Russian invasion of Ukraine

[ICTChris]

It's not just special operations forces who have been destroyed.  The initial invasion saw huge losses for Russian paratroopers (the VDV) both in terms of their personnel and equipment.  Naval infantry have also seen huge losses - this year Russian marines were used in the attacks on Vuledar where they lost significant volumes of equipment.

Marines and paratroopers are among the best trained and equipped units in the Russian armed forces and they've been smashed up.  As the article quoted above by @welshbairn says these guys have been used, along with special forces, as basic infantry.  Another example of the destruction of Russian capabilities was seen this week - the pilots killed by Wagner shoot downs at the weekend totalled 17,000 hours of flight time.  That level of combat experience is irreplacable for the Russian Air Force.

 

[Newbornbairn]

17 hours ago, ICTChris said:

Russian channels reporting that Surovkin is being detained. Surovkin was the General out in charge of Russian forces after their decisive defeats in Kharkiv and Kherson. He stabilised the lines and managed to withdraw Russian occupation troops from Kherson city without losing too much equipment and men. He’s widely seen as the most competent Russian military commander but was sidelined in the New Year in favour of Gerasimov, who planned the Russian winter offensive, which took little territory and chewed up huge amounts of combat potential, losing equipment and men in large numbers.

Surovkin was seen as close to Wagner and, despite him being one of the few military brass who publicly backed Putin during the mutiny, he’s alleged to have had forewarning of events.

None of this is confirmed of course.

Here's why Surovkin's been collared

 

Quote

Trying to regain control over the command system, Shoigu issued an order saying that all “volunteer” formations must sign a contract with the Ministry of Defence. According to Deputy Defence Minister Pankov, the order should give “the necessary legal status to volunteer formations, create unified approaches to the organisation of comprehensive support and fulfilment of their tasks.”^[6] Prigozhin immediately rejected the possibility of signing such a contract, noting that Wagner does not obey nor answer to the Ministry of Defence.^[7] Prigozhin also noted that Wagner seeks approval for its actions from the Russian military command via Wagner-affiliated Army General Sergei Surovikin.

https://sceeus.se/en/publications/the-ghost-of-civil-war-in-russia/

 

Interesting site.

 

Quote

the emergence of the so-called “Gerasimov doctrine.” In 2013, the head of the Russian General Staff made a presentation at the Academy of Military Sciences.^[8] Apparently expressing the opinion of Russia’s military and political leadership, he argued that in today’s world there is no clear line between a state of war and a state of peace. It follows from Gerasimov’s words that wars are not currently declared and are waged almost constantly

 

[ClydeTon]

11 hours ago, ICTChris said:

This just isn’t the case. There is no crack Russian army hiding behind the Urals waiting to be unleashed. Russia currently have over 95% of their combat power engaged in the war in Ukraine. 

If Russia had 95% of their men on that frontline this war would be in a history textbook.

Even Western outlets, such as the staunchly left-wing, anti-Russian CNN, will tell you that Russian losses have amounted to but a fraction of their overall strength. Their army still amounts to 800,000> and there is no chance all of that is deployed.

Russia's only full-scale application has been equipment. Tanks, Planes and Warships have been thrown into this war. Men, less so.

Special Forces and Commando units have been thrown in en masse. It's essentially what they do in the middle east and Africa, but at a larger scale with more regular army backing.

Russia's army (in peacetime) is double the size of Ukraine's today. (1,000,000+ to ~500,000) They wouldn't need Wagner or Conscripts if they didn't choose to throw cannon fodder in first.

3 hours ago, LongTimeLurker said:

Important to remember that a significant portion of the properly trained boys got sent in over a year ago when they were expecting to take Kyiv in three days and did not return.

I wouldn't say a significant portion. They were estimated to have between 15,000 and 30,000 at the Battle of Kyiv. Even if 25,000 of them were captured or killed, the Russian army is still massive. https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-may-30-2023 - the Institute for Study of War, an American non-profit, suggest they have ~300,000 in Ukraine, as of May 2023.

