In any war, there are mistakes made by either side at the outset that either get corrected over time or lead to a protracted front where casualty-aversion is the name of the game. This is the nature of how both sides grow their "veteranship" over time as they learn what tactics work and which on…
In any war, there are mistakes made by either side at the outset that either get corrected over time or lead to a protracted front where casualty-aversion is the name of the game. This is the nature of how both sides grow their "veteranship" over time as they learn what tactics work and which ones will get your whole unit murdered. Mariupol will be a big turning point because once it is taken it will do some big things for Russian field commanders:
It will demonstrate the effectiveness of the "use artillery barrages to inflict casualties while minimizing friendly losses" model that will no doubt be adopted in other urban sieges around the country once it has proven its effectiveness in the south. This is how commanders learn and adapt from the successes of their counterparts.
The other big thing it will do for Russian commanders is open up more logistical resources. With Mariupol leveled and leftover resistance there slim, Chechens and other veteran units that Russia has in Mariupol can be recommitted to taking Odessa or consolidating the eastern Oblasts.
Finally, we need to look at who the Russians can loop in. They're already tapping Syrian and now Libyan troops (Run Marty!), but word on the block is that there is a real chance of Belarus getting pulled into a conflict it is already ankle-deep in. If Belarus commits its military to the Russian cause, that's like several new northern fronts opening up just north of Kyiv. If this occurs, the map looks a lot different. Same thing if the Russians continue to employ the "more artillery, fewer casualties" model across the north. The Russian military is already offering Mariupol the same thing it had previously offered cities like Idlib & Grozny: "Capitulate and cease all resistance now or see the city you are defending reduced to ruble."
The Ukrainians can resist these tactics, but absent intervention by US/UK/France (NATO won't do it), expect to see that Russian casualty rate to go down while the civilian casualty rates goes way up.
"reduced to ruble" is a pretty great typo, that's a great one.
Artillery before all else has basically been the Russian strategy for the last century, no? I've been expecting this protraction more or less the whole time.
Omg LOL, great typo I missed, but being that the ruble is now rubble it kind of fits somehow? Artillery before all else is what they resort to once their initial ideas fail--see the Hostomel Turkey Shoot. These guys tried to do a blitzkreig and jacked it up HARD, so now they're going back to the default tactics, which worked in their favor in places like Chechnya, Dagestan, Syria, and now Mariupol.
The Bosporus is closed to commercial traffic, not military. If they're loaded onto mil transports or even civilian transports with mil escorts, they will get to Sevastopol--or maybe even directly to Mariupol by then. Frustrated forces in unfamiliar terrain tend to resort to war crimes to fight back, which blends with the overall "Mariupol Model" of war-criming until the enemy capitulates. Russia also has the Vagner mercs. I'm not sure about what the odds of a Belarusian mutiny would be, but I wouldn't be comfortable banking on that personally. I don't have as much insight into that part of the geopolitics other than Belarus has been Russia's footstool for even longer than Ukraine was pre-Maidan Rev.
None of this addresses what happens if the Mariupol Model spreads across the other urban centers of interest like Kharkiv, Chernihiv, and Mykolaiv. How does the Ukrainian military fight artillery barrages when the Russians start trading their casualty rates for civilian ones elsewhere? How do they combat the Grozny/Idlib/Mariupol tactics that have worked time and again? If there's one thing that the Russians *have* kept in good supply logistically it appears to be artillery shells.
If cities are reduced to rubble and most of the defenders are now refugees, then there's a lot less resistance to be faced once you take what's left of the city. The Russians may only need to employ DNR/LNR militias at that point. We'll find out soon enough in the case of Mariupol that's for sure.
Double-checked this and you're right, point acknowledged. But do you think Turkey will enforce that as a NATO member if Russian warships approach the straight? Even if the straits aren't an option, flying works just fine. We flew all of our people into Iraq/Afghanistan post-invasion. You don't need ships.
I appreciate the back and forth between Travis and TCinLA, both of whose comments I have read and both of whom seem to have background military knowledge. I feel like I am getting additional information to add to the very thorough treatment of topics from JVL (thanks to you, JVL.)
If flown through Iraqi/Iranian airspace from Syria they dodge all of NATO airspace and can take the Caucuses leg to Sevastopol. Not a straight line, but very doable.
Alright, lets assume the Russians get *zero* replenishments from Syria/Libya and *maybe* no replenishments from Belarus. What's the Ukrainian military's counter to the Mariupol Model once it spreads to Mykolaiv, Kharkiv, Chernihiv, etc.? What does the Ukrainian mil do to counter the trade of Russian KIAs for civilian casualties via standoff ordnance?
This is why you need a surge in equipment like attack drones that can be used in counter-battery and logistics denial. Nobody is going to out-artillery the Russian army, directly (not without having the equivalent of the US Air Force available).
