Russia’s army is learning and improving on the battlefield(economist.com)
economist.com
Russia’s army is learning and improving on the battlefield
https://www.economist.com/europe/2023/05/21/russias-army-is-learning-on-the-battlefield
178 comments
From the original report (https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/special-r...):
> An overview of Russian adaptation reveals a force that is able to improve and evolve its employment of key systems. There is evidence of a centralised process for identifying shortcomings in employment and the development of mitigations. Nevertheless, much of this adaptation is reactive and is aimed at making up for serious deficiencies in Russian units. The result is a structure that becomes better over time at managing the problems it immediately faces, but also one that struggles to anticipate new threats. The conclusion therefore is that the Russian Armed Forces pose a significant challenge for the Ukrainian military on the defence. Nevertheless, if Ukraine can disrupt Russian defences and impose a dynamic situation on them, Russian units are likely to rapidly lose their coordination. Changes in the air combat environment, for example, have led rapidly to incidents of Russian fratricide.
Both sides are adapting, we'll see how this develops once the Ukrainian offensive starts.
> An overview of Russian adaptation reveals a force that is able to improve and evolve its employment of key systems. There is evidence of a centralised process for identifying shortcomings in employment and the development of mitigations. Nevertheless, much of this adaptation is reactive and is aimed at making up for serious deficiencies in Russian units. The result is a structure that becomes better over time at managing the problems it immediately faces, but also one that struggles to anticipate new threats. The conclusion therefore is that the Russian Armed Forces pose a significant challenge for the Ukrainian military on the defence. Nevertheless, if Ukraine can disrupt Russian defences and impose a dynamic situation on them, Russian units are likely to rapidly lose their coordination. Changes in the air combat environment, for example, have led rapidly to incidents of Russian fratricide.
Both sides are adapting, we'll see how this develops once the Ukrainian offensive starts.
chewz(2)
> Russian EW is also apparently achieving real time interception and decryption of Ukrainian Motorola 256-bit encrypted tactical communications systems, which are widely employed by the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
Interesting. I wonder if this is via cryptanalysis or something like breaching key storage/espionage.
Interesting. I wonder if this is via cryptanalysis or something like breaching key storage/espionage.
I believe it's symmetric AES256, and you load the keys into the radios with a wired/dedicated keyloader device. The Russians must have some hack into wherever the keys are being stored centrally before they get into the keyloader.
Or, more mundanely, they don't rotate the keys often, and the Russians just have some number of stolen radios. You can find videos of both sides picking up radios with drones too.
Or, more mundanely, they don't rotate the keys often, and the Russians just have some number of stolen radios. You can find videos of both sides picking up radios with drones too.
I'm a little baffled by this, 'Russia has deployed big ew systems for every 10km stretch of the front. They are largely aimed at drones. And they work: Ukraine is losing a staggering 10,000 drones per month, says the report, amounting to over 300 losses daily. ew is responsible for around half of those losses, a Ukrainian official tells The Economist.'
What Electronic Warfare is going to pull 5,000 drones a month out of the sky?
What Electronic Warfare is going to pull 5,000 drones a month out of the sky?
That seems astonishingly high, but on second thoughts the whole point of drones is that they're effectively an expendable munition, and if you lose one it counts as having advanced to contact.
Drones are really limited in their autonomous abilities and vulnerable to GPS jamming. Someone needs to work on image-based return to base navigation.
Drones are really limited in their autonomous abilities and vulnerable to GPS jamming. Someone needs to work on image-based return to base navigation.
A large number of these drones are just regular civilian models. Those are likely easy prey for electronic warfare.
especially if your supplier country is secretly rooting for your enemy.
The sellers on AliExpress tend to cheer for and sell to both teams.
Jam GPS, jam transmitters, drones "get lost", fall down.
Yep. You're right. It's really just nav blocking that's killing the drones. I wonder if there's a way to have these drones operate without a need for GPS. Instead, use cameras to read terrain and map that against the known terrain...
Or at least something slightly lower tech like an electronic compass that will keep a back bearing and fly the reverse course if signal is lost.
But it has to be a question of cost too. Drones are attritable by their nature and there may be no more reason to try to recover one than you would recover a discharged bullet.
But it has to be a question of cost too. Drones are attritable by their nature and there may be no more reason to try to recover one than you would recover a discharged bullet.
Tomahawk cruise missiles originally used terrain following. (1983) Now they have GPS capability but I think terrain following is still an option.
It’s insane to me they had stuff like terrain following working in the early 80’s
A fairly in-depth explanation of one part of the system from a 1994 paper: https://secwww.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/Content/techdigest/pdf/...
Usually for tactical drones they get fitted with an IMU (Inertial measurement unit / gyros) for when GPS signal is lost. That way the drone can continue operation but do suffer from drift the longer the GPS signal is not available.
But cheap IMU's fitted on smaller drones has very poor accuracy / drift.
A bigger upset is loss of communications, very few if any drones operate autonomously currently, and if there is loss of communications they may try to return to base. Off course it is more difficult to jam line of sight or drone to satellite communications than GPS.
A bigger upset is loss of communications, very few if any drones operate autonomously currently, and if there is loss of communications they may try to return to base. Off course it is more difficult to jam line of sight or drone to satellite communications than GPS.
> if there is loss of communications they may try to return to base.
I wonder if either or both sides are patching this out of software - otherwise, communications jamming becomes a quick way to make the drone lead the enemy straight to your base.
I wonder if either or both sides are patching this out of software - otherwise, communications jamming becomes a quick way to make the drone lead the enemy straight to your base.
> What Electronic Warfare is going to pull 5,000 drones a month out of the sky?
If they can jam their control link and GPS, wouldn't they just crash?
IIRC, Ukraine (and Russia) are using a lot of civilian-grade drones, which I would assume would be very vulnerable to military electronic warfare.
If they can jam their control link and GPS, wouldn't they just crash?
IIRC, Ukraine (and Russia) are using a lot of civilian-grade drones, which I would assume would be very vulnerable to military electronic warfare.
Why should they crash? It's not like operation of motors and avionics depends on navigation or control link.
> 'Russia has deployed big ew systems for every 10km stretch of the front.
I assume Ukraine would be trying to blow these EW systems up using HIMARS/GMLRS/etc? I wonder how hard that is.
I assume Ukraine would be trying to blow these EW systems up using HIMARS/GMLRS/etc? I wonder how hard that is.
They can be far more mobile than, say, an artillery piece, as they're just spewing out interference. HIMARS is much more useful for targeting things like ammo depots or fixed positions.
This issue is EW is wreaking havoc on these GPS guided systems (as are S-400 & BUK interceptions). Not to mention munition supplies for them are dwindling.
- https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/himars-less-effect...
- https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2023/05/03/commentary/w...
- https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/himars-less-effect...
- https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2023/05/03/commentary/w...
They are also inertia guided, as to be a way to hardened against attacks like this it makes them less accurate but still probably enough to hit with a missile if you know the coordinates.
You can also attack EW systems with RF seeking missiles.
You can also attack EW systems with RF seeking missiles.
This situation was dangerous and remains dangerous. There are a couple of significant risks here:
1) Western policy risks building up a big Asian military alliance. It should be obvious to China that what is currently happening to Russia is also slated to happen to them. India will be nervous too unless they are hopelessly naive. China and the US were friends once too, back in ... the 2010s...
2) We're escalating towards WWIII. This is like watching athletes limbering up.
3) In the modern era it is astonishingly rare for the US military to get involved and leave a country better off than when they entered. The US does not have the resources to head in and rebuild Ukraine - that privilege now belongs to China, world manufacturing superpower. We're going to see massive distabilisation in Eastern Europe for a generation. The Poles are wise to be rapidly militarising.
1) Western policy risks building up a big Asian military alliance. It should be obvious to China that what is currently happening to Russia is also slated to happen to them. India will be nervous too unless they are hopelessly naive. China and the US were friends once too, back in ... the 2010s...
2) We're escalating towards WWIII. This is like watching athletes limbering up.
3) In the modern era it is astonishingly rare for the US military to get involved and leave a country better off than when they entered. The US does not have the resources to head in and rebuild Ukraine - that privilege now belongs to China, world manufacturing superpower. We're going to see massive distabilisation in Eastern Europe for a generation. The Poles are wise to be rapidly militarising.
> Western policy risks building up a big Asian military alliance .. China .. India
China and India have a weird, nasty little border dispute where they've agreed not to deploy firearms so troops routinely have fistfights instead. Anyone claiming they're on the verge of an anti-US alliance can't be taken seriously. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-53062484
China and India have a weird, nasty little border dispute where they've agreed not to deploy firearms so troops routinely have fistfights instead. Anyone claiming they're on the verge of an anti-US alliance can't be taken seriously. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-53062484
Closer than neighbors who haven't agreed to not deploy firearms to settle border disputes though, right?
More than the border skirmishes, China and India have a trade relationship that is predatory. It can even be considered colonial, with India being disadvantaged. India basically imports goods valued over 100 Billion USD from China and in return gets 0 opportunity to participate in the Chinese economy. The nature of the trade is intentional from the Chinese side. They cannot tolerate India as a major player in Asia and would rather deal with a loose entity like the ASEAN. The only thing India has going for it is that they are not indebted to the Chinese.
India is aware of this and is desperately trying to decouple from the Chinese economy. On the other hand India has deep ties to all the major Western economies with healthy trade balances that are not skewed either way.
People claiming India is looking to ditch the Western alliance and hook up with the Chinese are hilariously ill informed and unintelligent and lazy. India sees China as its top existential threat. Top Indian public officials have gone on to the extent to openly state that India's nukes are only meant for China. India's main foreign policy imperative since the days of the cold war has been to prevent a Russia-China alliance. This objective has now seemingly failed.
