Ukraine wants permission from the west to use long-range Storm Shadow missiles to destroy targets deep inside Russia, believing this could force Moscow into negotiating an end to the fighting.
Senior figures in Kyiv have suggested that using the Anglo-French weapons in a “demonstration attack” will show the Kremlin that military sites near the capital itself could be vulnerable to direct strikes.
The thinking, according to a senior government official, is that Russia will consider negotiating only if it believes Ukraine had the ability “to threaten Moscow and St Petersburg”. This is a high-risk strategy, however, and does not so far have the support of the US.
Ukraine has been lobbying for months to be allowed to use Storm Shadow against targets inside Russia, but with little success. Nevertheless, as its army struggles on the eastern front, there is a growing belief that its best hope lies in counter-attack.
Yes at the very beginning they just wanted to make a strong push for the “Special Operation” grab and we saw the results, they weren’t good for Ukraine but Ukraine still did better than Russia expected.
When Russia realizes the “special operation” was actually going to have to be a war of attrition, they decided to scale back and basically just hold the area while using up old equipment and draining Ukraine which has much less reserved.
Hence why in the initial attempt at taking the country, as you say yourself, they used newer equipment. They switch to older equipment only when they realized it was going to be a long battle regardless. It’s worth noting the Ukraine was largely using older equipment as well with that being what the west was supplying. Using older equipment first isn’t a unique or rare strategy.
Also Russia doesn’t care if they lose the Z team, they fully expect to go through Z, Y, V etc. The hope is Ukraine won’t be able to last long enough for them to start running into trouble.
Or it’s a great way to weaken the enemy and send the better troops to clean up. The entire C team might be less valuable than half the B team.
I believe it’s both. The entire invasion has been a show of incompetence from the beginning, but Russia just has the ability to out force Ukraine if need be. They just have to feel justified/like that’s their best option.
Attributing loosing or making preposterous strategic mistakes to some sort of 5D chess is a weird choice to make.
I don’t know why so many of you people have such a hard time accepting that the popular conception of Russia as an Eastern counterpart to the US was inaccurate. Turns out that if you consistently invest less in your military equipment and personnel, you have a less capable military. It’s been 40 years since their expenditures have been comparable, and quite frankly it shows.
Using your old equipment for an invasion would actually be a pretty novel strategy. Ukraine consistently used the best equipment available to them. That that was leftover NATO hardware doesn’t mean Ukraine was choosing to hold the good stuff in reserve.
If they’re trying to use a “let the reservists die and then send in the competent soldiers” strategy, it doesn’t seem to be going very well. They’re somehow not holding the territory they took very well, and churning through a lot of what was presumably reserve hardware.
Failing to execute a gulf war 1, and so deciding to chill in a Vietnam situation for … Some reason … for an indeterminate period of time is just not a strategy that any sane strategist would pick.
If Russia has the ability to just handwave their way to victory if things got too rough, they’ve done a pretty terrible job of demonstrating it.
I honestly can’t comprehend what you might have seen of this whole affair that would make you think they had that ability, beyond clinging to the notion that a former superpower must still be a superpower.
They just don’t have the economy or the equipment to be able to afford to burn through endless waves of soldiers like you seem to think they’re intentionally doing.
They didn’t even get air superiority, which is just embarrassing.
Just a heads up, you betray your Russian supporting roots saying the Ukraine so openly. I’m assuming you accidentally typed it by habit, because most of the time you addressed them properly, but they aren’t just some regional dependant of Russia. They are an independent nation.
Russia is losing its troops and equipment. That’s why they aren’t using modern stuff anymore. You can find pictures of the modern stuff destroyed on the battlefield if you’re interested. They sent it in. They just got held back and their equipment was lost. It’s not a mystery. It’s publicly viewable to anyone curious.
Yeah …okay Sherlock Holmes. lol atleast you read it though.
Afaik this is the only time I “betrayed my Russian supporting roots”…with Autocorrect changing a missed T in “that” from “tha” to “the” as in
It’s worth noting that Ukraine was largely using older equipment…
Yes Russia is losing troops and equipment. We know that the troops being sent are largely “undesirables” though so I don’t think it’s unusual to assume the equipment might be as well.
Yes, I stated that they previously used newer equipment when they thought they could just make a rushed victory, but when proven wrong and that it would be a stalemate for a long time anyway and they would have to bleed ukraine and be bled, they chose to bleed mostly older equipment.
I mean, admittedly I’m not in the Russian stock rooms so I can’t say for certain, but neither are you.
I refuse to partake in flippant dismissal of the military might of a power which we know has ramped up production of modern equipment while still mainly using older equipment, because it makes us feel good and safe to do so.