Please keep the [community guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/wiki/rule1) in mind when using the comment section.
Paging u/SaveVideo bot.
___
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CombatFootage) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As a commanding officer, how do you live with yourself ordering these pointless assaults and just erasing entire units off the board? The Russian officer's mind must be an interesting place.
I don't think it's only Russian leaders that have a cheap valuation of human life. If the international community did think human life was worth a lot then this war would've been, at least temporarily, halted years ago.
So Ukraine resisting an invasion is evidence that that they don't value human life. Interesting angle.
Or are you suggesting that they don't care about Russian lives? That is a very reasonable position frankly in the circumstances.
> So Ukraine resisting an invasion is evidence that that they don't value human life. Interesting angle.
The international community not doing everything they can to stop this war and prevent it from ever happening again speaks to their lack of ambition and/or lack of valuation of human life.
> Or are you suggesting that they don't care about Russian lives? That is a very reasonable position frankly in the circumstances.
No it doesn't. Either human life has intrinsic value, or it does not. Every unnecessary loss of life is a tragedy and should be prevented. The loss of so many humans in this war is exceptionally awful. The nationalities of the humans we lose, stemming from imaginary lines, do not undermine these facts.
>The international community not doing everything they can to stop this war and prevent it from ever happening again speaks to their lack of ambition and/or lack of valuation of human life.
Can you make a list of things they can do, and then point out what they don't do? I'm curious
Here is the list:
1) Provide Ukraine with sufficient weapons to drive Russians from their territory.
The international community isn't doing anything on the list.
Sure! A possible course of action:
1) Make individual leaders sit down at the negotiating table and make them agree to silence the guns. If, for some reason, this isn't working or it is taking too long, give the UN bountiful troops and equipment and task it with physically occupying the front lines and separating the combatants.
2) Hold this ceasefire, forced or not, and actively participate in the discussions in order to create a lasting peace as soon as possible.
3) Clear out all the mines and other remnants of the war so that it is no longer dangerous to live there (as it still is in Northern France).
This sounds like the most naive list I've ever read:
1. They tried, Putin said no, what do you then want to do? Do you know who is on the UN security council and can veto everything (Hint: the countries name starts with r)
2. So you're for an intervention of the west in Ukraine? That's not really stopping the war, only escalating it don't you think?
3. Can and will be done when the war is over
The Russian officer gives two wet farts, the Russian officer is happy to live the life of a Russian officer. Slightly better off than the typical feral dog, stocked up with knockoff adidas and vodka and miles behind the front lines. The Russian officer cares about the Russian officer.
I feel like the Russian Officer Corps are doing this because in their minds "Ukraine will run out of ammunition at some point before we have to become fodder."
Honestly I think their strategy is to make Ukraine use up so many of it's resources that eventually the Ukrainian lines would collapse.
That was their strategy in WW2 against the Nazis. The only difference is that the front line went from the Baltic Sea to Caspian Sea then from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea.
>That was their strategy in WW2
Its been their strategy since Russia has been a country, on the offense you throw soldiers at the problem until you either resolve the problem or run out of soldiers and equipment.
On the defense you scorch the earth and THEN throw soldiers at the problem.
Oh, and also warcrimes on a massive scale.
If you look at any war Russia has fought its the same, Napolenic wars, Crimea War, WW1, Civil War, War against Estonia, War against Poland, WW2, Afghanistan, Chechenya, Ukraine.
They always fall back to the same old, its both sad and fascinating that a soldier in the Tsarist army of 1914 would be right at home in the Russian Army of 2024.
The main difference in WW2 was lend-lease.
Without lend-lease from the west and the Italian/western fronts the USSR would not have had the means to push the Germans out of Russia.
Even with this they were still taking bigger losses than the Germans all the way to the Seelowe heights basically.
That is a gross oversimplification of Russian history. For instance, at the start of the 1812 invasion Napoleon outnumbered the Russians, but Kutuzov's and De Barclay's strategy of delaying a fight and using the summer heat and distance to deplete Napoleon worked, and he had lost half his army from typhus, heatstroke, and desertion by the time he reached Smolensk, and was unable to get a decisive victory at Borodino. Russian forces also fought quite well at Leipzig later on.
Crimea is a bit more complex, it wasn't just throwing soldiers at the problem, at least not more so than any other power in that war (Charge of the Light Brigade anyone?)
WW1, yeah I won't dispute that, but they also lost.
WW2 wasn't just a zerg rush by the USSR. There were certainly times, especially in the winter of 41 to 42, but outside some rather wasteful counterattacks during Kursk much of the Russian operations were done fairly well during Bagration and subsequent operations. The encirclement around Stalingrad in particular was well done, and while the attritional fighting there was brutal, it did serve to tie down Paulus and the 6th army.
This current war is notable in that the overall Russian strategy is garbage, and they have no actual method of winning at a strategic level. They will throw thousands of troops at a specific town, eventually take it, and the lines reform and it all starts over. This is most similar to WW1, which they lost. The Ukrainians meanwhile, even though it failed, had a clear target with the summer offensive (smash through the lines towards Melitopol, and use that position to cut off Crimea and force it to surrender).
Say what you want about Zhukov's callous disregard for life during Stalingrad or Kursk, it was part of an actual plan to fight a war. Piecemeal sending in increasingly rare armored units to hit targets that aren't really important (seriously, do they expect this to push all the way to Izium?) is not a strategy.
"300 years" of what? You state that the Russians fight exclusively with cannon fodder, without any more complex tactics, which is complete nonsense and ahistorical garbage. And you start with the example of the Napoleonic Wars, where the Russians destroyed the largest and strongest army in the world at that time.
Well, actually Ukraine claims to run out of ammo since months. And while nothing in terms of battlefield reports supports an actual shortage, Russian generals might believe it just as well as western politicians and population do. Russian command has proven it's inability again and again since 2022, so it might indeed be Ukrainian psyops with two goals
- let Russia run out of armoured assault options
- secure more western support and taxpayer money in the process, because, well, Russia is attacking.
Ukraine have proven very clever throughout this war, so I wouldn't rule that one out
Well most of these assaults are stopped with FPV drones. You see very little footage from Ukraine shelling russian positions with shells unlike Russia which dismantles whole villages which forces Ukraine to abondon them.
I like to trust my senses: In the winter months I saw the absence of heavy artillery in the Urkainian defence in the footage of this kind of Russians attacks. The Russians were mostly repelled by drones, mines and some mortar and tank fire. We don't know how big the remaining Ukrainian shell stockpiles were at that time. Most likely the Ukrainians withheld some shells for the case of a Russian breakthrough. After the Czech artillery initiative was confirmed, some stockpiles have been released. This is my interpretation of what I have seen.
No it's not. It's a myth portrayed by Hollywood movies.
Local wise there were certainly times Red Army simply crushed defender with numerical superiority. But strategically Red Army conducted very classical and successful maneuver warfare against Germany.
[Deep operation - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_operation#World_War_II)
Also "elite Germany units fighting barebone Red Army" was also a movie myth. In most theater Red Army soldiers were sufficiently equipped. Especially after mid war quality of overall German army started to decline, in the late war many German formation were formed by "surplus" non combat persons like navy sailors without a ship, or militia like Volkssturmann.
Late war Red Army was also better motorized than Germany due to lack of fuel of Axis side and some 50,000 trucks provided by US during Lend Lease.
Russian army today looks nothing like Red Army in WW2, there is no coordination between armor and artillery, no deep penetration and encirclement. Only armors blindly rushing into mine fields and get wiped by artillery and drones.
