Can Russia hold out against the Himars and other NATO weapons systems

[WizardofSoda]

So there is the Himars. Then there is the NATO towed artillery and mobile artillery. And the Phoenix Ghost kamikaze drones are being used in Ukraine now.

Can the Russians hold out. Yes as long as they are willing to keep replacing soldiers and equipment as they get blown up. Can the Russians advance. Not very much because it doesn't really work infantry running in against dug in infantry in fortifications.

How can the US & co. get it so the Ukrainians advance. You have to keep bringing in more and more of these systems, and have the production lines going for the missiles and artillery and kamikaze drones, which will take quite awhile to scale up the production. Eventually probably the Russians will lose interest in the war.

Say over the next year 100,000 Russian soldiers are killed and they have made little progress, will Russia give up at that point. Maybe not, although it will get harder for the Russian government to maintain support for the year.

How can the Russians reduce the losses. They have to basically live underground and in large concrete buildings. If they were smart they would have a shitload of construction crews in there building whole underground bunkers and tunnels and ammo storage sites and monster concrete buildings.

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

Russia isn’t going to lose

 

[MediumDiploma]

I bet they have some of their good tech hanging back somewhere. They've mostly used their oldest pieces of equipment.

 

[LesscoBlob]

30000 Russian soldiers have already been killed. Given the fact that their leadership is low IQ as hell, they'll likely continue the war until eventually Ukraine runs out of manpower (Ukraine has 40 million people and Russia has 146 million), even if that means a million Russian soldiers dead.
What an outstanding Russian victory

 

[verzetn]

the real surprise is the utter failure of the russian air force.

if russia took the air, the war would be largely won by now.

their big mistake investing in vanity projects like those big ships in the navy (when they should focus on submarines only) when they could have used those limited funds to get stealth air crafts and more training for the air force. and their land army is also fucked up.

 

[WizardofSoda]

the real surprise is the utter failure of the russian air force.

if russia took the air, the war would be largely won by now.

their big mistake investing in vanity projects like those big ships in the navy (when they should focus on submarines only) when they could have used those limited funds to get stealth air crafts and more training for the air force. and their land army is also fucked up.

Ya the problem was the Russian military budget. The airforce and navy stuff is insanely expensive, there is just no way Russia could develop it. Focusing on submarines seems smart.

The Russians I think went for cruise missiles, which has been one of the most effective parts of their military effort in the war. As the Russian cruise missiles look about equivalent to me to the Tomahawk cruise missiles, big warhead. The Russians have fired more than 3,000 cruise missiles into Ukraine so far in the war.

The Tomahawk cruise missiles cost $2 million each. So probably cost the Russians about $6 billion for those 3,000 cruise missiles fired so far.

 

[WizardofSoda]

30000 Russian soldiers have already been killed. Given the fact that their leadership is low IQ as hell, they'll likely continue the war until eventually Ukraine runs out of manpower (Ukraine has 40 million people and Russia has 146 million), even if that means a million Russian soldiers dead.
What an outstanding Russian victory

Ya they pretty much have said that is their plan now. To try to just outlast Ukraine and hold this ground even taking big losses each month to the ranged NATO weapons. And try to gain small amounts of ground where they can as it goes on. For $1 billion a month the Russians could fire 500 a month of the Russian cruise missiles into Ukraine. Thats why the US & co. are starting to set up an air defense grid in Ukraine now, to reduce the number of cruise missiles getting through.

The Russians are hoping if they can hold on long enough that the West will get tired of spending the money to keep sending in these weapons. And more likely the Ukrainians will get tired of the war and be willing to do a negotiated end where the Russians get to keep what they have now.


I don't think the US will ever get tired of spending money to defense manufacturers to keep buying more weapons. But the Ukrainians getting tired of it is possible. Especially if they keep getting hit by the cruise missiles, or the Russians figure out a way to cause more losses than in the last few weeks to the Ukrainian army.

 

[Mecoja]

30000 Russian soldiers have already been killed. Given the fact that their leadership is low IQ as hell, they'll likely continue the war until eventually Ukraine runs out of manpower (Ukraine has 40 million people and Russia has 146 million), even if that means a million Russian soldiers dead.
What an outstanding Russian victory

Thats how Russia fights wars, how many millions of Russian soldiers died during WW2.