On the flipside, the CIA estimate Ukraine had ~700,000 in July 2022.

The Russian Army and all paramilitaries amount to almost 1.5 million. There are one hell of a lot of people not fighting this war.

Russia's main losses have been in their equipment. They've lost hundreds upon hundreds of tanks, planes - of course, missiles - and other, more conventional, equipment, like guns and armour.

They still have a large army.

12 hours ago, ICTChris said:

The pro-Ukrainian Russian volunteers took over several border cities because there aren’t any trained troops to man the border. Wagner drove hundreds of miles to Moscow because no-one was there to stop them.

Wagner drove halfway to Moscow because the army chose  to let them. That was quite well reported. Many armed units agreed with Wagner's sentiment but didn't want to join their march.

Why? Well quite simply, the Russian higher-ups are incompetent, probably the reason they're getting held back by Ukraine. Putin's getting rid of the one general who's had a fair bit of success and replacing him with a total dud. The Russian Army are pretty brutal and would love nothing more than a fight, but they won't, I would imagine, want to go to their graves because some twats in Moscow can't make a war plan. Same way most folk here wouldn't want to fight under Rishi Sunak's orders. If you don't have faith/trust in your leaders, you don't want to die for them.

To conclude, and possibly back-pedal a bit, I was dealing in absolutes a bit with my last post:

• I don't, personally, see Ukraine winning this outright.

• Russia aren't using any more than 1/3 of their manpower. They're using a hell of a lot of equipment.

• Wagner were allowed to march towards Moscow because the Russian Army generally dislike the MoD's decision making, the same view as Wagner.

• Russia are almost certainly throwing conscripts and mercenaries in, rather than losing their best men. They have/had an army only comparable to America and China, a very well-trained one at that. They started conscripting within months of the war starting.

My theory, and I doubt we'll ever know, is that they planned to use the trained men for a quick victory, but after the Battle for Kyiv, they realised that the Ukrainians were going to take them to the death. So, they decided to throw in conscripts from the civilian population to try and take out as many Ukrainians as possible, and attempt to weaken them. Has that been successful? Time will tell.

[MazzyStar]

5 hours ago, Stellaboz said:

Slovenia? Hungary? Romania? 

 

2 hours ago, LongTimeLurker said:

Croatia step on down if you know your Balkans history, but to be fair it's actually very much split down the middle where the legacy of NDH is concerned.

Aye, it was Croatia I was talking about. In terms of historical crimes and public attitudes towards them Croatia is about 100x worse than Serbia is, but since they’re in NATO and the EU and not an ally of Russia you’ll not hear much about it in western media and discourse. 

[Stellaboz]

1 minute ago, MazzyStar said:

 

Aye, it was Croatia I was talking about. In terms of historical crimes and public attitudes towards them Croatia is about 100x worse than Serbia is, but since they’re in NATO and the EU and not an ally of Russia you’ll not hear much about it in western media and discourse. 

Luka Modric broke my heart last euros so they can f**k off. 

[welshbairn]

27 minutes ago, ClydeTon said:

• Russia aren't using any more than 1/3 of their manpower. They're using a hell of a lot of equipment.

They're using a hell of a lot more than 1/3 of their trained combat troops who are only a small percentage of any army, but the ones who make up most of the casualties.

Edited June 29, 2023 by welshbairn

[ClydeTon]

21 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

They're using a hell of a lot more than 1/3 of their trained combat troops who are only a small percentage of any army, but the ones who make up most of the casualties.

The Russian army, pre-war, amounted to roughly 1,000,000. Throw in mercenaries and paramilitaries (saying as the Russians have been working with them), and the Luhansk/Donetsk rebels, and that number rises.

Russia have lost ~30,000 (according to some estimates), and have currently got 300,000 deployed. That number has a large chunk of conscripts.

