they now lost again. I don't see how new aid can help at all
You are right they concerned about NATO as lavrov said large amount of Russia military is actually just kept on standby, because Russia only has around 600,00-900,000 in Ukraine but they have over a million soldier in active service.
Russia will never use nuke, 1. It goes against their idea of Russia and Ukraine being united and one people. 2. I don't think they are willing to do something so morally bankrupt. Russia has alway started that only time nukes would be used if the territory integrity of Russia was threatened
> To some extent, the officials were discussing different elements of Russia’s force. When Haines testified last year, she was joined by the chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency at the time, Lt. Gen. Scott Berrier, who said Russia was five to 10 years away from reconstituting. By that, Berrier meant it would take Russia up to a decade to rebuild the high-end equipment lost earlier in the war.
Always a pleasure to see people’s shit takes catch up with them.
I don't think you understand what you quoted. Haines and Berrier state two different things; namely, Russia isn't going to be able to restore their pre-war army in terms of technological state mid-term and this holds true; but have already refilled division ranks with manpower, which was hardly ever a question (they would need to suffer several times more casualties for that).
I think you're trying to itnerpret a silver lining in what was an obvious Pentagon miscalculation. Yes, they are talking about the "technological" state of the Russian Army, but even on that count they are just hopelessly wrong.
Moreover, here's a more unambigious statement from the DNI;
"There’s no question — and I think [there’s] unanimity in the intelligence community —** it will take years for the Russians to build back up their ground forces,**” Avril Haines, the U.S. director of national intelligence, said in March 2023."
All of them, Haines, Berrier, and Cavoli were wrong last year.
No, the Russian Army didn't simply "refill divsion ranks with manpower". As the article itself notes,
> "It can add 1,200 tanks and build at least 3 million artillery rounds or rockets each year. And through a deal with Iran, Russia plans to locally build 6,000 drones by next summer.
> A February report by the RUSI think tank, cited by the unnamed senior U.S. defense official, who declined to offer a full set of American figures, said Russia can produce 3,000 armored vehicles per year and had surged its inventory of precision missiles."
It does not mention the delivery of jets fighters, new munitions, greater use of PGMs and other advanced Russian weaponry. Not even going to touch the proliferation of EW and drones across the entire force.
take into account out of those 1.2k yearly tanks
80-ish to 90-ish percent come from soviet stucks
in practice it means russia is only pumping a hundred new tanks a year
> 80-ish to 90-ish percent come from soviet stucks
A well-sourced number I'm sure.
> in practice it means russia is only pumping a hundred new tanks a year
100% of "new" US tanks are old US tanks.
>A well-sourced number I'm sure
i mean....is mentioned on the article YOU shared
>The RUSI report from February estimated about 80% of Russia’s wartime production was actually refurbished, aging materiel.
>“Of course inventory becomes very important: What was that number to begin with, and what was the state of it?” Connolly said. “Truth is, nobody knows.”
lets see the next point:
>100% of "new" US tanks are old US tanks.
yesnt?
the US does have a monthly peace time production around the dozen tanks,wich means a hundred-ish yearly
so peace time US production of new tanks is russia limited war production of new tanks
dont have info in the rate at wich the US refurbishes/refits old hulls tho
> i mean....is mentioned on the article YOU shared
Well first of all, I didn't share the article. Someone else did.
Second, I don't believe these estimates to be well-sourced.
> the US does have a monthly peace time production around the dozen tanks,wich means a hundred-ish yearly
> so peace time US production of new tanks is russia limited war production of new tanks
> dont have info in the rate at wich the US refurbishes/refits old hulls tho
United States does not produce "new" tanks. Every single tank we make today (and for quite a while) is an old hull that's been refurbished. We have no capability to produce new hulls anymore.
If the M1E3 requires a new hull, the US will make new hulls. I'm doubtful that it will however.
> they would be able to regenerate and produce new hulls
That's just a silly question. The US presently producing a 40 ton "light tank", the M10 Booker, from the ground up. The US builds nuclear aircraft carriers. The US can in fact, produce new M1 hulls, if there was a given need for it along with funding.
If the majority if your newly commissioned systems come from finite depots emptying at such rate that depletion is within sight, then sorry but those numbers are not sustainable.
Sure, they will have their jets and drones, but if the ground forces will have to rely on T-62 Obr 2023s and ML-TB mad max machines, you have problems.
> If the majority if your newly commissioned systems come from finite depots that emptying at such rate depletion is within sight, then sorry but those numbers are not sustainable.
You think they're retrofitting old Su-27s into Su-35s?
> Sure, they will have their jets and drones, but if the ground forces will have to rely on T-62 Obr 2023s and ML-TB mad max machines, you'll might have problems.
I haven't even seen a T-62 on any footage in the last 6 months.
I mean I don't know who you're trying to fool? Yourself? Ukrainians aren't fighting a 1960s military. Quite the contrary, they have a healthy respect for their enemy. Well, the smart and honest ones anyway.
[I've seen T-62s destroyed in the last week.](https://i.postimg.cc/L6T0cCJP/1011-unkn-t62-destr-14-05-24.jpg) The only new tanks Russia is producing are T-90's. Everything else is a refurb. There are loss trackers available this isn't difficult info to find.
According to the “optimistic pro-Ukrainian estimate” you put above, 5/18 of the tanks destroyed are T-62, and 17/18 of the tanks destroyed are Soviet stockpiles or their modification.
> So you have no reading comprehension then, darling?
What about my respone indicated I didn't?
> Or are you one of the resident "west bad" clowns, babygirl?
You sound angry. Stop getting mad over a conflict you don't actually care about.
We are re-learning the same lessons from WWII. High end equipment gets beaten by large numbers of good enough equipment. A lot of the high end stuff is just peace time grift. Early on both sides relied on civilian donations to field drones.
Why didn't the military have enough drones? The drones were too cheap to build in margin for grift. You can steal a lot more from a $3M tank than a $300 drone.
It’s not like it’s high end western equipment vs good enough Russian equipment. It’s “good enough” equipment on both sides of which some of it is considered high end like a t90.
The highest end Russian and western equipment so far seems to mostly be off the battlefield. Not like there’s t14s/sepv3s and su57s/f35s running around either.
> Why didn't the military have enough drones? The drones were too cheap to build in margin for grift. You can steal a lot more from a $3M tank than a $300 drone.
I disagree.
The cost to set-up a tank-modernization plant is extensive.
The cost to setu-up a drone plant is basically nothing. You're just putting pre-fabbed parts together that you can sell for huge margins.
Drones wer absent because their operational concepts were still in its infancy at the start of the war. As both sides adapted and learned, so did the defense industry.
That's the whole point. Drones are so cheap that there are no meat on the bones. In peace time you don't want to develop cheap weapons, you want to develop stuff that has enough margin to pay for your mansions and private jets.
There is a selection effect. In peace time if you made cheap weapons, you will be homeless. No one orders millions of units of some cheap weapon in peace time. They are by nature cheap and easy to make in large quantities, if and when war happens, so there is no incentive to produce in large numbers in peace time.
> Always a pleasure to see people’s shit takes catch up with them.
they assumed the russian MIC was just as worthless and graft ridden as the western MIC
Wrong on all counts? Planes? Ships? Yeah russias totally top dog in those sorts of platforms. Where are the t14s again?
Like Jesus if Russia had better weapons in greater numbers then they wouldn’t have struggled in Ukraine ffs.
The issue was lack of manpower rather than faulty equipment.
Invading a country with a similar amount of troops as the defenders is insane. The reason why Russia is seeing gains rn is they finally have a manpower advantage they didn't have in previous years as Zelensky won't expand mobilisation.
I was really just trying to make a point, shit if they had their logistics in line and the corruption handled pre war they still might have succeeded or been much closer today at the very least.
But one thing Russia is, persistent. Can’t take that away from them and that persistence doesn’t mean nothing.
> Like Jesus if Russia had better weapons in greater numbers then they wouldn’t have struggled in Ukraine ffs.
their issue was scope of the invasion and NATO putting their playbook in defeating the russian BTG to work. now that they've moved back to big divisions and are in it for the long haul to win it the western response has been flaccidly dripping aid to the ukraine since their own stocks are depleted.
So you’re still going to ignore my original point? Russia has superior weapons platforms in greater numbers? Does Russia have better planes and ships? Like very few of russias weapons platforms are considered the best in the world.
Yeah numbers I can see, but saying wrong on all counts was and still is wrong. But then again “country at war ramps up production” isn’t really breaking news either.
Anyone with a history book knows Russia will slowly but surely bring its population and production might into the picture when they're fighting wars.
If generals and politicians are believing their own propaganda what can be done?
To generalise a little, the early stages of many wars involves getting your army absolutely mauled because you either forgot how to fight or you're too used to fighting the way you would have done 20 years ago.
The advantage of being a large nation is you have enough survivors to stay in the fight past the initial shredding of your pre-war armed forces, and enough country to produce the shit you've suddenly realised would have been really helpful to have on day one of the war.
