• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why did Russia Mobilize Such a Seemingly Small Invasion Force against the Ukraine?

StillBallin75 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Still does not make sense unless the russian active army is the smallest branch of active duty and the russian navy and air force make up the bulk of their people.

280k seems like a screwed up number, I would put their active army closer to 600-750k troops not 280k. A quick google search shows russian active navy around 150k and active air force around 200k, so if those numbers are accurate 650-700k would be the number of active ground forces, not 280k.
 
To answer that question...I pose another question...


How much military personel does he have to hold back simply to maintain order among his unruly citizens? 2,000 protesters were arrested yesterday. That's not a small operation for the local police force.
 
KevinKohler said:
To answer that question...I pose another question...


How much military personel does he have to hold back simply to maintain order among his unruly citizens? 2,000 protesters were arrested yesterday. That's not a small operation for the local police force.
Click to expand...
He has 2 million in reserves alone, I do not think he had to hold any back for that reason, especially since his popularity has gone up in russia not down since the invasion. Of course his popularity might plummet too not too long from now, war tends to be a short term booster for popularity among leaders.
 
beerftw said:
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.
Click to expand...
280K spear carriers. 1.5 million support staff.
 
beerftw said:
Still does not make sense unless the russian active army is the smallest branch of active duty and the russian navy and air force make up the bulk of their people.

280k seems like a screwed up number, I would put their active army closer to 600-750k troops not 280k. A quick google search shows russian active navy around 150k and active air force around 200k, so if those numbers are accurate 650-700k would be the number of active ground forces, not 280k.
Click to expand...

Is that the number of career service personnel versus the number of conscripts who flow in and out of the army?
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Unfortunately the book on the long term success of Russia's invasion of Ukraine will not be written anytime soon.
Click to expand...

Well, Putin is playing this one rather close to the chest. And we really do not know what his long term goals are.

One moment he is talking about recognizing and securing the regions that they say want to break away. Then he talks another about demilitarizing and de=nazifying Ukraine. Which are conflicting signals. One means only taking off a chunk (like they did in 2014), the other is saying they are going to take down and take over the entire country.

And at this time, it might be either one. Or a combination of the two, doing enough damage throughout Ukraine before pulling back, then attempting to Finlandize them.

In this, I actually do agree with the former President in that he is doing it in a very smart way. However, if he tries to outright take over the country, long term that likely will blow up in his face. And unless he successfully Finlandizes Ukraine, he has guaranteed pushed them right into the arms of NATO.

And ironically, even though they bit off the Crimea in 2014, not much was done by the US in response until President Trump pushed for and got CAATSA (Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act) through Congress in 2017. The main effect of that was pushing much tougher sanctions against Russia for taking the Crimea 3 years earlier.

But somehow... der-der-der-Trump is Putin puppet!
 
StillBallin75 said:
Russias active duty ARMY (Ground Forces) is about 280k strong.
Click to expand...

In total, their active forces number is just over 1 million.

Ground forces are about 280k.

Their Aerospace Forces are around 165k. Which by the way includes their Air Force, their launch facilities, and their air defense forces.

Their Navy is about 160k.

Their Airborne Forces is around 60k.

Their Strategic Rocket Forces (LRBM and ICBM) is another 50k.

And finally their Special Operation Forces. That one is classified, but believed to be around 2-3,000 people.

Then another 2 million in reserves.
 
Felis Leo said:
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?
Click to expand...
Do you have links showing troop strength and armored divisions? Right now we don't really know how much of Russian land forces are engaged.
 
Felis Leo said:
snip
Click to expand...

So now that we've had a few more hours to digest the conflict.

It appears the Russians hoped for a quick rapid seizure of major facilities and urban centers predominantly with light elite troops like VDV (Russian paratroopers). They coincided this with a surge of ballistic missile and cruise missile strikes intended to soften up Ukrainian forces and destroy the Ukrainian air force and air defense network. The Russians then launched offensives from Belarus, Russia, and Crimea, with two pincers from Belarus on each side of the Dnieper. This is a logistically demanding but strategically sensible plan since it attacks in multiple regions and prevents the Ukrainians from shifting reserves. It also makes sense since the Russians seem intent on treating this more like a police action than a serious war.