 

[ethniccel1]

They have to basically live underground and in large concrete buildings. If they were smart they would have a shitload of construction crews in there building whole underground bunkers and tunnels and ammo storage sites and monster concrete buildings.

Aha, Vietnam 2.0

The Vietcong wore down the Americans and their allies to a point where it was financially unsustainable to keep fighting that war.
How did they do it? Well America and Nato go all in with bombs(mostly air and then ground), blow everything back to the stone age and then sweep through with infantry. They love this style of war from WW2 all the way to the present day.
How did the Vietcong neutralise this major advantage of the Americans and their allies?. They went underground which meant America pumped billions into bombs but for practically nothing. Then the Vietcong would attack enemy bases , infrastructure etc at times of their choosing.


So there we have a perfect blue print of Nato's weaknesses. Western countries do not perform well against guerilla fighters. Never have in recent history and the way it looks never will. I could be wrong but for now this is how it is.

If Russia can build on this blue print and adapt it to their needs right now then they actually can bankrupt Nato in the long run and they will quit Ukraine eventually.

 

[HyperVersager_4EVER]

So there is the Himars. Then there is the NATO towed artillery and mobile artillery.

Mobile artillery and Himars are scary because while not decisive and impossible to defeat per se, Russia does not have any hard counter options against mobile and long range systems like that.
They could if they had air superiority, but alas.

if russia took the air, the war would be largely won by now.

Ya the problem was the Russian military budget. The airforce and navy stuff is insanely expensive, there is just no way Russia could develop it. Focusing on submarines seems smart.

The Russians I think went for cruise missiles, which has been one of the most effective parts of their military effort in the war. As the Russian cruise missiles look about equivalent to me to the Tomahawk cruise missiles, big warhead. The Russians have fired more than 3,000 cruise missiles into Ukraine so far in the war.

The Tomahawk cruise missiles cost $2 million each. So probably cost the Russians about $6 billion for those 3,000 cruise missiles fired so far.

Yeah
The air advanced defense systems west dumped at Ukraine also helped to prevent that

I don't think the US will ever get tired of spending money to defense manufacturers to keep buying more weapons. But the Ukrainians getting tired of it is possible. Especially if they keep getting hit by the cruise missiles, or the Russians figure out a way to cause more losses than in the last few weeks to the Ukrainian army.

Yeah as much as you see no-life retards virtue signaling support online in NPC sites there is a limit how much taxpaper money average citizen can consent to being dumped abroad. It will reach a limit eventually.
The question is whether can Russia truly last through the attrition who knows how many months till then.

 

[HyperVersager_4EVER]

So there we have a perfect blue print of Nato's weaknesses. Western countries do not perform well against guerilla fighters. Never have in recent history and the way it looks never will. I could be wrong but for now this is how it is.

No one really performs well against guerillas in rough terrain(jungle, forest, mountains etc.)
As long as competent people are in charge they always have the initiative in asymmetric warfare.
Not really a weakness specific to the west.

If Russia can build on this blue print and adapt it to their needs right now then they actually can bankrupt Nato in the long run and they will quit Ukraine eventually.

The problem is Ukraine is largely plains.
Besides rivers, there is hardly any natural defense to hide.
Also you can't really play the guerilla game on hostile territory that you are trying to occupy.
You need locals to like you and not dump intel at the enemy.

 

[WizardofSoda]

Aha, Vietnam 2.0

The Vietcong wore down the Americans and their allies to a point where it was financially unsustainable to keep fighting that war.
How did they do it? Well America and Nato go all in with bombs(mostly air and then ground), blow everything back to the stone age and then sweep through with infantry. They love this style of war from WW2 all the way to the present day.
How did the Vietcong neutralise this major advantage of the Americans and their allies?. They went underground which meant America pumped billions into bombs but for practically nothing. Then the Vietcong would attack enemy bases , infrastructure etc at times of their choosing.


So there we have a perfect blue print of Nato's weaknesses. Western countries do not perform well against guerilla fighters. Never have in recent history and the way it looks never will. I could be wrong but for now this is how it is.

If Russia can build on this blue print and adapt it to their needs right now then they actually can bankrupt Nato in the long run and they will quit Ukraine eventually.

Ya this style of warfare is the US way. Its also how the Russians successfully took the Severodonetsk/Lysychansk area.

