Comments by "Spring Bloom" (@springbloom5940) on "This vehicle belongs in a museum. Why is it still being used in Ukraine?" video.
-
2
-
@HereComeMrCee-Jay
People really need to get their heads around the fact that Russia has different laws, different force structure and different doctrine, from the US. Russia is sandbagging in Ukraine. 'Special Military Operation' is not a euphemism, it is a legal constraint on the number and types of troops and equipment they can deploy, without a formal declaration of war. They don't maintain a fully constituted standing army the way the US does. Generally speaking, only officers and specialists are full-time professional soldiers. Recruits train through the standing units for about a year and go directly to reserves; like if the US sent everyone home after AIT. This allows them to maintain a very large minimally trained force, for rapid mobilization. This is why the invasion force was so disproportionately officer heavy; and they lead with their oldest, least sophisticated equipment. Not because 'lol they just make everyone a colonel'. Its also why their force strength has been kept to around 150k and they haven't made extensive use of their air force or ballistic missiles; or attacked strategic infrastructure in the interior of the country. The SMO restricts targeting to military assets directly engaged with Russian forces. For example, if they observed weapon shipments entering the country, they couldn't target them until they reach a distribution point that has deployed weapons to the battlefield. Same for training facilities and infrastructure. This is why Ukraine still has power and phones and bridges, etc.
The real danger fir Ukraine, is that Russia will declare the SMO completed with the annexation of Donbas and restructure for a ATO(Anti-Terrorist Operation), which will basically throw out any notion of ROE and allow unrestricted targeting of leadership and infrastructure and permit more extensive use of strategic weapons, such as high altitude bombing, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles.
1
-
@Sasha-nl8ry
Obviously things have escalated. I didn't know how 'partial mobilization' would translate legally, but I had suspected it would ease the rules of engagement some. It appears to have. I also suspected that if they were to start going after infrastructure, they'd do it at to onset of winter, because it gives Ukraine no time adapt. The common misconception is that the strikes are about pressuring the civilians, but thats only a side effect. It costs Ukraine hundreds of man hours, tons of material and thousands of liters of fuel to get the power on. It takes an hour for Russia to knock it out again. Its like a perpetual natural disaster like a hurricane or earthquake. Thats why they target power distribution and substations, but not power generation or comms centers. They want Ukraine to keep hard at work repairing it.
First thing to understand is that every working Ukrainian is supporting the war effort directly or indirectly. So, there is no 'civilian infrastructure ', its all strategic infrastructure. Redirecting substantial resources to civil maintenance, instead of making, servicing and shipping military supplies, is a solid strategy that takes time to achieve effect at the front, but by the time it does, its extremely difficult to recover from.
1
-
1