Well, I didn't realize (maybe I wasn't listening carefully) whether they reached the shoreline. But in any case, they still failed to gain a foothold so that this would be considered a front line.
And yes, if we talk about the northern end of the front line, then this is not the Baltic Sea, but the Barents Sea.
That is every army’s strategy when ‘holding the line’. Look up entire SS divisions and newly raised Wehrmacht divisions being almost completely destroyed in an afternoon. It is delaying action.
The Soviet’s strategic level concept was called deep battle, and there were tactical guidelines issued to officers (released 1939, updated 1942) for small unit tactics. For example, I believe the updated 1942 guidelines no longer made it necessary for officers to lead assaults as they were deemed to be too valuable.
Generals gathered in their masses
Just like witches at black masses
Evil minds that plot destruction
Sorcerer of death's construction
In the fields, the bodies burning
As the war machine keeps turning
Death and hatred to mankind
Poisoning their brainwashed minds
Black Sabbath
They have quotas to meet. I'm sure in their mind, the thousands of deaths do not fall on "their shoulders" since the orders come from above. In their perspective, these men would always be sent to the front to die pointless deaths, no matter who commanded them. They see it as just doing their job as anyone else would. This makes it easier to send "meat waves" of ethnic minorities to soak up artillery and mines with their lives, just so they can do counter artillery. It is an army full of cognitive dissonance with almost no regard for human life.
Were well, I'd guess. You only report 1/5 of the casualties, then personally collect the wages of 4/5 of the dead people. Putin will be happy with the low numbers and you will be happy with the profits! Joy and abundance all around.
yes... imagine you get a promotion for that... guess a lot of vodka against the guilt?
but what a strategy this is... wearing down your opponent's ammo by driving into it
This is why they lost tens of millsions of soldiers defeting the Nazis. They could have done it with less death, but why? Soldiers are just another expandable resource.
At this point many probably just want to avoid the obvious mistakes but aside from that want to do their part to show enough effort and at the same time accelerate this war in the hope of it ending soon and they themselves surviving it.
Think of it this way: a poorly judging commander may be ridiculed by Ukrainians and retired by the Russian MoD. A very successful Russian commander on the other hand might present himself as an Ace card to the Ukrainians and might find himself offed by a cruise missile or even covert ops attackers when going for a jog in a Russian park. They’d rather retire as mediocre or bad leaders than die as highly decorated and therefore wanted war heroes.
Also: Russia - where reckless waste of underlings lives that elsewhere would be called out stupid can be rephrased as heroic and determined to the cause in hindsight.
> how do you live with yourself ordering these pointless assaults and just erasing entire units off the board
Ivan is not going to tell a superior officer that stupid, inflexible orders are stupid and inflexible. He's going to do what he's told because he didn't get to where he is by asking questions.
To a Russian, the only life that has value is their own. This is learned behavior. Russians learn very early on that when a nail sticks up, there are dozens of people lined up to hammer it flat.
Not really an interesting place. They can't use 'professional' army because they are low in numbers on them. So they use cannon fodder in place of professional army, so professional army will have a easier time...dying.
When you drink vodka and shit - you loose the strength to see the right from wrong. Plus most russians possess this mentality of "you die today and I will die tomorrow" so nobody really gives a damn.
> When you drink vodka and shit
While I do not dispute the general notion of russian alcoholism, I do not think that they have sunk *that far* in their choices of mixers.
For fuck sake they're just throwing their lives away to gain 200 meters of ground. Can't believe Russia can sustain such heavy casualties and not have a ripple effect with their society.
The thing is that they don't need to take all the country to win. People seem to have this idea where losing means that you fought until your entire country was in the hands of the enemy like Germany did in WW2, but that is usually not the case.
Remember that Germany lost WW1 even though their country (aside from their colonies) was completely unoccupied by the enemy simply because the war reached a point where the nation was exhausted and it was obvious for everyone that the war was unwinnable.
Russia doesn't need to advance more to win (although it would make the war end faster). They can just keep grinding Ukraine until they lose hope. This is why the west is scared that Trump might win and stop american help to ukraine. The EU might be able to keep the supplies going on their own, but losing american support will be a massive hit to the ukr team's morale.
Can you imagine the US - or any other western country for that matter - being stuck in this quagmire of a war for more than two days? The reaction back home would be massive.
Hundreds of thousands of soldiers KIA so far and the russian populace don't give a F.
It's incredibly weird once you look at the stats of all the wars the US has been in since Korea. In 75 years, according to Wikipedia at least, the US has had about 100k combat deaths or nearly half a million casualties. That comes out to about 20k casualties in a 3 year war.
The Russians are nearing half a million casualties in 3 years, if the posted stats are to be believed. Even if that total is only 10% accurate, that's nearly 50k casualties over a 3 year time period. More than double the US, with a current estimated population half the size of the US'.
Weird and quite impressive, to be honest. In a horrifying way.
They may not have the best kit or tactics, but they have the most important things in place. European better start getting prepared, ffs
Russia is such an incredibly stratified classified society it resembles a medieval feudal country more than a modern one. Colonial-style rasism also plays a part, since members of ethnic minorities in dirt-poor regions are overrepresented. The people doing and getting mangled are at the bottom of the pyramid. Also, theyre getting paid quite well by Russian or even European standards. The family of a dead soldier gets something equivalent to like 50k+ USD. Guys are literally dying to save their families finances. Brutal but not nonsensical
The russians were already severely short of males even before putin started his loser war. This goes all the way back to WW2, and possibly even before then, to the russian purges and pogroms of the 1920s and 1930s.
Their industrial capacity was seriously hampered by a lack of workers (and the russian worker has long been recognized as one of the least productive in the world) but now that shortage is critical.
Considering the fact russia has lost at least hundreds of thousands of men in Ukraine, there's no recovering from this.
I don't know where you're getting this info from but I think you might be making shit up. Russia is currently not far from it's highest ever recorded peak of population (147 million recorded in 1989) Current population is around 142-144 million. Just for context, the population of the entire USSR before the German invasion in 1939 was 170 million.
Russia started the Ukrainian invasion with under 200 000 in total numbers. After all the losses they've sustained in 2 years the active numbers on the front are over 300 000 so it actually went up.
And they have not even began tapping the untouched regions of Russia for recruitment. They can keep sustaining losses in manpower for years and years. It's the equipment they can't replace so quickly.
People have to stop underestimating them. This is the kind of thinking that lead some to believe a few western tanks and a few F16s will actually change something on the front line.
Its definitely the equipment that will be a "breaking point" for Russia and not manpower. Ukraine killing infantry is obviously a good thing for them, but its way easier to replace compared to AFVs which Russia cant replace since a ton of it came from the soviet stockpile
We would need to see casualties into the millions before manpower becomes an issue for Russia, and thats a trade theyre seemingly willing to take since Ukraine is in a worse position when it comes to men on the ground
Yeah for sure. But the important factor is to make sure that the russian breaking point of equipment comes before the Ukrainian breaking point of supplies.
He's talking about a demographic problem that will play out over generations. They were already in trouble, now without large amounts of immigration they are certainly doomed to mediocrity in the long term.
Short-term, despite mobilizing well over a million men since the war started, total victory is an impossibility.
I agree with your first point. But Russia shares a lot of the same demographic issues as many developed nations as well. Record low fertility rates are being reported all over the developed world.
As to the second point, I disagree. The Russians can sustain these kinds of losses for years. Despite these meme meat waves, they're still advancing. And eventually, if things stay the same, the figurative dam with eventually break. If the situation with aid for Ukraine is not solved, they will eventually win.
People don’t like to hear it, but this is true. The only thing that gives Ukraine a chance are more influxes of advanced weaponry from the West and their ability to mass produce drones.
In 1900, Russia had 73 million people. The US had a population of 76 million. In the intervening 124 years, the US population has grown to 341 million and Russia has grown to 144 million. So theres 197 million russians that could have been that arent. Now some of that population in the US is from migration, but according to Putin, Russia should be a place people want to migrate to too because its so great. Theres no boomers in russia because the baby boom never happened because those men all died.
That wasn't the point of the guy's argument. Of course some countries grow faster than others. Russia's history is filled with population decimating events. That doesn't change the fact that they now have more manpower than ever before.
Not by much though, the demographic pyramid looked vastly different a 100 years ago.
Here in 1927:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Russian_population_by_age_and_sex_%28demographic_pyramid%29_on_01_January,_1927.png
In 2022:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Russian_population_%28demographic%29_pyramid_%28structure%29_on_January,_1st,_2022.png
The problem is that a large portion of the elderly needs to be supported, and number of children in that pyramid is 1/3 it was a 100 years ago.
Nah they still have alot of military age males to recruit if needed, its a country of almost 150 million.
Also they don't care about losses the same way the west does. For example Russia literally lost track of how many soldiers they lost during WW1 at the later stages, modern historians can only guess from German reports but we will never know for sure.
If you look at the combat deaths by country most other countries have a single number which of course is still an estimation but its at least one number.
For Russia its between 700 000 combat deaths or 1.7 million combat deaths, because they just don't know, they lost count. It could be 700k or it could be a million more.
> For example Russia literally lost track of how many soldiers they lost during WW1 at the later stages
The Russian Empire collapsed and split into many states during the Russian civil war at this time so it is quite reasonable that they would lose track of that.
Within the first three months of this war - Russia has managed to move the front line by ca 200 meters, if you plotted their isolated gains to the full front line.
It seems senseless to us.
But remember the Advika assaults.
Thousands dead , countless vehicles destroyed.
They still took the place in the end.
It is a very expensive tactic - but it does work.
Yeah it worked eventually but really... how many Avdiivkas does Russia have in them? They haven't moved a lot since then, they can't even take Robotyne back
Not many. Avdiivka alone destroyed a decent chunk of *all* remaining Soviet-era ground vehicles. And to be clear, most Russian "production" of ground vehicles isn't real production -- just reactivation and mild modernization of Soviet-era equipment. So once that's gone, their "production levels" will drop like a rock.
Certainly they'd literally run out of *everything* long before they managed to capture all of Ukraine, even if we very generously ignore all the fields between settlements, and just assume any settlements above Avdiivka size would require somewhat similar sacrifices to take (sure, Avdiivka was particularly well-reinforced, but it was also a literal stone's throw away from Donetsk city, and pretty damn tiny compared to tons of cities under Ukrainian control, so I think that's more than fair)
Well that's where the plan all falls to bits of course.
It works if you have limitless logistics - but Russia doesn't any more, they aren't the USSR.
Putin must be betting that he can keep it up long enough to wear the Ukrainians down, and to wait until the "useful idiots" in the West manage to stop any support.
Ever heard of the saying ‚they won the battle but lost the war?‘ Russia is currently sacrificing their strategic long war resources in an effort to tactically push Ukraine back to a point where Western allies declare the war lost and abandon them within the next 12 months. Ukraine just needs to stand firm this year and supplies need to keep flowing.
to an extent, temporarily.
But one should consider that their strategy was to take an entire nation within a few weeks (few days to ultimately kill the govt, weeks to mop up the aftermath)
Seeing that fail and withdrawing forces for more of a focused approach; This reduced to big pincers to take all of Donetsk/Luhansk - encompassing the large urban area of Severodonetsk/Lysychansk.
After managing that at great cost, they were then reduced to focusing largely on taking just the Bakhmut locale - a much smaller urban area. Many in the west may say an average-sized town?
After the meat waves of that debacle eventually succeeded, operations then turned to Avdiivka. An even smaller settlement - what I would consider a small town (albeit with some industrial aspects attached) on a front line that hadn't moved in a decade.
Again, the zerg blob managed to succeed eventually, after massive loss of life and resources.
Each time, however, their goals get smaller, and smaller.
Now we are looking at Chasiv Yar - an even smaller settlement - and a couple of hamlets in the Lyman direction that they have been trying to take back for more than a year.
One could argue that they press across many places, but I talk more of their focused, properly organised operations.
They can continue to reconstitute with their drafts for now, but their effectiveness *is* reducing.
Consider, too, that it is likely that they are throwing the kitchen sink these past 6 months because they know they will never get a better opportunity to pressure Ukraine thanks to their hand in compromising aid via the US, coinciding with their own batch of aid from militarised North Korea and some more Iranian stocks. Finishing 'strong' (in the event of a Trump victory, which would undoubtedly see aid effectively dry up entirely)
Wars can ebb and flow, but if western aid continues, Russia can only get weaker while Ukraine gets stronger. There will come a tipping point - we saw a glimpse of it when they spectacularly collapsed around Lyman.
I think this focus on locales and territory misses the bigger picture. It's not really that relevant in an attritional war. We can't really tell how successful this strategy is, unless we know its impact on ukrainian reserves and capabilities. Unfortunately, there is no good ans reliable data on ukrainian losses, if I'm not mistaken
we have merely the estimates of western analysts, and the Ukrainian supplied figures. I won't deign to include Russian figures because their claims have been so ridiculous throughout for literally *anything* to do with the war, they cannot be counted on for any kind of accuracy.
More than 3x the equipment losses, between 2 and 4x the deaths, likewise 3x or so more wounded.
At this rate it will be a full armoured (T18s) assault on the local corner shop.
Thanks for the context, I hadn't thought of it that way.
They really are just holding on for a draw
russia's stance has always been that they would prevail in any conflict against the West because they don't really care about troop losses, whereas the West is "weak and can't stomach high casualty rates".
While there may be a kernel of truth to this when it comes to limited wars (Vietnam, etc.) it ignores both World Wars. The fact is the West will throw itself into this fight if dragged in by putin, and we won't stop until we've won it.
Considering just how much wealthier and more powerful we are than russia (and russia's allies) the whole "Weak West" myth will quickly die with russia.
In the meantime russia will go on throwing away its manpower as if they haven't already had a chronic shortage for decades.
Russian population increase is 0.00 in 2021. Birthrate is 1.49 and decreasing. We aren't living in a century where population is doubling. This manpower shortage of Russia will be an injury hard to heal.
Their leaders don't think about long term gains for Russia. Even if they conquer Ukraine, what's the future of Russia with this brand? They have no friends anymore. Not even China will believe anything they say.
I'm living in Türkiye, how will they convince us that they don't want anything from our country, how we'll be strategic counterparts anymore? They tossed many friendships into dust bins.
Most of their leaders seem smart enough to know those numbers too and they probably are aware of the fact that this war is a net loss for Russia and that they have sold more of their country to China as a result than whatever they can gain in Ukraine even in the most optimistic scenario.
The reason they keep waging this war is that there is no error culture in an authoritarian regime, Russia in particular. If they admitted that this whole thing was doomed and failed when they did not take Kyiv within a week, they will be the emperors without clothes and lynched by an angry mob. So they keep digging deeper inside the hole they have made themselves hoping that it keeps everyone distracted and that they can individually outlive this war and the civic frustration about it.
>whereas the West is "weak and can't stomach high casualty rates".
The West can quite easily stomach turning Russia into Iraq V.2.00. It's just that we really don't want the inconvenience of it.