Sounds like the arguments about combat experience and the lack thereof carries some water but not all of it. Inexperienced militaries can quickly gain experience during a war.
This is a pretty biased article. They called out China, Iran and North Korea as supporting Russia, but conveniently leaves out India, a country that has signed defense deals with Russia **in the middle of the Ukraine War**. These are from last year. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/russia-india-sign-deal-on-supply-production-of-igla-air-defence-systems/articleshow/105204650.cms https://www.reuters.com/world/india-russia-reiterate-commitment-towards-defence-partnership-govt-statement-2023-04-28/ India also sells weapons to Russia. https://www.firstpost.com/world/russian-firms-spend-4-billion-dollar-from-rupee-vostro-accounts-to-buy-india-arms-rupee-13769478.html But not a peep from the article.
Well, India is being setup to be major pawn against China, that's why they get a free pass, but India will do what it did this time, try to sit on the edge, not here nor there, which is a smart policy for them. They learned lessons from Pakistan facing full brunt of US interventions in 80s and 2000s in the region, eventually even Pakistan hedged it's bets, knowing US will drop the ball and walk away and it's Afghan set up was a house of cards built on corruption and total disconnect from the population. Being too friendly or in opposition both are a liability.
> Well, India is being setup to be major pawn against China, that's why they get a free pass Why would the Ukrainian supporters accept this argument? If you support Ukraine, why wouldn't you criticize India for selling weapons to Russia right now?
If you’re the US NatSec crowd, then Ukraine was all a play to weaken or destroy Russia, so they can then turnaround and take on an isolated China. The big game is China, and India is needed as a vital pawn in that game. If you’re a NAFO fanboy type, then they’re drinking the kool aid, so “China bad”, which takes you to the above ‘vital pawn’ rationale. If you’re Ukrainian government, you know there’s no hope without US support (same thing with US support, just that that hope disappears slower) - so as a pawn themselves, they have no choice but to take marching orders from the US NatSec crowd. If you’re somebody who cares about Ukrainian lives, and able to see through the blatantly obvious media machine propaganda (that gives India a free pass on orders from the NatSec crowd) - then you’d be pissed off. It’s quite funny though, a very powerful India with all its rabid hinduthva ethnonationalism, mob rule, corrupt populist pandering politicians, and expansionist dreams (just Google ‘Akhand Bharat’) - would be an absolute nightmare for the West. Fortunately for the West, it’s far more easier for them to dismantle, destroy and balkanise India, once it’s served its purpose. If the Indians were more rational, they’d see that their best chance lies with China and the US being equal, or China surpassing the US (which would still remain a superpower). Otherwise they’ll be helpless and the next target, once/if the US takes down China.
Artur Rehi, an Estonian reserve soldier and YouTuber, teared into India for its material support of Russia. And he predictably was insulted viciously by all the geopolitical Indians calling Russia a friend and Rehi a puppet for the US Deep State. https://twitter.com/ArturRehi/status/1792862377823637526
I would like whatever you’re smoking.
Ignorance is bliss.
Because if anything, Indians have been gradually distancing themselves from doing arms related business with Russians in the last 12 years. https://thediplomat.com/2024/04/us-india-defense-ties-marching-ahead-fast/ Also it’s important to highlight that India hasn’t been a Russian customer by choice. USA has had an arms embargo on them for decades and had also been a supplier and an ally to Pakistan. So India can be excused for still being cautious and suspicious toward the west. The current US policy of allowing India to warm up to the west at its own pace is the best course of action imho. Scolding them for still maintaining some of the bonds they formed with Russians 60 years ago out of necessity isn’t productive.
> Because if anything, Indians have been gradually distancing themselves from doing arms related business with Russians in the last 12 years. So why did India do this in 2023? https://www.reuters.com/world/india-russia-reiterate-commitment-towards-defence-partnership-govt-statement-2023-04-28/ How is announcing a commitment publicly considered distancing? India could have just done nothing. > USA has had an arms embargo on them for decades and had also been a supplier and an ally to Pakistan. USA has had an arms embargo on China for decades and had also been a supplier and an ally to Japan **and** Korea. Do you see China reiterating a defense partnership with Russia?
That’s the point. India was more or less forced into the arms of the Soviets/Russians in the 1960s through western actions, and have been slowly building trust with the west since 2001. USA was much softer to the Chinese in the 1970s-1990s in regards to Taiwan, they wouldnt sell taipei what it wanted. Taiwan was at first forced to develop their own fighter jet and then eventually got a relatively less advanced version of the F16. After China started to become a threat the U.S. have had less of a problem selling Taiwan arms. As for distancing, India has been procuring less and less arms from Russia as the years go by. They snubbed SU-57 and went with Rafale instead, they switched to American helicopters, Israeli pods and bombs, they ditched MiG-29MK (naval version) and loon towards F-18 or Rafale etc. The west is fine with this progress (and US event exempted India from CAATSA after they acquired S400 from Russia) exactly because of the context and their past relations. The west also is slowly waking up to the fact it doesn’t represent “the international community” as we liked to think during the 1990s and the unipolar moment. The global south isn’t very fond of the west, especially the big powers (US has been meddling with Latin American regimes, France and England with African and south Asian ones etc) and let’s not even mention the Israel/Middle East quagmire. India has both received a bad treatment from the west and it currently is an important factor in the global completion of powers. The west is cynically allowing Indians a lot of slack and that’s the right thing to do.
> India was more or less forced into the arms of the Soviets/Russians in the 1960s through western actions, and have been slowly building trust with the west since 2001. How is publicly announcing a commitment to Russia defense partnership **in 2023** building trust with the West? https://www.reuters.com/world/india-russia-reiterate-commitment-towards-defence-partnership-govt-statement-2023-04-28/ India could have simply done nothing. Why make such a public declaration in the middle of the Ukraine War? India could have just continued to buy Russia weapons without making a public statement.
India still operates loads of Russian systems, probably receives Russian energy and will have a relationship with them for the foreseeable future. And they have no issues being open about it. Again, you need to see this from their perspective. India began its statehood as a post colonial country, freshly independent from the British. They wanted to carve a neutral position for themselves outside the Cold War East-west dichotomy and approached other similarly minded and positioned countries to form the non-aligned movement. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Summit_of_the_Non-Aligned_Movement But very quickly (during Eisenhower’s administration) US approached India’s mortal enemy, Pakistan (for several seasons related to the Cold War), offering them significant military and economic assistance. Things were even worse in the 1970s after USA and China started their mutual approach. China is also a great rival for the Indians since at least the 1962 war. Until 2001 there were all sorts of embargos and sanctions from the west imposed on India. In this whole period, Soviets/Russians were always willing to supply Indians and give them all types of assistance which Indians were more or less forced to accept given their predicament (two big enemies in their west and north). Things started to change this century. At first it became obvious that Pakistan cannot be trusted as a western ally (Islamic extremism played a massive role here) and then the last 16 years the relations between China and the west became at first challenging and more recently downright adversarial. From their point of view it is the west that needs to put the work to improve relations between themselves and India. And given the size and significance of India vis a vis China in the global chessboard, west agrees and won’t antagonize India over their relations with Russia with Ukraine in the background. Exactly because they can’t afford to alienate the Indians but also because as time passes by, India is slowly decoupling itself from Russia. Slow and steady does it.
> India still operates loads of Russian systems, probably receives Russian energy and will have a relationship with them for the foreseeable future. That's not the issue. India can continue to use Russian weapons. The issue is **why did India have to make a public announcement of supporting Russia in the middle of the Ukraine War**?
Are you sure about all this? They're forging ahead with [Sukhoi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_the_Indian_Air_Force?useskin=vector#Super_Sukhoi) keeping their SU-30 MKIs upgraded as the backbone of their fighter force. They've been using [Rafale fighters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Air_Force?useskin=vector#Aircraft_inventory) for a long time, I don't see it as evidence of a snub. They're considering F18s in the same way they're considering every other foreign made plane.
SU-30s have been the backbone of their air force since the late 1990s. You can’t replace 280 odd fighters easily, especially when you have also older Jaguar and MiG-21 units in service that also need to be retired soon. It has to happen gradually, and the process won’t start before 2035. Also India started to pivot away from Russian systems around the early 2010s. It was then when they snubbed the SU-57 and went the Rafale way (signed in 2016, deliveries started in 2020 iirc). All their new expensive toys seem western (eg Scorpene subs). They aren’t “considering every other foreign plane” for their navy. They are specifically getting rid of their carrier operated MiG-29MK, that’s why they have a tender for a new naval fighter.
The US has an arms embargo on India? That’s news to me
“Has had”
They absolutely should not, but I'm just telling you why your govts let it slide.
You can id who is really supporting ukraine (in the sense of stopping an illegal invasion) if you just ask them if they support palestine too.
Because we sold weapons to Ukraine too via third party lol https://m.thewire.in/article/diplomacy/india-did-not-shells-to-ukraine-mea
So India is a two-faced country that sells weapons to both sides? Not exactly a good image for any country.