The average Active Soldier in the Russian army will be decently trained. Reservists, possibly not so much. Solid chance they'll be thrown in as well, though.

[welshbairn]

14 minutes ago, ClydeTon said:

The Russian army, pre-war, amounted to roughly 1,000,000. Throw in mercenaries and paramilitaries (saying as the Russians have been working with them), and the Luhansk/Donetsk rebels, and that number rises.

Russia have lost ~30,000 (according to some estimates), and have currently got 300,000 deployed. That number has a large chunk of conscripts.

The average Active Soldier in the Russian army will be decently trained. Reservists, possibly not so much. Solid chance they'll be thrown in as well, though.

They haven't been losing many admin clerks and kitchen porters. If you also include logistics people and medics serving in the rear of of the frontlines as non combatants the actual fighting force using weapons and military hardware comes down to about 10%. So even your very low  estimate of 30 thousand casualties would mean 1/3 of their fighting capacity already lost. Most estimates run to a minimum of 100 thousand casualties (dead or injured), which covers the newly mobilised and Wagner.

Edited June 29, 2023 by welshbairn

[ICTChris]

23 minutes ago, ClydeTon said:

If Russia had 95% of their men on that frontline this war would be in a history textbook.

Even Western outlets, such as the staunchly left-wing, anti-Russian CNN, will tell you that Russian losses have amounted to but a fraction of their overall strength. Their army still amounts to 800,000> and there is no chance all of that is deployed.

Russia's only full-scale application has been equipment. Tanks, Planes and Warships have been thrown into this war. Men, less so.

Special Forces and Commando units have been thrown in en masse. It's essentially what they do in the middle east and Africa, but at a larger scale with more regular army backing.

Russia's army (in peacetime) is double the size of Ukraine's today. (1,000,000+ to ~500,000) They wouldn't need Wagner or Conscripts if they didn't choose to throw cannon fodder in first.

I wouldn't say a significant portion. They were estimated to have between 15,000 and 30,000 at the Battle of Kyiv. Even if 25,000 of them were captured or killed, the Russian army is still massive. https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-may-30-2023 - the Institute for Study of War, an American non-profit, suggest they have ~300,000 in Ukraine, as of May 2023.

On the flipside, the CIA estimate Ukraine had ~700,000 in July 2022.

The Russian Army and all paramilitaries amount to almost 1.5 million. There are one hell of a lot of people not fighting this war.

Russia's main losses have been in their equipment. They've lost hundreds upon hundreds of tanks, planes - of course, missiles - and other, more conventional, equipment, like guns and armour.

They still have a large army.

Wagner drove halfway to Moscow because the army chose  to let them. That was quite well reported. Many armed units agreed with Wagner's sentiment but didn't want to join their march.

Why? Well quite simply, the Russian higher-ups are incompetent, probably the reason they're getting held back by Ukraine. Putin's getting rid of the one general who's had a fair bit of success and replacing him with a total dud. The Russian Army are pretty brutal and would love nothing more than a fight, but they won't, I would imagine, want to go to their graves because some twats in Moscow can't make a war plan. Same way most folk here wouldn't want to fight under Rishi Sunak's orders. If you don't have faith/trust in your leaders, you don't want to die for them.

To conclude, and possibly back-pedal a bit, I was dealing in absolutes a bit with my last post:

• I don't, personally, see Ukraine winning this outright.

• Russia aren't using any more than 1/3 of their manpower. They're using a hell of a lot of equipment.

• Wagner were allowed to march towards Moscow because the Russian Army generally dislike the MoD's decision making, the same view as Wagner.

• Russia are almost certainly throwing conscripts and mercenaries in, rather than losing their best men. They have/had an army only comparable to America and China, a very well-trained one at that. They started conscripting within months of the war starting.