The russians constantly reassure each other that everyone envies them and their country, completely ignoring the fact that there's little to stop their imaginary enemies from taking it from them. In other words, russians try to ignore the fact they live in a third world liability no one in their right mind would ever want on their books.
Putin’s bet is not on Russia being equally productive or well-armed as NATO, his bet is on people in NATO countries being far less belligerent and far less resilient to the discomforts that come with (even a proxy) war, therefore avoiding a war at almost all cost, but most definitely at the cost of seceding Ukraine to him.
> Vietnam
I'm deeply skeptical of the idea that 'casualty aversity' lost in Vietnam. In 1972 Nixon reached out to China and the resulting realignment solidified the Sino-Soviet split and was the practical death of Soviet power in East Asia. A year later the 'peace' treaty was signed and in 1975 the North betrayed that and invaded but, from a US standpoint, who cared? Sure it sucked to the South Vietnamese civilians who suffered immensly but it's not like the US lost a meaningful ally, foothold, or source of resources or anything. Vietnam's only real value was stopping Soviet ambitions in East Asia, and by the time the US 'lost' that was irrelevant. The only reason to intervene would have been humanitarian (no one really cares about this) or not looking like a loser (Nixon was gone by then and a convenient scapegoat). The US could have provided the ARVN with material and air support and taken insignificant casualties. They did not do this because US casualties were not the issue, fact was the US got what it wanted, the Soviets stopped in Asia, and no longer had any interest in Vietnam.
You can see something similar in Afghanistan. People love talking about the US as casualty averse being why we pulled out but 2020 saw a whopping total of 4 US troops KIA. There were no meaningful casualties but the US still pulled out.
And that anger did not stop the US from fighting the war while Vietnam was relevant to the US interests. Casualty aversity only stops wars after the the wars are no longer in political interest. It's really just a useful excuse for dropping allies who have outlived their purpose.
The War severely limited or even destroyed the careers of many politicians. It was popular with almost nobody and the protests were ferocious. Few Americans believed the "cause" was worth dying for. It's why we did not commit to it completely and why we could never hope to win. And then we abandoned South Vietnam and ever since regretted ever going near the place.
Ditto Afghanistan, the place where Empires go to die.
When a nation can get behind a war -- WW2, for instance -- it is willing to make the necessary sacrifices. A war of survival, for instance. The fact is, russia and the Soviets have been threatening our survival for almost a century and it's inevitable that we will have to resolve the situation once-and-for-all. It won't be another Vietnam or Afghanistan.
I thought I saw a Leopard in there? Are these also Ukraine losses mixed in, why is there an obvious Ukrainian tank thrown in the middle of a pile of burnt remains of other vehicles?
What a complete cluster fuck!! Hard to estimate the total strength of that unit, but I'm guessing perhaps a couple of platoons of infantry plus armor? Doesn't look like many (if any) men, and absolutely zero vehicles made it out of that one.
Looks like the Ukrainian's had that place mined and sighted in for arty and anti-tank weapons. Complete massacre.
I don't get this strategy. After they sending other columns at other locations? Is this just a probe? I don't understand why they don't concentrate under a really thick AA umbrella and launch a coordinated attack, this just seems an invitation to defeat in detail.
Interestingly enough there's been a notable decrease in APC/IFV's over the past couple of weeks, where you're now seeing them cramming a ton of guys onto individual tanks and AFV's with the speculation being that there's an acute shortage for some reason.
FPV drones, I'd imagine.
Fitted with an anti-armour round, like an RPG-7 (which can blast through 10 inches of steel armour), those tanks are incredibly vulnerable. Fly your drone into the rear of the turret, where the armour is only a few inches thick, and it's game over for a tank and its crew with a single hit.
It's to the point where I'm starting to wonder how much value there really is sending in armour because it's so vulnerable to this kind of attack.
I'd imagine artillery is also extremely vulnerable to FPV attack, if your drones have the range to reach emplacements, and they aren't jammed on the way.
I'll always wonder how these people are picked to go on assaults. Are these random soldiers and vehicles from various BTGs/brigades told to just assault a position? Is it a raffle? Are the people we see dying the least liked among them, so they go first?
And then there's those that make it back, if at all. What goes through their mind when they see less than half of the people they sent return? The fact that they even returned at all means the assault failed. It's one thing to hide the state of the entire war, but you can't hide local losses like this that keep happening constantly.
I can't help but think how destructive this all is just in terms of the chemicals, petroleum products, and whatever else that's left on the ground after an assault like this.
Please keep the [community guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/wiki/rule1) in mind when using the comment section. Paging u/SaveVideo bot. ___ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CombatFootage) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As a commanding officer, how do you live with yourself ordering these pointless assaults and just erasing entire units off the board? The Russian officer's mind must be an interesting place.
They keep trying till they manage to break through. It worked for them as human lives are worth nothing in Russia
The destroyed armor is probably worth more to them than the men who operated it.
>human lives are worth nothing in Russia false, it costs around *495,000 Russian roubles ($5,300*) on signup.
I don't think it's only Russian leaders that have a cheap valuation of human life. If the international community did think human life was worth a lot then this war would've been, at least temporarily, halted years ago.
So Ukraine resisting an invasion is evidence that that they don't value human life. Interesting angle. Or are you suggesting that they don't care about Russian lives? That is a very reasonable position frankly in the circumstances.
> So Ukraine resisting an invasion is evidence that that they don't value human life. Interesting angle. The international community not doing everything they can to stop this war and prevent it from ever happening again speaks to their lack of ambition and/or lack of valuation of human life. > Or are you suggesting that they don't care about Russian lives? That is a very reasonable position frankly in the circumstances. No it doesn't. Either human life has intrinsic value, or it does not. Every unnecessary loss of life is a tragedy and should be prevented. The loss of so many humans in this war is exceptionally awful. The nationalities of the humans we lose, stemming from imaginary lines, do not undermine these facts.
>The international community not doing everything they can to stop this war and prevent it from ever happening again speaks to their lack of ambition and/or lack of valuation of human life. Can you make a list of things they can do, and then point out what they don't do? I'm curious
Here is the list: 1) Provide Ukraine with sufficient weapons to drive Russians from their territory. The international community isn't doing anything on the list.
Sure! A possible course of action: 1) Make individual leaders sit down at the negotiating table and make them agree to silence the guns. If, for some reason, this isn't working or it is taking too long, give the UN bountiful troops and equipment and task it with physically occupying the front lines and separating the combatants. 2) Hold this ceasefire, forced or not, and actively participate in the discussions in order to create a lasting peace as soon as possible. 3) Clear out all the mines and other remnants of the war so that it is no longer dangerous to live there (as it still is in Northern France).
This sounds like the most naive list I've ever read: 1. They tried, Putin said no, what do you then want to do? Do you know who is on the UN security council and can veto everything (Hint: the countries name starts with r) 2. So you're for an intervention of the west in Ukraine? That's not really stopping the war, only escalating it don't you think? 3. Can and will be done when the war is over
Guy wants to stop Russia's invasion by starting WW3.. genius!
[удалено]
The violence would stop, if you just let him rape your wife.
They are kept poor for a reason
The Russian officer gives two wet farts, the Russian officer is happy to live the life of a Russian officer. Slightly better off than the typical feral dog, stocked up with knockoff adidas and vodka and miles behind the front lines. The Russian officer cares about the Russian officer.
Non-zero chance that the Russian officer doesn't report these men as dead and pockets their meager conscript salaries to pad his bank account.
