So what is being misrepresented here re: that claim and what is it based on?
Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar
- Thread starter areksnumbr1sxylady
- Start date
- Status
So what is being misrepresented here re: that claim and what is it based on?
You keep making out like I'm saying Russia isn't using their elite divisions, etc. in Ukraine. That isn't what I'm saying at all.
OK so rather than tell me what you're not saying why not answer the questions?
Quite frankly no. I'm quite bored how you latch onto part of what I post like a terrier then go on and on interpreting what I say using the most dumb **** possible take on it.
I think the reality here is that the vague claim you’re making just doesn’t have much basis in fact. The dumb take here is the one you can’t back up because it’s from your claimed “reliable sources” or whatever BS you normally come out with in here.
Like I said I thought the notion that Russia was somehow holding back etc.. had been knocked on the head a while ago. They clearly have committed some of their best units and there are plenty of indications that they’re struggling for manpower now even though Putin is avoiding calling for an official mobilisation.
I've never said they didn't commit some of their best units... #facepalm#
There is plenty of evidence they've avoided using a lot of their better equipment and committing heavily from their better units, bulking out the force in Ukraine from older stock and from man power not drawn from their regular forces i.e. the large camps of what were effectively conscripts in Belarus which were populated just before things kicked off (with all the reports of letters and phonecalls, etc. as to how they'd had like 3 weeks training and were suddenly finding themselves sent into war), mobilising Chechens, pulling personnel deployed overseas with the Wagner group to fight in Ukraine, etc. etc. many newly drafted for this war rather than making up their exist active army, some even having only days of military training before being sent in:
For example: https://twitter.com/MarQs__/status/1489948066287398915 ( https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1505576241537069057 ).
Soldato
It's called a dowie hole. Put him on ignore.
Proof of war crimes or another fake? A detailed analysis of the high-profile CNN report.
CNN aired a lengthy report on how Russian Armed Forces soldiers shot two Ukrainian civilians in cold blood in the back. It is noteworthy that it was today that the UN voted on a resolution to launch an investigation into alleged Russian war crimes. Our team has conducted a comprehensive review...
telegra.ph
That’s just reinforcing that they’re struggling for manpower. What’s the basis for this claim that the cream of the armed forces aren’t being used? Who are they? We’ve seen VDV & Russian SF used extensively in the attempt to take Kyiv, we’ve seen plenty of guards units. So what’s the basis for your claim?
It’s called him ignoring the question multiple times after making an obviously dubious claim.
Are you intentionally being obtuse?
Unless you are claiming the main Russian forces are Afghan style bulked out with ghost soldiers and they were having to pull in so many inexperienced soldiers to make up for a paper army - that stuff is from the build up.
Not even clear what you’re saying now tbh.. still noting to substantiate your claim though.
This retired general doesn’t seem to agree with it:
“Ukraine has seen significant losses by Russia’s best units”
UK MOD
"The conflict in Ukraine is taking a heavy toll on some of Russia's most capable units and most advanced capabilities"
Holding the "cream" of their armed forces back my ass...
Last edited:
It might not be perfectly clear but it is clear enough. What I'm saying isn't in conflict with what that general is saying - Russia has lost a lot of that piecemeal rather than going in with its best foot forward in the first place. Though I don't agree with the extent of the losses vs their standing capabilities - many professional commentators don't seem to have picked up to the level OSINT has just how much Russia has dipped into mothballed stock to try and avoid depleting their active stock and how much the man power has been bulked out from sources other than their existing standing armed forces.
What you were saying was in conflict with what the UK MOD and that General was saying and now you're making excuses with vague claims re: OSINT which of course you won't cite/substantiate... I asked you several posts back fairly straight-up questions re: the basis for your claim, it is pretty clear that Russia has in fact committed plenty of its best units, they suffered significant losses and it is currently struggling for manpower.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,452
Some of not all
#facepalm#
You are heavily pursuing absolutes in things I've not made absolute claims as Minusorange posted above some vs all, etc....
But no matter how the battle groups are formed, % wise of elite/conscript/mercenary, and also no matter the age of equipment. Russia is still having to feed, fuel, arm all of the combat operations. The longer this all goes on the less and less of all of this will be there for elite units, reducing the overall effectiveness. We have already seen Russia have issues with this right at the very start of the conflict.
There won't be reserve super duper intel/logistics/support units and equipment. There would be no reason for these capabilities to be held back.
Everything combined makes for an effective fighting force. Even if Russia commit the absolute best they have to the very last man. How much more effective would they actually be, and for how long? Also how competent are the commanders of said units.
There won't be reserve super duper intel/logistics/support units and equipment. There would be no reason for these capabilities to be held back.
Everything combined makes for an effective fighting force. Even if Russia commit the absolute best they have to the very last man. How much more effective would they actually be, and for how long? Also how competent are the commanders of said units.
That is a good point.
Going back to what I was saying awhile back within the next few weeks or months Russia is going to be forced to make a hard decision between going all in (military, industrial and social mobilisation, pulling regular forces from other regions leaving them undefended or defended by territorial forces, etc.) or pulling out.
