Why did Russia Mobilize Such a Seemingly Small Invasion Force against the Ukraine? (1 Viewer)

[Felis Leo]

Okay, so I had some questions for all the military junkies and experts here on this thread who are watching the Russian invasion of the Ukraine. Keep in mind, I am asking this as someone who has an interest in military history but who never has and probably never will serve a day in uniform.

Why did Russia mobilize a force of less than 200,000 to invade the Ukraine? If their aim is to seize Kyiv, bring it back into the Russian sphere of influence, and install a Quisling-style puppet government and then withdraw immediately after, okay. But their attacks look like they are spread out over the country, and aimed stamp out resistance across the Ukraine through a shock-and-awe campaign. But it seems doomed to failure in the medium and long-term unless they have a massive number of domestic collaborators equal to or exceeding the invasion force. Because as I said in other threads, we are not talking about some miniscule part of Russia like Chechnya which has 1.5 million. Or Georgia, which had roughly 4 million. We are talking about taking and holding a massive country that is about the size of Texas with a population of 44 million people.

So why are they bringing less than 200,000 men to invade a country of this size? I would think that in order to truly crush Ukraine country-wide and to occupy it long enough to install a Russia-friendly government, a force at least four to five times would be needed. So why is it so small by comparison? Is it because the Russian military is now so advanced that their government does not feel the need for as many boots on the ground in order to quell resistance and fully occupy a massive country? Did they feel that air superiority would render the need for actual soldiers holding territory largely-moot? Did they think that the Ukrainians would just leap at the opportunity to lay down their arms, strip off their uniforms and welcome a new Russian-friendly government being installed? Or is it because Russia simply cannot afford to arm, equip and supply a million-man army in the field anymore? Is there something else at play? What am I missing here?

 

[Jredbaron96]

Okay, so this is a question I have for all the military junkies and experts here on this thread who are watching the Ukraine situation. Keep in mind, I am asking this as someone who has an interest in military history but who never has and probably never will serve a day in uniform.

Why did Russia mobilize a force of less than 200,000 to invade the Ukraine? If their aim is to seize Kyiv, bring it back into the Russian sphere of influence, and install a Quisling-style puppet government and then withdraw immediately after, okay. But their attacks look like they are spread out over the country, and aimed stamp out resistance across the Ukraine through a shock-and-awe campaign. But it seems doomed to failure in the medium and long-term unless they have a massive number of domestic collaborators equal to or exceeding the invasion force. Because as I said in other threads, we are not talking about some miniscule part of Russia like Chechnya which has 1.5 million. Or Georgia, which had roughly 4 million. We are talking about taking and holding a massive country that is about the size of Texas with a population of 44 million people.

So why are they bringing less than 200,000 men to invade a country of this size? I would think that in order to truly crush Ukraine country-wide and to occupy it long enough to install a Russia-friendly government, a force at least four to five times would be needed. So why is it so small by comparison? Is it because the Russian military is now so advanced that their government does not feel the need for as many boots on the ground in order to quell resistance and fully occupy a massive country? Did they think that the Ukrainians would just leap at the opportunity to lay down their arms, strip off their uniforms and welcome a new Russian-friendly government being installed? Or is it because Russia simply cannot afford to arm, equip and supply a million-man army in the field anymore? Is there something else at play? What am I missing here?

On top of having conventional superiority over the Ukrainians at virtually all levels, the Russians don't generally prefer to take huge chunks, and instead hold strategic locations like they did in Georgia.

Ukraine only has a handful of major urban areas that can be considered of major strategic value since the country is so large; controlling them grants control to major highways and railways from which lateral transfer of troops is possible; sort of like Russia.

I doubt the Russians want a full occupation; they'll settle for controlling a handful of major areas and use that to dictate terms.

 

[Felis Leo]

On top of having conventional superiority over the Ukrainians at virtually all levels, the Russians don't generally prefer to take huge chunks, and instead hold strategic locations like they did in Georgia.