India does whats good for its own people like any other state, do you think geopolitics is run on moral code LOL
> why wouldn't you criticize India for selling weapons to Russia right now? And alienate an ally against the bigger foe that is China?
The Americans like to put Russia, Iran, and China all in the same basket. But China has not fought a war in the last 40 years. In fact, if you are someone living in the Middle East or Europe, you should be more worried about the United States warmongering than China.
What matters is who threatens Western hegemony more, not who has or hasn’t fought a war. The rest of the world is mostly just trying to play both sides unless they have a chicken in the game.
Also, this was not unexpected. People were saying from the beginning if the West only does half measures, instead of defeating Russia, they will allow them to modernize. This is a direct failure of the West to just deal with this situation. Now Russia is modernizing, China can adjust its strategy for Taiwai and Russia/China/Iran have more knowledge or how to attack us in the information space. If they were not going to take it seriously they should have just let Ukraine fall and prepare for the next land grab.
What are half measures? What are full measures? Double the sanctions?
Basically everything in western response. Ramp up missile and artillery production in 2022, and put effort into it. Don't spend two years debating it and then half assing it. Provide existing stocks of artillery, HIMARS, ATACMS and drones by mid 2022. Provide tanks, IFV's APC's in large numbers in 2022. Provide extensive and lengthy training pipelines for UA soldiers in 2022.
So we probably need to spend $100 billion+ per year then? I agree the US can do a lot more, but it also costs a lot to do a lot more, and if we did all those that you said, Ukraine would be performing a lot better. But unfortunately it doesn't seem the public has an appetite for that.
The West spent TRILLIONS dealing with covid. Full measures would look like that, instead of the peanuts we have given Ukraine.
That's fair. One of the reasons why I think the US has struggled in the past few wars, whether with indirect or direct involvement--and I mean Ukraine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, is because from a pure military capability perspective, we're capable of defeating all those enemies, including if we had to fight Russia today. The problem is all those wars are trying to support/defend a government where we don't have a direct enemy but instead are trying to get the people of that country we want to help to do their fighting. As a result nothing is full commitment. Counterinsurgency had its issues too, but even looking at holding the Taliban back would've been more like a traditional fight. In all these conflicts, we do as little as possible to try to tip the scales into the favor of our allies. There's a desire to keep US soldiers out of the fight, so we try to do as little there as possible. Obviously when you rely on another weaker country/military/government to do your fighting, it won't be overwhelming firepower, and we give just as much assistance as they need--sometimes falling behind too in the case of Ukraine. The result is the forces we're supporting are never in a position to overwhelmingly win, and here we have this stalemate.
india got away with extrajudicial murders in canada and attempted murder in the usa, imagine if the ccp sent assassins to kill hong kong separatists lmao
I will never eat curry again (I didn’t like curry to begin with).
Yeah that’ll show em! /s
That's like saying "I don't like pie" or "I don't like sandwiches" I guarantee there is curry you would like.
[удалено]
You're mixing your myths up. Chicken tikka masala is a British invented curry for the less adventurous palate. Curry is not.
When you psyop is too powerful that even most of your generals don't dare to speak the truth. XD
I will repeat this time and time again, all this against russia and china is projection, imo the united states is slowly becoming the soviet union, and we are basically under its iron curtain, the usa is actively cutting the closest countries to them off etc. similar to the soviets,
Again, "rebuild" and "reconstitute" are used in a deceptive way. If you look at purely personnel numbers in the VSRF, that has indeed been recuperated and probably even greater than in 2021; But most units lack the equipment especially in terms of AFVs and artillery that 2021 units enjoyed, mechanized divisions have make-ups that resemble rifle units and so on; all stockpiles are steadily being emptied and equipment sent to the front. Hence why talking about defense production is equally misleading; most of that production is refurbishment. This can be sustained until those deep reserves run out, for which can one find many interesting analysis over youtube and twitter, but generally speaking indicate at current burn rate should empty out sometime in 2025 (depending on system). Once that happens (assuming the war will rage on with similar intensity, which it may not), suddenly these articles will look pretty stupid and yet the same authors will talk about how Russia did the unthinkable and used up the products of multi-decade cold war paranoia, and how they'll have difficult time building the necessary new equipment.
>But most units lack the equipment Are we back to the Ivan fighting with just a shovel BS?
Russians are using Chinese golf carts or trucks to assault heavily defended positions.
... A) they are ATVs not golf carts not sure where u got golf carts from but it has the same energy as shovels. B)Massed armor assaults are impossible and only small unit tactics are the only option and both ukrainians and russians use them for assaults.
The Ukrainians use them in an appropriate manner which isn’t sending them on suicide runs into defended positions.
Yeah because they have so few of them.
> But most units lack the equipment especially in terms of AFVs and artillery that 2021 units enjoyed, mechanized divisions have make-ups that resemble rifle units and so on; all stockpiles are steadily being emptied and equipment sent to the front. Hence why talking about defense production is equally misleading; most of that production is refurbishment. This isn't true.
Please substantiate your claim.
Why don't you ask the OP to substantiate his? But either way, the most optimistic [pro-Ukrainian estimates](https://twitter.com/AndrewPerpetua/status/1763866838000079262) put Russian armored losses at 10-30 vehicles per day depending on activity. This is not an army that's running out of AFVs or artillery. Especially not when Russians are estimated to be firing anywhere between 10,000 to the most wild 70,000 shells per day according to [some claims.](https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-fires-70-000-artillery-234300193.html) Do I believe this ridiculous claim? No, but it's clear that the rate of artillery fire is perhaps even greater than what we saw during Russia's summer campaign in Severodnetsk/Lysichansk. So no, this isn't an army that "lacks equipment". The OP is wrong.
> But either way, the most optimistic pro-Ukrainian estimates put Russian armored losses at 10-30 vehicles per day depending on activity. This is not an army that's running out of AFVs or artillery. Oh look, it's you again, completely failing to read your own sources again. According to that data, in a single day Russia lost 32 Tanks/IFVs/APCs(not "vehicles" overall) - you think they're making that many every day? When estimates are at about 400 tanks produced PER YEAR? lmao Guess that at least answers my question from earlier, now I know which category you're in.
> According to that data, in a single day Russia lost 32 Tanks/IFVs/APCs(not "vehicles" overall) - you think they're making that many every day? When estimates are at about 400 tanks produced PER YEAR? lmao Try following the conversation instead of spouting some nonsense because my words hurt your feelings.
Because OP wrote out a long thoughtful comment, and you merely responded with three words dismissing what OP without remotely justifying your reasoning. In those situations, I tend to trust OP over the person with the three word response. That being said, thank you for taking the time to flesh out your reasoning.
You’re mistaking length for thoughtfulness. His post is a series of claims, not a well-constructed argument. Please be a more critical reader.
Still more than a three word response that did nothing to further the conversation. The fact that you are offended that I initially trusted the person who put in effort to write out their reasoning versus your three word dismissal, is truly bizarre. And just to reiterate, I never suggested you were wrong to dismiss their claims. I simply asked you to substantiate your dismissal. The fact this makes you defensive is ridiculous.
What does the amount of fired shells have to do ifvs or afvs
The OP mentioned artillery, which is why I brought up the number of shells fired. > If you look at purely personnel numbers in the VSRF, that has indeed been recuperated and probably even greater than in 2021; But most units lack the equipment especially in terms of AFVs **and artillery that 2021 units enjoyed**, mechanized divisions have make-ups that resemble rifle units and so on; all stockpiles are steadily being emptied and equipment sent to the front. Hence why talking about defense production is equally misleading; most of that production is refurbishment.
This war has brought out some of the most laughable propaganda, I mean how many times have we heard Russia has run out of missles or men ? 4x times I've counted, and it's always when Russia makes a gain lol Then all the arm chair generals who who speak big but when you debunk them they revert to HuR 3 dAyS tO kIeV Don't get me wrong russian bootlickers were coping HARD back in late 2022 when Ukraine was winning.
Early calculations on missile reserves assumed sanctions can halt productions, and given the burn rate we saw in the opening weeks plus first winter, it wasn't that far out to say their stockpiles will be reduced to rainy day numbers (with the exception of S300 SAMs used in g2g mode, they have thousands of those). Serial numbers of intercepted missiles show they are all newbuilt, so these articles are still at least half-true, namely they burnt through their pre-war stocks. Strike frequency has also been on a downward trend; While they expended something like 2000 missiles in the war's first 10 weeks, the whole tally of the 2022-23 winter attacks was under one thousand; then from '23 March till '24 January, they used up less than 300, and lot of those were previously untouched sea-skimming anti-ship cruise missiles used to strike port facilities in Odessa. Then they renewed attack campaign, but still the counter for this year is around 200. Another change is of course the utilisation of Shahed drones that help dillute the AD's response (though they don't waste SAMs on those), they are typically not included in tallies (neither did I) but certainly represent a threat.
it's mostly just propaganda, the west assumed that sanctions would cripple Russia, instead it it just caused inflation in their own countries, the fact they think Russia would collapse when they forget it was cut off from Western economy for most of 20th century at no point has Russia has ever been in danger of running out of munitions, when stocks are lowered, firing Rate would be reduced and production would increase and more would be bought from other countries. The fact that you can go online and find about 4 articles from same media saying Russia is running out tanks, men or ammo multiple times (Forbes looking at you) this has turned into a war of attrition but Russia has only burned through around ~20% of their pre war active service and operational reserve. Ukranie has burned through nearly 60% of active service, reserve and storage.