My theory, and I doubt we'll ever know, is that they planned to use the trained men for a quick victory, but after the Battle for Kyiv, they realised that the Ukrainians were going to take them to the death. So, they decided to throw in conscripts from the civilian population to try and take out as many Ukrainians as possible, and attempt to weaken them. Has that been successful? Time will tell.

Combat power is not the percentage of soldiers on paper who are on the front line.  You need to have a combination of men and equipment to succeed in combat.  They may have 800,000 soldiers on paper but the number they can deploy is less than that, significantly.  The general consensus from intelligence agencies is that of the forces that Russia has who could be deployed to combat, they are all in Ukraine.  A good example of this is when Ukraine routed Russian forces in Kharkiv, they found that they were fighting police units - basically SWAT teams from all over Russia were sent there to fight.  There were captured Russians who were serving in the navy but were sent to Ukraine with three days training to operate tanks.

Russia are not choosing to throw in conscripts and mercenaries rather than losing their best men.  They lost their best men early in the war, before the mobilisation, before Wagner were extensively deployed.  

Russia did not start conscripting after they didn't win the Battle of Kyiv - they announced the mobilisation in September 2022, after being defeated in Kharkiv, nearly six months after the end of the Battle of Kyiv.  When they withdrew from Kyiv, they launched the Donbas offensive and spent months pounding their way to occupying several cities in the region.  They pretty much used up all their forces in this and were then unable to stop Ukraine taking back swathes of Kharkiv and, eventually, Kherson - fights that also put an end to any further advances in the Donbas.  This is when they mobilised - mobilisation allowed Russia to stabilise lines in Luhansk and further South. 

The Russian Army is not well-trained compared to higher tier forces - they have also stripped all capabilities for training by sending the men and equipment needed to train soldiers to Ukraine.  They don't have centralised training faciliites, soldiers are trained in their units, the funding for training is extremely vulnerable to theft and graft. Ukraine likely has an advantage in terms of the quality of training their forces are receiving.

Ukraine has it's own problems of course, some of which are similar to what Russia is experiencing.  They do have some advantages over Russia now though - better training, better equipment being supplied for example.

[Musketeer Gripweed]

 

Russia's estimated losses up to last week. Bit more than 30,000. That doesn't count any injured that will not be playing soldiers any time soon.

[ClydeTon]

Western Sources estimate, taking the middle here, ~50,000 but only 26,000 or so appear to be verified.

Certainly nowhere near 223,000 (really?) that the above Ukranian graphic suggests.

The US estimates 100,000 casualties, but still, that's only 20,000 deaths according to them.

Yes, Russia's supply of equipment is getting shallower (I did say this earlier), however their manpower is not. They'll be able to make guns and ammo, or (as they might already be) but some in from China, Iran, North Korea, etc.

 

47 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

Combat power is not the percentage of soldiers on paper who are on the front line.  You need to have a combination of men and equipment to succeed in combat.  They may have 800,000 soldiers on paper but the number they can deploy is less than that, significantly.  The general consensus from intelligence agencies is that of the forces that Russia has who could be deployed to combat, they are all in Ukraine.  A good example of this is when Ukraine routed Russian forces in Kharkiv, they found that they were fighting police units - basically SWAT teams from all over Russia were sent there to fight.  There were captured Russians who were serving in the navy but were sent to Ukraine with three days training to operate tanks.

Russia are not choosing to throw in conscripts and mercenaries rather than losing their best men.  They lost their best men early in the war, before the mobilisation, before Wagner were extensively deployed.  

Russia did not start conscripting after they didn't win the Battle of Kyiv - they announced the mobilisation in September 2022, after being defeated in Kharkiv, nearly six months after the end of the Battle of Kyiv.  When they withdrew from Kyiv, they launched the Donbas offensive and spent months pounding their way to occupying several cities in the region.  They pretty much used up all their forces in this and were then unable to stop Ukraine taking back swathes of Kharkiv and, eventually, Kherson - fights that also put an end to any further advances in the Donbas.  This is when they mobilised - mobilisation allowed Russia to stabilise lines in Luhansk and further South. 