But a Russia-China alliance that will take shots against India is such a crazy nightmare for India that even now they are trying everything possible to maintain good relations with Russia, in spite of the Russians being pushed into a Chinese embrace. Ukraine's total destruction (or not) in the grand scheme of things is not of equal concern to India, compared to a hostile China that is joined by an equally hostile Russia.
Edit: In addition, it has to be mentioned, that India has always been skeptical of western support. Recent US withdrawal from Afghanistan is seen as proof that the West can never be relied upon and will ditch their friends for minor political gains. The unreliable nature of the west and the potential existential danger of an anti-India Russia-China alliance will keep India away from endorsing the Ukrainian side in the current war or even taking hostile steps against any Russian behaviour in the future. Neutrality in the current Ukraine conflict is the best any informed western analyst can even hope for.
India is aware of this and is desperately trying to decouple from the Chinese economy. On the other hand India has deep ties to all the major Western economies with healthy trade balances that are not skewed either way.
People claiming India is looking to ditch the Western alliance and hook up with the Chinese are hilariously ill informed and unintelligent and lazy. India sees China as its top existential threat. Top Indian public officials have gone on to the extent to openly state that India's nukes are only meant for China. India's main foreign policy imperative since the days of the cold war has been to prevent a Russia-China alliance. This objective has now seemingly failed.
But a Russia-China alliance that will take shots against India is such a crazy nightmare for India that even now they are trying everything possible to maintain good relations with Russia, in spite of the Russians being pushed into a Chinese embrace. Ukraine's total destruction (or not) in the grand scheme of things is not of equal concern to India, compared to a hostile China that is joined by an equally hostile Russia.
Edit: In addition, it has to be mentioned, that India has always been skeptical of western support. Recent US withdrawal from Afghanistan is seen as proof that the West can never be relied upon and will ditch their friends for minor political gains. The unreliable nature of the west and the potential existential danger of an anti-India Russia-China alliance will keep India away from endorsing the Ukrainian side in the current war or even taking hostile steps against any Russian behaviour in the future. Neutrality in the current Ukraine conflict is the best any informed western analyst can even hope for.
> More than the border skirmishes, China and India have a trade relationship that is predatory. It can even be considered colonial,
Sounds pretty far fetched really. Just using emotive meaningless words -- China has no colony in India.
> with India being disadvantaged
With India being overall advantaged though, otherwise they would not enter into the relationship in the first place. Just possibly somewhat less advantaged than China.
This isn't some tiny nation being bullied and coerced, it's the country with the largest population in the world! And while they might share some border, China controls virtually none of India's important trade or transport routes.
Sounds pretty far fetched really. Just using emotive meaningless words -- China has no colony in India.
> with India being disadvantaged
With India being overall advantaged though, otherwise they would not enter into the relationship in the first place. Just possibly somewhat less advantaged than China.
This isn't some tiny nation being bullied and coerced, it's the country with the largest population in the world! And while they might share some border, China controls virtually none of India's important trade or transport routes.
Brothers fistfight.
>Western policy risks building up a big Asian military alliance.
I wonder if China's plan is to give Russia enough aid to keep the war going and build a sizeable debt, but not enough for Russia to actually win. In that plan, China would hold economic and political power over Russia.
I don't see why China would want Russia to win. A nuclear neighbor run by a defacto dictator high on the spoils of war? NATO strengthening ties and military forces in response to a major adversary? Sounds terrible. A subservient neighbor without access to any other advanced country's economy, so you can squeeze them on imports and exports, and they also have nukes you can rattle by proxy? Chance of NATO calming down after a few years of good behavior from Russia? Sounds nice¹.
¹Not nice for anyone but China, of course.
I wonder if China's plan is to give Russia enough aid to keep the war going and build a sizeable debt, but not enough for Russia to actually win. In that plan, China would hold economic and political power over Russia.
I don't see why China would want Russia to win. A nuclear neighbor run by a defacto dictator high on the spoils of war? NATO strengthening ties and military forces in response to a major adversary? Sounds terrible. A subservient neighbor without access to any other advanced country's economy, so you can squeeze them on imports and exports, and they also have nukes you can rattle by proxy? Chance of NATO calming down after a few years of good behavior from Russia? Sounds nice¹.
¹Not nice for anyone but China, of course.
> It should be obvious to China that what is currently happening to Russia is also slated to happen to them
What, the US has scheduled the Chinese invasion of Taiwan for the convenience in destroying China?
> it is astonishingly rare for the US military to get involved and leave a country better off than when they entered
I think you need to distinguish between a hostile occupation and a liberation. Which is what went wrong in Iraq, of course; it was astonishingly naive to assume that the US would be greeted as liberators there. But remember, Ukraine is being liberated by fellow Ukranians on the ground.
> The Poles are wise to be rapidly militarising.
The Poles are militarizing in case Ukraine loses and they have to fight the same war. It's extremely in Poland's interest for the Ukranians to win.
What, the US has scheduled the Chinese invasion of Taiwan for the convenience in destroying China?
> it is astonishingly rare for the US military to get involved and leave a country better off than when they entered
I think you need to distinguish between a hostile occupation and a liberation. Which is what went wrong in Iraq, of course; it was astonishingly naive to assume that the US would be greeted as liberators there. But remember, Ukraine is being liberated by fellow Ukranians on the ground.
> The Poles are wise to be rapidly militarising.
The Poles are militarizing in case Ukraine loses and they have to fight the same war. It's extremely in Poland's interest for the Ukranians to win.
[deleted]
> It should be obvious to China that what is currently happening to Russia is also slated to happen to them.
"If we arrest this murderer, other murderers might get worried!"
An international spanking for starting a war of aggression is a wonderful precedent to set.
"If we arrest this murderer, other murderers might get worried!"
An international spanking for starting a war of aggression is a wonderful precedent to set.
>> It should be obvious to China that what is currently happening to Russia is also slated to happen to them.
> An international spanking for starting a war of aggression is a wonderful precedent to set.
That's the wrong metaphor. The West is in no position to provide "spankings" on demand. It's not the world's parent, and even it if was, children eventually grow up and parents pass their peak and decline in strength.
China will learn from this (Russia's tactical mistakes), and will adapt to avoid repeating them. The West may get cocky from the successes in Ukraine, and fail to adapt, and put itself in a position to be "spanked."
You can actually see the same dynamic in Ukraine: Russia invaded in 2014, and totally spanked Ukraine. Ukraine adapted, but the Russians cockily waltzed in in 2022 expecting to be able to repeat 2014, and got spanked themselves.
> An international spanking for starting a war of aggression is a wonderful precedent to set.
That's the wrong metaphor. The West is in no position to provide "spankings" on demand. It's not the world's parent, and even it if was, children eventually grow up and parents pass their peak and decline in strength.
China will learn from this (Russia's tactical mistakes), and will adapt to avoid repeating them. The West may get cocky from the successes in Ukraine, and fail to adapt, and put itself in a position to be "spanked."
You can actually see the same dynamic in Ukraine: Russia invaded in 2014, and totally spanked Ukraine. Ukraine adapted, but the Russians cockily waltzed in in 2022 expecting to be able to repeat 2014, and got spanked themselves.
> The West is in no position to provide "spankings" on demand.
They seem to manage it fairly often, and certainly in this case.
> China will learn from this (Russia's tactical mistakes), and will adapt to avoid repeating them.
I most certainly hope they do. Giving up on taking Taiwan by force would be a wonderful result out of the Ukraine war. The West should encourage that lesson by pre-arming Taiwan with as many F-16s, Javelins, Stingers, etc. that they can produce.
They seem to manage it fairly often, and certainly in this case.
> China will learn from this (Russia's tactical mistakes), and will adapt to avoid repeating them.
I most certainly hope they do. Giving up on taking Taiwan by force would be a wonderful result out of the Ukraine war. The West should encourage that lesson by pre-arming Taiwan with as many F-16s, Javelins, Stingers, etc. that they can produce.
> I most certainly hope they do. Giving up on taking Taiwan by force would be a wonderful result out of the Ukraine war. The West should encourage that lesson by pre-arming Taiwan with as many F-16s, Javelins, Stingers, etc. that they can produce.
That they'd just give up on militarily taking Taiwan because of this is more Western fantasy that reality, so I doubt that. The lessons they'll take will be ones of military tactics and strategy. They can assume the West will dump "F-16s, Javelins, Stingers, etc." into Taiwan, so how can they counter that? Maybe they develop a version of the US/Israeli Tropy system,* and put it on all their tanks. If they're competent at all, they're going to make sure they're making none of Russia mistakes (e.g. they're going to have someone making sure they're regularly rotating the tires on their military vehicles).
But maybe they don't have to do much if anything, since Taiwan will be far, far harder to resupply than Ukraine.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy_(countermeasure)
That they'd just give up on militarily taking Taiwan because of this is more Western fantasy that reality, so I doubt that. The lessons they'll take will be ones of military tactics and strategy. They can assume the West will dump "F-16s, Javelins, Stingers, etc." into Taiwan, so how can they counter that? Maybe they develop a version of the US/Israeli Tropy system,* and put it on all their tanks. If they're competent at all, they're going to make sure they're making none of Russia mistakes (e.g. they're going to have someone making sure they're regularly rotating the tires on their military vehicles).
But maybe they don't have to do much if anything, since Taiwan will be far, far harder to resupply than Ukraine.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy_(countermeasure)
> But maybe they don't have to do much if anything, since Taiwan will be far, far harder to resupply than Ukraine.
It's also harder to invade, what with the lack of land routes, and there is a reason for the AUKUS nuclear submarine partnership and the US plan to equip sone of its existing ballistic missile subs with new high-speed, long-range, conventional precision weaponry starting within 5 years.