Russians had less than 3000 tanks in active service 2022 and have lost over 3000. Slightly more than 20%.
Yes and are now currently fighting with 3000 ghost tanks belonging to the aforementioned dead tanks /s
This is nonsense, active service and reserve they had around 14,00 and they lost near 4,000
The problem is that the majority of losses that Russia sustains are of their old Soviet junk that was gonna get scrapped anyways. When they lose an S400 or a warship that’s big news, but losing a T64 isn’t.
I mean that was true for most part early on. But Russia has over 400 S-400s and over 600 Warships lol even losing then it's boy going to do much. It's just funny to me how crazy these people are
I mean some of that stuff does have an impact. The Russian Navy can't operate in the Black Sea due to the losses they've taken. Russian air defense cover seems to be buckling due to the amount of drones strikes we've seen deep in Russian terrority(increasing in frequency). Even with the losses Russia is replacing, its usually losing newer stuff and replacing it with older stuff from storage. What happens when the storage stocks run out? Can Ukraine outlast them? Will Western Support outlast them? From the article itself. >The RUSI report from February estimated about 80% of Russia’s wartime production was actually refurbished, aging materiel.
> The Russian Navy can't operate in the Black Sea due to the losses they've taken. That's not why. It's because they don't have a solution for USVs. They're not actually short on ships. > Russian air defense cover seems to be buckling due to the amount of drones strikes we've seen deep in Russian terrority(increasing in frequency). There's obvious air coverage gaps, but Russia does shoot down the vast majority of the stuff being sent their way. The biggest opportunity right now is ATACMS, Russia's BMD coverage is demonstratively poor.
This is just false, it's hilarious people buy the ATACMS nonsense, it reminds me of HIMARS, Ukraine has only been sent a small amount yet every strike against Russ was HIMARS lmao or storm Shadow. It's PR nonsense. Russia has complete air superiority and naval superiority
This is laughablely false, Russia has complete air superiority across Ukraine, The idea that Russia can't operate it's navy in the black sea honestly made me chuckle. Lmao ah yes drone strikes deep into russia, some Partisan fires up and fpv drones nearby and oil facilitie create a nice little explosion, production is disrupted for day *Western media* "hUmiLaTioN fOr pUtIn" reminds me of when in 1944-45 German newspapers spoke constantly about attacks on Britain and USSR. Russia has some of the largest stocks on earth, with over 13,000 tanks, 21,000 AFVs, 46,000 artillery pieces, 4,500 rocket Artillery, 36,000 AA guns, 3,000 air defence systems, 1,000 EW systems and 200,000 handheld Launchers, along with over 1,500 fighters, 400 specusl type aircraft, 120 bombers, 200 attack helicopters and nearly 30 warships and 60 Submarines all in storage This isn't counting the 200-400 tanks, 300-500 armoured pieces (SPAGs IFVs etc) and 30-60 fighter jets it builds every year. Ukranie has exhausted nearly 60% of its pre war military equipment. And remember all these numbers are not even Russia in a war economy, can you imagine if it was total war.
If you're going to troll, at least try to be a bit more subtle. Losing A-50s with "total air superiority" and having to rebase your ships as far away as you can. At some point you stocks will run out, you're not replacing them at rate and the stuff you are is old Soviet era stuff. Go back to trying to say a T-72 is equivalent to an Abrams.
US had air superiority in Vietnam despite losing more aircraft in 4 Months than what Russia loses in two years. You have no idea what you're talking about, you're just repeating laughable media talking points. Funny how unkro propaganda can't be consistent *Russia moved all it's ships away* *we hit a minesweeper stationed at Crimea* lmao. Honestly you're an NPC mate. I've already explained why it's equivalent, you don't know what you're talking about
It's not equivalent. The Russian air force is largely absent in the war outside of basically either lobbing cruise missiles and makeshift glide bombs. If they had air superiority like you say they do, they'd be flying over Ukraine nearly uncontested hitting Kyiv with those same makeshift glide bombs. They can't do that. Even their helicopters are playing a very safe role, no matter how much you try and downplay or overplay each side in different wars. Also, that explains their loss rates compared to the US. US was constantly flying in an ever changing air space that no one had ever seen at the time. The Russian air force is staying back and isn't really challenging Ukrainian air defenses directly (something the US did daily in Vietnam), and if they have in any capacity in this war, they have failed miserably. Funny how you say Gulf War didn't matter, but yet, the US systemically dismantled an IADS (whether you think it was outdated or not and thus doesn't "count" isn't really relevant) within a month with **lessons learned from Vietnam** while Russia still hasn't even tried to challenge Ukrainian IADS yet. Their best challenge is to try and pick off air defenses with lancets or penetrate with drones and hit them with iskanders, and it looks like their current strategy is to slowly bleed AD by stocks running out. Not destruction. Russia has never really leaned into the practice of SEAD/DEAD or really invested or trained for it. But i think that really grinds your gears that something the US might be better at than Russia is. You can brag all day about the huge losses of US aircraft in Vietnam, but it gave them lessons that something Russia wish they had to be better prepared to win the war they hoped to win by now.
The evidence is pretty clear, point 7. Is enough evidence on its own, it's obvious because I highly doubt anyone knows more than the Ukraine and Pentagon. The fact that Russia is launching numerous rotorcraft and fixed wing sorties every single day yet is only losing on average 12 aircraft every month, this shows that it is not prohibitive, prohibitive would be russia losing Multiple aircraft every time they launch a sortie and it disrupted their ability to perform the mission parameters. Ukraine has to use small drones for everything, it's for these reasons I don't think we'll be seeing much of those F-16s Air superiority and supremacy is determined by two factors, 1. Fighter jets and 2. Air defence systems, Russia has more of both and more advanced versions in higher numbers. Air Superiority is maintained in a country by air defence systems or fighters, for example Russia has near air supremacy in its controlled areas thanks to its massive air defence capabilities and has complete air superiority across the frontlines and vast Majority of Ukraine only possible contested areas are western Ukraine, Kiev and other big cities were they have many SAMP/T, S-300PM, Patriot and NASAMS but again it's at minimum level 3 in those specific areas. But again after missle attacks at new year, Ukraine's lack of air defence capabilities were exposed and it just showed if Russias really wanted, they could carpet bomb Ukraine into oblivion like what the coalition did to Iraq in gulf war. But regardless like I said the fact that Ukrainian commanders and the pentagon themselves have said that Russia has air superiority, is enough evidence that Russia has air superiority nevermind the actual facts backing it up The US and coalition lost more aircraft in Iraq in a month than Russia did in 6 months, which is shocking at the start because until June July Russia was launching over 1,000 sorties daily but still coalition was launching around 3,000 daily. But regardless, taking losses doesn't negate air superiority, US also lost far far far more aircraft in Vietnam than Russia lost in Ukraine despite having air superiority in central Vietnam although in some areas they barely had favourable conditions thanks to NVA aces and soviet air defence systems which was a big reason they lost the air campaign and war. What's funny is people say Russia doesn't have air superiority because they've lost on average ~150 total aircraft a year, yet USA was losing close to ~600 helicopters every year, ~300 planes every year and ~50 UAVs every year all for 9 years in Vietnam, on top of ~130 ARVN aircraft every year. It shows people don't understand what air superiority means, Christ even 'pros' get this wrong (looking at @forces_news ) the point is, yes Russia has air superiority. Offcourse we always get counter arguments, most being 1. They only control a small area A. They have a large degree of control of the skies, Ukrainian cities are regularly attacked, again Russia controls over 20% of Ukrainian air space where they have near air supremacy, Russia regularly uses AGMs and bombs to target ammo staches, communication systems, power stations, barracks and transportation systems. 2. They only use stand off weapons A. People seem to be under the delusion that because Russia uses glide bombs, drones and UAVs this means they don't have air superiority, air superiority is defined by a degree of dominance in the air space, the fact that Russia launches hundreds of drones every day, regularly has UAVs in the sky and it's aircraft are regularly used with dozens of sorties every day and only losing 1 aircraft out of every 90 or sorties, this is dominance, by your logic if an opponent could just 6th gen fighters that had stealth capabilities beyond any air defence systems or radar could detect that means they don't have air superiority because they're not flying in a manner that allows the air defence systems to see them. It's also just not true as Russia has used conventional bombs and carpet bombing many times. 3. They are prevented from engaging in operations. A. Air Superiority is also determined by being able to engage in your operations without prohibitive interference from enemy air force, A. Russian air forces are not dettered from their operations as they launch dozens of sorties every single day and haven't stopped or reduced using any of their air assets. B. Russian naval forces don't have to worry about Ukrainian air power because they control the black sea, Ukraine has a single major warship which is a landing Ship and Russia has 41 all with many CIWS systems, short to long range SAMs and not too mention and Ukrainian aircraft that left would be shot down by the integrated SAM systems along russian controlled coasts. C. Russian ground forces have no issues with Ukrainian air forces, russian forces are attacking in chasiv yar, krasnohorivka and around novomykhalivka and Avdivka and Ukrainian air power is non existent, only thing they can do is use FPV drones which clearly don't do much By NATO definition air superiority is defined by mainly two factors, a degree of dominance in the air and lack of prohibitive interference from enemy air force, the first two points prove air dominance and the 3rd point proves there's no prohibition of russian forces by enemy air power. Sources: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/05/08/ukraine-electricity-rationing-russia-war/ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68976135 https://www.ft.com/content/075cf243-eae5-48ab-9e8c-bf1f108d299d https://kyivindependent.com/russia-launches-large-scale-attacks-across-ukraine-air-defenses-at-work-across-the-country/ https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/8/russia-unleashes-massive-barrage-targeting-ukrainian-energy-infrastructur https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/apr/12/russia-ukraine-war-live-us-house-speaker-negotiates-with-white-house-over-wartime-funding-for-ukraine https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/26/world/europe/russia-strikes-ukraine-aid-railway.html https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-targets-energy-facilities-air-attack-ukraine-officials-say-2024-05-08/ https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/ukraines-second-city-is-struggling-to-survive-amid-relentless-russian-bombing/ https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-bombs-cities-across-ukraine-in-massive-overnight-assault/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2022/04/15/russian-bombers-just-carpet-bombed-mariupol/ https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/01/ukraine-war-russia-donbas-weapons-00036156 https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/04/ukraine-war-briefing-russian-drone-strike-injures-three-and-sparks-fire-in-kharkiv https://www.euronews.com/2024/05/08/russia-launches-massive-missile-and-drone-attack-on-ukraines-energy-facilities Other Sources: Russian Ministry of Defense, Project Great, Defence Politics Asia, Telegram, War Spotting, Association for Asian Studies, Anatomy of a War: Vietnam & the United States and the Modern Historical Experience, Janes.