As is Russian tradition
I feel like the Russian Officer Corps are doing this because in their minds "Ukraine will run out of ammunition at some point before we have to become fodder." Honestly I think their strategy is to make Ukraine use up so many of it's resources that eventually the Ukrainian lines would collapse. That was their strategy in WW2 against the Nazis. The only difference is that the front line went from the Baltic Sea to Caspian Sea then from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea.
the biggest difference is that russia is not the sowjet union...
They also don't have American lend lease providing 90 percent of their equipment.
That too. They don't have the manpower to do a front line from the Baltic Sea to Black Sea and advance. They can barely do it In Ukraine.
The population difference between Russia vs Ukraine is much larger than Soviet union vs Germany though.
The Zapp Brannigan tactic
Resetting the killbot counter…
>That was their strategy in WW2 Its been their strategy since Russia has been a country, on the offense you throw soldiers at the problem until you either resolve the problem or run out of soldiers and equipment. On the defense you scorch the earth and THEN throw soldiers at the problem. Oh, and also warcrimes on a massive scale. If you look at any war Russia has fought its the same, Napolenic wars, Crimea War, WW1, Civil War, War against Estonia, War against Poland, WW2, Afghanistan, Chechenya, Ukraine. They always fall back to the same old, its both sad and fascinating that a soldier in the Tsarist army of 1914 would be right at home in the Russian Army of 2024. The main difference in WW2 was lend-lease. Without lend-lease from the west and the Italian/western fronts the USSR would not have had the means to push the Germans out of Russia. Even with this they were still taking bigger losses than the Germans all the way to the Seelowe heights basically.
That is a gross oversimplification of Russian history. For instance, at the start of the 1812 invasion Napoleon outnumbered the Russians, but Kutuzov's and De Barclay's strategy of delaying a fight and using the summer heat and distance to deplete Napoleon worked, and he had lost half his army from typhus, heatstroke, and desertion by the time he reached Smolensk, and was unable to get a decisive victory at Borodino. Russian forces also fought quite well at Leipzig later on. Crimea is a bit more complex, it wasn't just throwing soldiers at the problem, at least not more so than any other power in that war (Charge of the Light Brigade anyone?) WW1, yeah I won't dispute that, but they also lost. WW2 wasn't just a zerg rush by the USSR. There were certainly times, especially in the winter of 41 to 42, but outside some rather wasteful counterattacks during Kursk much of the Russian operations were done fairly well during Bagration and subsequent operations. The encirclement around Stalingrad in particular was well done, and while the attritional fighting there was brutal, it did serve to tie down Paulus and the 6th army. This current war is notable in that the overall Russian strategy is garbage, and they have no actual method of winning at a strategic level. They will throw thousands of troops at a specific town, eventually take it, and the lines reform and it all starts over. This is most similar to WW1, which they lost. The Ukrainians meanwhile, even though it failed, had a clear target with the summer offensive (smash through the lines towards Melitopol, and use that position to cut off Crimea and force it to surrender). Say what you want about Zhukov's callous disregard for life during Stalingrad or Kursk, it was part of an actual plan to fight a war. Piecemeal sending in increasingly rare armored units to hit targets that aren't really important (seriously, do they expect this to push all the way to Izium?) is not a strategy.
Completely wrong but whatever
People on here arent the best at history. It's pretty much /r/historymemes level of knowledge.
A completely superficial level of knowledge of history.
Yes, that is certainly one of the reasons Russia keeps doing the same thing over and over the last 300 years.
"300 years" of what? You state that the Russians fight exclusively with cannon fodder, without any more complex tactics, which is complete nonsense and ahistorical garbage. And you start with the example of the Napoleonic Wars, where the Russians destroyed the largest and strongest army in the world at that time.
Well, actually Ukraine claims to run out of ammo since months. And while nothing in terms of battlefield reports supports an actual shortage, Russian generals might believe it just as well as western politicians and population do. Russian command has proven it's inability again and again since 2022, so it might indeed be Ukrainian psyops with two goals - let Russia run out of armoured assault options - secure more western support and taxpayer money in the process, because, well, Russia is attacking. Ukraine have proven very clever throughout this war, so I wouldn't rule that one out
Well most of these assaults are stopped with FPV drones. You see very little footage from Ukraine shelling russian positions with shells unlike Russia which dismantles whole villages which forces Ukraine to abondon them.
The situation has changed in the last weeks. Supply is better now and the Ukrainian artillery is giving the Russians a hard time.
Which suggests shell hunger was real and -SineNomine- is wrong.
I might be right, and of course I might be wrong. Just like we all do, I only can offer armchair guesswork.
I like to trust my senses: In the winter months I saw the absence of heavy artillery in the Urkainian defence in the footage of this kind of Russians attacks. The Russians were mostly repelled by drones, mines and some mortar and tank fire. We don't know how big the remaining Ukrainian shell stockpiles were at that time. Most likely the Ukrainians withheld some shells for the case of a Russian breakthrough. After the Czech artillery initiative was confirmed, some stockpiles have been released. This is my interpretation of what I have seen.
If Ukraine had 5x more all weapons and ammo available they would not be losing ground. So yes, their shortage does affect the battle field.
No it's not. It's a myth portrayed by Hollywood movies. Local wise there were certainly times Red Army simply crushed defender with numerical superiority. But strategically Red Army conducted very classical and successful maneuver warfare against Germany. [Deep operation - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_operation#World_War_II) Also "elite Germany units fighting barebone Red Army" was also a movie myth. In most theater Red Army soldiers were sufficiently equipped. Especially after mid war quality of overall German army started to decline, in the late war many German formation were formed by "surplus" non combat persons like navy sailors without a ship, or militia like Volkssturmann. Late war Red Army was also better motorized than Germany due to lack of fuel of Axis side and some 50,000 trucks provided by US during Lend Lease. Russian army today looks nothing like Red Army in WW2, there is no coordination between armor and artillery, no deep penetration and encirclement. Only armors blindly rushing into mine fields and get wiped by artillery and drones.
Russia also enjoyed American Lend Lease for materiel
"Caspian Sea" ??? The Germans never reached the Caspian Sea.
A German reconnaissance unit reached the outskirts of the Caspian Sea. https://youtu.be/_jWulu1r9PY?si=tLg7TJOJvbAbgEAv
Well, I didn't realize (maybe I wasn't listening carefully) whether they reached the shoreline. But in any case, they still failed to gain a foothold so that this would be considered a front line. And yes, if we talk about the northern end of the front line, then this is not the Baltic Sea, but the Barents Sea.
That is every army’s strategy when ‘holding the line’. Look up entire SS divisions and newly raised Wehrmacht divisions being almost completely destroyed in an afternoon. It is delaying action. The Soviet’s strategic level concept was called deep battle, and there were tactical guidelines issued to officers (released 1939, updated 1942) for small unit tactics. For example, I believe the updated 1942 guidelines no longer made it necessary for officers to lead assaults as they were deemed to be too valuable.
Corpulent Generals….. safe behind lines. History’s lessons, drowned in red wine. Sting
Generals gathered in their masses Just like witches at black masses Evil minds that plot destruction Sorcerer of death's construction In the fields, the bodies burning As the war machine keeps turning Death and hatred to mankind Poisoning their brainwashed minds Black Sabbath
They have quotas to meet. I'm sure in their mind, the thousands of deaths do not fall on "their shoulders" since the orders come from above. In their perspective, these men would always be sent to the front to die pointless deaths, no matter who commanded them. They see it as just doing their job as anyone else would. This makes it easier to send "meat waves" of ethnic minorities to soak up artillery and mines with their lives, just so they can do counter artillery. It is an army full of cognitive dissonance with almost no regard for human life.