Ukraine only has a handful of major urban areas that can be considered of major strategic value since the country is so large; controlling them grants control to major highways and railways from which lateral transfer of troops is possible; sort of like Russia.

I doubt the Russians want a full occupation; they'll settle for controlling a handful of major areas and use that to dictate terms.

That sounds like a winning strategy for a small country like Georgia or a tiny province like Chechnya where you might just have a couple major cities and strategically valuable towns (though I would have to revisit and delve into those conflicts for more detail). But it sounds inane for such a large country. Especially when resistance can be mounted from the hinterland from any direction and you can have your helicopters and slower planes shot down with NATO-provided shoulder-mounted missile launchers. If they keep their soldiers in Ukraine for the foreseeable future, I think they are going to have stuck their hand in a garbage disposal like that of Vietnam.

 

[StillBallin75]

I have a less generous interpretation than @Jredbaron96, I think it's hubris. They do have superior firepower, air power, and logistical assets, but it's likely the same reason Rumsfeld and company thought we could invade Iraq in 2003 with relatively few troops. I mean hubris alone explains how he thought this was a good idea at all.

Also, Russia's active-duty regular Army only has a total of 280,000 personnel, so it's reasonable to also conclude they may not have had that many troops to spare to begin with and I wouldn't be surprised if the invading force consisted of a significant number of reservists and conscripts.

 

[Felis Leo]

I have a less generous interpretation than @Jredbaron96, I think it's hubris. They do have superior firepower, air power, and logistical assets, but it's likely the same reason Rumsfeld and company thought we could invade in 2003 with relatively few troops. I mean hubris alone explains how he thought this was a good idea at all.

Also, Russia's active-duty regular Army only has a total of 280,000 personnel, so it's reasonable to also conclude they may not have had that many troops to spare to begin with and I wouldn't be surprised if the invading force consisted of a significant number of reservists and conscripts.

True. But at least the initial invasion of Iraq had 300,000 Coalition troops going into a country of 24 million. Here we are dealing with 200,000 going into a country of 44 million. That seems like 50% to 100% more hubris.

 

[StillBallin75]

True. But at least the initial invasion of Iraq had 300,000 Coalition troops going into a country of 24 million. Here we are dealing with 200,000 going into a country of 44 million. That seems like 50% to 100% more hubris.

Agreed. I don't think Putin is as smart as his fanboys think he is.

Could also be what you said, they simply don't have the manpower or logistical capability to support a larger invading force. For every piece of combat power you put in theater, you're adding multiples of that to the logistical train and support assets. Troops need food and water, and ammunition. Tanks and vehicles need fuel, and maintainers.

 

[Lutherf]

Okay, so I had some questions for all the military junkies and experts here on this thread who are watching the Russian invasion of the Ukraine. Keep in mind, I am asking this as someone who has an interest in military history but who never has and probably never will serve a day in uniform.

Why did Russia mobilize a force of less than 200,000 to invade the Ukraine? If their aim is to seize Kyiv, bring it back into the Russian sphere of influence, and install a Quisling-style puppet government and then withdraw immediately after, okay. But their attacks look like they are spread out over the country, and aimed stamp out resistance across the Ukraine through a shock-and-awe campaign. But it seems doomed to failure in the medium and long-term unless they have a massive number of domestic collaborators equal to or exceeding the invasion force. Because as I said in other threads, we are not talking about some miniscule part of Russia like Chechnya which has 1.5 million. Or Georgia, which had roughly 4 million. We are talking about taking and holding a massive country that is about the size of Texas with a population of 44 million people.

So why are they bringing less than 200,000 men to invade a country of this size? I would think that in order to truly crush Ukraine country-wide and to occupy it long enough to install a Russia-friendly government, a force at least four to five times would be needed. So why is it so small by comparison? Is it because the Russian military is now so advanced that their government does not feel the need for as many boots on the ground in order to quell resistance and fully occupy a massive country? Did they feel that air superiority would render the need for actual soldiers holding territory largely-moot? Did they think that the Ukrainians would just leap at the opportunity to lay down their arms, strip off their uniforms and welcome a new Russian-friendly government being installed? Or is it because Russia simply cannot afford to arm, equip and supply a million-man army in the field anymore? Is there something else at play? What am I missing here?

