Comments by "Arty" (@arty5876) on "Why does Ukraine have only 300 K troops at the frontline, out of a million troops in total?" video.
-
5
-
2
-
@BillNye617 Russia can't deploy more troops because Putin wants to hold stability inside Russia, Putin doesn't want to provoke Russian population, he doesn't want a revolution or massive protests, he is trying to hold stability, Putin is afraid of its own people, so this is why Russia isn't using conscripts in the war, and there is no mobilization. Actually there was one wave of mobilization in september 2022, but it was forced due to situation on the frontline, Putin simply didn't had a choise because there was significant numerical superiority on the Ukrainian side and with superiority in numbers of troops of 2:1 Ukraine conducted very succesfull offensive operation in Kharkiv region. So Putin had 2 bad choises - lose the war or declare mobilization, risking in instability inside Russia, and Putin was forced to choose the second option and he was lucky enough. But after one wave of mobilization of reserve personel there was no mobilization in Russia for 2 years now. Russia can't deploy a force of few hundreeds of thousands soldiers, instead Russia is relying on stream of volunteers who are fighting for money, and because Russia at now have 4 times more population than Ukraine Russian stream of volunteers is equal to Ukrainian quantity of mobilized men, and both Russia and Ukraine are able to replace casualities and even grow in numbers of troops. I think this policy wouldn't change and BOTH Russia and Ukraine will be unable to achieve any aditional success until the war will be frozen after negotiations or without them. But in fact it is fair to say that Russian army isn't that weak that Western media is saying, Russian army isn't weak, in fact Russia was just fighting not in full capability without mobilization, having less troops than Ukraine throuout all war. If Russia fought in full capability, there could have been total mobilization in Russia, and with 3:1 numerical superiority on Russian side there is no way how Ukraine could have held for more than half of a year. But in reality Russia wouldn't do it due to political reasons and in fact Russia had smaller invading army already on first day of war, and what is more interesting, Russia was able to advance and capture territory while having smaller army in the start of the war
1
-
1
-
@BillNye617 according to your logic
German, French amd British during WW1 were weak because they spent a lot of time and manpower to capture small territories. In reality these armies weren't weak, it were most capable armies in the World, but there was a stalemate in WW1 because of perfect balance of power and new technologies and delay to adapt to this new technologies. The quality, the capability of army is not time to capture territory, quality of army is casuality ratio. Russia is capturing little amount of territories in huge time, but Russia is advancing with less manpower than defending Ukrainian side and Ukrainian casualities are 1.5-2 times higher than Russia. So Russia have chosen long term attrition warfare instead of classical.
During the Winter War between Finland and Soviet Union, Soviet army was weak, but not because high casualities, but because of casuality ratio. For every one Finnish soldier 6 Soviet soldiers have died. Casuality ratio was 6 to 1. Soviet army was simply poorly trained and had bad command and communications, while being well equipped and having lots of vehicles.
In case of Russo-Ukrainian war, Russian army isn't poorly trained. Before the war Russian contract volunteer soldiers had average level of training, the same equipment as Ukrainian forces. Russia had superiority in artillery, while artillery is a God of War, artilley causes 90% of casualities in all wars, but Russia was backward from Ukraine in FPV drones at the start of the war.
War is mathematics with many variables, and mililtary analysis could be based on just two mathematical variables - quality and quantity. For example we have two fighting armies, each of 1000 soldiers, but first army have 2 times more quality, so the first army will defeat the second army. But in case if second army have 3 times more manpower, the second army will defeat the first army, because their quality, their combat capability is 2 times lower, while quantity is 2 times higher. In case if two armies have equal quality, the attacking side will suffer 1.5 times higher casualities than defending side. But if attacking side have overwhealming superiority in quality, attacking side could suffer less casualities than defending side, like it was during the Iraq war, when United States had huge aviation advantage. In this war USA simply bombed alll Iraqi army from the sky, and attacking American side suffered 40 TIMES LESS casualities than defending Iraqi side. For each attacking American soldiers 40 Iraqi soldiers have died, while American ground forces were simply on vacation with very little combat and captured all Iraq in one month, while Iraq in terms of territory and military is comparable with Ukraine, not considering the Western aid to Ukraine.