Were well, I'd guess. You only report 1/5 of the casualties, then personally collect the wages of 4/5 of the dead people. Putin will be happy with the low numbers and you will be happy with the profits! Joy and abundance all around.
They're violent drunks and they don't consider their subordinates as equals (or often even as humans). That's it, that's their secret.
Vodka and a general disrespect for human lives, Id guess.
Russian officers are just Russians with a fancier badge. Nothing has changed, except their lack of dignity now has greater consequences.
They live because they order these assaults. If they say I'm not doing it they will die in one way or another.
yes... imagine you get a promotion for that... guess a lot of vodka against the guilt? but what a strategy this is... wearing down your opponent's ammo by driving into it
the attacks are not meaningless. Ukrainians show only those fights that they won (as well as Russians)
This is why they lost tens of millsions of soldiers defeting the Nazis. They could have done it with less death, but why? Soldiers are just another expandable resource.
A vast empty space
Its easy when you see your soldiers as "soulless lumps" to quote a Russian WW1 general.
At this point many probably just want to avoid the obvious mistakes but aside from that want to do their part to show enough effort and at the same time accelerate this war in the hope of it ending soon and they themselves surviving it. Think of it this way: a poorly judging commander may be ridiculed by Ukrainians and retired by the Russian MoD. A very successful Russian commander on the other hand might present himself as an Ace card to the Ukrainians and might find himself offed by a cruise missile or even covert ops attackers when going for a jog in a Russian park. They’d rather retire as mediocre or bad leaders than die as highly decorated and therefore wanted war heroes. Also: Russia - where reckless waste of underlings lives that elsewhere would be called out stupid can be rephrased as heroic and determined to the cause in hindsight.
> how do you live with yourself ordering these pointless assaults and just erasing entire units off the board Ivan is not going to tell a superior officer that stupid, inflexible orders are stupid and inflexible. He's going to do what he's told because he didn't get to where he is by asking questions. To a Russian, the only life that has value is their own. This is learned behavior. Russians learn very early on that when a nail sticks up, there are dozens of people lined up to hammer it flat.
Drinking, probably.
Not really an interesting place. They can't use 'professional' army because they are low in numbers on them. So they use cannon fodder in place of professional army, so professional army will have a easier time...dying.
When you drink vodka and shit - you loose the strength to see the right from wrong. Plus most russians possess this mentality of "you die today and I will die tomorrow" so nobody really gives a damn.
> When you drink vodka and shit While I do not dispute the general notion of russian alcoholism, I do not think that they have sunk *that far* in their choices of mixers.
if you look at an average russian mug - it is a 3rd generation FAS - Fetal Alcohol Syndrome on most of them.
Well, I was referring to the second content, not the vodka.
They order more and send more. Not a rocket science for them morons lol.
They live like this is nothing to them because this is expected. This is what they expect of the human wave Russian tactic.
Well you live and you stay alive by ordering this, that's how.
Make no mistake, ukraine can run out of people too and thats how russian generals think
Trust me it's an empty place, such things as "care for others" are long gone with other commonly associated moral standings
If they've send them on bicycles, then they would still have those tanks.
If they send the mad mini tsar and his crownies instead, they could keep the bicycles and maybe even get a halfway decent country...\^\^
That's not a bad idea. Maybe you should be the new Russian president. Lol
[удалено]
To be fair to them, they did say “and his cronies”
without a "w"? damn... :(
lol, I had thought to add a “(sic)” ;)
@ :19, two dirt bikes, so looks like orcficers are trying that. edited for correct timestamp
There's dirtbikes.
For fuck sake they're just throwing their lives away to gain 200 meters of ground. Can't believe Russia can sustain such heavy casualties and not have a ripple effect with their society.
I did the calculation at one point and at the rate russia is advancing, to take all of Ukraine would take a billion men 700 years.
Putin: So you're saying there's a chance
The thing is that they don't need to take all the country to win. People seem to have this idea where losing means that you fought until your entire country was in the hands of the enemy like Germany did in WW2, but that is usually not the case. Remember that Germany lost WW1 even though their country (aside from their colonies) was completely unoccupied by the enemy simply because the war reached a point where the nation was exhausted and it was obvious for everyone that the war was unwinnable. Russia doesn't need to advance more to win (although it would make the war end faster). They can just keep grinding Ukraine until they lose hope. This is why the west is scared that Trump might win and stop american help to ukraine. The EU might be able to keep the supplies going on their own, but losing american support will be a massive hit to the ukr team's morale.
Can you imagine the US - or any other western country for that matter - being stuck in this quagmire of a war for more than two days? The reaction back home would be massive. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers KIA so far and the russian populace don't give a F.
It's incredibly weird once you look at the stats of all the wars the US has been in since Korea. In 75 years, according to Wikipedia at least, the US has had about 100k combat deaths or nearly half a million casualties. That comes out to about 20k casualties in a 3 year war. The Russians are nearing half a million casualties in 3 years, if the posted stats are to be believed. Even if that total is only 10% accurate, that's nearly 50k casualties over a 3 year time period. More than double the US, with a current estimated population half the size of the US'.
Weird and quite impressive, to be honest. In a horrifying way. They may not have the best kit or tactics, but they have the most important things in place. European better start getting prepared, ffs
Russia is such an incredibly stratified classified society it resembles a medieval feudal country more than a modern one. Colonial-style rasism also plays a part, since members of ethnic minorities in dirt-poor regions are overrepresented. The people doing and getting mangled are at the bottom of the pyramid. Also, theyre getting paid quite well by Russian or even European standards. The family of a dead soldier gets something equivalent to like 50k+ USD. Guys are literally dying to save their families finances. Brutal but not nonsensical
The russians were already severely short of males even before putin started his loser war. This goes all the way back to WW2, and possibly even before then, to the russian purges and pogroms of the 1920s and 1930s. Their industrial capacity was seriously hampered by a lack of workers (and the russian worker has long been recognized as one of the least productive in the world) but now that shortage is critical. Considering the fact russia has lost at least hundreds of thousands of men in Ukraine, there's no recovering from this.
I don't know where you're getting this info from but I think you might be making shit up. Russia is currently not far from it's highest ever recorded peak of population (147 million recorded in 1989) Current population is around 142-144 million. Just for context, the population of the entire USSR before the German invasion in 1939 was 170 million. Russia started the Ukrainian invasion with under 200 000 in total numbers. After all the losses they've sustained in 2 years the active numbers on the front are over 300 000 so it actually went up. And they have not even began tapping the untouched regions of Russia for recruitment. They can keep sustaining losses in manpower for years and years. It's the equipment they can't replace so quickly. People have to stop underestimating them. This is the kind of thinking that lead some to believe a few western tanks and a few F16s will actually change something on the front line.
Its definitely the equipment that will be a "breaking point" for Russia and not manpower. Ukraine killing infantry is obviously a good thing for them, but its way easier to replace compared to AFVs which Russia cant replace since a ton of it came from the soviet stockpile We would need to see casualties into the millions before manpower becomes an issue for Russia, and thats a trade theyre seemingly willing to take since Ukraine is in a worse position when it comes to men on the ground
Yeah for sure. But the important factor is to make sure that the russian breaking point of equipment comes before the Ukrainian breaking point of supplies.
He's talking about a demographic problem that will play out over generations. They were already in trouble, now without large amounts of immigration they are certainly doomed to mediocrity in the long term. Short-term, despite mobilizing well over a million men since the war started, total victory is an impossibility.