Probably the biggest reason is that you never want to commit a large percentage of your forces to one operation if you're anticipating having to defend on another front. Putin is likely planning for the prospect of aggression against him from another direction.

 

[Felis Leo]

Probably the biggest reason is that you never want to commit a large percentage of your forces to one operation if you're anticipating having to defend on another front. Putin is likely planning for the prospect of aggression against him from another direction.

I had not thought of that, Lutherf. But by that same token, it seems like dividing your forces is also a good way to lose on two fronts.

 

[Lutherf]

I had not thought of that, Lutherf. But by that same token, it seems like dividing your forces is also a good way to lose on two fronts.

The way Putin is going into Ukraine is a little bit weird, from my perspective. I haven't been paying as close attention as I otherwise might due to a rather substantial workload this time of year but it looks like he's been advancing behind an artillery assault rather than an air campaign. He should have more than enough air power to prep and then cover any advance but he seems to be holding that back and I'm not sure why. I'm also not really sure why he decided to attack in the first place. There was no chance that this would be accepted on the international playing field and he MUST have known that so there has got to be something else he's going after.

There is a whole lot about all this that doesn't make a lot of sense to me so I'm kind of waiting for the next shoe to drop.

 

[NatMorton]

Okay, so I had some questions for all the military junkies and experts here on this thread who are watching the Russian invasion of the Ukraine. Keep in mind, I am asking this as someone who has an interest in military history but who never has and probably never will serve a day in uniform.

Why did Russia mobilize a force of less than 200,000 to invade the Ukraine? If their aim is to seize Kyiv, bring it back into the Russian sphere of influence, and install a Quisling-style puppet government and then withdraw immediately after, okay. But their attacks look like they are spread out over the country, and aimed stamp out resistance across the Ukraine through a shock-and-awe campaign. But it seems doomed to failure in the medium and long-term unless they have a massive number of domestic collaborators equal to or exceeding the invasion force. Because as I said in other threads, we are not talking about some miniscule part of Russia like Chechnya which has 1.5 million. Or Georgia, which had roughly 4 million. We are talking about taking and holding a massive country that is about the size of Texas with a population of 44 million people.

So why are they bringing less than 200,000 men to invade a country of this size? I would think that in order to truly crush Ukraine country-wide and to occupy it long enough to install a Russia-friendly government, a force at least four to five times would be needed. So why is it so small by comparison? Is it because the Russian military is now so advanced that their government does not feel the need for as many boots on the ground in order to quell resistance and fully occupy a massive country? Did they feel that air superiority would render the need for actual soldiers holding territory largely-moot? Did they think that the Ukrainians would just leap at the opportunity to lay down their arms, strip off their uniforms and welcome a new Russian-friendly government being installed? Or is it because Russia simply cannot afford to arm, equip and supply a million-man army in the field anymore? Is there something else at play? What am I missing here?

It's a great question. If I had to guess now I'd say their purpose is a quick strike to the head. Take out the current Ukrainian government. Install a puppet regime and withdraw. They can then operate the Ukraine via remote control.

 

[Oozlefinch]

That sounds like a winning strategy for a small country like Georgia

"Small country"?

Holy hell, Ukraine is the second largest country in Europe. Second only to Russia. It is almost twice the size of Germany, five times the size of Greece, it is huge.

However, it has a small population for all that size, coming in at number 33 at population density. With only 75 people per square kilometer. To put that in comparison, the UK has 281 p/Km2. Germany has 240 p/Km2. Poland has 124 p/Km2.

 

[ttwtt78640]

IMHO, Putin planned on taking more than Ukraine, thus expected to face some (limited, i.e. non-nuclear) NATO resistance. I am surprised that the Russian military has not yet eliminated Ukrainian air defense capability. That might give Putin pause on his plan to go further.

