Ukrainian victory over Russia is inevitable

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Russia is no risk to NATO. This is proven.

Stop the war and save lives.

Exactly Russia is no risk to core nato — the paper bear has been exposed

— this is precisely when to triple down and grind them down

Russia at worse will Nuke Ukraine — which then breaks their link with China.

Keep grinding them down

You forgot to add “with Ukrainian blood.”

That is the nature and destiny of Slavs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Russia is no risk to NATO. This is proven.

Stop the war and save lives.

First, Russia started the war. Only Russia can end it. All they have to do is pull out of Ukraine. However, knowing how stupid the Russian Government is, I'm sure they will just continue the war for as long as they can send their youth to the front lines, or until there is another Russian Revolution to overthrow them.

Second, even if the US said, "okay, stop" do you really think the Ukrainians would listen to us or take us seriously? They see our Republican's in Congress and figure they've all sold out to the Russians anyway. Plus, nothing will stop Europe from supporting the Ukrainians.

However, take heart that I believe the Russians will run out of Main Battle Tanks (MBT's) sooner versus later. Once that happens, the Russian infantry will have difficulty stopping the Western MBT's that Ukraine received this year. The Russians will need to commit their remaining firepower to hunt them down, offering a lot of targets for the Ukrainians to shoot at, and hasten the war's end.

Why do I believe the Russian MBT's are dwindling?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PHUK6zkbpc

This video a good analysis from commercial satellite imagery of the remaining number of tanks within the Russian inventory that are not on the front lines that might be servicable.

22nd 575
103rd 380
111th 640
227/769th 630
3764th 450
1295th 90
1311th 400
1295th 90
1311th 400
2544th 420
Other 326
TOTAL 3911

The maintenance notes came from https://www.historynet.com/

If you count them all, the author estimated at current rate of loss, that's 2 years 3 months worth of tanks. The author did note tanks parked out in the open without environmental hookups (esp. in Siberia) are probably frozen solid.

In January 1990, Russia had approximately 18,840 tanks. In 2012, Russia began to reduce obsolete tanks down to approximately 2,000 for combat, 2,000 for training, and 6,000 in storage.

According to https://uawar.net/stats, 3637 Russian tanks were destroyed in Ukraine.

Let's say that every lost to date came out of the combat and training category. That would only leave 363 tanks to both attack Ukraine as well as defend Russia around the world. A bit farfetched, but using it for illustrative purposes.

According to the video, if only 3,911 are likely servicable, that means that 1,089 are being used for spare parts. That does seem plausible (e.g. that 1/10 or 10% of Russian MBT's are being cannibalized for spare parts).

Of these 3,911 tanks, the author estimated that these are the breakdown numbers of MBT's by tank type.

T-54/55 270
T-62 560 (to 800) "longer track length had a chronic habit of throwing treads off in a tight turn"
T-64 248 "Manufactured in Kharkiv, the T-64 displayed a disturbing difference between an impressive prototype and a production model full of problems, most notoriously a tendency of its auto-loader to “eat” the left arms of inattentive gunners inside the cramped turrets."
T-72 1841 "a simpler but more reliable step back that cost 40% less to produce than the T-64"
T-80 942 "first tank capable of exceeding 70 kilometers per hour, was lightweight and could warm up quickly, even in the dead of winter, it was expensive, consumed fuel at a disturbing rate and was far more vulnerable to dirt and dust than the diesels"
T-90 50

However, I think the author missed a key observation and that many more of these tanks are non-operational than originally believed.

The reason is that the Russians have already put into front-line combat T-64's, T-62's before the remaining T-72's. If the 1,841 T-72's were easy to put back into service, the Russian military probably would have done so before putting T-64's or T-62's into battle. There has to be some issue that prevented the 1,841 T-72's from coming back into service. Remember, the T-72 overall has less technical issues than T-62's or T-64's and is a simpler design.

The way these things go, my guess is the Russians were likely scrounging parts and cannibalizing from the other tanks far more than anyone knew. An anomaly is that even if 1,841 tanks were being used for spare parts, then it should have been possible to strip down tanks even further to get at least some of them back into service. So why haven't half or more of them been put back into service? I think it's because most of these tanks have been sitting in the open, many without tarps or environmental controls, without regular maintenance. If even a single metal component of the tank utilized inferior steel; the engine, tracks or turrets could easily be rusted solid. And that assumes the optics, electronics, gun stabilizers, radio's etc. are still servicable or haven't also been salvaged for spare parts.