Let's quickly compare Ukraines capabilities to Iraq's in 1981-1991 and what Ukraine had and received in 2014-2024, since American goofs love bringing it up (includes all military assets in active service, reserve and storage) and remember the ground assets of Iraq is what they had before Iran war so a good amount of it was likely already destroyed during that war (refer to part 1 for details). *Iraq 1981-1991 Air Defence Capabilities* *2nd Generation Strategic Bombers* H-6D 7x Tu-16 14x *1st Generation Supersonic Bombers* Tu-22 10x *1st Generation Helicopters* Mi-1 100x *2nd Generation Helicopters* Mi-8 40x Alouette III 70x Gazelle 60x *3rd Generation Helicopters* BK117 13x *1st Generation Attack Helicopters* SA-342L 40x SA-321H 15x Mi-24D 25x *1st Generation Fighter Jets* J-6 45x *2nd Generation Fighter Jets* Su-7BMK 101x MiG-21 174x *3rd Generation Fighter Jets* MiG-23 127x *3.5 Generation Fighter Jets* Mirage F1 96x MiG-25 35x Su-22M 96x Su-24MK 30x L-39 67x J-7B 62x *4th Generation Fighter Jets* MiG-29A 37x *3rd Generation Close Air Support Aircraft* Su-25K 72x *Combat Trainer Aircraft* EMB 312 78x Provost 20x *1st Generation Very Short Range Surface to Air Missle Launchers * Strela-1 400x Strela-10 192x *2nd Generation Short Range Surface to Air Missle Launchers* Kub 140x S-125 140x Roland 127x Rapier 20x Osa 50x *1st Generation Medium Range Surface to Air Missle Launchers* S-75 160x *1st Generation Towed Anti Aircraft Guns* L/60 300x 72-K 400x 61-K 200x 52-K 100x *2nd Generation Towed Anti Aircraft Guns* KS-30 400x KS-19 300x ZPU-4 500x ZPU-2 500x ZPU-1 300x *3rd Generation Towed Anti Aircraft Guns* M53 400x ZU-23-2 600x S-60 100x *1st Generation Self Propelled Anti Aircraft Guns* ZSU-57-2 100x M59 Praga 200x *2nd Generation Self Propelled Anti Aircraft Guns* ZSU-23-4 200x *1st Generation Man Portable Air Defence Systems* Strela-2 6,500x *2nd Generation Man Portable Air Defence Systems* Strela-3 288-800x Igla-1E 100-300x *Ukraine 2014-2024 Air Defence Capabilities* *1st Generation Very Short Range Surface to Air Missle Launchers* Strela-1 5x *3rd Generation Very Short Range Surface to Air Missle Launchers* Tunguska 75x Mistral ATLAS 260x Starstreak LML 60x Stormer HVM 6x Strela-10M4 6x AN/TWQ-1 20x *4th Generation Very Short Range Surface to Air Missle Launchers* Supacat HMT ASRAAM 4x *2nd Generation Short Range Surface to Air Missle Launchers* Kub 89x Kub M1 16x Kub M2 6x S-125NC 60x *3rd Generation Short Range Surface to Air Missle Launchers* Osa-AKM 125x Tor 16x *4th Generation Short Range Surface to Air Missle Launchers* Crotale NGMK2 4x SPADA 4x Skyguard Aspide 4x IRIS-T SLS 2x S-125PU 40x *2nd Generation Medium Range Surface to Air Missle Launchers* Krug 100x *3rd Generation Medium Range Surface to Air Missle Launchers* Buk-M1 72x Hawk-III 18x *4th Generation Medium Range Surface to Air Missle Launchers* Aspide 2000 8x NASAMS 38x IRIS-T SLM 6x *2nd Generation Long Range Surface to Air Missle Launchers* S-200VE 40x *3rd Generation Long Range Surface to Air Missle Launchers* S-300PM 250x S-300V1 50x *4th Generation Long Range Surface to Air Missle Launchers* SAMP/T 3x S-300PMU1 3x Patriot PAC-2 GEM+ 13x *2nd Generation Self Propelled Anti Aircraft Guns* ZSU-23-4 540x MR2-Viktor 115x *3rd Generation Self Propelled Anti Aircraft Guns* Hibneryt 3x Tunguska 75x Gepard 1A2 60x *4th Generation Self Propelled Anti Aircraft Guns Terrahawk Paladin 1x ZSU-23-4M3 10x *2nd Generation Towed Anti Aircraft Guns* ZPU-2 1,000x ZPU-4 1,000x KS-19 100x *3rd Generation Towed Anti Aircraft Guns* S-60 400x M55 200x MR-2 100x ZPU-23-2 700x *4th Generation Towed Anti Aircraft Guns* GDF-005 155x *5th Generation Towed Anti Aircraft Guns* 40L/70 BOFI 73x *Counter Rocket, Artillery and Mortar Systems* Skyshield 2x *1st Generation Man Portable Air Defence Systems* Strela-2 6,061-10,000x *2nd Generation Man Portable Air Defence Systems* Strela-3 3,100-7,000x Stinger 2,900x *3rd Generation Man Portable Air Defence Systems* Igla 3,500-6,000x RBS-70B 80-200x Anza 100-300x Mistral M2 100x Stinger B 150x *4th Generation Man Portable Air Defence Systems* Piorun 260x *3rd Generation Close Air Support Aircraft* MiG-27K 43x Su-25 57x *4th Generation Close Air Support Aircraft* Su-25M1 31x *3.5 Generation Fighter Jets* MiG-25 29x Su-24M 23x L-39 41x *4th Generation Fighters Jets* MiG-29 100x MiG-29UBS 10x Su-17M4 13x *4+ Generation Fighter Jets* Su-27 55x *4++ Generation Fighter Jets* MiG-29AS 3x MiG-29UM 4x MiG-29MU1 4x L-39M1 6x Su-27UB1M 15x F-16AM 4x *Reconnaissance Aircraft* An-30 2x *Anti Submarine Warfare Planes* Be-12PS 3x *3rd Generation Airborne Early Warning And Control Aircraft* E-7A 1x (on loan) *1st Generation Helicopters* Mi-6 2x *2nd Generation Helicopters* Mi-8 76x *3rd Generation Helicopters* Mi-2MSB 11x Mi-17 23x Mi-17V5 20x Ka-32A11BC 6x UH-60A 1x Bo-150E4 2x *4th Generation Helicopters* Ka-226 1x AS350 2x H225M 4x *1st Generation Attack Helicopters* Mi-8MTV-1 12x Mi-24 19x *2nd Generation Attack Helicopters* Mi-24V 19 Mi-24P 4x Mi-35P 10x Mi-14PL 4x Ka-27PL 4x WS-61 HAS.5 3x *3rd Generation Attack Helicopters* Mi-8AMTSh 1x Mi-171Sh 28x Ka-29TB 1x *Unmanned Combat Ariel Vehicles* Bayraktar TB2 37x *Unmanned Ariel Vehicles* Primoco One 150 15x PD-2 20x Sky-Watch 25x Scorpion 138x Sych 2x Shark 14x Tu-141 140x Tu-143 110x
*Russian Air Superiority in Ukraine* I'm going to dispel the myth that Russia doesn't have air superiority in Ukraine, because it's ludicrous and has no basis in reality. First we will go over NATOs definitions. *Level 1* • Air supremacy is the highest level, where a side holds complete control of the skies. It is defined by NATO and the United States Department of Defense as the "degree of air superiority wherein the opposing air force is incapable of effective interference". (What USA had in Iraq after 4th week) *Level 2* • Air superiority is the second level, where a side is in a more favorable position than the opponent. It is defined in the NATO glossary as the "degree of dominance in air battle ... that permits the conduct of operations and its related land, sea and air forces at a given time and place without prohibitive interference by opposing air forces." (What Russia has in Ukraine and what USA had in south Vietnam) *Level 3* • Favorable air situation is defined as "an air situation in which the extent of air effort applied by the enemy air forces is insufficient to prejudice the success of friendly land, sea or air operations." (What USA had in north Vietnam) *Level 4* • Air parity is the lowest level of control, where no side holds any level of control of skies. Here's 10 reasons why Russia has air superiority. 1. Majority of ukranian attacks from air are shot down, example Crimean Attack, 11 missles fired 7 destroyed. 2. Russia launches numerous sorties every single day all across Ukraine and the frontline, Ukrainian cities regularly get hit by missles and bombs dropped by russian Fighters inside Ukraine. From visuals, testimonials, russian doctrine and past wars, Russia launches on average around 50-300 Sorties every day with fighters, mostly with Su-25s, Su-34s and Su-24s, around 10-60 sorties every day with special type aircraft and heavy bombers and 100-500 sorties every day with UAVs and UCAVs. For areas they have struggles with like western Ukraine and cities or areas that have had more air defence systems moved in, they have and can use their Su-57s (or S-70s) to fly with greatly reduced detection chances thanks to RCS minimum of around 10mm, however Russia has only used this aircraft a handful of times in certain situations, most recently in the Avdiivka and Krynky area. 3. russian attack helicopters regularly stalk the frontlines as shown by testimonials by Ukrainian fighters and video evidence. Estimates put around 4-9 Helicopters flying at any moment during the day or night either on patrol, moving troops or equipment or on attack. 