 

[Felis Leo]

It's a great question. If I had to guess now I'd say their purpose is a quick strike to the head. Take out the current Ukrainian government. Install a puppet regime and withdraw. They can then operate the Ukraine via remote control.

That was my thought, but it isn't as though the Ukrainians are evenly-divided on the issue of whether to be a part of Greater Russia versus independent Ukraine. The Russian supporters are a minority. In order for a Russian-backed Quisling government to have any chance of success, they would almost certainly need a Russian-backed security presence to stay in power. Which means more resistance to a foreign occupation which in turn means more Russian blood and treasure being wasted.

 

[Oozlefinch]

In order for a Russian-backed Quisling government to have any chance of success, they would almost certainly need a Russian-backed security presence to stay in power.

Likely their end goal is a Quisling government, combined with FInlandization.

 

[ouch]

Okay, so I had some questions for all the military junkies and experts here on this thread who are watching the Russian invasion of the Ukraine. Keep in mind, I am asking this as someone who has an interest in military history but who never has and probably never will serve a day in uniform.

Why did Russia mobilize a force of less than 200,000 to invade the Ukraine? If their aim is to seize Kyiv, bring it back into the Russian sphere of influence, and install a Quisling-style puppet government and then withdraw immediately after, okay. But their attacks look like they are spread out over the country, and aimed stamp out resistance across the Ukraine through a shock-and-awe campaign. But it seems doomed to failure in the medium and long-term unless they have a massive number of domestic collaborators equal to or exceeding the invasion force. Because as I said in other threads, we are not talking about some miniscule part of Russia like Chechnya which has 1.5 million. Or Georgia, which had roughly 4 million. We are talking about taking and holding a massive country that is about the size of Texas with a population of 44 million people.

So why are they bringing less than 200,000 men to invade a country of this size? I would think that in order to truly crush Ukraine country-wide and to occupy it long enough to install a Russia-friendly government, a force at least four to five times would be needed. So why is it so small by comparison? Is it because the Russian military is now so advanced that their government does not feel the need for as many boots on the ground in order to quell resistance and fully occupy a massive country? Did they feel that air superiority would render the need for actual soldiers holding territory largely-moot? Did they think that the Ukrainians would just leap at the opportunity to lay down their arms, strip off their uniforms and welcome a new Russian-friendly government being installed? Or is it because Russia simply cannot afford to arm, equip and supply a million-man army in the field anymore? Is there something else at play? What am I missing here?

An interesting topic in which I'd love to comment on (in which has already crossed my mind days ago) but because it's here in the military forum (nothing wrong with that) and I am a war vet from a couple million years ago, my answer is based on a political response. If you do another thread elsewhere, jiggle my trip wire.

 

[NatMorton]

That was my thought, but it isn't as though the Ukrainians are evenly-divided on the issue of whether to be a part of Greater Russia versus independent Ukraine. The Russian supporters are a minority. In order for a Russian-backed Quisling government to have any chance of success, they would almost certainly need a Russian-backed security presence to stay in power. Which means more resistance to a foreign occupation which in turn means more Russian blood and treasure being wasted.

The Soviets didn't need that much of a force on the ground to deal with domestic issues in East Germany once the Stasi were in place. As soon as the first few outspoken anti-Putin critics "disappear" the rest will get the message.

 

[Jredbaron96]

That sounds like a winning strategy for a small country like Georgia or a tiny province like Chechnya where you might just have a couple major cities and strategically valuable towns (though I would have to revisit and delve into those conflicts for more detail). But it sounds inane for such a large country. Especially when resistance can be mounted from the hinterland from any direction and you can have your helicopters and slower planes shot down with NATO-provided shoulder-mounted missile launchers. If they keep their soldiers in Ukraine for the foreseeable future, I think they are going to have stuck their hand in a garbage disposal like that of Vietnam.