It's also harder to invade, what with the lack of land routes, and there is a reason for the AUKUS nuclear submarine partnership and the US plan to equip sone of its existing ballistic missile subs with new high-speed, long-range, conventional precision weaponry starting within 5 years.
> It's also harder to invade, what with the lack of land routes, and there is a reason for the AUKUS nuclear submarine partnership and the US plan to equip sone of its existing ballistic missile subs with new high-speed, long-range, conventional precision weaponry starting within 5 years.
It seems like really bad idea that could easily be confused for a nuclear missile launch.
It seems like really bad idea that could easily be confused for a nuclear missile launch.
> Maybe they develop a version of the US/Israeli Tropy system,* and put it on all their tanks.
Russia already has such a thing (as does China). It'll never be perfect, especially against peer adversaries invested in countering it. (This includes Trophy!)
> But maybe they don't have to do much if anything, since Taiwan will be far, far harder to resupply than Ukraine.
All the more reason to do it in advance.
> If they're competent at all...
Folks thought the Russians were competent up until they had to prove it in combat. You don't think that gives the Chinese pause?
Russia already has such a thing (as does China). It'll never be perfect, especially against peer adversaries invested in countering it. (This includes Trophy!)
> But maybe they don't have to do much if anything, since Taiwan will be far, far harder to resupply than Ukraine.
All the more reason to do it in advance.
> If they're competent at all...
Folks thought the Russians were competent up until they had to prove it in combat. You don't think that gives the Chinese pause?
> Russia already has such a thing (as does China).
Did Russia widely deploy it?
> It'll never be perfect, especially against peer adversaries invested in countering it. (This includes Trophy!)
You could say the same thing about antitank missiles. The system doesn't have to be perfect to prevent a boatload of Javelin's from becoming some kind of trump card.
> All the more reason to do it in advance.
Sure, but supply chain problems could prevent that. Isn't the West pouring so much of their available stockpiles into Ukraine that they may not have enough send to sit in a Taiwanese warehouse?
> Folks thought the Russians were competent up until they had to prove it in combat. You don't think that gives the Chinese pause?
It will give them pause, but not a despondent "we give up forever because this proves we will always fail" pause, but rather a "lets make sure we're even better, so we can succeed when we try" pause.
Did Russia widely deploy it?
> It'll never be perfect, especially against peer adversaries invested in countering it. (This includes Trophy!)
You could say the same thing about antitank missiles. The system doesn't have to be perfect to prevent a boatload of Javelin's from becoming some kind of trump card.
> All the more reason to do it in advance.
Sure, but supply chain problems could prevent that. Isn't the West pouring so much of their available stockpiles into Ukraine that they may not have enough send to sit in a Taiwanese warehouse?
> Folks thought the Russians were competent up until they had to prove it in combat. You don't think that gives the Chinese pause?
It will give them pause, but not a despondent "we give up forever because this proves we will always fail" pause, but rather a "lets make sure we're even better, so we can succeed when we try" pause.
> The system doesn't have to be perfect to prevent a boatload of Javelin's from becoming some kind of trump card.
It kinda does. A Javelin costs $100k. A main battle tank costs millions. Even if it takes 10-20 Javelins you're coming out on top.
> Sure, but supply chain problems could prevent that. Isn't the West pouring so much of their available stockpiles into Ukraine that they may not have enough send to sit in a Taiwanese warehouse?
Make more? Call it economic stimulus.
> It will give them pause, but not a despondent "we give up forever because this proves we will always fail" pause, but rather a "lets make sure we're even better, so we can succeed when we try" pause.
Do you think it's impossible to make Taiwan a tough enough target to resist an invasion, of the kind (massive-scale amphibious) China's never performed before?
It kinda does. A Javelin costs $100k. A main battle tank costs millions. Even if it takes 10-20 Javelins you're coming out on top.
> Sure, but supply chain problems could prevent that. Isn't the West pouring so much of their available stockpiles into Ukraine that they may not have enough send to sit in a Taiwanese warehouse?
Make more? Call it economic stimulus.
> It will give them pause, but not a despondent "we give up forever because this proves we will always fail" pause, but rather a "lets make sure we're even better, so we can succeed when we try" pause.
Do you think it's impossible to make Taiwan a tough enough target to resist an invasion, of the kind (massive-scale amphibious) China's never performed before?
> It kinda does. A Javelin costs $100k. A main battle tank costs millions. Even if it takes 10-20 Javelins you're coming out on top.
According to Wikpedia, they cost more than double that, without the launcher. 20 x 250k = 5 million. For comparison, an Abrams tank costs $6.21 million.
According to https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/type-99-tank-how-chin..., the most-advanced current Chinese tank currently has a unit cost of $2.5 million.
And you're talking like they're some wonder-weapon that makes tanks obsolete. I highly doubt that's true. IIRC, one of Russia's big mistakes, which increased their vulnerability to Javelins, was they tended to drive around big masses of vehicles without adequate infantry support. Tactics are something the Chinese could change.
> Make more? Call it economic stimulus.
Oh, they want to, but my understanding is those production lines take years to ramp up (at least in the West).
> Do you think it's impossible to make Taiwan a tough enough target to resist an invasion, ...
Short of giving it nukes or turning whole country into a military camp, probably.
> ... of the kind (massive-scale amphibious) China's never performed before?
There's always a first. IIRC, the US never did such a thing before D-Day.
According to Wikpedia, they cost more than double that, without the launcher. 20 x 250k = 5 million. For comparison, an Abrams tank costs $6.21 million.
According to https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/type-99-tank-how-chin..., the most-advanced current Chinese tank currently has a unit cost of $2.5 million.
And you're talking like they're some wonder-weapon that makes tanks obsolete. I highly doubt that's true. IIRC, one of Russia's big mistakes, which increased their vulnerability to Javelins, was they tended to drive around big masses of vehicles without adequate infantry support. Tactics are something the Chinese could change.
> Make more? Call it economic stimulus.
Oh, they want to, but my understanding is those production lines take years to ramp up (at least in the West).
> Do you think it's impossible to make Taiwan a tough enough target to resist an invasion, ...
Short of giving it nukes or turning whole country into a military camp, probably.
> ... of the kind (massive-scale amphibious) China's never performed before?
There's always a first. IIRC, the US never did such a thing before D-Day.
> what is currently happening to Russia is also slated to happen to them.
Pretty sure Russia started this war, not the other way around.
Pretty sure Russia started this war, not the other way around.
>Western policy risks building up a big Asian military alliance. It should be obvious to China that what is currently happening to Russia is also slated to happen to them. India will be nervous too unless they are hopelessly naive. China and the US were friends once too, back in ... the 2010s...
So your position is, "we should stand aside and turn a blind eye to Russia's violent and unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation because China might worry that we won't allow them to violently invade other countries?"
So your position is, "we should stand aside and turn a blind eye to Russia's violent and unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation because China might worry that we won't allow them to violently invade other countries?"
Been my policy since Iraq. Let the bullies bully.
For all the horrors in the Middle East, the Iraq war was less damaging locally than Ukraine will be for Europe.
This one war could easily accomplish what took decades of coups and army movements over in the ruins of the Ottoman empire.
For all the horrors in the Middle East, the Iraq war was less damaging locally than Ukraine will be for Europe.
This one war could easily accomplish what took decades of coups and army movements over in the ruins of the Ottoman empire.
> Been my policy since Iraq. Let the bullies bully.
lets call it what it is, its not bullies, in the case of Ukraine its a concerted effort by Russia to wipe a country out of existence, including the use of rape and torture.
But your policy doesn't sound so benign when its "let rapists rape and torturers torture" does it.
lets call it what it is, its not bullies, in the case of Ukraine its a concerted effort by Russia to wipe a country out of existence, including the use of rape and torture.
But your policy doesn't sound so benign when its "let rapists rape and torturers torture" does it.
It's a terrible policy. Not all conflicts are identical to Iraq. What will be the most damaging for Europe is if Russia is permitted to violently invade and annex neighboring sovereign nations. It's insane that you would think otherwise.
.. how?
Around 8 million Ukraine refugees to 4 million Iraqis, and we could reasonably see the collapse of Russia, Ukraine & Belarus after the dust settles. There is a lot of pressure being bought to a point here. Not to mention a shit-tonne of weapons were just dumped into one of the world's more corrupt countries, we don't really know where they will end up.
And that is assuming the reasonably optimistic outcomes where Russia avoids launching a volley of nukes east or west as a final "screw you all we're not going out alone".
And that is assuming the reasonably optimistic outcomes where Russia avoids launching a volley of nukes east or west as a final "screw you all we're not going out alone".
> Not to mention a shit-tonne of weapons were just dumped into one of the world's more corrupt countries, we don't really know where they will end up.
It's evident they end up killing Russians, we even get videos of it!.
> And that is assuming the reasonably optimistic outcomes where Russia avoids launching a volley of nukes east or west as a final "screw you all we're not going out alone".
You're telling me that the entire chair command, when faced with losing an external war to Ukraine is going to all the way down make the decision to launch and nuke and kill everyone last of themselves?.
I think thats unlikely to happen.
It's evident they end up killing Russians, we even get videos of it!.
> And that is assuming the reasonably optimistic outcomes where Russia avoids launching a volley of nukes east or west as a final "screw you all we're not going out alone".
You're telling me that the entire chair command, when faced with losing an external war to Ukraine is going to all the way down make the decision to launch and nuke and kill everyone last of themselves?.
I think thats unlikely to happen.
The more likely scenario is that Russia would rather detonate a nuke in Ukraine than lose the war, regardless of what NATO's response would be.