I think a lot of people fail to understand just how little of their total military capacity Russia is actually using in Ukraine, but this isn't because they want to but because they need to due to how thinly spread Russia is right now, in addition to invading Ukraine they are also defending the Syrian regime from being overthrown by both Syrian rebels and ISIS, AND occupying the Moldovan region of Transnistria, AND occupying the Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, AND guarding their border with China, AND guarding their border with NATO, AND propping up Armenia's forces, AND occupying Chechnya, etc, etc.
And this is a country that only spends 25% more on its military each year than the UK does, hence why it's going so great for them.
An issue that comes up often in this thread is that you can't just look at numbers for Russia/Ukraine and make a straight comparison, Enkore (RIP) and many others tried that back before the invasion when they were ranting about how if it kicked off the massive Russian army/air force would take Ukraine in under a week, and when myself and a couple of others dared to point out the war would go exactly as it has done we got flamed for being stupid. I legit got flamed by half a dozen people for pointing out that Ukraine would initially have more tanks than Russia in the field and on average better tanks too, because they had compared the numbers on Wikipedia and assumed Putin would send every tank in Russia. The same went for their super massive/modern air force, people were literally saying they would use their planes to take out Ukraine's SAM systems and gain air superiority (while completely ignoring the fact Ukraine had more anti-air missiles than Russia had planes to commit to the air war).
You probably know this but for anyone who doesn't, here's a little secret about some of Russia's "modern" equipment: the T-90 and the Su-35 are just the T-72 and Su-27 renamed, they may have received more modernisation than the newer/refitted T-72 and Su-27 but they are still just upgraded and renamed Soviet weapons from the 70's. And before anyone says they just look similar and are based on their predecessors but they're modern designs, no, I meant it literally, the T-90 was a T-72 variant made by the USSR in the late 80's that Russia renamed in the 1990s in order to make it more appealing to perspective export customers, the Su-35 was an Su-27 variant designed by the USSR in the late 80's that Russia renamed in the 1990s in order to make it more appealing to perspective export customers. There are similar stories for most "modern" Russian weapons that are in service in any notable numbers.
Their "good stuff" isn't good at all, it's old, outdated and just has some modernisation taped on. If they were sending their "best" stuff in any noteworthy amounts, Ukraine would be destroying it in equally noteworthy amounts with the weapons we have given them. Ukraine is not, this in itself is proof that Russia is not.
And this is a country that only spends 25% more on its military each year than the UK does, hence why it's going so great for them.
An issue that comes up often in this thread is that you can't just look at numbers for Russia/Ukraine and make a straight comparison, Enkore (RIP) and many others tried that back before the invasion when they were ranting about how if it kicked off the massive Russian army/air force would take Ukraine in under a week, and when myself and a couple of others dared to point out the war would go exactly as it has done we got flamed for being stupid. I legit got flamed by half a dozen people for pointing out that Ukraine would initially have more tanks than Russia in the field and on average better tanks too, because they had compared the numbers on Wikipedia and assumed Putin would send every tank in Russia. The same went for their super massive/modern air force, people were literally saying they would use their planes to take out Ukraine's SAM systems and gain air superiority (while completely ignoring the fact Ukraine had more anti-air missiles than Russia had planes to commit to the air war).
I think you may be confusing the myth that they weren't sending their best units/equipment (which was debunked almost immediately). With the fact they are holding back the vast amount of them (which has been well evidenced). Roff was right, if they were sending in their best stuff on mass we would be seeing a lot more of it destroyed than we are which is why we know for a fact they are not.
You probably know this but for anyone who doesn't, here's a little secret about some of Russia's "modern" equipment: the T-90 and the Su-35 are just the T-72 and Su-27 renamed, they may have received more modernisation than the newer/refitted T-72 and Su-27 but they are still just upgraded and renamed Soviet weapons from the 70's. And before anyone says they just look similar and are based on their predecessors but they're modern designs, no, I meant it literally, the T-90 was a T-72 variant made by the USSR in the late 80's that Russia renamed in the 1990s in order to make it more appealing to perspective export customers, the Su-35 was an Su-27 variant designed by the USSR in the late 80's that Russia renamed in the 1990s in order to make it more appealing to perspective export customers. There are similar stories for most "modern" Russian weapons that are in service in any notable numbers.
Their "good stuff" isn't good at all, it's old, outdated and just has some modernisation taped on. If they were sending their "best" stuff in any noteworthy amounts, Ukraine would be destroying it in equally noteworthy amounts with the weapons we have given them. Ukraine is not, this in itself is proof that Russia is not.
Exactly. The reality is that Russian formations are undermanned, they have to fill them with conscripts etc.. claims that things would have worked out better if they'd used the cream of their armed forces etc.. are just pure fantasy, they did commit large portions of the cream of their armed forces and this is the result, in addition to that they've had to rely on conscripts to make up numbers, they're pulling troops out of Syria and the Congo, they're sending in Wagner group mercenaries.
In the occupied areas of Ukraine, they're so desperate that they're basically rounding up men of fighting age for forced conscription. They moved units from the far east just leaving a bare minimum there to protect their borders etc... They're really overstretched right now.
- Status