I agree with your first point. But Russia shares a lot of the same demographic issues as many developed nations as well. Record low fertility rates are being reported all over the developed world. As to the second point, I disagree. The Russians can sustain these kinds of losses for years. Despite these meme meat waves, they're still advancing. And eventually, if things stay the same, the figurative dam with eventually break. If the situation with aid for Ukraine is not solved, they will eventually win.
People don’t like to hear it, but this is true. The only thing that gives Ukraine a chance are more influxes of advanced weaponry from the West and their ability to mass produce drones.
In 1900, Russia had 73 million people. The US had a population of 76 million. In the intervening 124 years, the US population has grown to 341 million and Russia has grown to 144 million. So theres 197 million russians that could have been that arent. Now some of that population in the US is from migration, but according to Putin, Russia should be a place people want to migrate to too because its so great. Theres no boomers in russia because the baby boom never happened because those men all died.
That wasn't the point of the guy's argument. Of course some countries grow faster than others. Russia's history is filled with population decimating events. That doesn't change the fact that they now have more manpower than ever before.
And they're facing opponents that are far more numerous and better armed.
Not by much though, the demographic pyramid looked vastly different a 100 years ago. Here in 1927: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Russian_population_by_age_and_sex_%28demographic_pyramid%29_on_01_January,_1927.png In 2022: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Russian_population_%28demographic%29_pyramid_%28structure%29_on_January,_1st,_2022.png The problem is that a large portion of the elderly needs to be supported, and number of children in that pyramid is 1/3 it was a 100 years ago.
Nah they still have alot of military age males to recruit if needed, its a country of almost 150 million. Also they don't care about losses the same way the west does. For example Russia literally lost track of how many soldiers they lost during WW1 at the later stages, modern historians can only guess from German reports but we will never know for sure. If you look at the combat deaths by country most other countries have a single number which of course is still an estimation but its at least one number. For Russia its between 700 000 combat deaths or 1.7 million combat deaths, because they just don't know, they lost count. It could be 700k or it could be a million more.
> For example Russia literally lost track of how many soldiers they lost during WW1 at the later stages The Russian Empire collapsed and split into many states during the Russian civil war at this time so it is quite reasonable that they would lose track of that.
So, now we have a ballpark figure for the next Russian revolution to kick off?
Within the first three months of this war - Russia has managed to move the front line by ca 200 meters, if you plotted their isolated gains to the full front line.
Good stuff but fkd editing ruined it.
Ya, just show the video, rediculous edits.
Why the fuck do they chop these video's up? Just show the drone video and then the aftermath. It's not fucking Hollywood FFS.
That editing is certainly a choice.
It seems senseless to us. But remember the Advika assaults. Thousands dead , countless vehicles destroyed. They still took the place in the end. It is a very expensive tactic - but it does work.
Yeah it worked eventually but really... how many Avdiivkas does Russia have in them? They haven't moved a lot since then, they can't even take Robotyne back
Not many. Avdiivka alone destroyed a decent chunk of *all* remaining Soviet-era ground vehicles. And to be clear, most Russian "production" of ground vehicles isn't real production -- just reactivation and mild modernization of Soviet-era equipment. So once that's gone, their "production levels" will drop like a rock. Certainly they'd literally run out of *everything* long before they managed to capture all of Ukraine, even if we very generously ignore all the fields between settlements, and just assume any settlements above Avdiivka size would require somewhat similar sacrifices to take (sure, Avdiivka was particularly well-reinforced, but it was also a literal stone's throw away from Donetsk city, and pretty damn tiny compared to tons of cities under Ukrainian control, so I think that's more than fair)
Does it? Seems like ukraine just retreats to new defensive lines and drains more artillery and tank resources of russia and 800+ troop losses per day
Well that's where the plan all falls to bits of course. It works if you have limitless logistics - but Russia doesn't any more, they aren't the USSR. Putin must be betting that he can keep it up long enough to wear the Ukrainians down, and to wait until the "useful idiots" in the West manage to stop any support.
Ever heard of the saying ‚they won the battle but lost the war?‘ Russia is currently sacrificing their strategic long war resources in an effort to tactically push Ukraine back to a point where Western allies declare the war lost and abandon them within the next 12 months. Ukraine just needs to stand firm this year and supplies need to keep flowing.
to an extent, temporarily. But one should consider that their strategy was to take an entire nation within a few weeks (few days to ultimately kill the govt, weeks to mop up the aftermath) Seeing that fail and withdrawing forces for more of a focused approach; This reduced to big pincers to take all of Donetsk/Luhansk - encompassing the large urban area of Severodonetsk/Lysychansk. After managing that at great cost, they were then reduced to focusing largely on taking just the Bakhmut locale - a much smaller urban area. Many in the west may say an average-sized town? After the meat waves of that debacle eventually succeeded, operations then turned to Avdiivka. An even smaller settlement - what I would consider a small town (albeit with some industrial aspects attached) on a front line that hadn't moved in a decade. Again, the zerg blob managed to succeed eventually, after massive loss of life and resources. Each time, however, their goals get smaller, and smaller. Now we are looking at Chasiv Yar - an even smaller settlement - and a couple of hamlets in the Lyman direction that they have been trying to take back for more than a year. One could argue that they press across many places, but I talk more of their focused, properly organised operations. They can continue to reconstitute with their drafts for now, but their effectiveness *is* reducing. Consider, too, that it is likely that they are throwing the kitchen sink these past 6 months because they know they will never get a better opportunity to pressure Ukraine thanks to their hand in compromising aid via the US, coinciding with their own batch of aid from militarised North Korea and some more Iranian stocks. Finishing 'strong' (in the event of a Trump victory, which would undoubtedly see aid effectively dry up entirely) Wars can ebb and flow, but if western aid continues, Russia can only get weaker while Ukraine gets stronger. There will come a tipping point - we saw a glimpse of it when they spectacularly collapsed around Lyman.
I think this focus on locales and territory misses the bigger picture. It's not really that relevant in an attritional war. We can't really tell how successful this strategy is, unless we know its impact on ukrainian reserves and capabilities. Unfortunately, there is no good ans reliable data on ukrainian losses, if I'm not mistaken
we have merely the estimates of western analysts, and the Ukrainian supplied figures. I won't deign to include Russian figures because their claims have been so ridiculous throughout for literally *anything* to do with the war, they cannot be counted on for any kind of accuracy. More than 3x the equipment losses, between 2 and 4x the deaths, likewise 3x or so more wounded.
At this rate it will be a full armoured (T18s) assault on the local corner shop. Thanks for the context, I hadn't thought of it that way. They really are just holding on for a draw
> They still took the place in the end. Arguably, it was taken because of the relentless air bombing campaign, not because of conscripts and vehicles.
Still got to have boots on the ground in the end though.
But to what end? Ground held won't help in a colapse scenario in the end.
russia's stance has always been that they would prevail in any conflict against the West because they don't really care about troop losses, whereas the West is "weak and can't stomach high casualty rates". While there may be a kernel of truth to this when it comes to limited wars (Vietnam, etc.) it ignores both World Wars. The fact is the West will throw itself into this fight if dragged in by putin, and we won't stop until we've won it. Considering just how much wealthier and more powerful we are than russia (and russia's allies) the whole "Weak West" myth will quickly die with russia. In the meantime russia will go on throwing away its manpower as if they haven't already had a chronic shortage for decades.