Having Ukraine become an official NATO base of operations is that dangerous to Russia, especially if it happens after they were just conclusively beaten in a war. It would obviously soon mean NATO support for separatists in Russian states directly, and the end of the federation.
Having Ukraine become an official NATO base of operations is that dangerous to Russia, especially if it happens after they were just conclusively beaten in a war. It would obviously soon mean NATO support for separatists in Russian states directly, and the end of the federation.
> The more likely scenario is that Russia would rather detonate a nuke in Ukraine than lose the war, regardless of what NATO's response would be.
I really hope that nuke works and that not one person in that command chain has reservations about ending the country he lives in existence in its entirety.
Make no mistake, detonating a nuke will not only bring a response from NATO, it would bring a response from the world. Russia is done for if they do that.
> Having Ukraine become an official NATO base of operations is that dangerous to Russia, especially if it happens after they were just conclusively beaten in a war. It would obviously soon mean NATO support for separatists in Russian states directly, and the end of the federation.
How is having Ukraine become a NATO member anymore dangerous then Finland?, who literally just joined NATO.
I really hope that nuke works and that not one person in that command chain has reservations about ending the country he lives in existence in its entirety.
Make no mistake, detonating a nuke will not only bring a response from NATO, it would bring a response from the world. Russia is done for if they do that.
> Having Ukraine become an official NATO base of operations is that dangerous to Russia, especially if it happens after they were just conclusively beaten in a war. It would obviously soon mean NATO support for separatists in Russian states directly, and the end of the federation.
How is having Ukraine become a NATO member anymore dangerous then Finland?, who literally just joined NATO.
> The more likely scenario is that Russia would rather detonate a nuke in Ukraine than lose the war, regardless of what NATO's response would be.
Based on literally nothing but your own fantasies.
Based on literally nothing but your own fantasies.
1. Nothing was being done to Russia to force them into their war of choice. China ought to learn that too.
2. We're already in WW3, heavy hitting countries aren't directly firing at each other but enough of the world is indirectly or directly in war via proxies that I'd say the world is already in the war.
3. Ukraine isn't being rebuilt by just one country. A good portion of the free world already has established funds for non military aid to Ukraine. As far as I am aware China has not really aided Ukraine at all.
2. We're already in WW3, heavy hitting countries aren't directly firing at each other but enough of the world is indirectly or directly in war via proxies that I'd say the world is already in the war.
3. Ukraine isn't being rebuilt by just one country. A good portion of the free world already has established funds for non military aid to Ukraine. As far as I am aware China has not really aided Ukraine at all.
Why would we be in WW3, when a former superpower that is merely a vestige of its past slowly grinds up their (unfortunately) expandable populace by attacking another sovereign country, which the West supports through monetary/strategic ways only?
A world war would require some kind of equal threat, but that’s just orders of magnitude not the case with Russia vs NATO, and China has no reason to go against NATO for Russia either. Sure, we have nukes now so we still are standing in a bucket of gasoline with a lighted match, but suicide is not in the interest of Russia either - hopefully someone would coup before that.
A world war would require some kind of equal threat, but that’s just orders of magnitude not the case with Russia vs NATO, and China has no reason to go against NATO for Russia either. Sure, we have nukes now so we still are standing in a bucket of gasoline with a lighted match, but suicide is not in the interest of Russia either - hopefully someone would coup before that.
NATO (& allied free democracies), Russia, & CCP don't have to be directly shooting at one another to have the most of the World be at War.
A lot is wrapped up in "regional" conflicts that mask how much economic powers are influencing and fighting each other through proxies (to secure resources).
A lot is wrapped up in "regional" conflicts that mask how much economic powers are influencing and fighting each other through proxies (to secure resources).
Most likely USA will be destroyed. Most American nukes are in their 50s-60s. USA also has a doctrine to cut loses as can be seen in Vietnam and Afghanistan. A quick sucessions of tactical nukes on American carrier fleets and pre-emptive strikes on 30 of American top cities will render American surrender. Even if they decide to launch, their ballistic nukes are interceptable, their satelites are now trailed by many Russian and Chinese satelite killers. As for F35, let just dig in that Israel F35 has been shotdown in Syria and likely another one F35 accident in Pacific in the last 24mths. Russia alone has about 20K nukes and deliverables with near 100% accuracy while USA THAAD and Patriots have been widely known as duds (Saud had to change their policies to make peace with Yemen and Syria because of poor American weaponry). By the way, USA imports Russian uranium. Considering John Titor's timeline America nuked and fractured in his timeline plus some East Asian prophecies about the fall of USA, I do believe WW3 would be a short one. The whole text of original Titor are in Library of Congress. Read that version. It did mentioned about Bill Gates and segway. Poles are widely known as military weak. Their only good one was their winged Hussars in medieval time. Already closed to 20K of theirs in Ukrainian as "mercs and volunteers" slaughtered. I dont think they willing to go WW3. They are too close to Russia, just purely on logistics, not enough Americans soldiers and artillery shells able to sustain Russian assault backed by Chinese factories. It is better they go for MYOB strategy. Doing Ukrainian or 80s Saddam-USA friendly Iraq policies are fatal. With Russians and Chinese establishing their influence in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Africa, and now Ukraine I just dont see how EU can do much. Already they have to content with x6 fuel price without Russia and Chinese now able to half thrir fuel cost thanks to Russians gas pipes....that is 12x advantage just on energy alone. If you look at IQ and labor cost, EU sre serious outnumbered. We not even counting massive industrial espionage to bring EU IPs into Russia and China.
WWIII is already in action. It's a cold war, but it's world. It's actual hypocrisy that it's OK to send guns (but not the best!) and not soldiers but whatever.
if china doesn't want to find themselves in the same situation, literally all they need to do is not invade any other countries, simple as.
The annihilation of Ukraine and the violent expansion of a nuclear armed dictatorship is not a risk in your eyes?
they don't want to expand. The original goal is to have ukraine not in NATO and not pointing missiles at them.
Ukraine although not in nato, had been doing training with nato for a while prior to the invasion.
Ukraine although not in nato, had been doing training with nato for a while prior to the invasion.
So Ukraine is moving closer to NATO due to a fear of offensive actions from Russia, and that is your justification for actually attacking them and invading their country? Ukraine was obviously justified in seeking a military alliance to protect itself against illegal invasions.
This argument is essentially denying Ukraine's right to sovereignty. It's a bad and disingenous justification for a wholly illegal and unprovoked invasion of a sovereign country.
This argument is essentially denying Ukraine's right to sovereignty. It's a bad and disingenous justification for a wholly illegal and unprovoked invasion of a sovereign country.
You're confusing the cause and the effect.
The invasion happened after the unofficial joining of nato, obviously.
Do you really think there is a country that would not react if a very big neighbouring country were to join an enemy military alliance?
The invasion happened after the unofficial joining of nato, obviously.
Do you really think there is a country that would not react if a very big neighbouring country were to join an enemy military alliance?
If you are in an armed standoff with someone, you have to need a lot of trust to let them point a gun at your head in self-defense.
How high do you let the gun get before you consider it provocation?
How high do you let the gun get before you consider it provocation?
They have made many very public statements to the effects that they do want to expand, also for example questioning the legitimacy of the Baltic states, and sending many planes on defense-probing paths in the overall Zapad (Western) direction. So you are going to have to work a bit harder at convincing us that they don't want to be doing what they say they want to do, and also atrociously attempt to do.
USA sends planes over Iran. Does it mean USA wants to invade Iran?
> they don't want to expand.
That is laughable. They annexed Crimea in 2014, and now claim Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia. Very strange behavior for a country that is just 'protecting itself from NATO'.
That is laughable. They annexed Crimea in 2014, and now claim Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia. Very strange behavior for a country that is just 'protecting itself from NATO'.
Do you mean before the invasion of 2014?
(???????)
Not the poster but probably. There were significant NATO policy decisions immediately preceding the 2014 invasion with respect to Ukraine. Further decisions were taken immediately proceeding the 2022 build up and subsequent invasion.
The first was in 2008 when NATO decided Ukraine could start the NATO membership process.
This came to a head at the start of 2014 when Euromaidan revolution lead to a change of government.
In 2014, the Ukrainian parliament renounced Ukraine's non-aligned status.
In 2016, Ukraine was granted a NATO Comprehensive Assistance Package (CAP), comprising the advisory mission at the NATO Representation to Ukraine as well as 16 capacity-building programs and Trust Funds.
In 2018, Ukraine was officially given an aspiring member status.
2021 NATO reaffirmed that Ukraine will become a member.
Here is some basic information from the right wing conspiratorial outlet NPR:
https://www.npr.org/2022/01/29/1076193616/ukraine-russia-nat...
The first was in 2008 when NATO decided Ukraine could start the NATO membership process.
This came to a head at the start of 2014 when Euromaidan revolution lead to a change of government.
In 2014, the Ukrainian parliament renounced Ukraine's non-aligned status.
In 2016, Ukraine was granted a NATO Comprehensive Assistance Package (CAP), comprising the advisory mission at the NATO Representation to Ukraine as well as 16 capacity-building programs and Trust Funds.
In 2018, Ukraine was officially given an aspiring member status.
2021 NATO reaffirmed that Ukraine will become a member.
Here is some basic information from the right wing conspiratorial outlet NPR:
https://www.npr.org/2022/01/29/1076193616/ukraine-russia-nat...
That might have been the case up until 2008 when NATO put Ukrainian membership on the road map
Ukraine turned to NATO because Russia had already invaded them, occupying Crimea and eastern parts of the country. That invasion was completely unjustified as well. It started with Russia getting a big mad Ukraine was acting like a sovereign nation and wanted to sign a free trade agreement with a functional economy instead of them.