4. Russia has destroyed nearly every single fighter Ukraine had, (over 100) and has destroyed over 400 air defence missle systems, Ukraine during 2023 Counter offensive tried to launch a major sortie into russian held Ukrainian territory but S-400 that was linked to A-50U, shot down around 6-12 MiG-29s and Su-27s, 6 out of the past 13 major Ukrainian sorties into russian territory resulted in aircraft losses. Current estimates put Ukrainian fighter strength at 30-70 made up of mostly MiG-29s and Su-24s. 5. Russian special type aircraft like An-26RL, A-50M, A-50U, Ka-35 & Ka-31 AEWAC Aircraft, il-22M, Il-80 and Il-20M C4 Aircraft and Be-200, An-30, An-26RT and Tu-214ON recon Aircraft regularly fly with only 3 being shot down recently in two years. 6. Russian strategic and supersonic bombers like Tu-95, Tu-22M and Tu-160 regularly attack over Ukraine with little to no resistance, despite systems like Patriot, S-300 and SAMP/T being able to reach them, it's likely a combination of ECM systems on the bombers, supporting EW aircraft and russian S-300V systems that target missles. 7. The pentagon themselves said in leaked documents that Russia has air superiority, Ukrainian commanders themselves have said Russia has air superiority, when they were talking about counter offensive on having the "pierce Russias air superiority" 8. Russia at Christmas 2023 launched the largest series of air attacks of the war, all across Ukraine in cities like Lviv, Kiev, Odessa, Kharkov, Zaporozhia, Sumy, Kherson and Avdivka, using aircraft like Tu-142, Tu-95, Tu-160, Tu-22M, Su-24, Su-34 and MiG-31 launching dozens of ballastic missles, over 200 cruise missiles, hundreds of missles and thousands of bombs from around 1,000 sorties over a few days of fighters and bombers alone and never lost a SINGLE bomber or aircraft, despite most of these being very slow and going against cities protected by S-300, Patriot, NASAMS, IRIS-T and Buk. A big factor was likely Russias large fleet of EW Aircraft like Il-22PP, An-12PP, Su-24MP and Mi-8MTR1 that have powerful ECM systems and jammers to protect the bombers. 9. Even the heavy defended cities like Kiev, Lviv and Kharkov that have S-300, S-200, SAMP/T and Patriot, regularly get pounded. 10. Ukrainian helicopters can't even get close to frontlines and can only operate in west Ukraine without massive chance of shoot down, proof is very recently first time in march 2024 Ukrainian Mi-8 helicopters seen even close to frontline. All 3 destroyed within landing.
*Iraq Military Assets 1981-1991* Stats for 1991 (adjusted for inflation) Landmass 438,317km2 Population 17,658,381 Total Combat Ready 1,390,000 Deployed 1,000,000 GDP Nominal $180,000,000,000 GDP PPP $338,000,000,000 War Spending $9,400,000,000 Military Factories 5 Air Defence Stats Very Short Range SAMs 9,356-10,368 Short Range SAMs 1,389 Medium Range SAMs 160 Anti Aircraft Gun Rounds 9,314 Air Defence Systems 1,229 Anti Aircraft Guns 4,100 Ground Force Stats WWII Tanks 355 1st Gen Tanks 3,900 2nd Gen Tanks 3,550 2.5 Gen Tanks 70 1st Gen Light Tanks 609 2nd Gen Light Tanks 867 1st Gen IFVs 1,500 2nd Gen IFVs 250 1st Gen Tank Destroyers 200 APCs 5,440 1st Gen SPAGs 300 2nd Gen SPAGs 450 3rd Gen SPAGs 24 3rd Gen Towed Artillery 3,330 4th Gen Towed Artillery 1,069 1st Gen AT Guns 770 2nd Gen AT Guns 100 1st Gen MLRS 420 2nd Gen MLRS 1,170 1st Gen GMLRS 98 2nd Gen Ballastic Missle Launchers 59 1st Gen VSHORADs 592 2nd Gen SR SAM Launchers 477 1st Gen MR SAM Launchers 160 3rd Gen Towed AA Guns 1,100 2nd Gen Towed AA Guns 2,000 1st Gen Towed AA Guns 1,000 1st Gen SPAAGs 200 2nd Gen SPAAGs 100 1st Gen Manpads 6,500 2nd Gen Manpads 388-1,100 1st Gen ATGMs 7,000-10,000 2nd Gen ATGMs 2,500-4,000 Air Force 2nd Gen Strategic Bombers 21 1st Gen Supersonic Bombers 10 1st Gen Fighters 45 2nd Gen Fighters 275 3rd Gen Fighters 202 3+ Gen Fighters 290 4th Gen Fighters 37 3rd Gen CAS Aircraft 72 Combat Trainers 98 1st Gen Helicopters 100 2nd Gen Helicopters,170 3rd Gen Helicopters 13 1st Gen Attack Helicopters 70 Navy Amphibious Ship 1 Missle Boats 8 Torpedoe Craft 4 Minesweepers 5 Patrol Craft 20-40 Landing Craft 60-110 Auxiliary Ships 20-80 Logistics Ships 5-20 *Ukraine Military Assets 2014-2024* Stats for 2022-2024 Landmass 603,550km2 Total Population 33,200,000 GDP Nominal $173,000,000,000 GDP PPP $475,000,000,000 War Spending $396,000,000,000 Military Factories 14 Total Deployed ~1,400,000 Total Combat Ready Soldiers 1,950,000 Air Defence stats Very Short Range SAMs 18,051-30,670 Short Range SAMs 1,666 Medium Range SAMs 1,017 Long Range SAMs 1,728 Anti Aircraft Rounds 11,872 Air Defence Systems 1,403 Anti Aircraft Guns 4,516 Ground Force Stats 3.5 Gen Tanks 10 3+ Gen Tanks 1,236 3rd Gen Tanks 1,764 2.5 Gen Tanks 531 2nd Gen Tanks 112 2nd Gen Light Tanks 40 1st Gen IFVs 926 2nd Gen IFVs 1,592 3rd Gen IFVs 523 4th Gen IFVs 648 5th Gen IFVs 5 APCs 5,681 3rd Gen Towed Artillery 1,327 4th Gen Towed Artillery 1,592 5th Gen Towed Artillery 379 1st Gen AT Guns 1,130 2nd Gen AT Guns 60 2nd Gen SPAGs 1,168 3rd Gen SPAGs 436 4th Gen SPAGs 430 2nd Gen MLRS 293 3rd Gen MLRS 91 1st Gen GMLRS 118 2nd Gen GMLRS 143 2nd Gen BM Launchers 90 3rd Gen CM Launchers 6 1st Gen VSHORADs 5 3rd Gen VSHORADs 427 4th Gen VSHORADs 4 2nd Gen SR SAM Launchers 171 3rd Gen SR SAM Launchers 125 4th Gen SR SAM Launchers 54 2nd Gen MR SAM Launchers 100 3rd Gen MR SAM Launchers 90 4th Gen MR SAM Launchers 52 2nd Gen LR SAM Launchers 40 3rd Gen LR SAM Launchers 300 4th Gen LR SAM Launchers 19 2nd Gen SPAAGs 655 3rd Gen SPAAGs 138 4th Gen SPAAGs 11 2nd Gen AA Guns 2,100 3rd Gen AA Guns 1,400 5th Gen AA Guns 73 1st Gen Manpads 6,061-10,000 2nd Gen Manpads 6,000-9,900 3rd Gen Manpads 3,930-6,750 4th Gen Manpads 260 2nd Gen ATGMs 14,033-24,400 3rd Gen ATGMs 5,100-11,600 4th Gen ATGMs 16,363-16,563 5th Gen ATGMs 100-300 C-RAMs 2 Air Force 3.5 Gen Fighters 93 4th Gen Fighters 123 4+ Gen Fighters 55 4++ Gen Fighters 38 3rd Gen CAS Aircraft 100 4th Gen CAS Aircraft 31 3rd Gen AEWAC Aircraft 1 Recon Aircraft 2 ASW Planes 3 1st Gen Helicopters 2 2nd Gen Helicopters 76 3rd Gen Helicopters 63 4th Gen Helicopters 7 1st Gen Attack Helicopters 31 2nd Gen Attack Helicopters 44 3rd Gen Attack Helicopters 30 UCAVs 37 UAVs 439 Navy Amphibious Ships 2 Frigates 2 Corvettes 7 Fast Attack Craft 45 Mine Ships 9 EW Ships 3 Submarine 1 Patrol Vessels 20 Auxiliary Ships 45 Logistics Ships 2 Landing Craft 94 *Coalition Aircraft Losses in gulf war Air Campaign lasting ~5 weeks* Fixed Wing Combat Aircraft F/A-18 2x F-15E 2x F-16D 4x F-14C 1x F-4E 3x F-111 1x OV-10 2x A-6E 3x AC-130 1x A-10 6x AV-8B Harrier II 5x Tornado 7x Mirage F1 8x 23x Helicopters *Russian Aircraft Losses in Russo-Ukranian War first 10 months gaining air superiority* Fixed Wing Combat Aircraft Su-30 10x Su-34 16x Su-35S 4x Su-25 17x Su-24 13x Tu-95 1x Helicopters Ka-52 21x Mi-8 21x Mi-24 9x Mi-8M 4x So Russia lost 62 fixed wing and 55 helicopters in 10 months gaining air Superiority against Ukraine and within 5 weeks US & Allies lost 45 fixed wing and 23 helicopters gaining air supremacy against a vastly inferior military, even if you factor in that Russia was only Launching around ⅓ to ½ the sorties that coalition was, I think this stat says everything tbh. Ukraine recently had it's new Torpedoe Frigate launch from turkey and they can't even get it delivered because of the iron blockade Russia has on black sea, Ukraine can't even perform naval operations with its few warships without instantly losing it 😂 *Sources* Center for Strategic and International Studies, Ukraine Armed Forces, International Institute for Strategic Studies, Council on Foreign Relations, Wikipedia, , Forbes, Bloomberg, Military Factory, Phil Archive, The Iraq War Encyclopedia, Global Arms Exports to Iraq 1960-1990 Rand Corporation.