This would also explain the 'sudden deaths' of the officials in charge of logistics and finance. It's a way to keep secrets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Russia is no risk to NATO. This is proven.

Stop the war and save lives.

First, Russia started the war. Only Russia can end it. All they have to do is pull out of Ukraine. However, knowing how stupid the Russian Government is, I'm sure they will just continue the war for as long as they can send their youth to the front lines, or until there is another Russian Revolution to overthrow them.

Second, even if the US said, "okay, stop" do you really think the Ukrainians would listen to us or take us seriously? They see our Republican's in Congress and figure they've all sold out to the Russians anyway. Plus, nothing will stop Europe from supporting the Ukrainians.

However, take heart that I believe the Russians will run out of Main Battle Tanks (MBT's) sooner versus later. Once that happens, the Russian infantry will have difficulty stopping the Western MBT's that Ukraine received this year. The Russians will need to commit their remaining firepower to hunt them down, offering a lot of targets for the Ukrainians to shoot at, and hasten the war's end.

Why do I believe the Russian MBT's are dwindling?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PHUK6zkbpc

This video a good analysis from commercial satellite imagery of the remaining number of tanks within the Russian inventory that are not on the front lines that might be servicable.

22nd 575
103rd 380
111th 640
227/769th 630
3764th 450
1295th 90
1311th 400
1295th 90
1311th 400
2544th 420
Other 326
TOTAL 3911

The maintenance notes came from https://www.historynet.com/

If you count them all, the author estimated at current rate of loss, that's 2 years 3 months worth of tanks. The author did note tanks parked out in the open without environmental hookups (esp. in Siberia) are probably frozen solid.

In January 1990, Russia had approximately 18,840 tanks. In 2012, Russia began to reduce obsolete tanks down to approximately 2,000 for combat, 2,000 for training, and 6,000 in storage.

According to https://uawar.net/stats, 3637 Russian tanks were destroyed in Ukraine.

Let's say that every lost to date came out of the combat and training category. That would only leave 363 tanks to both attack Ukraine as well as defend Russia around the world. A bit farfetched, but using it for illustrative purposes.

According to the video, if only 3,911 are likely servicable, that means that 1,089 are being used for spare parts. That does seem plausible (e.g. that 1/10 or 10% of Russian MBT's are being cannibalized for spare parts).

Of these 3,911 tanks, the author estimated that these are the breakdown numbers of MBT's by tank type.

T-54/55 270
T-62 560 (to 800) "longer track length had a chronic habit of throwing treads off in a tight turn"
T-64 248 "Manufactured in Kharkiv, the T-64 displayed a disturbing difference between an impressive prototype and a production model full of problems, most notoriously a tendency of its auto-loader to “eat” the left arms of inattentive gunners inside the cramped turrets."
T-72 1841 "a simpler but more reliable step back that cost 40% less to produce than the T-64"
T-80 942 "first tank capable of exceeding 70 kilometers per hour, was lightweight and could warm up quickly, even in the dead of winter, it was expensive, consumed fuel at a disturbing rate and was far more vulnerable to dirt and dust than the diesels"
T-90 50

However, I think the author missed a key observation and that many more of these tanks are non-operational than originally believed.

The reason is that the Russians have already put into front-line combat T-64's, T-62's before the remaining T-72's. If the 1,841 T-72's were easy to put back into service, the Russian military probably would have done so before putting T-64's or T-62's into battle. There has to be some issue that prevented the 1,841 T-72's from coming back into service. Remember, the T-72 overall has less technical issues than T-62's or T-64's and is a simpler design.

The way these things go, my guess is the Russians were likely scrounging parts and cannibalizing from the other tanks far more than anyone knew. An anomaly is that even if 1,841 tanks were being used for spare parts, then it should have been possible to strip down tanks even further to get at least some of them back into service. So why haven't half or more of them been put back into service? I think it's because most of these tanks have been sitting in the open, many without tarps or environmental controls, without regular maintenance. If even a single metal component of the tank utilized inferior steel; the engine, tracks or turrets could easily be rusted solid. And that assumes the optics, electronics, gun stabilizers, radio's etc. are still servicable or haven't also been salvaged for spare parts.

This would also explain the 'sudden deaths' of the officials in charge of logistics and finance. It's a way to keep secrets.

Interesting post. But the issue Ukraine will have (or any army like the 6 day war taught us) is once they get out of air defense some of protection they are vulnerable to air power.