This means that aviation at now is God of War like artillery, and 90-99% of your enemy ground forces could be destroyed with precise aviation of artillery firepower.
Russia, unlike USA, isn't whealthy enough to use aviation massively, so Russia relies to more old and cheap artillery. Russia is producing 3 times more artillery shells than entire NATO alliance.
In the start of the war Russia had many superiorities and many weaknesses, like Ukraine, so in fact casuality ratio between Russia and Ukraine was nearly equal. Quality of army means casuality ratio, but not how much time you are fighting to take one mile further. Because according to your logic Ukrainian army is also weak and uncapable, because Ukrainian army is also unable to capture huge territories, and in 2023 counteroffensive operation Ukraine wanted to take Crimea, but in reality was unable to take Tokmak, and in half of a year offensive Ukraine suffered 50 thousand casualities capturig 10 villages and famous Rabotino. Russian army isn't weak, and Ukrainian army with NATO support isn't weak, both armies at now are uncapable to conduct offensives because of FPV drones, FPV drones and sattelites are simply showing all movements of troops and vehilces in the rear, as a result in became very risky to conduct huge offensives, because enemy will see it and prepare, so both Russia and Ukraine are adapting to new technologies and using new tactic - small groups offensives. But you can't capture huge territories and can't develop offensive with small group. This is like WW1 stalemate due to delay in adapting to new technologies. German, French amd British armies weren't weak, it were most capable armies in the World, but there was a stalemate because of perfect balance of power and new technologies. And Russian army isn't weak, because after the collapse of USSR there was a World trend of reducing the size of the army, and in 1990s Russia have signed a theaty with NATO to reduce size of ground forces. So, in 1989 Soviet Union had an army of 5 million soldiers, and Russia is a half of USSR in terms of population. And Russia have reduced its army to 1 million personell, among which only 440 thousand are infantry, marines and airborne troops. 560 thousand Russian military personell are non-combat servicemen, they serve in navy, nuclear forces, chemical forces, aviation, anti-air, artillery and etc.. So in fact Russian army in 2021 was just 440 thousand troops, from which half are conscripts who don't participate in the war, and in the start of the war Russia had a ground force of just 200 thousand soldiers, and not all of them invaded Ukraine. So, in fact it were like 150 thousand Russian soldiers + 30 thousand from Donetsk and Luhansk PRs against 240 thousand Ukrainian soldiers. Ukraine, unlike Russia, is technologically backward country that lost all Soviet industry, so Ukraine don't have navy, have little amount of aviation and no nukes, little amount of anti-air. So, if in Russian army before the war 56% of military personel were non-combat, in the Ukrainian army less than 8% were non-combat, 20 thousand of 240 thousand. Russia had smaller army than Ukraine already on the first day of the war and Russia is fighting without mobilization with only volunteers, while Ukraine was massively mobilizing since the start of the war. And Russia was able to capture huge amounts of territories in the first month of the war.
In fact, Ukrainian army even before the war was strongest in Europe. Ukraine had 240 thousand military personell, 1000 tanks and 2000 artillery pieces already at the start of the war. For comparison British army is 70 thousand soldiers and 200 tanks, German army is 80 thousand soldiers and 300 tanks, French army is 105 thousand soldiers and 400 tanks. Ukrainian army was numerically as big as French, German and British armies combined. At now Ukraine have an army of 1 million military personel with huge NATO support. Ukraine already ran out of Soviet artillery shells and fully relies on NATO supplies. Russia produces 3 times more artillery shells than entire NATO combined, and NATO gives to Ukraine 50-60% of its shells production. While Russia have nearly 600 thousand military personell. Russian army grew up in numbers for 3 times since the start of the war, and Russian soldiers at now are very experienced combat veterans with huge combat experience of 3 years of war. 600 thousand Russian soldiers with very good training and experience at now VS 200 thousand Russian soldiers with average training and no experience at the start of the war. While German, French and British armies are the same small forces with few dozens of tanks, and NATO is wasting half of its ammunition to fight Russia in hybrid proxy war. And you are saying that Russia is uncapable of fighting
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BillNye617 I make an analysis and compare army power, I'm not saying that Russia will defeat NATO, Russia doesn't want and doesn't need to go to war with NATO.