Russia's problems are all of their own making. They had no need to invade Ukraine. They did so because Ukraine didn't want to be their puppet state like Belarus. The Russian government wants to treat former SSRs like they're still economic tributaries to Moscow.
Russia's problems are all of their own making. They had no need to invade Ukraine. They did so because Ukraine didn't want to be their puppet state like Belarus. The Russian government wants to treat former SSRs like they're still economic tributaries to Moscow.
Russia (Putin) got mad because Ukraine threatened to turn into a functioning democracy. That was a massive threat to Putin because people at home might get ideas - ideas like "maybe that could work here, too".
A democracy should respect popular vote. That isn't exactly what happened in Crimea though…
[deleted]
I have a bet going with a co-worker regarding the state of this conflict by the end of the year. He gets his information from what would generally be considered "reputable mainstream sources" and I from the "darkweb underbelly" of the internet. It'll be an interesting test to see if I have been able to discern between the truth and misinfo, and whether the institutions behind his sources do a better job at vetting information, or are just propaganda mouthpieces. He thinks Russia is about to lose handedly, I believe large swaths of Eastern Ukraine will effectively be part of Russia going forward. We put some money down. Time to see which epistemological approach wins out.
You're probably getting downvoted because betting is pretty darn cynical. But I also follow some of the Russian & Ukrainian propaganda sources to contrast it with Western media. While 80% of the time it's total garbage, they are often several days - even weeks ahead on certain stories. And some stories never even make it to mainstream media. The key is to know what to ignore (i.e., jingoistic bantering, etc) and what to pay attention to (photos, videos). It's also not for the faint of heart. Lot's of people getting killed, dead bodies, fresh graveyards, etc. I often have to take breaks from looking at it.
What I've found to understand is that Western media actual represents most facts. Ukraine media often understates Russian success. While Russia media always overstates their success. The regular media then usually gets the story right.
Also, video's of fighting and people dying isn't very informing, they are too situational and too local.
Lesson of the day, both UKR and RUS media are not very trustworthy. It's gotten to a point where I've stopped investing in it.
Also, video's of fighting and people dying isn't very informing, they are too situational and too local.
Lesson of the day, both UKR and RUS media are not very trustworthy. It's gotten to a point where I've stopped investing in it.
shrimp_emoji(1)
By the end of 2023? What did you agree on for the definitions of "lose handily", "large swaths of Eastern Ukraine", and "effectively part of Russia"?
From a long term perspective, Russia has already lost handily - the cratering of the male fighting-age population (either from casualties or from fleeing the country) will be nearly impossible to recover from.
From a long term perspective, Russia has already lost handily - the cratering of the male fighting-age population (either from casualties or from fleeing the country) will be nearly impossible to recover from.
> the cratering of the male fighting-age population (either from casualties or from fleeing the country) will be nearly impossible to recover from.
This is happening to Ukraine as well. Ukrainians are not having children right now.
This is happening to Ukraine as well. Ukrainians are not having children right now.
> This is happening to Ukraine as well. Ukrainians are not having children right now.
Even before the war, they weren't having very many. Now they're having even less.
https://www.npr.org/2023/02/22/1155943055/ukraine-low-birth-...
Even before the war, they weren't having very many. Now they're having even less.
https://www.npr.org/2023/02/22/1155943055/ukraine-low-birth-...
"End of the year" is far too soon for that one, I think. Simply on linear progress I wouldn't expect Ukraine to be back to the start of 2022 until after then, and Crimea and Donetsk/Luhansk are going to take longer.
The F/16 deal is evidence towards the idea that the war is settling in to be a long one.
The F/16 deal is evidence towards the idea that the war is settling in to be a long one.
There are plenty of balanced and perceptive people in the mainstream. For example, Fukuyama recently argued for Ukraine to let Donbas go, focus on retaking Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, then use NATO membership and their position around Crimea to disincentivize further Russian attacks [1]. (Viscerally I would prefer a sweeping Ukrainian victory retaking all occupied territory, but retaking Donbas and Crimea would be "hugging a hornet's nest" even if it could be done.)
I think predictive success is more down to the person sorting the info than the source. I ignore most of the war of words and focus on the territory changes. Maps are more honest.
[1] https://www.americanpurpose.com/articles/nato-membership-for...
I think predictive success is more down to the person sorting the info than the source. I ignore most of the war of words and focus on the territory changes. Maps are more honest.
[1] https://www.americanpurpose.com/articles/nato-membership-for...
Sounds to me like you’re friend is the sucker at this particular poker table. Seems like you’ve got this one in the bag, regardless of where he gets his news.
Congrats on the favorable terms of your best, I guess.
Congrats on the favorable terms of your best, I guess.
What happens if part of Russia get occupied by Ukraine, like what is reportedly starting to happen now in Belgorod?.
If I was doing something this sick I would not be posting about it under my real name got damn.
It may look crass, but putting money on the line means there is price for hot air, thus hopefully the people involved will do more research and think a bit more deeply. If you're not willing to put serious cash down on a position, you are in some sense implying little confidence in that position.
This isn't new for Russian Army. You win wars with staying power and quick adaptation.
The funiest millitary book I have ever read was Decision in the Ukraine written form the Western (German) perspective... It is basically accusing Russian army of not fighting "fair" - digging with defense in depth, using well places artillery and minefields to blunt the offensive of elite German SS Panzer corps.
Russia Against Napoleon is also well worth reading to realize to what lengths Russia can go to win the war... This small Russian, hungry army in rags in Lower Silesia in 1813 who still had the spirit to carry the war to Paris by 1814...
https://www.amazon.com/Decision-Ukraine-Operations-Stackpole...
https://www.amazon.com/Russia-Against-Napoleon-Story-Campaig...
The funiest millitary book I have ever read was Decision in the Ukraine written form the Western (German) perspective... It is basically accusing Russian army of not fighting "fair" - digging with defense in depth, using well places artillery and minefields to blunt the offensive of elite German SS Panzer corps.
Russia Against Napoleon is also well worth reading to realize to what lengths Russia can go to win the war... This small Russian, hungry army in rags in Lower Silesia in 1813 who still had the spirit to carry the war to Paris by 1814...
https://www.amazon.com/Decision-Ukraine-Operations-Stackpole...
https://www.amazon.com/Russia-Against-Napoleon-Story-Campaig...
Indeed. In the vast historiography of WW2's Eastern Front, the winning qualities of the Red Army have changed nearly as fast as the roster of writers enunciating them. German generals, American spooks, British professionals, then the post-Fall ex-Soviet source equipped historians, all with their own different verdict on what fueled that dramatic reverse[1]. With one single exception: the fact that Russians learned very, very rapidly.
Being not one generation separated from Russian émigrés myself, that resonates with my outsider's view of the national character: charismatic, paranoid, chimeral, but deeply brilliant. It's unfortunate that these qualities somehow never gave rise to secular skepticism, but perhaps such a large land mass doesn't have much room for that kind of civitas.
[1] Or not so dramatic at all. With better numbers, historians of the 21st Century have become increasingly certain that the reverse was not so dramatic, and that German victory in the East might well have been impossible. It never feels like that at the time, of course; go ask any unfortunate American veteran how in control of events they felt on the streets of Fallujah.
Being not one generation separated from Russian émigrés myself, that resonates with my outsider's view of the national character: charismatic, paranoid, chimeral, but deeply brilliant. It's unfortunate that these qualities somehow never gave rise to secular skepticism, but perhaps such a large land mass doesn't have much room for that kind of civitas.
[1] Or not so dramatic at all. With better numbers, historians of the 21st Century have become increasingly certain that the reverse was not so dramatic, and that German victory in the East might well have been impossible. It never feels like that at the time, of course; go ask any unfortunate American veteran how in control of events they felt on the streets of Fallujah.
My favorite example is reactive armour of 1945.
When Russian tanks entered German towns in 1945 they had been greeted with Panzerfaust... So the Russian tankist started welding spring beds to their armour making Panzerfaust useless in city warfare.
When Russian tanks entered German towns in 1945 they had been greeted with Panzerfaust... So the Russian tankist started welding spring beds to their armour making Panzerfaust useless in city warfare.
Yup. And started using captured Panzerfausts to make flank progress from basement to basement. Blasting through walls.
The list of Red Army improvisations and peculiarities during WW2 is huge and impressive, with several of them having significant impact:
* Later war, setting off kerosene fires on their tanks at the start of action, which made enemy gunners think the tank had been knocked out. "Why is the dead tank moving?" might seem obvious, but remember it's not uncommon for a knocked out tank to continue to advance, even with the crew mulched. So, short of ammo, which the Germans most certainly were, no one risked a follow up shot . . until the Russian machines were on top of them.
* It also turned out that sunflower oil worked great as bolt lube, and although "the Ivans" were basically starving the entire time, Red Army always seemed to be able to find sunflowers.
* Grenade improvisations: several ingenious incendiary layouts and formulations including many with powdered aluminum and elemental sodium; more than a few molotovs had mixes that when ignited were basically chemical weapons; harnessing (fish?)hooks to thrown grenades (to catch on netting and slats, to explode higher) against embrasures; improvised shape charges from recovered plastic explosive (reverse-engineered from Faustpatrones); wooden cases for mines and incendiaries to evade magnetic sweeps.
* There's more artillery improv than I could list here. The Red Army seemed much more canny with smoke and flare than the Wehrmacht did, perhaps because the German infantry had a very strong reliance on offense and, well, shooting straight. Red Army made no such assumptions. Probably the best known arty "invention" is the double-usage of corps-level artillery like the 152 mm (ML-20) as self-propelled assault guns that accompanied smaller groups as surprise antitank guns or as good old fashioned bomb tossers. A surprising number of life's problems can be eliminated by yeeting 50 kgs of high explosive at them.