Ukraine will need more patriots (and ideally 2 decoys for each battery) to cover their advance if Russias Air Force wakes up.

[Anonymous]

Luka got checked into a Moscow hospital in critical condition. Can't believe he went back to Moscow after being poisoned.

Shall we guess his final wish? It's totally going to be that Belarus joins Russia, isn't it. Putin is so cliche and predictable. Honestly, it's pretty pathetically pedestrian. Just like the nightly terror strikes on Kyiv. So cartoonishly evil.

What's the play though? A hail mary attempt to start a second front to stop the counter-attack or a fallback territorial "win" to let him save face after defeat? Likely both. A hail mary with a fallback propaganda win.

Wonder what the Belarusians think about that? Do they want to sign up for the meat grinder?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Stop funding this war. Save lives.

Agree!

We Russians need to stop funding this war and sending our boys to die!

Save the motherland; STOP PUTIN FROM WASTING OUR MONEY AND RUSSIAN LIVES ON THIS WAR!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RUSSIA MUST PAY!

Taking Bakhmut is a major provocation on Russia’s part.

Russia has been warned. Repeatedly. Russia ignored all our warnings, and they took Bakhmut anyway.

Now it’s time they pay for this unacceptable provocation: yes, F-16s, but also give Ukraine the F-35s they need.

Russia must pay!

China is about to take Taiwan. That’s much more sinister

Is it? I have not watched the news this week. It is interesting how all these educated pps here do not grasp the danger to us, meaning the U.S. of Taiwan is in China's hands.
It is almost like China is paying Russia to take our attention away from them and ruin us completely by taking Taiwan. It would not surprise me at all if that is the case. Follow the money, always follow the money.
Now war ships are passing by Taiwan, we will be economically ruined, and nobody seems to be on top of things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RUSSIA MUST PAY!

Taking Bakhmut is a major provocation on Russia’s part.

Russia has been warned. Repeatedly. Russia ignored all our warnings, and they took Bakhmut anyway.

Now it’s time they pay for this unacceptable provocation: yes, F-16s, but also give Ukraine the F-35s they need.

Russia must pay!

China is about to take Taiwan. That’s much more sinister

Is it? I have not watched the news this week. It is interesting how all these educated pps here do not grasp the danger to us, meaning the U.S. of Taiwan is in China's hands.
It is almost like China is paying Russia to take our attention away from them and ruin us completely by taking Taiwan. It would not surprise me at all if that is the case. Follow the money, always follow the money.
Now war ships are passing by Taiwan, we will be economically ruined, and nobody seems to be on top of things.

If you don't see how the two are connected then you are lost. If Russia is successful in Ukraine then China will take Taiwan. If Russia is unsuccessful and pays a heavy cost for trying then China will wait. There is no scenario whereby Russia succeeds in Ukraine and that convinces China not to go after Taiwan.

[Anonymous]

No one has really ever credibly explained what self determination means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Russia is no risk to NATO. This is proven.

Stop the war and save lives.

First, Russia started the war. Only Russia can end it. All they have to do is pull out of Ukraine. However, knowing how stupid the Russian Government is, I'm sure they will just continue the war for as long as they can send their youth to the front lines, or until there is another Russian Revolution to overthrow them.

Second, even if the US said, "okay, stop" do you really think the Ukrainians would listen to us or take us seriously? They see our Republican's in Congress and figure they've all sold out to the Russians anyway. Plus, nothing will stop Europe from supporting the Ukrainians.

However, take heart that I believe the Russians will run out of Main Battle Tanks (MBT's) sooner versus later. Once that happens, the Russian infantry will have difficulty stopping the Western MBT's that Ukraine received this year. The Russians will need to commit their remaining firepower to hunt them down, offering a lot of targets for the Ukrainians to shoot at, and hasten the war's end.

Why do I believe the Russian MBT's are dwindling?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PHUK6zkbpc

This video a good analysis from commercial satellite imagery of the remaining number of tanks within the Russian inventory that are not on the front lines that might be servicable.

22nd 575
103rd 380
111th 640
227/769th 630
3764th 450
1295th 90
1311th 400
1295th 90
1311th 400
2544th 420
Other 326
TOTAL 3911

The maintenance notes came from https://www.historynet.com/

If you count them all, the author estimated at current rate of loss, that's 2 years 3 months worth of tanks. The author did note tanks parked out in the open without environmental hookups (esp. in Siberia) are probably frozen solid.