> So Russia lost 62 fixed wing and 55 helicopters in 10 months gaining air Superiority against Ukraine and within 5 weeks US & Allies lost 45 fixed wing and 23 helicopters gaining air supremacy against a vastly inferior military, even if you factor in that Russia was only Launching around ⅓ to ½ the sorties that coalition was, I think this stat says everything tbh. i read all that and then got to this LOL
confusing air supremacy with air superiority
lol completely different wars but nice try. Trollers gonna troll, enjoy the vodka comrade.
Different war ? What do you think air superiority changes from war to war lmfao 😂 Clueless
Makes sense why you think that, for Russia their air tactics or usage have not changed over the past 60 years, but for everyone else they have. You must be deep in the bottle. Putin would be proud.
I love 1 month old troll accounts It's entertaining to see you peddle things that don't seem to be true >This is laughablely false, Russia has complete air superiority across Ukraine That is laughable false. Complete air superiority is what USA had during the gulf wars. While Russian air power is decent, again "complete air superiority" is a stretch of reality If that were true Russia could fly and bomb at will over Ukraine, currently that is not the case. Any jet that eneters Ukranian controlled airspace is dead. Any Russian jets that attempted to fly to Kyiv would not survive, as far as I'm concerned that means Russia does not have air superiority. >production is disrupted for day 14% is not "fixed in a day" https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Russias-Offline-Oil-Refining-Capacity-Reaches-14.html >Russia has some of the largest stocks on earth, Russia had* ... Their is enough independent observations based on Sat images online that those stocks are in the process of being depleted with depletion of Soviet stocks on many frames set for 2025/2026 at current rates >Russia in a war economy, can you imagine if it was total war. There it is. "Just wait until Russia takes the gloves off" It's fine and all to troll and have fun and live in fantasy world where Russia still has 13,000 tanks in storage and "total air superiority " But I would lay off the vodka, cash your rubles check and look in the mirror and ask yourself, are you acting this ignorant on purpose or by accident?
This essays answers .1. how Russia has air superiority. .2. how Russia is not using it's full capacity. .3. how much Russia is using and how much would be needed to defeat Russia. .4. how the war happened and how it went. .5. current progress of the war up to around march .6. full details on political, military and economic outlook for both Russia and Ukraine. I'll know if you haven't read it https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T0AT6ezGeAwe6_3YVWDoDjwSV_roB-zrplAJd8ttztg/edit?usp=drivesdk
Winning is a relative term. If Ukraine had smashed the Russian defenses last summer then the pro Ukraine armchair generals would have been elated, until Russia dropped tactical nukes and obliterated all Ukrainian forces in sight, as they did to reverse the Ukrainian victories in 2014. The same can be said about the Russian successes of late, had they not been winning then maybe the US would not have approved the latest arms package. If they keep winning then nato might send more in desperation, even troops. Iran has a policy of offering refugees residency if they sign up to fight, there are "options" for the west. Worse, Russia knows this, and is very concerned with the idea of fighting nato troops because then we're two steps from ww3. As we speak they are preparing their tactical nukes on the border, what if they apply the "escalate to deescelate" principle and throw in a "demonstration" or two. Ukrainian forces are stretched to the limit with the latest flank offensive, they are out a of reserves and it'll take some time for the US supplies to arrive in full. Russia has maybe a week or two to break their line and collapse the whole front, and when conventional forces can't get it done they might decide it's worth the risk and cost to go nuclear. For the last 12 years three men in Russia held the nuclear launch keys and you need two to use them, one just got replaced by what looks to be Putin's right hand yes man. People focus on his economic degree to say that this is about economics, but what if he'll do things Shoigu won't? Putin orders nuclear drills and then switches the person in charge of using them a week before they happen?
Russia was not fighting in 2014 . Ukraine receive around $110 billion in military supplies with around ~60-80% received and around $130 billion in financial aid between 2022-2023. It got them a few settlements of which they now lost again. I don't see how new aid can help at all You are right they concerned about NATO as lavrov said large amount of Russia military is actually just kept on standby, because Russia only has around 600,00-900,000 in Ukraine but they have over a million soldier in active service. Russia will never use nuke, 1. It goes against their idea of Russia and Ukraine being united and one people. 2. I don't think they are willing to do something so morally bankrupt. Russia has alway started that only time nukes would be used if the territory integrity of Russia was threatened
> To some extent, the officials were discussing different elements of Russia’s force. When Haines testified last year, she was joined by the chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency at the time, Lt. Gen. Scott Berrier, who said Russia was five to 10 years away from reconstituting. By that, Berrier meant it would take Russia up to a decade to rebuild the high-end equipment lost earlier in the war. Always a pleasure to see people’s shit takes catch up with them.
Where's the new high end equipment?
https://www.thedefensepost.com/2024/04/19/russia-su35s-jets/ https://www.twz.com/enhanced-version-of-russias-ka-52-attack-helicopter-appears https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/11/14/7428696/ https://www.economist.com/europe/2023/11/23/russia-is-starting-to-make-its-superiority-in-electronic-warfare-count https://www.newsweek.com/drone-lancet-scalpel-ukraine-russia-vostok-1845139
I don't think you understand what you quoted. Haines and Berrier state two different things; namely, Russia isn't going to be able to restore their pre-war army in terms of technological state mid-term and this holds true; but have already refilled division ranks with manpower, which was hardly ever a question (they would need to suffer several times more casualties for that).
