Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The 'why' isn't that difficult.

One of Putin's stated objectives (regardless of what his actual objectives are) to the Russian people (and soldiers) is that he is 'rescuing' the 'Little Russians' (ie, Ukranians) from their cruel and unjust government.

The 'level city' strategy is incompatible with the rationale for war (sorry, 'military operations') that he's given his people. Even if they don't believe him, he can't be too obvious, and scouring Ukraine of standing cities is way too far.

Russian soldiers have already been filmed actively puzzled by shouting crowds (or individuals) not embracing their 'liberation.' Whole-scale bombing, even with Russian control over media sources, might well lead to internal problems.

A few thoughts on the subject backing up what my compatriot write here: https://skinflintgames.wordpress.com/2022/03/04/on-the-historical-unity-of-russian-and-ukrainian-people/

It's the WRONG WAR. If Putin's aim is to resurrect the geographic barriers of the old Soviet Union, this is pointless. The Russian nuclear arsenal renders geographic borders moot - any invading army would be vaporised. Plus, the examples of Hitler & Napoleons invasions both seem to forget that both of these ended in catastrophic failure. You CAN'T invade and conquer Russia from the West. There's flat out too much of it.

Plus, in order to secure the other geographic barriers (and if you don't secure all of them, then what's the point of securing any of them?) you would have to engage NATO in the Baltics and Poland - based on the Russian performance so far, I don't see them having the ability to do that for a generation.

It's the WRONG TIME. The Rasputitsa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasputitsa) season is in full flood, which means huge swathes of terrain off road are basically impassable to wheeled vehicles, which are the logistical prime movers. Plus we're moving out of winter into spring, so less leverage via gas, PLUS they didn't wait for NordStream 2 to come online which would have got Europe fatally hooked on Russian gas and unable to get themselves off it in time.

It's being fought the WRONG WAY. They might have tried a lightning decapitation strike but that clearly failed and now they're trying to use Soviet-era tactics WITHOUT the numbers to make that work. From what I've seen, they have more or less numerical parity with the Ukrainians - more firepower, true, but my guess is we're feeding the Ukrainians every drop of intelligence we have, enabling them to concentrate what they do have in the right places. I've also heard from various different sources that the Russians don't have night vision gear for most troops, which if true is a MASSIVE Achilles' Heel, and we should be pumping NVGs into Ukraine as fast as we can. A 40km long convoy that can't get off road because of the mud and has no night vision capability is just so much scrap metal waiting to be collected by a light infantry force that knows the terrain, fights at night, has motivation (and balls of steel) and these NLAWS which seem to be remarkably effective.

Then we come to the demographics. Since the fall of the Soviet Union Russian deaths have been outstripping birth rates by a million a year. The average age is around about 39, and the average male life expectancy now around 65. Now check this out:



See that "pinch"? That's males born 1999 - 2005, prime draft recruits. The SMALLEST group. I reckon that comes up with about a 5m manpower pool assuming all of them were willing and able and fit. That's tiny, and their most precious demographic asset. Every Russian boy sent to murder and bleed and die in Ukraine who doesn't come home is another one who can't start a family of their own and ensure Russia's future. In sending this group into the firestorm of Ukrainian resistance he is slitting Russia's throat, slowly but surely. Don't forget that the sheer size of Russia means that underpopulation is a real problem for them - if they can't man an appropriately sized military they can't protect their borders.. and there are other predators out there

I think it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that in 20 years time there won't be a Russian state, just a province of a Greater Chinese Empire.

On a side note, imagine what Russia could be if they had a leader like Zelensky, at least roughly aligned with Western values - they could have been an economically dominant EU power, maybe even a NATO member... now they'll be lucky to end up like North Korea

 Skinflint Games wrote:


It's the WRONG TIME. The Rasputitsa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasputitsa) season is in full flood, which means huge swathes of terrain off road are basically impassable to wheeled vehicles, which are the logistical prime movers.

Add in at least 1 reservoir being used to make the land even muddier...

The_Real_Chris wrote:

 Skinflint Games wrote:


It's the WRONG TIME. The Rasputitsa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasputitsa) season is in full flood, which means huge swathes of terrain off road are basically impassable to wheeled vehicles, which are the logistical prime movers.

Add in at least 1 reservoir being used to make the land even muddier...

Hadn't heard about that but it would make sense

 Skinflint Games wrote:


It's the WRONG TIME. The Rasputitsa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasputitsa) season is in full flood, which means huge swathes of terrain off road are basically impassable to wheeled vehicles, which are the logistical prime movers. Plus we're moving out of winter into spring, so less leverage via gas, PLUS they didn't wait for NordStream 2 to come online which would have got Europe fatally hooked on Russian gas and unable to get themselves off it in time.

Add on top a global pandemic which has hit the world hard and Russia in particular hasn't fared well. Which likely also hardened other world nations to taking a harder line against Russia in this case. Everyone is hurting from the Pandemic and hte last thing the world needed was a major conflict. It would have made some (grim) sense if the pandemic had hit Ukraine and not Russia.