The Russian Army is not well-trained compared to higher tier forces - they have also stripped all capabilities for training by sending the men and equipment needed to train soldiers to Ukraine.  They don't have centralised training faciliites, soldiers are trained in their units, the funding for training is extremely vulnerable to theft and graft. Ukraine likely has an advantage in terms of the quality of training their forces are receiving.

Ukraine has it's own problems of course, some of which are similar to what Russia is experiencing.  They do have some advantages over Russia now though - better training, better equipment being supplied for example.

The point in bold I didn't factor in. But, again, that implies training of conscripts and non-active duty personell.

I also was under the impression that the Donbas offensive was helped in large part by conscripts, but it appears not.

Now, the war effort certainly is conscripts/mercenaries. Russia's strategies have been all over the shop, after all.

[welshbairn]

In 2014 Ukraine's training, military organisation, corruption etc was pretty identical to Russia's, if Russia had gone all in then they would likely have taken Kiev and the whole country in a matter of weeks by sheer force of numbers, and the sanctions probably wouldn't have been much worse than they got for taking Crimea. Now Ukraine are a modern fighting force with sophisticated coms and coordination, and Russia aren't.

[budmiester1]

I am no military genius but I do know a few people who were ex military and would say that the comment by others that the Russians are holding back from using their “overwhelming “ forces is patently wrong, if you are going to attack someone then you go in full force not piecemeal. If you go in halfhearted you allow the opposition to use their “limited “ resources in a way that “allows “ them battlefield parity and if they have better tactics then they can wear you down bit by bit. In the first Gulf war did the coalition forces send in a couple of tanks and soldiers? Nope! It was a full on assault with overwhelming force and that was pretty swift in finishing the fight.

[TommyDickFingers]

I'd be less worried about debating perceived percentages of "elite troops" used etc and more worried about the overall  change in doctrine of the Russian armed forces due to lessons learned so far from the SMO. Not really my field of interest but it would appear they are evolving which can't be good.  Long read

Anyway I digress; I'm more of an equipment nerd and something has been bugging me about the purported EW heli losses to Wagner that @ICTChris mentioned the other day. 

These choppers apparently have been flying well inside the Russians heavily defended airspace @ 10k+ feet to utilise the range of their systems to stay well out of harms way from Ukr weapon systems and do their thing.

The question I have to any likeminded military geek is:

 Why would they suddenly put themselves in range of Wagner short / medium range point air defence systems? I can understand the Ka52 / mi35 and the non EW mi8 losses as they are balls deep for a reason but these EW choppers and even more so the il-22 that got fucked are way too valuable to just stumble into harms way surely.

What am i missing fellow nerds?

 

4 minutes ago, budmiester1 said:

I am no military genius ...

Fill yer boots mate,you're not an outlier here in that regard. 

[budmiester1]

25 minutes ago, TommyDickFingers said:

 

Fill yer boots mate,you're not an outlier here in that regard. 

Very true

[ICTChris]

57 minutes ago, TommyDickFingers said:

I'd be less worried about debating perceived percentages of "elite troops" used etc and more worried about the overall  change in doctrine of the Russian armed forces due to lessons learned so far from the SMO. Not really my field of interest but it would appear they are evolving which can't be good.  Long read

Anyway I digress; I'm more of an equipment nerd and something has been bugging me about the purported EW heli losses to Wagner that @ICTChris mentioned the other day. 

These choppers apparently have been flying well inside the Russians heavily defended airspace @ 10k+ feet to utilise the range of their systems to stay well out of harms way from Ukr weapon systems and do their thing.

The question I have to any likeminded military geek is:

 Why would they suddenly put themselves in range of Wagner short / medium range point air defence systems? I can understand the Ka52 / mi35 and the non EW mi8 losses as they are balls deep for a reason but these EW choppers and even more so the il-22 that got fucked are way too valuable to just stumble into harms way surely.

