A very quick thread on those talking about Russia settling in for a long war and mobilising it’s resources for an extended campaign. Could they do it: possibly, but it would be a very different war with major societal implications.
The Russian Army is actually not that large. It’s around 900,000, which sounds big (though for a country of Russia’s size it’s very thinly spread) but about a third is conscript and many of the ‘professionals’ are on 12 month contracts. csis.org/blogs/post-sov…
We have pretty good intelligence that the Russians have deployed 75% of their best fighting formations to Ukraine (these are the ones wasting away now). Maybe they send the other 25%, but even that won’t make much of a difference in the short term.
Basically, because of a shortage of trained, professional (motivated) personnel, if Russia is going to fight this long war some are mentioning, they are going to have to create almost an entire new army.
The report above, which was very positive about overall Russian military modernisation, did admit that the Russian military before Ukraine would struggle in a long war, and I doubt they were thinking about something as immediately damaging as Ukraine.
So you would need to staff a new army. With what? Forced conscripts or out of shape reservists? Not the easiest of sell if your media is telling the Russian people the war is a great success.
Then you need to train your new, mostly conscript military (can’t imagine many would volunteer). If you don’t want them all to be cannon fodder that’s not a fast task. Basic training plus advanced training. From this moment; would be almost a year til they were ready?
And of course you need to competently organise and equip this new army while under harsh sanctions. Could they do it. Again possibly. But would require mass commitment and willingness to sacrifice for Putin. We will have to see. Im skeptical
Btw, The 75% refers to the percent of overall Battlion Tactical Groups Russia has in Ukraine. These are the best trained offensive formations. You can’t just turn the rest of the Russian Army into BTGs overnight. Lots of training and reequipping needed. forbes.com/sites/davidham…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Building a new thread on this, Ukraine and the long-war and why a peace deal, even a very messy one, would be the best solution even if it gives Putin an off ramp (in other words, be careful before you push for maximalist Ukrainian demands)
As someone who has been very critical of Russian military performance and complimentary of the way the Ukrainians have defended themselves, I do think we need to be careful arguing that Ukraine can somehow easily take on a long war or make extreme demands in a peace treaty.
If a long war will tax Russia tremendously (first thread) it is not easy for Ukraine. The fighting is on Ukrainian soil and the civilians being brutalized are Ukrainian. The fact also remains that Ukraine cannot conquer Russia, so whatever happens, there will have to be a deal.
Thanks for this. I’m getting lots of comments from people saying it’s no good criticising the Russian military in hindsight. I agree. Though if I can say, I wrote a piece a month before the invasion saying Russia was too weak and would struggle with complex operations
@JackDetsch producing a number of really interesting tweets from the US DoD briefing about what the Russians are trying to do. Seems like a little of everything; reorganise to take Kyiv, make a flanking manoeuvre to take Odessa and surround Ukrainian forces in the Donbas.
Cannot see how they would have the force for all of this, unless Ukrainian forces are far weaker than they seem to be. Wonder if Moscow is just barking out orders that the Russian Army can’t fulfill?
Again, if this is true, instead of massing to attack Kyiv, Russian forces seem to be in a bit of a mess to both the east and west of the city.
This is worth confirming. Russian ammo use is already far higher than anything they could have planned for and a large dump in Luhansk should be one of their most important ones for the fighting in the east. If the Ukrainians can start targeting Russian dumps it will matter.
@thetimes has a piece on ammunition shortages that are starting to bite for the Ukrainians too. Not surprising. To give you an idea of the use rate of ammo in war being far higher than anyone expected, the Ukrainians are saying that they are using a weeks supply in 20 hour
So both sides will be feeling the crunch, and whoever has the better functioning supply/logistics system will have a significant edge. So far three things seem to be favoring the Ukrainians. 1) the have generally lighter weapons which makes resupply somewhat less complex
Even a well trained and highly motivated army would be having significant morale issues after almost a month of this kind of warfare, and now frostbite? They will need a break soon, or they will break.
The most interesting/important story of the morning in terms of how the war might develop. The Ukrainian military is claiming that the logistics crisis that the Russians have been operating under since the start of the war is reaching acute crisis. see @guardian
Almost all military's have a supply crunch not long after the start of a war, as they usually under-estimate (sometimes spectacularly) the amount of stuff they will need to fight the war. War is so destructive that it consumes far more than people can imagine ahead of time.
One of the most famous of these supply crises was the First World War shell crisis which beset everyone. After only a few months of war the expenditure of ammunition was so much higher than expected, that artillery shells ran out and had to be rationed. encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/shells…