* The 7.62×25mm Tokarev was (is) an extremely spicy pistol round, and made the massed SMG fire of Red Army conscripts as much as 20% longer ranged than the enemy's 9×19mm equivalent. Not until the 7.62mm Kurz would (some) German infantry have better automatic fires at the individual level (although German GPMGs - specifically the MG-34 and particularly the MG-42 - were almost certainly the best of the war). Konev was aware of this range difference between PPD/PPSH/PPS and MP40, although he felt that the Russian round's advantage was in greater cover penetration (which, honestly, he might have been right on that, busting cover creates a lot of secondary fragmentation - see also youtubes re: "could you survive in a shot up car"). You know what they say about imitation: Wehrmacht troops would fill their hands with PPDs at the first opportunity, which says a lot.
* The overpowered 14.5×114mm anti-tank rifle (PTR series) stayed relevant long after the equivalents in German (using 7.92x94mm Patronen) and British (using .55 Boys) service passed into obsolescence, and was pressed into all sorts of usages: anti-aircraft, extremely long range anti-personnel, and what we would today call anti-materiel (radio masts, landing lights, map boxes, fuel dumps)
* Something more tactical they started doing towards the end of the war was to "fight out" an enemy unit but leave a tunnel through the envelopment. While it seems inferior to destroying the force, the Red Army found that destruction of a unit that started in good fighting trim was generally not worth it, and you would be better off having them route (losing heavy equipment, fuel, and most weapons) into their supporting units, where they would dilute stores. It's one of those little tweaks that shows just how much freedom Stalin was giving his commanders towards the end of the war. He'd come down on the entire country like a ton of bricks after the surrender, of course, and the Red Army would wait another fourteen years for their revenge on Beria. Death of Stalin is not a documentary, but it gets the rhythm exactly right, even if it's tightly compressed.
Reading about WW2's Eastern theatre is always frickin' haunting to me, no matter how jaded I think I am. I know: we've had recent campaigns fought at that intensity - Fallujah comes to mind, Shahikot valley too - but nothing that went on and on and on with millions of people for years and years without pause. Two peoples, each bent on the other's destruction. Like Rwanda with white people; pre-1945 Europeans did not dick around. I should say pre-nuke Europeans. Human-powered genocide got obsoleted right quick in 1945.
The list of Red Army improvisations and peculiarities during WW2 is huge and impressive, with several of them having significant impact:
* Later war, setting off kerosene fires on their tanks at the start of action, which made enemy gunners think the tank had been knocked out. "Why is the dead tank moving?" might seem obvious, but remember it's not uncommon for a knocked out tank to continue to advance, even with the crew mulched. So, short of ammo, which the Germans most certainly were, no one risked a follow up shot . . until the Russian machines were on top of them.
* It also turned out that sunflower oil worked great as bolt lube, and although "the Ivans" were basically starving the entire time, Red Army always seemed to be able to find sunflowers.
* Grenade improvisations: several ingenious incendiary layouts and formulations including many with powdered aluminum and elemental sodium; more than a few molotovs had mixes that when ignited were basically chemical weapons; harnessing (fish?)hooks to thrown grenades (to catch on netting and slats, to explode higher) against embrasures; improvised shape charges from recovered plastic explosive (reverse-engineered from Faustpatrones); wooden cases for mines and incendiaries to evade magnetic sweeps.
* There's more artillery improv than I could list here. The Red Army seemed much more canny with smoke and flare than the Wehrmacht did, perhaps because the German infantry had a very strong reliance on offense and, well, shooting straight. Red Army made no such assumptions. Probably the best known arty "invention" is the double-usage of corps-level artillery like the 152 mm (ML-20) as self-propelled assault guns that accompanied smaller groups as surprise antitank guns or as good old fashioned bomb tossers. A surprising number of life's problems can be eliminated by yeeting 50 kgs of high explosive at them.
* The 7.62×25mm Tokarev was (is) an extremely spicy pistol round, and made the massed SMG fire of Red Army conscripts as much as 20% longer ranged than the enemy's 9×19mm equivalent. Not until the 7.62mm Kurz would (some) German infantry have better automatic fires at the individual level (although German GPMGs - specifically the MG-34 and particularly the MG-42 - were almost certainly the best of the war). Konev was aware of this range difference between PPD/PPSH/PPS and MP40, although he felt that the Russian round's advantage was in greater cover penetration (which, honestly, he might have been right on that, busting cover creates a lot of secondary fragmentation - see also youtubes re: "could you survive in a shot up car"). You know what they say about imitation: Wehrmacht troops would fill their hands with PPDs at the first opportunity, which says a lot.
* The overpowered 14.5×114mm anti-tank rifle (PTR series) stayed relevant long after the equivalents in German (using 7.92x94mm Patronen) and British (using .55 Boys) service passed into obsolescence, and was pressed into all sorts of usages: anti-aircraft, extremely long range anti-personnel, and what we would today call anti-materiel (radio masts, landing lights, map boxes, fuel dumps)
* Something more tactical they started doing towards the end of the war was to "fight out" an enemy unit but leave a tunnel through the envelopment. While it seems inferior to destroying the force, the Red Army found that destruction of a unit that started in good fighting trim was generally not worth it, and you would be better off having them route (losing heavy equipment, fuel, and most weapons) into their supporting units, where they would dilute stores. It's one of those little tweaks that shows just how much freedom Stalin was giving his commanders towards the end of the war. He'd come down on the entire country like a ton of bricks after the surrender, of course, and the Red Army would wait another fourteen years for their revenge on Beria. Death of Stalin is not a documentary, but it gets the rhythm exactly right, even if it's tightly compressed.
Reading about WW2's Eastern theatre is always frickin' haunting to me, no matter how jaded I think I am. I know: we've had recent campaigns fought at that intensity - Fallujah comes to mind, Shahikot valley too - but nothing that went on and on and on with millions of people for years and years without pause. Two peoples, each bent on the other's destruction. Like Rwanda with white people; pre-1945 Europeans did not dick around. I should say pre-nuke Europeans. Human-powered genocide got obsoleted right quick in 1945.
> secular skepticism
This and cheap alcohol are the only things in abundance in Russia.
This and cheap alcohol are the only things in abundance in Russia.
I have to believe that experience is gained largely equally on both sides in any conflict. The more interesting question would be whether or not there has ever been a case in history where experience was gained asymmetrically in a conflict.
I read an analyst early on who said much of Ukraine's surprising resistance came from rotating experienced fighters from the front to build up guerilla capacity throughout the country as Russia tried to complete the takeover it started in 2014.
So while the "farmer steals tank" stories were funny, it was likely part of a well-trained, well-organized, and well-equipped resistance. Russia's 2022 escalation improved that preparation as theory met reality and they adapted. Ukraine had 8 years to dig in for a long fight. Russia had 8 years to let its armor rot more.
So while the "farmer steals tank" stories were funny, it was likely part of a well-trained, well-organized, and well-equipped resistance. Russia's 2022 escalation improved that preparation as theory met reality and they adapted. Ukraine had 8 years to dig in for a long fight. Russia had 8 years to let its armor rot more.
How is this a surprise? Nothing can improve an army like war. Just compare the US military before and after the Afghanistan war. Each individual piece of equipment and every tactic went through several evolution.
This is why other countries send troops every time the US goes to war. They send them to practice and learn. Certainly, the United States did not need the help of Ukraine, Latvia, and Moldova in the Iraq war. They went there to learn.
The Middle East has been the largest playground for the world's armies.
This is why other countries send troops every time the US goes to war. They send them to practice and learn. Certainly, the United States did not need the help of Ukraine, Latvia, and Moldova in the Iraq war. They went there to learn.
The Middle East has been the largest playground for the world's armies.
> Furthermore, these measures have reduced the probability of kill of a variety of anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) at ranges beyond 1,400 m.
That’s a significant drop in Javelin range.
That’s a significant drop in Javelin range.
Army is a reflection of the society. For the army to improve radically, the society itself has to learn and improve. If it didn't happen for the last 200 years, why would it happen now?
It did happen multiple times. Usually Russians get better after 1 year of war. It seems the same thing is happening again.
Because being shot at and seeing comrades get hit is a strong incentive?
Also, do you have an argument as to that “it didn't happen for the last 200 years” claim?
Also, do you have an argument as to that “it didn't happen for the last 200 years” claim?
They still don't have running water and indoor sanitary facilities in most of the rural areas.
Outside of datcha villages (summer/weekend garden houses where people generally don't live full time), this is just total BS. Have you ever visited Russia?
Looks like 1-in-5 don't have a flush toilet.
https://hromadske.ua/en/posts/russia-is-struggling-with-a-sh...
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/04/02/indoor-plumbing-st...
https://hromadske.ua/en/posts/russia-is-struggling-with-a-sh...
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/04/02/indoor-plumbing-st...
Flush toilet requires your private house to be connected to a centralized communications OR to your personal water pumps.
#1 is not an option if you leave far away from a town.
#2 is not an option unless you can pay for it and its maintance.
I understand that this sound like a problem or some savagery but in reality this is not much different from the fact that most countries do not have centralized hot water or heating.
My summer house also does not have a flush toilet despite the fact that I can easily afford one. What's the problem?
#1 is not an option if you leave far away from a town.
#2 is not an option unless you can pay for it and its maintance.
I understand that this sound like a problem or some savagery but in reality this is not much different from the fact that most countries do not have centralized hot water or heating.
My summer house also does not have a flush toilet despite the fact that I can easily afford one. What's the problem?
Check this persons posts, they're 90% anti-Russian. No amount of factual or anecdotal information is going to change their attitude.
I've had the same shitty (pun intended) toilet argument on HN with other Russophobs and there's just no reaching these people seething with racial hate.