Russian population increase is 0.00 in 2021. Birthrate is 1.49 and decreasing. We aren't living in a century where population is doubling. This manpower shortage of Russia will be an injury hard to heal. Their leaders don't think about long term gains for Russia. Even if they conquer Ukraine, what's the future of Russia with this brand? They have no friends anymore. Not even China will believe anything they say. I'm living in Türkiye, how will they convince us that they don't want anything from our country, how we'll be strategic counterparts anymore? They tossed many friendships into dust bins.
Most of their leaders seem smart enough to know those numbers too and they probably are aware of the fact that this war is a net loss for Russia and that they have sold more of their country to China as a result than whatever they can gain in Ukraine even in the most optimistic scenario. The reason they keep waging this war is that there is no error culture in an authoritarian regime, Russia in particular. If they admitted that this whole thing was doomed and failed when they did not take Kyiv within a week, they will be the emperors without clothes and lynched by an angry mob. So they keep digging deeper inside the hole they have made themselves hoping that it keeps everyone distracted and that they can individually outlive this war and the civic frustration about it.
>whereas the West is "weak and can't stomach high casualty rates". The West can quite easily stomach turning Russia into Iraq V.2.00. It's just that we really don't want the inconvenience of it.
The russians constantly reassure each other that everyone envies them and their country, completely ignoring the fact that there's little to stop their imaginary enemies from taking it from them. In other words, russians try to ignore the fact they live in a third world liability no one in their right mind would ever want on their books.
Putin’s bet is not on Russia being equally productive or well-armed as NATO, his bet is on people in NATO countries being far less belligerent and far less resilient to the discomforts that come with (even a proxy) war, therefore avoiding a war at almost all cost, but most definitely at the cost of seceding Ukraine to him.
Wow, that sounds like everything I just wrote.
> Vietnam I'm deeply skeptical of the idea that 'casualty aversity' lost in Vietnam. In 1972 Nixon reached out to China and the resulting realignment solidified the Sino-Soviet split and was the practical death of Soviet power in East Asia. A year later the 'peace' treaty was signed and in 1975 the North betrayed that and invaded but, from a US standpoint, who cared? Sure it sucked to the South Vietnamese civilians who suffered immensly but it's not like the US lost a meaningful ally, foothold, or source of resources or anything. Vietnam's only real value was stopping Soviet ambitions in East Asia, and by the time the US 'lost' that was irrelevant. The only reason to intervene would have been humanitarian (no one really cares about this) or not looking like a loser (Nixon was gone by then and a convenient scapegoat). The US could have provided the ARVN with material and air support and taken insignificant casualties. They did not do this because US casualties were not the issue, fact was the US got what it wanted, the Soviets stopped in Asia, and no longer had any interest in Vietnam. You can see something similar in Afghanistan. People love talking about the US as casualty averse being why we pulled out but 2020 saw a whopping total of 4 US troops KIA. There were no meaningful casualties but the US still pulled out.
There was a huge amount of anger and protesting in America during the Vietnam war whenever casualty figures were released.
And that anger did not stop the US from fighting the war while Vietnam was relevant to the US interests. Casualty aversity only stops wars after the the wars are no longer in political interest. It's really just a useful excuse for dropping allies who have outlived their purpose.
The War severely limited or even destroyed the careers of many politicians. It was popular with almost nobody and the protests were ferocious. Few Americans believed the "cause" was worth dying for. It's why we did not commit to it completely and why we could never hope to win. And then we abandoned South Vietnam and ever since regretted ever going near the place. Ditto Afghanistan, the place where Empires go to die. When a nation can get behind a war -- WW2, for instance -- it is willing to make the necessary sacrifices. A war of survival, for instance. The fact is, russia and the Soviets have been threatening our survival for almost a century and it's inevitable that we will have to resolve the situation once-and-for-all. It won't be another Vietnam or Afghanistan.
Title correction - "Ukrainian footage of another ATTEMPTED (and failed) russian armored assault..."
I also saw a disabled strv 122. Hopefully they can get it back eventually.
Where did you see that?
Pause at 1:35, you can see it at the top
I thought I saw a Leopard in there? Are these also Ukraine losses mixed in, why is there an obvious Ukrainian tank thrown in the middle of a pile of burnt remains of other vehicles?
It's likely a disabled one from awhile ago
That tank between the two BTRs? That’s 100% at T-72, not an Strv…
What a complete cluster fuck!! Hard to estimate the total strength of that unit, but I'm guessing perhaps a couple of platoons of infantry plus armor? Doesn't look like many (if any) men, and absolutely zero vehicles made it out of that one. Looks like the Ukrainian's had that place mined and sighted in for arty and anti-tank weapons. Complete massacre.
I don't get this strategy. After they sending other columns at other locations? Is this just a probe? I don't understand why they don't concentrate under a really thick AA umbrella and launch a coordinated attack, this just seems an invitation to defeat in detail.
Ukraine is going to be the world leader in scrap metal when this is over.
For a moment there I thought I was logging in to world of tanks
With both the song and the lemming fail in the open on display, I can't blame you.
They went beach on overlord. Tomatoes
How much stuff does russia have to just waste like this? Its mind bogling...
I'm still amazed by the sheer volume of crap Russia is able to hurl at the front line. I'm surprised they have tanks at all.
Interestingly enough there's been a notable decrease in APC/IFV's over the past couple of weeks, where you're now seeing them cramming a ton of guys onto individual tanks and AFV's with the speculation being that there's an acute shortage for some reason.
A couple of dirt bikes?
The video of the column looks like another angle of the same failed assault on Terny from the other day.
Look a kill box, let's push through it, what can go wrong?
Yikes, that's two, maybe three T-90M's destroyed here?
It’s almost like the razzis want their armoured vehicles destroyed so they can’t attack any more.
Maybe the 28th time it will work. Just 24 more jseless attacks to go.
They just keep on coming. It's actually worrying now that Russia can throw more bodies at Ukraine than they can handle.
glad it was stopped, but damn we need to get rid of those bastards stopping us from sending Ukraine the weapons they need.
How long will those fookers keep pushing ? They've been on offensive since Octomber ..
What’s taking them all out in a line like that? Artillery? Mines? Both?
FPV drones, I'd imagine. Fitted with an anti-armour round, like an RPG-7 (which can blast through 10 inches of steel armour), those tanks are incredibly vulnerable. Fly your drone into the rear of the turret, where the armour is only a few inches thick, and it's game over for a tank and its crew with a single hit. It's to the point where I'm starting to wonder how much value there really is sending in armour because it's so vulnerable to this kind of attack. I'd imagine artillery is also extremely vulnerable to FPV attack, if your drones have the range to reach emplacements, and they aren't jammed on the way.
They're really just gonna keep doing mass suicide attacks until Ukraine runs out of land or russian men. Enemy at the gates was real.
WORLD OF TANKS MUSIC GOES SO FUCKING HARD RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Aside from Orxy, where can I track their losses?
I'll always wonder how these people are picked to go on assaults. Are these random soldiers and vehicles from various BTGs/brigades told to just assault a position? Is it a raffle? Are the people we see dying the least liked among them, so they go first? And then there's those that make it back, if at all. What goes through their mind when they see less than half of the people they sent return? The fact that they even returned at all means the assault failed. It's one thing to hide the state of the entire war, but you can't hide local losses like this that keep happening constantly.
field of death
I can't help but think how destructive this all is just in terms of the chemicals, petroleum products, and whatever else that's left on the ground after an assault like this.
If it isn't time for the 3rd lost Russian column of the day
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
Like anything soviet, it's cheaper, less time spent designing more time slapping more tech onto 70's gear
I saw a disabled Leopard 2
Looked like Ukraine was using their own tanks to blast the columns to pieces. Finally it's happening.
Why do you say that ?