What am i missing fellow nerds?

 

I guess it could be that they weren't expecting to be attacked from within Russia, by their own side.  Maybe they weren't configured to defend against the types of anti-air weapons that Wagner had - seems unlikely as quite often Russia and Ukraine have similar weapons.  Maybe they were ordered into flight at short notice, didn't have time to prepare properly and take necessary precautions.

Difficult to really know I guess.

[ICTChris]

Just now, ClydeTon said:

Western Sources estimate, taking the middle here, ~50,000 but only 26,000 or so appear to be verified.

Certainly nowhere near 223,000 (really?) that the above Ukranian graphic suggests.

The US estimates 100,000 casualties, but still, that's only 20,000 deaths according to them.

Yes, Russia's supply of equipment is getting shallower (I did say this earlier), however their manpower is not. They'll be able to make guns and ammo, or (as they might already be) but some in from China, Iran, North Korea, etc.

 

The point in bold I didn't factor in. But, again, that implies training of conscripts and non-active duty personell.

I also was under the impression that the Donbas offensive was helped in large part by conscripts, but it appears not.

Now, the war effort certainly is conscripts/mercenaries. Russia's strategies have been all over the shop, after all.

I think the Ukrainian estimates are all casualties, so killed and injured.

Russia can manufacture weapons but it's unknown if they can do so to meet the demand from the war (Ukraine and WEstern countries also have this issue). They can buy them from North Korea or Iran but it remains to be seen how effective these weapons are.  I don't think China have sold or given any weapons to Russia during the war so far.

Russia do train their soldiers but it's clear that the training is lacking in effectiveness.  Even early in the war their supposed best troops made basic errors such as bunching up under fire.  The Donbas offensive was pretty much solely Russian MoD units, with assistance from Wagner in Popansa.  They did use forces from the 'People's Republics' who are often effectively press ganged into units and given little training.

The Wagner mercenaries are actually pretty well trained - the backbone of Wagner is ex-Special forces troops.  It looks likely now that Wagner will be broken up which will likely reduce the effectiveness of any units that are transfered to MoD control.  

You are right about Russia's strategy being all over the shop - they initially invaded on three or four fronts, didn't have the manpower and were pushed back.  They then tried to storm through the Donbas, made little progress for the cost and suffered a series of reverses.  They employed a competent general who managed to get them to withdraw from undefendable positions but he was binned in favour of a strategy of driving tanks across minefields.  Now they look like they are getting pressed in the South and could even be encircled in Bakhmut.

[ClydeTon]

6 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

I think the Ukrainian estimates are all casualties, so killed and injured.

Unless they're counting papercuts as Injuries I think their estimate is far too high. Even the yanks' 100,000 (KIA + Injured) estimate seems fairly reasonable.

7 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

Russia can manufacture weapons but it's unknown if they can do so to meet the demand from the war (Ukraine and WEstern countries also have this issue). They can buy them from North Korea or Iran but it remains to be seen how effective these weapons are.  I don't think China have sold or given any weapons to Russia during the war so far.

China probably have through the backdoor. They'll do pretty much anything for a bit of money.

North Korea and Iran's guns and stuff will be fairly effective I would imagine. Considering their militarism it would be hard to imagine them making stuff that doesn't work. The Russians will be able to answer the majority of demand but probably not enough to sustain a strong, winning, war effort.

9 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

Russia do train their soldiers but it's clear that the training is lacking in effectiveness.  Even early in the war their supposed best troops made basic errors such as bunching up under fire.  The Donbas offensive was pretty much solely Russian MoD units, with assistance from Wagner in Popansa.  They did use forces from the 'People's Republics' who are often effectively press ganged into units and given little training.

The Wagner mercenaries are actually pretty well trained - the backbone of Wagner is ex-Special forces troops.  It looks likely now that Wagner will be broken up which will likely reduce the effectiveness of any units that are transfered to MoD control.  