I've had the same shitty (pun intended) toilet argument on HN with other Russophobs and there's just no reaching these people seething with racial hate.
"Located less than 200 kilometers south of Moscow, the industrial city of Tula is home to around 549,992 people. And about a fifth of them have no access to centralized sewage systems."
From the first link in my previous comment.
Just bringing data to whether or not Russia is well equipped with flush toilets (or really more the point public sanitation).
From a public health standpoint, human waste reaching rivers tend not to be good.
"Untreated human sewage teems with salmonella, hepatitis, dysentery, cryptosporidium, and many other infectious diseases."
https://www.americanrivers.org/threats-solutions/clean-water...
From the first link in my previous comment.
Just bringing data to whether or not Russia is well equipped with flush toilets (or really more the point public sanitation).
From a public health standpoint, human waste reaching rivers tend not to be good.
"Untreated human sewage teems with salmonella, hepatitis, dysentery, cryptosporidium, and many other infectious diseases."
https://www.americanrivers.org/threats-solutions/clean-water...
60 million people in America are on septic systems (non-centralized sewage systems that leech into the ground):
https://www.growingblue.com/septic-or-sewer/#:~:text=Septics....
https://www.growingblue.com/septic-or-sewer/#:~:text=Septics....
https://www.epa.gov/septic/types-septic-systems
They're generally sanitary (when maintained) and are a whole septic system. And are attached to flush toilets.
That's massively different than raw sewage making it to streams and rivers.
However none of this really matters because the point is that many rural Russians lack access to water and proper sewage (apparently as laid out in the above previous links). So politely you're wrong. Have a good day.
They're generally sanitary (when maintained) and are a whole septic system. And are attached to flush toilets.
That's massively different than raw sewage making it to streams and rivers.
However none of this really matters because the point is that many rural Russians lack access to water and proper sewage (apparently as laid out in the above previous links). So politely you're wrong. Have a good day.
[deleted]
>Located less than 200 kilometers south of Moscow, the industrial city of Tula is home to around 549,992 people. And about a fifth of them have no access to centralized sewage systems.
I really doubt about 1/5 but yes, sure, some parts of Tula look like this: https://st05.realtymag.ru/1911/2023-03-31/0/2101217236877371... basically a village with no connection to Tula's centralized sewage system.
>From a public health standpoint, human waste reaching rivers tend not to be good.
It doesn't in most cases. It goes into a hole. By the time it reaches river via ground waters there is literally no problem.
I really doubt about 1/5 but yes, sure, some parts of Tula look like this: https://st05.realtymag.ru/1911/2023-03-31/0/2101217236877371... basically a village with no connection to Tula's centralized sewage system.
>From a public health standpoint, human waste reaching rivers tend not to be good.
It doesn't in most cases. It goes into a hole. By the time it reaches river via ground waters there is literally no problem.
Go look for yourself sometime (be mentally prepared to have your belief system / world view challenged).
And poke around Youtube sometime. Plenty of people in Russia loading up videos (including westerners) of what life is actually like there.
And poke around Youtube sometime. Plenty of people in Russia loading up videos (including westerners) of what life is actually like there.
I am from South America, so my experience in Russia was a tourist. But really, This is basically bullshit. Soviet architectural heritage may be depressing sometimes, but one thing they took seriously is infrastructure.
I was there for the world cup, and after my country was out of the competition I traveled outside the cities hosting games including some very distant places. Agriculture in Russia is mostly an industrial affair just as in the West, with the usual John Deere dealerships dotting the margin of the roads along with some Chinese and Russian brands I've never heard of before, but that seems to be big there.
Of course, I stayed in the western portion of Russia, not even crossing the Urals. It is a gigantic country, and probably as you go east, probably things are more backward.
In general, the Russian experience, at least at the time of the world cup was basically the standard European experience for a traveler, things mostly work, the trains are absurdly better than American ones, on the same level as European trains, and at least in the big cities, you can get around speaking English. If you stay in an Airbnb and cook your meals, supermarkets had incredible variety at good prices.
Probably some things are worse or a lot worse now with the War Economy and sanctions, but on the other side, it is clear that Putin has been preparing for this for a long time, and export substitution has been going on for a long time.
The bottom line is that Russia is not like Elbonia from racist Scott Adams cartoons like so many people think.
I was there for the world cup, and after my country was out of the competition I traveled outside the cities hosting games including some very distant places. Agriculture in Russia is mostly an industrial affair just as in the West, with the usual John Deere dealerships dotting the margin of the roads along with some Chinese and Russian brands I've never heard of before, but that seems to be big there.
Of course, I stayed in the western portion of Russia, not even crossing the Urals. It is a gigantic country, and probably as you go east, probably things are more backward.
In general, the Russian experience, at least at the time of the world cup was basically the standard European experience for a traveler, things mostly work, the trains are absurdly better than American ones, on the same level as European trains, and at least in the big cities, you can get around speaking English. If you stay in an Airbnb and cook your meals, supermarkets had incredible variety at good prices.
Probably some things are worse or a lot worse now with the War Economy and sanctions, but on the other side, it is clear that Putin has been preparing for this for a long time, and export substitution has been going on for a long time.
The bottom line is that Russia is not like Elbonia from racist Scott Adams cartoons like so many people think.
That isn’t in any way an argument for the statement you made that Russian society itself did not learn and improve for the last 200 years.
You’d have to argue that wasn’t better than it was around 1820.
You’d have to argue that wasn’t better than it was around 1820.
Yuri Gagarin and Russia's 99.6% literacy rate disagree. Like it or not, Russians (and Ukrainians for that matter) consistently read and math gooder than Americans.
USSR did run to the finish losing medals to put the first human to space. USA did the same to put humans on the Moon. You can safely ignore these data points as anomalies. Can Russia consistently innovate in any technological field?
Did you read the article? Russia has objectively (for now, that gap will close) outclassed the west at EW, missile defense & offense. They are also a leader in nuclear technology. Are those not high tech industries?
Doesn't really sound all that outclassed. Ukraine has been shooting down a fair bit of Russian attacks and if I'm not mistaken Ukraine has some better ranged munitions now.
Hardly seems like being outclassed when Russia has spent the last year redeveloping it's logistics.
Additionally this is Russia's best vs the Wests hand-me-downs.
Hardly seems like being outclassed when Russia has spent the last year redeveloping it's logistics.
Additionally this is Russia's best vs the Wests hand-me-downs.
> Ukraine has been shooting down a fair bit of Russian attacks
Yes. With old Soviet equipment (largely S-300s and BUKs). Which further proves my point. But those are running low and Ukraine has already lost a Patriot system just a few weeks after going into service.
Ukraine might have some better ranged munitions than they did previously like British Storm Shadows. They have even less range than the the US ATACMS and both are getting intercepted on the regular. And vs. the Russian Kalibrs, neither are all that special.
But the biggest problem is Ukraine doesn't have sufficient launch platforms for them (they are air launched and have to be retrofitted to Soviet era aircraft).
Now Russian logistics is a different story...
Yes. With old Soviet equipment (largely S-300s and BUKs). Which further proves my point. But those are running low and Ukraine has already lost a Patriot system just a few weeks after going into service.
Ukraine might have some better ranged munitions than they did previously like British Storm Shadows. They have even less range than the the US ATACMS and both are getting intercepted on the regular. And vs. the Russian Kalibrs, neither are all that special.
But the biggest problem is Ukraine doesn't have sufficient launch platforms for them (they are air launched and have to be retrofitted to Soviet era aircraft).
Now Russian logistics is a different story...
They have been using a mixture of AA from around the world.
https://archive.fo/zDtjr
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/05/19/ukraine-air-...
Patriot system has been reportedly consistently shooting down Kinzhal.
Not questioning whether or not Russia posses(ed) some great engineers (this would have to include Ukrainians then since this stuff was designed in the USSR) that certainly can do it's job when deployed correctly. Rather that Russia has somehow outclassed the "West" seems rather farfetched here.
https://archive.fo/zDtjr
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/05/19/ukraine-air-...
Patriot system has been reportedly consistently shooting down Kinzhal.
Not questioning whether or not Russia posses(ed) some great engineers (this would have to include Ukrainians then since this stuff was designed in the USSR) that certainly can do it's job when deployed correctly. Rather that Russia has somehow outclassed the "West" seems rather farfetched here.
Do you really believe the Patriot is shooting down Kinzhals? Consider the source. And the physics of it all (the math don't work). And the history of the Patriot system (inability to shoot down 1960s scuds, several friendly fire aircraft incidents). It's a 30+ year old system, after all.
And did you see the full video of the Patriot blowing two full loads before getting taken out in Kiev by Kinzhals (2:14 hit)?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew5lhh_gV1U
And did you see the full video of the Patriot blowing two full loads before getting taken out in Kiev by Kinzhals (2:14 hit)?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew5lhh_gV1U
> Do you really believe the Patriot is shooting down Kinzhals? Consider the source. And the physics of it all. And the history of the Patriot system (inability to shoot down 1960s scuds, several friendly fire aircraft incidents). It's a 30+ year old system, after all.
Yes, its simple hypersonic ballistic missiles are nowhere near new, whats new is hypersonic glide vehicle of which Kinzhal is not. You simply aim for where the missile is going to be in the future and hit to kill it.
Also, the Kinzhal is close to 30+ years old as well as it's just a Iskander thats air launched.
> And did you see the full video of the Patriot blowing two full loads before getting taken out in Kiev by Kinzhals (2:14 hit)?:
You have the video, can you show me a single image of an exploded patriot, you cant because it missed the only damage was from shrapnel from nearby buildings and that was quickly repaired.
Yes, its simple hypersonic ballistic missiles are nowhere near new, whats new is hypersonic glide vehicle of which Kinzhal is not. You simply aim for where the missile is going to be in the future and hit to kill it.
