Russia - threadbanned users in OP

The Russians really take us for thick gullible paddies.

Back to their cave hopefully when this is all over.

Ah, hard to bate the good auld reliable IED's in all their variations !!!

how much of the East can Russia expect to conquer? Mariupol to Kharkiv for a few months? then what

This rather puts the Russian twisting of facts in perspective:

26 is around the death toll from the hollowed out regional administrative building in Mykolaiv, to put those 2020 figures into perspective (27).

I can't make much sense of this. I presume it's an attack on mainly civillians? Protesters?

At least they don't kiss now. Yuck!

I'd guess the Russia M.O. for dispersing protests seems to be gunfire (in the air) and flashbangs, for now (which is what happened in Kherson)

Disgusting to see two large Irish companies on that list. Especially Kingspan, you would have thought they'd be wise enough to stay clear of any bad PR after what the Grenfell enquiry has shown.

You will find all kind of people in any society: informers, ass lickers, manipulators etc. And Ireland is not immune to it. Try to threaten any cronies net in any bigger company here and you will see results.

It is enough to have one bad kid (informer) in a class to have this result.

Poland was ruled for 50 years by socialists, so left wing, which are usually more modern and with no church involved. After that now there is a reaction in an opposite direction to the right wing. But the fact that Poland is ruled by right wing (only 30% of voters) and don't have proper legislation doesn't mean that majoriyty of society thinks in that way.

Even if one were to accept his argument that Ukraine is a 'Nazi' state full of reprehensible people, Filatov gives no explanation as to where Russia would draw the legitimacy to invade its neighbouring country without warning. By any standards, this is a completely illegal invasion and violates numerous international laws - he can't even claim that Ukraine posed a threat to Russia and was planning to either launch an attack or invade it. His argument seems to be "They are a horrible country with a rotten government, so we decided to invade them".

As with so many questions, it depends on a vast array of factors. Right now, Russia is not even close of taking control of Kharkiv, let alone using it as some sort of jumping-off point for military operations. Given the significant number of losses they've suffered, it will take a while for them to regroup, especially since quite a few of the units currently being withdrawn from Kyiv and Chernihiv are not much more than a shell of their former strength.

Russia does have significant military forces still at their disposal in the East, but right now, many of them are barely making process, with Ukraine keeping up a strong defence in much of the Donbas area. In addition, whilst the situation in Mariupol may be horrible, it looks as if that city alone is tying down six BTGs that would otherwise be free to manoeuvre. From what I can see, the only real Russian offensive potentially possible in the short term is a drive south from Izyum to link up with the forces in the rear of the Mariupol siege ring, thereby encircling Ukrainian forces along the Donbas frontline. However, even that is tenuous, given the well-known Russian supply issues. That air strike in Belgorod yesterday likely has done nothing to improve that particular situation.

Beyond that however, the Russian Army faces a laundry list of internal issues, a list that will take more than just a simple transfer of units from one part of the front to the other to resolve.

One is the massive logistical problems that have been discussed ad nauseam in this thread. There is an over reliance on the rail network for getting supplies relatively close to the front, with road-based supply units only meant to basically gap the last few dozen kilometres between the front and the nearest rail head. I'm not even mentioning the inherent corruption that has left much of Russia"s stockpiled material hopelessly out of date.

Going hand-in-hand with that is the issue of maintenance. There have been multiple documented examples of units going into battle with poorly maintained or dangerously deteriorated equipment. Mind you, I'm not talking about clapped-out third echelon T-64s here, I"m talking about modern system like the Pantsir S-1, which had been introduced only in the early 2010s and were already falling apart due to a lack of even basic care and repairs. Once again, this ties back to the corruption issues that I mentioned above.

Then, there are the incessant leadership issues, both on a staff and on a unit level, combined with ingrained doctrinal issues. The Russian Army, like the Red Army before it, is organised along much more strictly hierarchical principles than armies in the west have been, with a strict insistence on obedience and insistence on sticking to the plans worked out by HQ. This not only stifles tactical initiative by junior commanders in the field, it also creates a system where reports going up the chain of command are more often aimed to tell HQ what it wants to hear rather than the actual situation on the ground. Not only does such a system prevent commanders from using their units in a way that reflects the actual battlefield situation, it also suffocates the careers of any "renegade" officers that might threaten the status quo. There's little chance of a Russian Nelson, Rommel, Patton, or even a Woodward or a Spruance rising through the ranks in the current Russian Armed Forces, even with the rapidly rising number of vacancies amongst their generals.

This segues nicely into the next issue, the lack of any true combined arms operations. Rather than having an infantry push supported by tanks and IFVs with close air support and artillery, a type of operation that the Red Army perfected in WW2, we've seen mostly isolated pushes by mechanised infantry units, isolated pushes by tanks, attacks by ground-attack aircraft and helicopters all taking place separately from each other. About the only thing that appears to be somewhat working is artillery and even there, I'm getting the impression that they're simply firing on grid references on a map, rather than at any real target.

All of this will have an influence on Russia's ability to make any progress in the east, especially in the face of a well-motivated and tactically superior opponent. Can Russia still pull off a victory? Possibly, but time is against them!