The Failures in Kyiv in particular were down to incompetence and underestimating Ukraine. They thought it would be a quick and decisive victory and they would welcomed as liberators. They didn't expect nearly as much resistance and that probably lead to them making errors in combat. They were likely shocked.

As for Wagner, they're probably better trained than the Russian Army because, if they do a shit job, they have no job. As a PMC they have to ensure the best standard possible. Although they seem to target (like any other) rich states with struggling military prospects, like the UAE or even Russia, to offer solutions for their own dirty work. I've lumped them in with conscripts just on the grounds that the Russian Gov't couldn't really care less if they die, as long as they take some of the enemy with them.

12 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

You are right about Russia's strategy being all over the shop - they initially invaded on three or four fronts, didn't have the manpower and were pushed back.  They then tried to storm through the Donbas, made little progress for the cost and suffered a series of reverses.  They employed a competent general who managed to get them to withdraw from undefendable positions but he was binned in favour of a strategy of driving tanks across minefields.  Now they look like they are getting pressed in the South and could even be encircled in Bakhmut.

It's another parallel between the Soviet-German front of WWII and this invasion.

The Germans went into Russia hoping to just destroy the USSR and take Eastern Europe. When they got into Western Russia/Ukraine they set their sights, instead of the typical targets of Moscow, Stalingrad, Leningrad, to Georgia and Southern Russia to get the oil supply. That diverted a fair number of forces from Stalingrad, Leningrad and Moscow (and elsewhere, because it considerably extended the front lines), and that, combined with the manpower of the Red Army and the weather, saw them hammered by the Russians.

Fast Forward, and the Russians went into Ukraine hoping to just destroy them and take the Donbas. Of course when they got into Ukraine they set their sights, instead of the Donbas, to Kyiv, to try and, one can only presume, knock Ukraine out with one punch in the capital. That diverted attention, equipment and manpower away from the Donbas Front, and combined with the manpower and resistance of Ukraine, saw them held back quite effectively. Then the counteroffensive took advantage of Russian Mistakes and the weather, pushing them back even further.

I would certainly be surprised if either side folded here. Russia have enough about them to continue the war effort, as do Ukraine. It might just be a war of total attrition, and see who buckles first. So far, Russia's showing some cracks (the Wagner Rebellion, namely) but they've not suffered much from it. Yet.

[welshbairn]

The BBC have looked into Russian deaths and have been able to confirm 25,000 individuals through official and open sources, and counting war graves. The total has to be much higher. Russia claims 6000.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-829ea0ba-5b42-499b-ad40-6990f2c4e5d0#:~:text=The Ukrainian Ministry of Defence,relatives%2C where officials could not.

[TommyDickFingers]

1 hour ago, ICTChris said:

I guess it could be that they weren't expecting to be attacked from within Russia, by their own side.

That's was my initial thought tbh, but Wagner had already threatened to engage Russian military assets prior to the engagement no?

1 hour ago, ICTChris said:

Maybe they weren't configured to defend against the types of anti-air weapons that Wagner had - seems unlikely as quite often Russia and Ukraine have similar weapons. 

To my knowledge Wagner had manpads, strela-10 and Pantsir s1 so I see no logical reason why they would ever be I range to be engaged anyway, which is my bugbear here.

All russian military rotary aviation is, as far as I'm aware equiped with vitebsk type anti IR / radar as standard these days, that ka52 missle close shave vid doing the rounds being a good example it working. Add on top the specialist EW suites that actively f**k over these systems  I can't make it make sense and that's without even mentioning the Il22 loss which youd think they'd be paranoid about after previous for losses in Syria.

I find it hard to believe that these systems were switched off on multiple platforms engaging against an armed insurrection. 

If it comes down incompetence/ ignorance that's a collective faux pas of an impressive magnitude.

Probably never know I guess.

Anyways here's another new toy that appeared in the last day or so for the geeks. See how long it lasts...