In January 1990, Russia had approximately 18,840 tanks. In 2012, Russia began to reduce obsolete tanks down to approximately 2,000 for combat, 2,000 for training, and 6,000 in storage.

According to https://uawar.net/stats, 3637 Russian tanks were destroyed in Ukraine.

Let's say that every lost to date came out of the combat and training category. That would only leave 363 tanks to both attack Ukraine as well as defend Russia around the world. A bit farfetched, but using it for illustrative purposes.

According to the video, if only 3,911 are likely servicable, that means that 1,089 are being used for spare parts. That does seem plausible (e.g. that 1/10 or 10% of Russian MBT's are being cannibalized for spare parts).

Of these 3,911 tanks, the author estimated that these are the breakdown numbers of MBT's by tank type.

T-54/55 270
T-62 560 (to 800) "longer track length had a chronic habit of throwing treads off in a tight turn"
T-64 248 "Manufactured in Kharkiv, the T-64 displayed a disturbing difference between an impressive prototype and a production model full of problems, most notoriously a tendency of its auto-loader to “eat” the left arms of inattentive gunners inside the cramped turrets."
T-72 1841 "a simpler but more reliable step back that cost 40% less to produce than the T-64"
T-80 942 "first tank capable of exceeding 70 kilometers per hour, was lightweight and could warm up quickly, even in the dead of winter, it was expensive, consumed fuel at a disturbing rate and was far more vulnerable to dirt and dust than the diesels"
T-90 50

However, I think the author missed a key observation and that many more of these tanks are non-operational than originally believed.

The reason is that the Russians have already put into front-line combat T-64's, T-62's before the remaining T-72's. If the 1,841 T-72's were easy to put back into service, the Russian military probably would have done so before putting T-64's or T-62's into battle. There has to be some issue that prevented the 1,841 T-72's from coming back into service. Remember, the T-72 overall has less technical issues than T-62's or T-64's and is a simpler design.

The way these things go, my guess is the Russians were likely scrounging parts and cannibalizing from the other tanks far more than anyone knew. An anomaly is that even if 1,841 tanks were being used for spare parts, then it should have been possible to strip down tanks even further to get at least some of them back into service. So why haven't half or more of them been put back into service? I think it's because most of these tanks have been sitting in the open, many without tarps or environmental controls, without regular maintenance. If even a single metal component of the tank utilized inferior steel; the engine, tracks or turrets could easily be rusted solid. And that assumes the optics, electronics, gun stabilizers, radio's etc. are still servicable or haven't also been salvaged for spare parts.

This would also explain the 'sudden deaths' of the officials in charge of logistics and finance. It's a way to keep secrets.

Interesting post. But the issue Ukraine will have (or any army like the 6 day war taught us) is once they get out of air defense some of protection they are vulnerable to air power.

Ukraine will need more patriots (and ideally 2 decoys for each battery) to cover their advance if Russias Air Force wakes up.

Concur. The tanks will need significant air cover, which is why I believe the Pentagon authorized transfer of F-16's. They would also need more Patriot batteries as well. Zelensky was wise to wait, even if it cost Bakmut. My guess is the Russians were trying to lure out the tanks and were ready to pounce. I hope Dan Rice is wrong that Zelenski will attack in the next 30 or 60 days. The Ukrainians seem to be pretty good with attrition. Yesterday they reported 650 killed. As long as they're making those types of numbers, there's no sense in rushing things. Eventually they can test the waters using drones feeding tanks coordinates to snipe off bunkers at max range to weaken Russian defenses. The Russians would be forced to use artillery (if they can spot the tank), or hope the tank doesn't move long enough to send in aircraft.

Although on the surface there does appear to be a lot of Russian aircraft that can threaten tanks remaining in Russia, remember that these numbers are spread out across all of Russia.
Variant In service
MiG-29S/UB/SMT/UBT 87
MiG-31BM/BSM/K 90
MiG-35S/UB 6
Su-24M/M2 273
Su-25/UB/SM/SM3 196
Su-27P/UB/SM/SM3 101
Su-30SM/M2 110
Sukhoi Su-34 147
Su-35S 110
Sukhoi Su-57 10
Tu-95MS/MS16 42
Tu-22M3/M3M 67
Tu-160/M 16
Kamov Ka-27 6
Kamov Ka-52 127
Mil Mi-8 / Mi-17 746
Mil Mi-24 330
Mi-28N/NM 95

How many are both in-service and actually supporting the War in Ukraine (versus supporting the Pacific, Northern Fleet, etc.) would be an interesting analysis to do.