However the plan appears to have run into snags. Aggressive airborne and heliborne insertions do not appear to have been overly successful. More alarming was the failure of the Russians to destroy the Ukrainian air force and air defense network. Initially it appears the Russians were confident enough to launch a day time heliborne insertion, but subsequent Ukrainian actions have revealed their air defenses and air force remain in operation. This allegedly prevented the Russians from flying in reinforcements onboard transport aircraft as they seemed to have intended.

The Russians in response have introduced their second echelon forces along with heavier weapons to break Ukrainian defenses. This is currently ongoing and the Russians seem geared up for an assault on Kiev from multiple sides.

Despite some difficulties the Russians have still scored some noticeable success; they have pinned down much of the Ukrainian army east of the Dnieper and are preventing Kiev from redeploying its reserves. Despite efforts to do so, the Ukrainians have also failed to stop the Russian break out from Crimea. The Russians, despite some logistical difficulties, still have plenty of forces to throw at Ukraine. Unless the Russians suffer from truly catastrophic defeat, it seems likely they will be able to force Kiev to accept terms favorable to Moscow.

However the strategic situation on the other hand has turned against Russia. NATO has very openly announced its intentions to arm the Ukrainians, and European response to the invasion has been wholly negative, resulting in sanctions targeting the Russian financial means to run their state. Russia appears to have wanted a relatively light and quick war; the Russian Ministry of Defense has said virtually nothing of the conflict and Moscow has barely acknowledged a war is on. But the longer the war is fought and the more damage is done, the more the Russians will have to repair if they intend to occupy. If western Europe is freezing Russian financial assets, that will sting.

It's hard to see this turning out well for Russia in the long run. The country has effectively united European action against Moscow, while Putin's actions have ironically done more than just about anyone to cement a strong Ukrainian national identity that will likely remain averse to Russia for a long time. Various commentators, including the former American ambassador to Russia, have pointed out Putin's behavior and statements over this conflict have come across as markedly different than his usual demeanor. There may be some other issue at play here that we simply don't know about.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
still have plenty of forces to throw at Ukraine.
Click to expand...
can you show the numbers, A. Golts (leading Moscow expert , need a link ?) says that Moscow without calling reservists dont have "plenty of forces to throw at Ukraine."
 
Litwin said:
can you show the numbers, A. Golts (leading Moscow expert , need a link ?) says that Moscow without calling reservists dont have "plenty of forces to throw at Ukraine."
Click to expand...

As of today actually, I've read they've committed most of their forces.
 
A couple of reasonsnd

1) Not enough troops available.
2) No enough money.

People also forget that just because you have 500,000 troops (that is an arbitrary number by the way) it in no way means you can send all of them into a single military operation.
 
Dayton3 said:
A couple of reasonsnd

1) Not enough troops available.
2) No enough money.

People also forget that just because you have 500,000 troops (that is an arbitrary number by the way) it in no way means you can send all of them into a single military operation.
Click to expand...
more like 400 000 according the leading Moscow military experts , and VERY VERY LONG BORDER )))) 😆(y)
 
Felis Leo said:
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?
Click to expand...
I think Putin never expected to actually have to invade. It was a bluff. He thought NAFTA and the west would not coalesce and leave Ukraine isolated. He would have had the breakaway territories and kept the rest surrounded until the pressure forced the Ukraine leadership to change to something more to his liking. He was forced to incrementally escalate until now he is trapped. The wests release of intelligence to the world and social media was a big part of the trap.
 
Felis Leo said:
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?
Click to expand...
Felis Leo:

I don't know. But I will read along with you to see if anybody who posts here has a plausible answer. I kept pointing out to other posters that such a small force would not be enough to defeat the Ukrainian army and thus the deployment was only to intimidate and to impose extra costs on Ukraine. Shows you what I know, eh?

Cheers and be well.
Stupidroddy.
 
craig said:
He thought NAFTA and the west would not coalesce and leave Ukraine isolated.
Click to expand...

91c7.gif


OK, what in the hell does the North American Free Trade Agreement have to do with Ukraine?
 
Oozlefinch said:
"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.
Click to expand...
He was referring to Georgia not Ukraine.
 
ouch said:
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. ;)
Click to expand...
Oh for God's sakes that's just plan silly.
 
Felis Leo said:
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?
Click to expand...
One thing for sure Russia has and is providing some great intelligence regarding its strengths. weaknesses, and tactics on the modern battlefield to its adversaries and this will be studied in War colleges for years to come. Another downside to the invasion for Russia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom