"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (103 Viewers)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


That improvement will take time and competent military leadership which can expect to function in a truly meritocratic system. Putin probably doesn't want that, nor do his billionaire buddies: they want the military to exist to echo their ideology.

When the most reliable route to high command is currying favor with venal senior officers, government officials*, or contractors, or lobbyists.


--------
* Do remember that "government officials" includes elected, appointed, civil servants, police, and upper level military personnel. A general or admiral is a government official as much as a senior civil servant.
 
I beleive that it's going to be Ukraine, who will be the more "dangerous" of the two, post-war.

Russia has done nothing but play catch-up to Ukraine's adaptability and innovation and in doing so, has changed the face of 21st century warfare.
 
I beleive that it's going to be Ukraine, who will be the more "dangerous" of the two, post-war.

Russia has done nothing but play catch-up to Ukraine's adaptability and innovation and in doing so, has changed the face of 21st century warfare.
Ukraine may come out more proficient, but I suspect they'll be far less aggressive a Russian government with a successfully reformed military: the latter will have much more to prove and many nations to resent.
 
I have to be honest but I disagree with a lot of his assumptions and equally am interested in what he doesn't say regarding some of the facts that he mentions but doesn't go into the impact of those facts.

Tanks and armour.
He states that Russia is able to build 200 tanks, 400 BMP IFV and 500 BTR 82 APC. He doesn't mention that all of these types have proven to be death traps to their crews and are totally unsuitable in the modern drone warfare of today. Russia will have to start from scratch. He also doesn't mention that current NATO equipment have proven to be far more adept at operating in the drone warfare environment, are considerably better at protecting their crews and its a safe bet that future developments will improve on that.
Neither does he mention that NATO standard MRAP vehicles have proven to be eminently successful in this conflict, Russian ones far less so.

He mentions that Russia has rebuilt its armour by dragging large amounts of old tanks from the boneyards, he also says that this cupboard is now bare. Both facts that we can agree with. What he doesn't say is that as a result Russia only has its new production to rely on. So if it loses much more than 1 tank every two days and 2.5 IFV / APC every day then the force will shrink

Future Forces
I think its fair to say that all forces are trying to figure out how to alter and amend their forces to take into account the lessons being learned. The UK are withdrawing some of their tanks in NATO and are replacing them with units designed around the use of drones. Will it be perfect, No, does it show that they are trying to make core changes, Yes. The USA are using drone vessels against Iran. No doubt other forces will be doing similar things in the near future. The tone of his paper is that Russia will have learnt considerable lessons from the conflict which I am sure we can all agree. But he also implies that the other countries haven't learnt the lessons and that I totally disagree with.

This phrase caught my eye:-
Drones represent the one area where the analysis found Russia holds a genuine, durable advantage. Outside of Ukraine itself, Russia has built what the analysis describes as the most developed and combat-experienced drone force in the world, spanning both battlefield reconnaissance and strike drones and longer-range weapons capable of hitting targets deep behind the front line

I have outlined Outside of Ukraine Itself. Does he really think that Ukraine isn't sharing its lessons and technology with Nato and other countries? Almost every NATO country is building drones, ECM and Anti drone weapons with Ukraine. I fundamentally disagree with the belief that Russia has any advantage in this aspect.

Air Warfare
He goes into some detail as to the dire situation the Russian airforce is in when compared to Nato. But he doesn't go into the impact this will have should Russia ever try to take on NATO and how this seriously reduces the Russian Threat. Russia is suffering serious problems when Drones are attacking its infrastructure using drones with a 500lb warhead. This would pale into insignificance should the NATO airforces strike.

Russian Serious Issues.
It is correctly stated that Manpower is likley to be a serious issue for Moscow. What he doesn't say is Money. Russia is almost bankrupt and everything mentioned above will cost a simply eyewatering amount of money to design, develop and build.

Summary
Is Russia finished, No. We should and are keeping a close eye on what is happening but neither should we assume that Russia is likely to be all powerful. Before this started everyone believed Russia to be an overwhelming danger. It has proven otherwise, we shouldn't make the same mistake twice.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back