If it was the US attacking Ukraine, and let us say Russia backing Ukrainian rebels who comprised the majority of the population and willing to fight on even in a US occupation government. You just let the US military come in and take the whole country, then fight from there. In that situation the Russians could also keep flowing in not just money, weapons, ammo and supplies, but also outright mercenaries to fight.

I think the problem with that situation from how Ukraine is now, is most Ukrainians will simply go along with a US proxy government. It would only really be in the Donbas that it seems an indigenous large scale resistance is.

I wouldn't be surprised if when the war ends the US breaks the Donbas off of Ukraine, at least the borders that the republics had before the war started. The EU and NATO don't really want to be dealing with that area if the people there really want to join Russia. They can bring them in with European Russia down the road.

 

[WizardofSoda]

Mobile artillery and Himars are scary because while not decisive and impossible to defeat per se, Russia does not have any hard counter options against mobile and long range systems like that.
They could if they had air superiority, but alas.


Yeah
The air advanced defense systems west dumped at Ukraine also helped to prevent that

Yeah as much as you see no-life retards virtue signaling support online in NPC sites there is a limit how much taxpaper money average citizen can consent to being dumped abroad. It will reach a limit eventually.
The question is whether can Russia truly last through the attrition who knows how many months till then.

Ya there is a limit to how much taxpayer money the US can spend on this per year like you said. I estimate it at about $250-300 billion a year. I got that number as that was about the combined amount the US was paying for Iraq & Afghanistan over the last 20 years.

I estimate about $125 billion of that amount will be needed to keep the Ukraine government fully funded. The entire government, including regional and local governments, 100% of their budgets before the war. And I was also counting the areas controlled by Russia now in that.

So that leaves around $125-175 billion a year to fund the war. The Europeans are also paying an extra $300 billion a year for higher energy costs, although that will probably come down by the end of next year. Then plus what they are paying to support Ukraine.

The Russians basically have to last against what that level of funding can support for the Ukraine military.

 

[HyperVersager_4EVER]

although that will probably come down by the end of next year.

Will it?
They are already burning through their supposed winter reserves. They can't build pipelines that quick. They can import through sea, but that will be even more absurdly expensive.
The price will probably go down in America but I am not sure about Europe.
I agree with your assessment overall.

 

[ethniccel1]

The problem is Ukraine is largely plains.
Besides rivers, there is hardly any natural defense to hide.
Also you can't really play the guerilla game on hostile territory that you are trying to occupy.
You need locals to like you and not dump intel at the enemy.

correct you are.

So basically Russia is limited to the areas that are pro Russian. Hmm so the logical end game is a divided Ukraine. Now I understand why Russia is focusing solely on the eastern part bordering Russia.

 

[ethniccel1]

Ya this style of warfare is the US way. Its also how the Russians successfully took the Severodonetsk/Lysychansk area.

If it was the US attacking Ukraine, and let us say Russia backing Ukrainian rebels who comprised the majority of the population and willing to fight on even in a US occupation government. You just let the US military come in and take the whole country, then fight from there. In that situation the Russians could also keep flowing in not just money, weapons, ammo and supplies, but also outright mercenaries to fight.

I think the problem with that situation from how Ukraine is now, is most Ukrainians will simply go along with a US proxy government. It would only really be in the Donbas that it seems an indigenous large scale resistance is.

I wouldn't be surprised if when the war ends the US breaks the Donbas off of Ukraine, at least the borders that the republics had before the war started. The EU and NATO don't really want to be dealing with that area if the people there really want to join Russia. They can bring them in with European Russia down the road.

Okay yes exactly as @HyperVersager_4EVER eludued to. In this same regard it would also be ludacris for the Americans to want control over the regions where Russia enjoys support.

You said that America could just cut off the Dombass from Ukraine and be happy with that solution. In your opinion do you think this is how the war will eventually end after the dust settles?

 

[LesscoBlob]

Thats how Russia fights wars, how many millions of Russian soldiers died during WW2.

Russia in WW2 had 220 million people. Now it's 146 million. That numbers advantage is going away quickly for Russia.

 

[WizardofSoda]

Will it?
They are already burning through their supposed winter reserves. They can't build pipelines that quick. They can import through sea, but that will be even more absurdly expensive.
The price will probably go down in America but I am not sure about Europe.
I agree with your assessment overall.

Europe is moving fast on the LNG import terminals and pipelines to get the gas from those onto their main natural gas pipeline networks. But there is only so much LNG export capacity in the world. Thing is the US price is going to be elevated for the foreseeable future because with Europe buying so much LNG, and the price in Europe is so much higher the US price will rise and the Euro price fall until they are closer together with more LNG export terminals in North America coming online as time goes on.