I have a less generous interpretation than @Jredbaron96, I think it's hubris. They do have superior firepower, air power, and logistical assets, but it's likely the same reason Rumsfeld and company thought we could invade Iraq in 2003 with relatively few troops. I mean hubris alone explains how he thought this was a good idea at all.

Also, Russia's active-duty regular Army only has a total of 280,000 personnel, so it's reasonable to also conclude they may not have had that many troops to spare to begin with and I wouldn't be surprised if the invading force consisted of a significant number of reservists and conscripts.

It's entirely possible that the Russians are making an egregious mistake. Unfortunately the book on the long term success of Russia's invasion of Ukraine will not be written anytime soon.

It's possible they could not logistically support a larger force; I've seen suggestions that the reason the Russians have committed every force they have on the border yet is because they can't support full drives from four different directions at once.

 

[StillBallin75]

It's entirely possible that the Russians are making an egregious mistake. Unfortunately the book on the long term success of Russia's invasion of Ukraine will not be written anytime soon.

It's possible they could not logistically support a larger force; I've seen suggestions that the reason the Russians have committed every force they have on the border yet is because they can't support full drives from four different directions at once.

I think it's already written in stone that Putin is making an egregious mistake. Even if he wins the conventional war, it's hard to see him winning the asymmetrical one that is bound to come next.

I thought this Onion article was apt:

https://www.theonion.com/u-s-shocked-russia-would-invade-another-country-after-1848590786

 

[Jredbaron96]

The way Putin is going into Ukraine is a little bit weird, from my perspective. I haven't been paying as close attention as I otherwise might due to a rather substantial workload this time of year but it looks like he's been advancing behind an artillery assault rather than an air campaign. He should have more than enough air power to prep and then cover any advance but he seems to be holding that back and I'm not sure why. I'm also not really sure why he decided to attack in the first place. There was no chance that this would be accepted on the international playing field and he MUST have known that so there has got to be something else he's going after.

There is a whole lot about all this that doesn't make a lot of sense to me so I'm kind of waiting for the next shoe to drop.

Strategic desperation. Under Zelensky the Ukrainian government purged Russian influence by banning Russian media and arresting pro-Russian public figures.

Since 2015 Russia's strategy was to use internal influence to guide Ukraine back towards Moscow, but with Zelensky's actions that plan fell apart. Overt and direct military action became the refuge.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

Okay, so I had some questions for all the military junkies and experts here on this thread who are watching the Russian invasion of the Ukraine. Keep in mind, I am asking this as someone who has an interest in military history but who never has and probably never will serve a day in uniform.

Why did Russia mobilize a force of less than 200,000 to invade the Ukraine? If their aim is to seize Kyiv, bring it back into the Russian sphere of influence, and install a Quisling-style puppet government and then withdraw immediately after, okay. But their attacks look like they are spread out over the country, and aimed stamp out resistance across the Ukraine through a shock-and-awe campaign. But it seems doomed to failure in the medium and long-term unless they have a massive number of domestic collaborators equal to or exceeding the invasion force. Because as I said in other threads, we are not talking about some miniscule part of Russia like Chechnya which has 1.5 million. Or Georgia, which had roughly 4 million. We are talking about taking and holding a massive country that is about the size of Texas with a population of 44 million people.

So why are they bringing less than 200,000 men to invade a country of this size? I would think that in order to truly crush Ukraine country-wide and to occupy it long enough to install a Russia-friendly government, a force at least four to five times would be needed. So why is it so small by comparison? Is it because the Russian military is now so advanced that their government does not feel the need for as many boots on the ground in order to quell resistance and fully occupy a massive country? Did they feel that air superiority would render the need for actual soldiers holding territory largely-moot? Did they think that the Ukrainians would just leap at the opportunity to lay down their arms, strip off their uniforms and welcome a new Russian-friendly government being installed? Or is it because Russia simply cannot afford to arm, equip and supply a million-man army in the field anymore? Is there something else at play? What am I missing here?

Military.com says that more than 50% of Russia's ground forces.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

Agreed. I don't think Putin is as smart as his fanboys think he is.