I also agree the withholding of air-forces would fit with the idea that Russia was invading based on the idea that the people would welcome them with open arms. That they'd get supportive uprisings from the population and thus wouldn't need to conduct a massive bombardment campaign. Which also fits with Russia being in a weaker position after the Pandemic and hoping that the Ukraine would be able to help prop up their economy. A fast few days of war making a quick victory and a nation that welcomes Russia. Sounds like a dream come true.
Instead he's bogged down in the mud with a wasted early few days, massive sanctions that are going to cripple Russia. Even if the war ends and the sanctions start to be lifted the damage to the economy will take years to restore, not to mention soured international relations and more. Giving Europe even more of a push to get off Russian gas would be another big slice, esp after the huge investment in the new pipeline.


All in all its a baffling war.

The_Real_Chris wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

I don't see how any reasonable or knowledgeable individual looks at this and says "Russia is holding back". We've seen them using pretty much all of their most modern equipment (no, not their cutting edge show ponies like T-14s and Su-57s, because they have something like 20 and 4 of them respectively and none of them are believed to be combat ready), largely to mixed or disastrous effect. They are actively besieging Mariupol and Kharkiv, including more or less intentionally targeting and murdering civilian evac points during what *should* be humanitarian ceasefires. They are dredging up obsolete equipment from Khabarovsk and Vladivostok and shipping it east, and impounding civilian vehicles and impressing them into service as resupply vehicles. They are basically throwing everything they have at the situation at this point to shore up a collapsing effort. Its pretty clear they don't have much left in the tank. Also bares mentioning that they only have ~250-300k personnel in the ground forces and about 2/3rds of that was apparently involved in the invasion based on our best intelligence estimates - its very likely that they have nothing left to really be able to support the war effort with, as they don't have the logistical capacity to support the use of the remainder and also need to secure their borders (mostly out of paranoia rather than from a realistic threat).

? They are absolutely holding back. Pretty much all of the internal Western staff college discussion is trying to work out why. The Russians are a fires heavy military. They have lots and its effective. But in Ukraine their airforce is rarely around and outside of a few limited areas they haven't done the 'level city' strategy they are renowned for.

Here are a few RUSI writers puzzling over it - modern war institute, west point, etc., all are publishing similar things.

https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/rusi-defence-systems/russian-air-force-actually-incapable-complex-air-operations

"holding back" implies a willful and intentional reservation of capability. An inability to plan operations is not that, likewise an inability to supply their armed forces with the personnel, fuel, food, and ammunition needed to execute those missions is likewise not "holding back" but rather just a military logistical failure. To say they are "holding back" and fighting with an arm behind their back, when all indicators are they are scrambling to throw together anything and everything they can on this invasion seems a gross misunderstanding of the situation writ large.

 Skinflint Games wrote:


On a side note, imagine what Russia could be if they had a leader like Zelensky, at least roughly aligned with Western values - they could have been an economically dominant EU power, maybe even a NATO member... now they'll be lucky to end up like North Korea

Tell me you are joking please. Putin spent almost a DECADE agreeing with the west, helping them and trying to suit and we pushed him out of our world. How old are you ? No injury, just wondering if you are not aware of history. Like, Putin helping the USA during the invasion of Afghanistan for example, or being the first to call Bush after 9/11. Etc
You have to go back to 2007 to finally see him switching to pro slave / anti West politics.
And believe me, nobody wants a president like Zelensky

Ill take a president like Zelensky, he clearly has the interests of his country and people at heart and is doing the best he can by them - and all in all hes doing a great job of it. This is more than what I can say about most lworld leaders.

As for Putin, its in many ways the Wests fault as it is his that things went the way they did IMO. He seemed to desire better relations with the west but seemed to assume that post-Soviet Russia would be treated as an equal partner and a major player with its own inviolable sphere of influence.The West was willing to work with him but not as an equal partner, seeing Russia as a major player but not necessarily as an Empire. Likewise I think we misstepped through the Yeltsin era by not supporting post-Soviet "reconstruction" more aggressively, American financial aid to Russia was anemic to non-existent while Russia struggled to rebuild its economy and adopt western norms. When taken in context with NATOs simultaneous eastward expansion it looks a lot more like the West was attempting to "double tap" Russia into the grave than we were attempting to establish better relations and bring Russia forward as a western liberal democracy.

I think the real break in relations was not NATOs eastward expansion (which was already well on the way before 2007) but rather the signaling that Russia would not be included (which is itself just as much a fault of Putin as it is anyone in Washington DC - he had too much pride to consider applying, arguing thag Russia was too important to wait in line like lesser states did - not that Russia was likely to be accepted anyway as it politically did not fit the mold of NATOs belief systems) and the implication that NATOs continued reason for existence served no other purpose than to screw over Russia. We can point to Bush Jrs unilateral approach to foreign policy as being a major factor in relations souring, he took many actions which were intended to defend America from perceived Islamic extremism but really served to trigger Russian paranoia that it was directed at them instead - especially with regards to withdrawing from the ABM Treaty and attempting to station missile defenses in eastern europe.