I think the price now is something like $8 per thousand cubic feet in the US, and something like $68 in Europe. Meanwhile before the war it was like $2.50 in the US and maybe $8 in Europe. In Asia I don't know the number but they have rocketed way up like Europe, as Europe is bidding for LNG against them now. The US has endless natural gas but it will take awhile to bring more online.

But by winter 2023 Europe is I am guessing going to have more LNG import capacity online and more coal plants back up. By going down I don't mean return to the natural gas prices before the war. Eg.. say the price in Europe for natural gas fell from $68 to $34, that would cut in half the extra costs.

 

[WizardofSoda]

Okay yes exactly as @HyperVersager_4EVER eludued to. In this same regard it would also be ludacris for the Americans to want control over the regions where Russia enjoys support.

You said that America could just cut off the Dombass from Ukraine and be happy with that solution. In your opinion do you think this is how the war will eventually end after the dust settles?

Ya your thinking shows why America doesn't really want regions where they want to go with Russia.

I think the war might end with Russia giving up control of Kherson province west of the Dnieper River. As then the Ukrainians can defend the access to the sea in Odessa province and Mykolaiv province. And if the Russians are willing to leave Kharkiv province. Then the Russians keeping the land bridge area, the area of Donetsk province they control now and all of Luhansk province which they have.

The Ukrainians have a huge amount of conscripts expected to finish training in August. And a ton of NATO armored vehicles coming in. They want to see how well they can push in the coming Fall offensive. If the Russians can hold on through that then the Ukrainians will probably be willing to negotiate. I don't think even if the offensive goes well for the Ukrainians that they intend to push into the separatist areas that were independent before the war started. As its just not worth it if the people there don't want to be in Ukraine.

 

[Michael W. Ford]

So there is the Himars. Then there is the NATO towed artillery and mobile artillery. And the Phoenix Ghost kamikaze drones are being used in Ukraine now.

Can the Russians hold out. Yes as long as they are willing to keep replacing soldiers and equipment as they get blown up. Can the Russians advance. Not very much because it doesn't really work infantry running in against dug in infantry in fortifications.

How can the US & co. get it so the Ukrainians advance. You have to keep bringing in more and more of these systems, and have the production lines going for the missiles and artillery and kamikaze drones, which will take quite awhile to scale up the production. Eventually probably the Russians will lose interest in the war.

Say over the next year 100,000 Russian soldiers are killed and they have made little progress, will Russia give up at that point. Maybe not, although it will get harder for the Russian government to maintain support for the year.

How can the Russians reduce the losses. They have to basically live underground and in large concrete buildings. If they were smart they would have a shitload of construction crews in there building whole underground bunkers and tunnels and ammo storage sites and monster concrete buildings.

Himars is cope

 

[verzetn]

Ya the problem was the Russian military budget. The airforce and navy stuff is insanely expensive, there is just no way Russia could develop it. Focusing on submarines seems smart.

The Russians I think went for cruise missiles, which has been one of the most effective parts of their military effort in the war. As the Russian cruise missiles look about equivalent to me to the Tomahawk cruise missiles, big warhead. The Russians have fired more than 3,000 cruise missiles into Ukraine so far in the war.

The Tomahawk cruise missiles cost $2 million each. So probably cost the Russians about $6 billion for those 3,000 cruise missiles fired so far.

cruise missiles r expensive and not rly efficient.

a better way would be stealth fighers similar to f-35s, armed with bombs and stand-off glide bombs. those r much cheaper than cruise missiles. and multi-use too. and would evade air defences.

 

[5ft4ropeconnoisseur]

Himars are overrated. Ukraine had 12 in total and 4 have already been destroyed. Russia still has a massive artillery and air power advantage

 

[WizardofSoda]

For the Russians they have to have tons of infantry dug in in fortifications, with ammo and such stored underground. Then when the Ukrainians concentrate forces and go to push an attack on an area by trying to overwhelm it, the Russians have to have a ton of battalions with heavy equipment which are back like 100 km+ waiting, and then coming in to help.

The Russians are digging in fortifications 3 layers deep. So that even if the frontline goes down, they have more layers and more time for reinforcements to get there, then they can probably retake the frontline layer from there.