The flip side to the Russian loss equation:
In any war, there are mistakes made by either side at the outset that either get corrected over time or lead to a protracted front where casualty-aversion is the name of the game. This is the nature of how both sides grow their "veteranship" over time as they learn what tactics work and which ones will get your whole unit murdered. Mariupol will be a big turning point because once it is taken it will do some big things for Russian field commanders:
It will demonstrate the effectiveness of the "use artillery barrages to inflict casualties while minimizing friendly losses" model that will no doubt be adopted in other urban sieges around the country once it has proven its effectiveness in the south. This is how commanders learn and adapt from the successes of their counterparts.
The other big thing it will do for Russian commanders is open up more logistical resources. With Mariupol leveled and leftover resistance there slim, Chechens and other veteran units that Russia has in Mariupol can be recommitted to taking Odessa or consolidating the eastern Oblasts.
Finally, we need to look at who the Russians can loop in. They're already tapping Syrian and now Libyan troops (Run Marty!), but word on the block is that there is a real chance of Belarus getting pulled into a conflict it is already ankle-deep in. If Belarus commits its military to the Russian cause, that's like several new northern fronts opening up just north of Kyiv. If this occurs, the map looks a lot different. Same thing if the Russians continue to employ the "more artillery, fewer casualties" model across the north. The Russian military is already offering Mariupol the same thing it had previously offered cities like Idlib & Grozny: "Capitulate and cease all resistance now or see the city you are defending reduced to ruble."
The Ukrainians can resist these tactics, but absent intervention by US/UK/France (NATO won't do it), expect to see that Russian casualty rate to go down while the civilian casualty rates goes way up.
I'm just sad that nobody got the Back to the Future reference :-(
Took me a while to get that one as it has been quite some time since I saw the movie, lol.
Good one!
"reduced to ruble" is a pretty great typo, that's a great one.
Artillery before all else has basically been the Russian strategy for the last century, no? I've been expecting this protraction more or less the whole time.
Omg LOL, great typo I missed, but being that the ruble is now rubble it kind of fits somehow? Artillery before all else is what they resort to once their initial ideas fail--see the Hostomel Turkey Shoot. These guys tried to do a blitzkreig and jacked it up HARD, so now they're going back to the default tactics, which worked in their favor in places like Chechnya, Dagestan, Syria, and now Mariupol.
The Bosporus is closed to commercial traffic, not military. If they're loaded onto mil transports or even civilian transports with mil escorts, they will get to Sevastopol--or maybe even directly to Mariupol by then. Frustrated forces in unfamiliar terrain tend to resort to war crimes to fight back, which blends with the overall "Mariupol Model" of war-criming until the enemy capitulates. Russia also has the Vagner mercs. I'm not sure about what the odds of a Belarusian mutiny would be, but I wouldn't be comfortable banking on that personally. I don't have as much insight into that part of the geopolitics other than Belarus has been Russia's footstool for even longer than Ukraine was pre-Maidan Rev.
None of this addresses what happens if the Mariupol Model spreads across the other urban centers of interest like Kharkiv, Chernihiv, and Mykolaiv. How does the Ukrainian military fight artillery barrages when the Russians start trading their casualty rates for civilian ones elsewhere? How do they combat the Grozny/Idlib/Mariupol tactics that have worked time and again? If there's one thing that the Russians *have* kept in good supply logistically it appears to be artillery shells.
If cities are reduced to rubble and most of the defenders are now refugees, then there's a lot less resistance to be faced once you take what's left of the city. The Russians may only need to employ DNR/LNR militias at that point. We'll find out soon enough in the case of Mariupol that's for sure.
Double-checked this and you're right, point acknowledged. But do you think Turkey will enforce that as a NATO member if Russian warships approach the straight? Even if the straits aren't an option, flying works just fine. We flew all of our people into Iraq/Afghanistan post-invasion. You don't need ships.
I appreciate the back and forth between Travis and TCinLA, both of whose comments I have read and both of whom seem to have background military knowledge. I feel like I am getting additional information to add to the very thorough treatment of topics from JVL (thanks to you, JVL.)
What is Russia’s airlift capability? Is it comparable to the U.S.?
Doesn't need to be that much when round trips are an option.
If flown through Iraqi/Iranian airspace from Syria they dodge all of NATO airspace and can take the Caucuses leg to Sevastopol. Not a straight line, but very doable.
Alright, lets assume the Russians get *zero* replenishments from Syria/Libya and *maybe* no replenishments from Belarus. What's the Ukrainian military's counter to the Mariupol Model once it spreads to Mykolaiv, Kharkiv, Chernihiv, etc.? What does the Ukrainian mil do to counter the trade of Russian KIAs for civilian casualties via standoff ordnance?
This is why you need a surge in equipment like attack drones that can be used in counter-battery and logistics denial. Nobody is going to out-artillery the Russian army, directly (not without having the equivalent of the US Air Force available).