Stryker1982
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2016
- Messages
- 4,864
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
I completely agree. Even if they managed to take Kiev in the first 3 days of the war, It wouldn't have ended the war, their were tens of thousands of troops deployed all over the country, with their line of communication in tact, and armed with expensive equipment. They can still operate from Lviv. If the UKR army collapsed, they'd still be dealing with an enormous 10 year insurgency but with equipment far better than Iraqi rebels had.I agree with you..
I will also like to add regarding Russia's war against Ukraine it played out how i envisioned it would play out. When you factor in the conventional probability there was never gonna be a roll over whereas the majority of the people were thinking Russia is just gonna come in and roll over.
We have seen conflicts since the last 20yrs but they have all somehow turned into drawn out, cagey affiars and prolonged conflicts that turn into conflicts of attration it was never by chance that thing mostly turn that way.
When you factor in the population of Ukraine 45mio vs 146mio Russians and you factor in that Ukraine is at home you will find yourself in a dog-fight regardless of all the advantages. Not to forget Ukraine is handsomely armed but even if they were not armed as well as they are now they could have still made it into a dog-fight and the battle lines would have been the same..
Alot of people don't factor in today what actully happens when I throw my army against 45mio population that are heavily armed? and how far can I roll over them? There is mathematic probability in wars.
I see Russia probably taking Donbass and perhaps pushing little bit further east perhaps reaching closer to the river but other then that they will be forced to accept long term ceasefires and wait for 10-15 years before going for the 2nd round again.
Hence Russia could only achieve a total capture of Ukraine in the next 70-90 years across as many as 4 wars with 15-20 years pause gaps
Blitz only worked in Iraq cause the land was purely flat and open desert, and Iraq had little weapons to defend themselves with. Really be oversight on Russia's part. Taking a country of 45 million is extremely difficult to managed, especially if even 30% of the country are motivated against you.
If Russia just focused on the Donbass from the start and expended there with all their firepower, they would have had much less casualties and equipment losses. As you say, they will have to bite piece by piece off over time. I think that is really the only way things can work this day an age. If Russia really suffered 20,000 casualties, I'd reckon most of it was suffered during the first few weeks of the war, where they really f-ed up. I doubt they are facing large casualties with this massive artillery advantage they have.
No longer you can just take a whole country over. Populations are far too large in every country now to seize all of it, you'd have to take a chunk out at a time and in size you can manage. A country like the UK who used to just walk into Egypt in 1950, can no longer enter a country of 102 million people.