Could also be what you said, they simply don't have the manpower or logistical capability to support a larger invading force. For every piece of combat power you put in theater, you're adding multiples of that to the logistical train and support assets. Troops need food and water, and ammunition. Tanks and vehicles need fuel, and maintainers.

And don't forget that Russia floats on a sea of ted tape. There's clerks that keep track of the clerks who are keeping track of the clerks.

 

[beerftw]

Military.com says that more than 50% of Russia's ground forces.

I am not sure why, other sources have listed russian active duty at around 1 million and reserve around or over 2 million, I am assuming this is the same source that thinks russias active duty military is only 280k strong, despited every other source on earth saying different.

 

[beerftw]

Okay, so I had some questions for all the military junkies and experts here on this thread who are watching the Russian invasion of the Ukraine. Keep in mind, I am asking this as someone who has an interest in military history but who never has and probably never will serve a day in uniform.

Why did Russia mobilize a force of less than 200,000 to invade the Ukraine? If their aim is to seize Kyiv, bring it back into the Russian sphere of influence, and install a Quisling-style puppet government and then withdraw immediately after, okay. But their attacks look like they are spread out over the country, and aimed stamp out resistance across the Ukraine through a shock-and-awe campaign. But it seems doomed to failure in the medium and long-term unless they have a massive number of domestic collaborators equal to or exceeding the invasion force. Because as I said in other threads, we are not talking about some miniscule part of Russia like Chechnya which has 1.5 million. Or Georgia, which had roughly 4 million. We are talking about taking and holding a massive country that is about the size of Texas with a population of 44 million people.

So why are they bringing less than 200,000 men to invade a country of this size? I would think that in order to truly crush Ukraine country-wide and to occupy it long enough to install a Russia-friendly government, a force at least four to five times would be needed. So why is it so small by comparison? Is it because the Russian military is now so advanced that their government does not feel the need for as many boots on the ground in order to quell resistance and fully occupy a massive country? Did they feel that air superiority would render the need for actual soldiers holding territory largely-moot? Did they think that the Ukrainians would just leap at the opportunity to lay down their arms, strip off their uniforms and welcome a new Russian-friendly government being installed? Or is it because Russia simply cannot afford to arm, equip and supply a million-man army in the field anymore? Is there something else at play? What am I missing here?

The entire invasion defies logic, for one russia usually has a very aggressive move in and destroy everything type of mentality, whether a foreign country or even their own like in chechnya. Currently russia has been very gentle, and has been trying to minimize civilian casualties and infrastructure damage, this most likely means he wants ukraine intact rather than as a smoldering pile of ash he can claim he conquered.

Logistics for the russian army should have full well been able to support far more troops that close to home, my guess would be either he did not think he needed to go to the max, or it could be possibly he was trying to avoid going too bold ie wanting to keep damage to a minimum.

I will say though I can not predict how well russia will perform with a kids gloves type of invasion, they are more known for their brutal assaults with combined arms with high agression, they are not known for taking it slow and avoiding blowing everything up. Only time will tell if their doctrine supports this type of warfare well or if russia will have to revert back to the tried and true down and dirty.

 

[VanceMack]

I suspect he went in with a force that he felt like would be sufficient to 1-accomplish his objectives and 2-politically appear he was not a true invading force but a liberating force. I also suspect he had no idea the resolve the Ukrainians would demonstrate or, if the reports are proving correct, the ineffective nature of his troops and their lack of commitment to war.

Putin is a piece of shit and it also looks like he is following the leftist playbook used by so many on this site...when you have nothing, call your enemies Nazis.

 

[StillBallin75]

I am not sure why, other sources have listed russian active duty at around 1 million and reserve around or over 2 million, I am assuming this is the same source that thinks russias active duty military is only 280k strong, despited every other source on earth saying different.

Russias active duty ARMY (Ground Forces) is about 280k strong. Obviously both you and I know that the Army is not the only branch of the Armed Forces. Details matter.