Also, the Kinzhal is close to 30+ years old as well as it's just a Iskander thats air launched.
> And did you see the full video of the Patriot blowing two full loads before getting taken out in Kiev by Kinzhals (2:14 hit)?:
You have the video, can you show me a single image of an exploded patriot, you cant because it missed the only damage was from shrapnel from nearby buildings and that was quickly repaired.
Do you have evidence or facts to show that the news reports on the Patriot system are wrong?
Would love to see evidence that the system was destroyed (as in couldn't be repaired; couldn't still do it's mission) and that Kinzhals have not been shot down.
Would love to see evidence that the system was destroyed (as in couldn't be repaired; couldn't still do it's mission) and that Kinzhals have not been shot down.
Any evidence that Storm Shadow have been shot down regularly?
And in addition to the soviet equipment they have IRIS-T SLM, Patriot and some other western systems.
And in addition to the soviet equipment they have IRIS-T SLM, Patriot and some other western systems.
You imply in a capitalistic system that innovation stems from its own citizen? Especially in the melting pot of the world? Like, you would be hard-pressed to find a single innovation that doesn’t have emigrant names attached to it - the goddamn Manhattan project is jokingly called a Hungarian high school science fair project.
The US got out of WW2 with minimal casualties and a ton of riches, compared to a beaten down Europe/USSR. It’s not a fair comparison. For what it’s worth, the USSR indeed had very great education and have some excellent textbooks/papers as legacy.
The US got out of WW2 with minimal casualties and a ton of riches, compared to a beaten down Europe/USSR. It’s not a fair comparison. For what it’s worth, the USSR indeed had very great education and have some excellent textbooks/papers as legacy.
The joke is Chinese go to America for college to study under professors from the former USSR.
The question "can" is not about the intellectual capability of Russian people but about whether they will be allowed to by their leaders. Innovation is disruptive, after all.
And we're back to my point of the lack of improvement in the society due to fear of disruption of the status quo.
You don't need to be a math genius to buy stuff from China.
[deleted]
You might want to read at least some books on Russian history and results of the Crimean War specifically.
Or chose a number different from 200.
Or chose a number different from 200.
Crimean War was lost. Russian-Japanese War was lost the same way. WWI way lost by Germany, but Russians lost even to Germans. WWII was won as part of the Allies by sacrificing Ukraine and using the extensive support from the US. Looks like a pattern to me.
The USSR won the WW2 in case you haven't learn that in school.
That “Russia” was called USSR, was supported by the West, and included Ukraine among others. This time Russia’s only ally is Iran.
"This time Russia’s only ally is Iran."
This time Russia has nukes and the means to deliver them to any address on this planet.
This time Russia has nukes and the means to deliver them to any address on this planet.
So? What targets are they supposed to nuke?
None at the moment, hopefully. At this moment a single nuke would kill more people than died so far in the war.
Unfortunately, the independent Ukraine has been busy destroying monuments to the Ukrainians that fought againsts Nazis and naming dozens of streets after Nazi collaborants.
School would probably also have noted that 80% of the USSR's copper, 1/3 of its explosives, fuel, trucks, etc. came from the US and UK via Lend-Lease. At a fairly critical time in the war.
Zhukov: "People say that the allies didn't help us. But it cannot be denied that the Americans sent us materiel without which we could not have formed our reserves or continued the war. The Americans provided vital explosives and gunpowder. And how much steel! Could we really have set up the production of our tanks without American steel? And now they are saying that we had plenty of everything on our own."
School might also have noted the complicated history of the USSR and the Nazis; things like the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.
Zhukov: "People say that the allies didn't help us. But it cannot be denied that the Americans sent us materiel without which we could not have formed our reserves or continued the war. The Americans provided vital explosives and gunpowder. And how much steel! Could we really have set up the production of our tanks without American steel? And now they are saying that we had plenty of everything on our own."
School might also have noted the complicated history of the USSR and the Nazis; things like the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.
"At a fairly critical time in the war."
Not really. They mostly started coming after the USSR stopped the Nazis in 1942.
"complicated history of the USSR and the Nazis"
Too bad your school forgets to mention the Munich agreement between the Nazis and the West, and all the efforts of the USSR to forge an anti-Nazi pact with the Great Britain and France. All of which happenned before the M-R pact.
Not really. They mostly started coming after the USSR stopped the Nazis in 1942.
"complicated history of the USSR and the Nazis"
Too bad your school forgets to mention the Munich agreement between the Nazis and the West, and all the efforts of the USSR to forge an anti-Nazi pact with the Great Britain and France. All of which happenned before the M-R pact.
Munich was bad and is to this day a touchstone of failure of character in the West (indeed, one of the ways those proposing capitulation to Russian purported annexation of parts of Ukraine as the cost of peace are mocked is comparing their stand to Munich).
But its not like after Munich, Britain and France invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia while Hitler took the Sudetenland, so bad as it is, it doesn’t compare to the Molotov-Ribbentropp pact.
But its not like after Munich, Britain and France invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia while Hitler took the Sudetenland, so bad as it is, it doesn’t compare to the Molotov-Ribbentropp pact.
"invaded the rest"
The USSR took back what your lovely European hyena bit off from the corpse of the Russian Empire 20 years before that [0][1].
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curzon_Line
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Bounda...
The USSR took back what your lovely European hyena bit off from the corpse of the Russian Empire 20 years before that [0][1].
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curzon_Line
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Bounda...
The European hyena bit off what the Russian Empire hyena bit off 30 years earlier. Which the European hyena bit off 15 years earlier. Which the Russian Empire hyena bit off 20 years earlier. Which the... isn't it convenient to cherry pick one point in history and base all your truth on it?
"isn't it convenient to cherry pick one point in history and base all your truth on it?"
That's exactly the problem with cherry-picking Molotov-Rippentrop pact.
And btw no one of significance has ever called Russian Empire a hyena. Unlike Poland.
That's exactly the problem with cherry-picking Molotov-Rippentrop pact.
And btw no one of significance has ever called Russian Empire a hyena. Unlike Poland.
You've made this up. Nothing relevant happened in the years you listed. In fact, for a hundred of years.
"its not like after Munich, Britain and France invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia"
But Poland and Hungary did [0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Czechoslovakia_(...
But Poland and Hungary did [0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Czechoslovakia_(...
The USSR included Ukraine and was the beneficiary of US lend-lease, too, and per Stalin would have lost without Lend-Lease.
So, you know, not exactly the same as now.
So, you know, not exactly the same as now.
You are probably confusing with Zhukov's remark cited in another comment.
> You are probably confusing with Zhukov's remark cited in another comment.
No, I’m not; Stalin is recorded to have made the comment at the 1943 Tehran Conference with Churchill and Roosevelt.
Zhukov’s statement was 20 years later, addressing Cold War revisionism which minimized that contribution.
No, I’m not; Stalin is recorded to have made the comment at the 1943 Tehran Conference with Churchill and Roosevelt.
Zhukov’s statement was 20 years later, addressing Cold War revisionism which minimized that contribution.
Perhaps he was just being nice. People say a lot of things to get what they want.
The USSR definitely won in Europe, but the US won over the Japanese in the Pacific. Both contributions are equal in terms of importance.
Not really.
The USSR crushed over 600 thousand strong Quanqtung army in less than a month in Machurian strategic offensive operation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria
The USSR crushed over 600 thousand strong Quanqtung army in less than a month in Machurian strategic offensive operation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria
"began on 9 August 1945"? That's participation medal level shit; it's the day the second nuclear bomb was dropped on Nagasaki.
They waited until Japan was beaten, then grabbed some land.
They waited until Japan was beaten, then grabbed some land.
By "waited" you surely meant "were busy fighting Nazis".
And let me quote the wiki article I linked to: "The Soviet entry into the war and the defeat of the Kwantung Army was a significant factor in the Japanese government's decision to surrender unconditionall".
And let me quote the wiki article I linked to: "The Soviet entry into the war and the defeat of the Kwantung Army was a significant factor in the Japanese government's decision to surrender unconditionall".
> By "waited" you surely meant "were busy fighting Nazis".
As were the rest of the Allies. Soviet help with Japan probably would've been welcome much earlier.
> And let me quote the wiki article I linked to: "The Soviet entry into the war and the defeat of the Kwantung Army was a significant factor in the Japanese government's decision to surrender unconditionall".
The Japanese home islands were blockaded, constantly bombed, and hit with nuclear weapons after a grinding campaign across the Pacific. They'd lost by the time the Soviets jumped in; they were solidly on that path since 1942.
Soviet entry may've reinforced the hopelessness of continuing, but the Pacific part of WWII was largely fought by the US and UK alone. Contesting "the US won over the Japanese in the Pacific" is a tough path.
As were the rest of the Allies. Soviet help with Japan probably would've been welcome much earlier.
> And let me quote the wiki article I linked to: "The Soviet entry into the war and the defeat of the Kwantung Army was a significant factor in the Japanese government's decision to surrender unconditionall".
The Japanese home islands were blockaded, constantly bombed, and hit with nuclear weapons after a grinding campaign across the Pacific. They'd lost by the time the Soviets jumped in; they were solidly on that path since 1942.
Soviet entry may've reinforced the hopelessness of continuing, but the Pacific part of WWII was largely fought by the US and UK alone. Contesting "the US won over the Japanese in the Pacific" is a tough path.
Fair enough
Meatgrinder: Russian Tactics in the Second Year of Its Invasion of Ukraine by Dr Jack Watling and Nick Reynolds, 19 May 2023
- HTML wrapper with executive summary: https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/special-r...
- Full PDF paper: https://static.rusi.org/403-SR-Russian-Tactics-web-final.pdf