Once the Ukrainian counter-offensive begins, the Russians will need to reveal their hand in terms of both reserve strength and aircraft to keep their infantry from being overrun; since once their infantry loses defensive positions there is a risk of a rout along sections of the defensive lines. That's the Ukrainian's opportunity to knock out Russian reinforcements.

But, there is one significant issue. The West has handicapped Ukraine by requesting they not strike Russian territory. I think that should be modified so that Ukraine is permitted to attack Russian military force concentrations before they reach the front lines. Although there is a risk of escalation of the conflict, it would ensure the minimization of Ukrainian casualties.

It's a decision for Zelensky that I don't envy. Do you bite the hand that feeds you to save your brothers? But if you do, is that Putin's 'red line' to use nuclear weapons? It's a tough call.

[Anonymous]

The data on Russian casualties is meaningless outside of context of Ukrainian casualties, and these have never been made public. Plus I’m not sure Ukrainian reports of Russian kills are credible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The data on Russian casualties is meaningless outside of context of Ukrainian casualties, and these have never been made public. Plus I’m not sure Ukrainian reports of Russian kills are credible.

Not true. The test of any war is how long public opinion allows it to go on. For example, in both Vietnam and Afghanistan the American and Soviet publics forced withdrawal because the casualty rate was too high. The Vietnamese and Afghans repectively were both taking very large casualties. However because they were fighting to defend their homeland they continued to support the war effort. The willingness of a defender against aggression on their own soil to suffer is a lot higher than that of an imperialist aggressor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The data on Russian casualties is meaningless outside of context of Ukrainian casualties, and these have never been made public. Plus I’m not sure Ukrainian reports of Russian kills are credible.

Ukrainian propaganda machine is lit.

If you follow social media, you’d think Ukranians are destroying all Russian equipment on a daily basis.

Don’t fall for the hype.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The data on Russian casualties is meaningless outside of context of Ukrainian casualties, and these have never been made public. Plus I’m not sure Ukrainian reports of Russian kills are credible.

Ukrainian propaganda machine is lit.

If you follow social media, you’d think Ukranians are destroying all Russian equipment on a daily basis.

Don’t fall for the hype.

If that's true then why is Russia pulling tanks off of WW2 monuments and sending them to the front lines?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RUSSIA MUST PAY!

Taking Bakhmut is a major provocation on Russia’s part.

Russia has been warned. Repeatedly. Russia ignored all our warnings, and they took Bakhmut anyway.

Now it’s time they pay for this unacceptable provocation: yes, F-16s, but also give Ukraine the F-35s they need.

Russia must pay!

China is about to take Taiwan. That’s much more sinister

Is it? I have not watched the news this week. It is interesting how all these educated pps here do not grasp the danger to us, meaning the U.S. of Taiwan is in China's hands.
It is almost like China is paying Russia to take our attention away from them and ruin us completely by taking Taiwan. It would not surprise me at all if that is the case. Follow the money, always follow the money.
Now war ships are passing by Taiwan, we will be economically ruined, and nobody seems to be on top of things.

If you don't see how the two are connected then you are lost. If Russia is successful in Ukraine then China will take Taiwan. If Russia is unsuccessful and pays a heavy cost for trying then China will wait. There is no scenario whereby Russia succeeds in Ukraine and that convinces China not to go after Taiwan.

I am confused as to why you think I do not understand they are connected. My whole post literally states that they are connected. You know, the part China is almost paying Russia to be invade Ukraine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Luka got checked into a Moscow hospital in critical condition. Can't believe he went back to Moscow after being poisoned.

Shall we guess his final wish? It's totally going to be that Belarus joins Russia, isn't it. Putin is so cliche and predictable. Honestly, it's pretty pathetically pedestrian. Just like the nightly terror strikes on Kyiv. So cartoonishly evil.

What's the play though? A hail mary attempt to start a second front to stop the counter-attack or a fallback territorial "win" to let him save face after defeat? Likely both. A hail mary with a fallback propaganda win.

Wonder what the Belarusians think about that? Do they want to sign up for the meat grinder?

Now we know why he was poisoned.. he's the face of Russia's new strategy - nuclear proxy war..

"Lukashenko claimed that any nations who joined the "Union State" pact between Russia and Belarus would be provided with nuclear weapons, calling the prospect a "unique chance to unite.""
https://www.newsweek.com/putin-ally-offers-nuclear-weapons-anyone-willing-join-russia-1803091