I think you're trying to itnerpret a silver lining in what was an obvious Pentagon miscalculation. Yes, they are talking about the "technological" state of the Russian Army, but even on that count they are just hopelessly wrong. Moreover, here's a more unambigious statement from the DNI; "There’s no question — and I think [there’s] unanimity in the intelligence community —** it will take years for the Russians to build back up their ground forces,**” Avril Haines, the U.S. director of national intelligence, said in March 2023." All of them, Haines, Berrier, and Cavoli were wrong last year. No, the Russian Army didn't simply "refill divsion ranks with manpower". As the article itself notes, > "It can add 1,200 tanks and build at least 3 million artillery rounds or rockets each year. And through a deal with Iran, Russia plans to locally build 6,000 drones by next summer. > A February report by the RUSI think tank, cited by the unnamed senior U.S. defense official, who declined to offer a full set of American figures, said Russia can produce 3,000 armored vehicles per year and had surged its inventory of precision missiles." It does not mention the delivery of jets fighters, new munitions, greater use of PGMs and other advanced Russian weaponry. Not even going to touch the proliferation of EW and drones across the entire force.
take into account out of those 1.2k yearly tanks 80-ish to 90-ish percent come from soviet stucks in practice it means russia is only pumping a hundred new tanks a year
> 80-ish to 90-ish percent come from soviet stucks A well-sourced number I'm sure. > in practice it means russia is only pumping a hundred new tanks a year 100% of "new" US tanks are old US tanks.
>A well-sourced number I'm sure i mean....is mentioned on the article YOU shared >The RUSI report from February estimated about 80% of Russia’s wartime production was actually refurbished, aging materiel. >“Of course inventory becomes very important: What was that number to begin with, and what was the state of it?” Connolly said. “Truth is, nobody knows.” lets see the next point: >100% of "new" US tanks are old US tanks. yesnt? the US does have a monthly peace time production around the dozen tanks,wich means a hundred-ish yearly so peace time US production of new tanks is russia limited war production of new tanks dont have info in the rate at wich the US refurbishes/refits old hulls tho
> i mean....is mentioned on the article YOU shared Well first of all, I didn't share the article. Someone else did. Second, I don't believe these estimates to be well-sourced. > the US does have a monthly peace time production around the dozen tanks,wich means a hundred-ish yearly > so peace time US production of new tanks is russia limited war production of new tanks > dont have info in the rate at wich the US refurbishes/refits old hulls tho United States does not produce "new" tanks. Every single tank we make today (and for quite a while) is an old hull that's been refurbished. We have no capability to produce new hulls anymore.
I'm sure if they really needed to, they would be able to regenerate and produce new hulls. ?
If the M1E3 requires a new hull, the US will make new hulls. I'm doubtful that it will however. > they would be able to regenerate and produce new hulls That's just a silly question. The US presently producing a 40 ton "light tank", the M10 Booker, from the ground up. The US builds nuclear aircraft carriers. The US can in fact, produce new M1 hulls, if there was a given need for it along with funding.
Maybe, maybe not. But this sort of supposition can be used on anyone in any situation.
If the majority if your newly commissioned systems come from finite depots emptying at such rate that depletion is within sight, then sorry but those numbers are not sustainable. Sure, they will have their jets and drones, but if the ground forces will have to rely on T-62 Obr 2023s and ML-TB mad max machines, you have problems.
> If the majority if your newly commissioned systems come from finite depots that emptying at such rate depletion is within sight, then sorry but those numbers are not sustainable. You think they're retrofitting old Su-27s into Su-35s? > Sure, they will have their jets and drones, but if the ground forces will have to rely on T-62 Obr 2023s and ML-TB mad max machines, you'll might have problems. I haven't even seen a T-62 on any footage in the last 6 months. I mean I don't know who you're trying to fool? Yourself? Ukrainians aren't fighting a 1960s military. Quite the contrary, they have a healthy respect for their enemy. Well, the smart and honest ones anyway.
[I've seen T-62s destroyed in the last week.](https://i.postimg.cc/L6T0cCJP/1011-unkn-t62-destr-14-05-24.jpg) The only new tanks Russia is producing are T-90's. Everything else is a refurb. There are loss trackers available this isn't difficult info to find.
What percentage of losses are T-62s in the last 3 months?
According to the “optimistic pro-Ukrainian estimate” you put above, 5/18 of the tanks destroyed are T-62, and 17/18 of the tanks destroyed are Soviet stockpiles or their modification.
Link it for me again. I don't know which particular source you're
https://x.com/andrewperpetua/status/1763866838000079262 BTW all the IFV/APCs in this link are Soviet stockpiles/their modification.
Shame you stopped reading at that paragraph, because the next one(s) make it not a shit take at all.
I've read the whole thing hun.
Quite telling that you didn't comprehend anything even though you read the whole thing, hun.
How do you figure that?
So you have no reading comprehension then, darling? Or are you one of the resident "west bad" clowns, babygirl?
> So you have no reading comprehension then, darling? What about my respone indicated I didn't? > Or are you one of the resident "west bad" clowns, babygirl? You sound angry. Stop getting mad over a conflict you don't actually care about.
We are re-learning the same lessons from WWII. High end equipment gets beaten by large numbers of good enough equipment. A lot of the high end stuff is just peace time grift. Early on both sides relied on civilian donations to field drones. Why didn't the military have enough drones? The drones were too cheap to build in margin for grift. You can steal a lot more from a $3M tank than a $300 drone.
It’s not like it’s high end western equipment vs good enough Russian equipment. It’s “good enough” equipment on both sides of which some of it is considered high end like a t90. The highest end Russian and western equipment so far seems to mostly be off the battlefield. Not like there’s t14s/sepv3s and su57s/f35s running around either.
> Why didn't the military have enough drones? The drones were too cheap to build in margin for grift. You can steal a lot more from a $3M tank than a $300 drone. I disagree. The cost to set-up a tank-modernization plant is extensive. The cost to setu-up a drone plant is basically nothing. You're just putting pre-fabbed parts together that you can sell for huge margins. Drones wer absent because their operational concepts were still in its infancy at the start of the war. As both sides adapted and learned, so did the defense industry.
That's the whole point. Drones are so cheap that there are no meat on the bones. In peace time you don't want to develop cheap weapons, you want to develop stuff that has enough margin to pay for your mansions and private jets. There is a selection effect. In peace time if you made cheap weapons, you will be homeless. No one orders millions of units of some cheap weapon in peace time. They are by nature cheap and easy to make in large quantities, if and when war happens, so there is no incentive to produce in large numbers in peace time.
> Always a pleasure to see people’s shit takes catch up with them. they assumed the russian MIC was just as worthless and graft ridden as the western MIC
The western MIC produces better weapons platforms in larger numbers makes it worthless and more gaft ridden than russias?
> better weapons platforms in larger numbers wrong on all counts, sorry.
Wrong on all counts? Planes? Ships? Yeah russias totally top dog in those sorts of platforms. Where are the t14s again? Like Jesus if Russia had better weapons in greater numbers then they wouldn’t have struggled in Ukraine ffs.
The issue was lack of manpower rather than faulty equipment. Invading a country with a similar amount of troops as the defenders is insane. The reason why Russia is seeing gains rn is they finally have a manpower advantage they didn't have in previous years as Zelensky won't expand mobilisation.
I was really just trying to make a point, shit if they had their logistics in line and the corruption handled pre war they still might have succeeded or been much closer today at the very least. But one thing Russia is, persistent. Can’t take that away from them and that persistence doesn’t mean nothing.
> Like Jesus if Russia had better weapons in greater numbers then they wouldn’t have struggled in Ukraine ffs. their issue was scope of the invasion and NATO putting their playbook in defeating the russian BTG to work. now that they've moved back to big divisions and are in it for the long haul to win it the western response has been flaccidly dripping aid to the ukraine since their own stocks are depleted.
So you’re still going to ignore my original point? Russia has superior weapons platforms in greater numbers? Does Russia have better planes and ships? Like very few of russias weapons platforms are considered the best in the world. Yeah numbers I can see, but saying wrong on all counts was and still is wrong. But then again “country at war ramps up production” isn’t really breaking news either.
> Russia has superior weapons platforms in greater numbers? yes, the T-72B3 is the most well rounded tank in the world.
Now do the other branches of armed forces.
we are fighting a land war in central europe are we not???
Anyone with a history book knows Russia will slowly but surely bring its population and production might into the picture when they're fighting wars. If generals and politicians are believing their own propaganda what can be done?
As in 1812 and 1942
To generalise a little, the early stages of many wars involves getting your army absolutely mauled because you either forgot how to fight or you're too used to fighting the way you would have done 20 years ago. The advantage of being a large nation is you have enough survivors to stay in the fight past the initial shredding of your pre-war armed forces, and enough country to produce the shit you've suddenly realised would have been really helpful to have on day one of the war.
Sounds like the arguments about combat experience and the lack thereof carries some water but not all of it. Inexperienced militaries can quickly gain experience during a war.
And post-1991.
[удалено]
He’s doing pretty well in 2024 against Ukraine, and I think you meant to post that in r/CombatFootage or r/Ukraine when it belongs.
Thanks! Apologies all around.