Ukraine is smaller nation, but Russia is fighting without mobilization while Ukraine is mobilizing, so 4 times bigger Russia is fighting with 25% of its capability and everything is balanced so no one side is able to capture huge territories. But in recent months it seems like the balance of power is slowly shifting towards Russia, and Ukrainian defensive line in the Donbass with hundreeds of bunkers and defensive lines that they have built for 8 years is slowly falling to the Russian advancing forces. I think situation for Ukraine will be worser and worser with time, but when Russia will be very close to victory Western states will intervene. I think you know that French president Macron in february 2024 have said about deployment of French and European troops in Ukraine in case if Russian forces will make a breakthrougth of Ukrainian lines. So, the attritional warfare will continue for approximately one more year, I think at now we are closer to end of the war than to begining, and when Russia will be one step from the victory and Ukraine will be wasteland with no male population after 20 waves of mobilization, Russia will be stopped by NATO with threat of NATO intervening directly. And there will be negotiations and conflict will be frozen. Also, interesting fact about American help to Ukraine - American army is strongest in the World, USA have much higher military capabilities than Russia. But instead of giving needed weapons to Ukraine, Western military aid to Ukraine is very small. After two and a half years of war Ukraine still didn't received F-16, and West gave few dozens of outdated tanks from 1990s after more than one year of war. I think it is clear that Ukraine was simply tricked and blackmailed by the United States. Just imagine that you are United States president. Russia is your strategic enemy, and Russia went to war with some country 90% of American population didn't know about. So, you are giving weapons to this country. But what is your purpose, why are you giving weapons? It is very NOT PROFITABLE to the West to allow Ukraine to win. It is not profitable for USA to defeat Russia quickly. For United States it is profitable to continue this war for as long as possible, so this is exactly why American military help is very small - United States don't want Ukraine to win this war, and United States themselves wouldn't allow Ukraine to win, USA are giving not enough amount of weapons to Ukraine in order to this war last for few years, and Ukraine was tricked and blackmailed by the West and West is using Ukraine as a cannon fodder in a proxy war against Russia
1
-
1
-
1
-
@blakumvanrollope7480 this is not conscripts, this is mobilized troops, they are not conscripts. Conscripts are healthy men of age from 18 to 30 who are being called to duty forcefully by the state for 1 year. Mobilized are men from 19 to 60 who served conscript army in the past, in Soviet army, in 1990s, in 2000s, in 2010s, and they are marked in reserve army consisting of 3 million personell. They were forcefully mobilized into army. Russian conscripts don't participate in war but there was one wave of mobilization in Russia two years ago. Because Putin is afraid to declare mobilization for the second time, there is no rotation of mobilized troops, and they are exhausted right now, they are fighting for 2 years straight with no rest and no rotation. Also these mobilized men had lack of preparation because situation on the frontline was critical, and government used them as fodder to fill the gaps and stop Ukrainian offensive in Kharkiv region.
Only little amount of Ukrainian soldiers are training in the West. Also, Western states don't have combat experience of modern warfare. Western countries fought against technologically backward poorly equipped and poorly trained enemy 20 years ago in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Western countries don't have such combat experience as Russia and Ukraine, so Ukrainian forces trained inside Ukraine by Ukrainian officers proven do be more capable on the battlefield than Western trained. But enormous mobilization in Ukraine left newly mobilized troops with few days of preparation, while Russian volunteers have at least 3 months. So in different periods of war situation was different
1
-
1
-
@Bdhdhwjwj but no one being mobilized. And in fact this law couldn't work without martial law and there is no martial law. So, actually you can just ignore the government if they try to mobilize you, because in fact according to the Russian law government itself violates its own laws - war without martial law and state of war status, mobilization of reserve personell without war status or martial law, start of military operation without approval of upper stage of parlament. So, during mobilization some people just ignored this and everything was fine with them, more than a half of mobilized simply came volunteerly after Putin declared that mobilized would receive the same payment as volunteers, and in documents they are marked as volunteers. In Islamic regions of Russia there was violation of human rights and somewhere people were forced to come, but actually these people had rights, they simply uneducated and didn't know that they have rights. Caucasus is very traditionalist and poor society with mediveal clan system, so if head of the clan said something everyone else is executing the order
1