They lost more soldiers just today than in all of the syrian war. And it's not about "all of russia ran out of ammo", it's "they overstretched their supply lines and can't supply enough ammo, fuel, etc, so their forces have just what they took with them".
Russian logistics are built around rail lines, as they are more efficient. Per Russian doctrine you are going to struggle to supply large numbers of forces beyond 50 miles from a railway line. You need to understand just how much stuff a modern army needs. Estimates from WW2 calculated that for every soldier in theatre they needed over 4 tons of material a month (that's ammo, food, medical supplies, replacement parts for vehicles and equipment, fuel, etc). And those numbers are likely higher in the modern era, with heavier and more powerful vehicles, increased usage of electronics, and munitions like missiles. A US armored division (on the order of 270 tanks and a similar number of other vehicles) on the move would consume 500,000 gallons of fuel per day.
Adding more trucks can even make the issues worse, since they need their own fuel, spare parts, maintanence staff, drivers, military police to provide security, etc. You basically have to use the rocket equation when accounting for logistics
It is not about trucks. If you've been paying attention, you saw that they just went for Kyiv and didn't bother capturing cities or territory, which left their supply lines VERY vulnerable to the Ukrainian army. And they didn't think that the operation will be longer than a couple of days, so didn't bother to take many supplies with them. They drastically underestimated the Ukrainian army and the Ukrainian people's will to fight.
Because their stated goal is basically to capture Kyiv and install their own government. They were expecting that everything would go like Crimean operation, but didn't account for the fact that Ukrainian army evolved since, have lots of experience fighting russia-backed separatists in Donbass region and is much more passionate about fighting than 8 years ago, when russian army conducted Crimean operation.
I don't really understand how they could have expected that, since Ukrainians had been told in NOVEMBER that the operation was coming. (And I'm talking about the laypeople, just watching TV, Ukrainian officials were likely given much more details from US intelligence than just what Blinken said on CNN…)
Expecting to catch your opponent off-guard with a quick assault might work, but not if you give them a four-month notice beforehand…
I watched Putin's addresses. He is out of touch with reality. Turns out that Russian propaganda is quite light compared to hard stuff that Putin has been consuming. He is talking about genocide on Donbass. He is talking about "nazi" government. He, likely, thought that Ukrainian people will see his army as liberators(from democratically elected government, lol).
I think they've counted on the Ukrainian government (especially Zelensky and his closest circle) to give up the fighting and surrender early in the operation. Or have Ukrainian army overthrow him, Putin already suggested they don't need to take commands from this "narc" and "nazi" (btw Zelensky is jewish). It's either their intelligence is that bad (which I don't believe) or Putin just didn't listen, having some delusional picture of the current political and cultural state of Ukraine in his head.
They're completely different. Both are evil, but Putin is extremely clever, which makes him a lot more dangerous than Trump. Trump can't do much more aside speaking to people bellies; surely he can amass lots of uneducated angry proud boys around him, but has zero credibility among the high ranks in the military.
It also seems unlikely to me and I am skeptical. But logistics are hard under fire? Does Russia control the airspace or are the rumors true that Ukraine still has aircraft? Are there enemy teams with shoulder-launched missiles along the route? With cheap drones for reconnaissance?
My impression is that the country is full of handheld antiair and antitank weapons, supplied by the west. That can't make it easy.
> Does Russia control the airspace or are the rumors true that Ukraine still has aircraft?
Hard to know for sure, since this is an information that really affect morale on either side (Knowing that you still have airplanes and that the Russians don't control the sky is really good for Ukrainian morale, and vice versa).
Russia claimed that their rockets destroyed Ukrainian planes and anti-aircraft defense in the first strike. And then they started loosing their own planes, tanks and trains to Ukrainian air forces. Planes simply weren't where Russians thought they would be, since there is large supply of leaks from Russian side, and Ukrainian military knew exactly when they would attack(they ended up striking an hour late tbh).
And those that are coming are state-of-the-art. It is quite possible that they're going to be effective enough for one kill per weapon and the volume flooding in is going to go through the Russian armour like the clap.
Saint Javelin (motto: do a flip then hit) seems to be every bit as effective against Russia's most modern tanks as she is against any other tank.
> So would Relikt-style ERA and soft-kill infrared defenses work against the Javelin? There’s simply no way to know for sure, unless Moscow were suddenly to invite Washington to test its anti-tank missiles against its best tanks in a friendly competition. But given that relations are too frosty for the United States to participate in Russia’s annual tank biathlon, don’t count on that happening.
The clever thing about the Javelin is that it doesn't fly at a tank, but climbs vertically and comes down from above, hitting the top. So it does a flip before hitting.
The funny thing about the Javelin is that launching it looks like a dud - the first stage is basically an elaborate unboxing.
It’s bogus, the standard rifle of the Russian forces is the AK-74, developed in the 1970s. Their main tank is the T-72 developed in the 70s but continuously developed and upgraded since. Most of their attack helicopters date from the 70s and 80s or later.
That may all sound dated, but bear in mind the M4 rifle used by US troops is based on a 60s design and the Abrams M1 tank is basically a 70s design. The Russian forces have been comprehensively re-equipped and resourced over the last decade and have experience from operations in Chechnya and Syria.
It’s literally named after the year it went into production. Of course it was a product of iterative design, refinement and experience going back decades.
Even if true pre WWII era ammo is often found by sportsmen and tested, it works just fine. Modern shell design which is over 100 years old doesn't degrade with time very much.
New ammo is more reliable of course, but old works well enough if you have a gun to use it in.
Russia has plenty of new artillery and arms. They have been building up a couple of decades. This is a tiny percentage of what they have waiting in the wings.
In first 2 days, they used pretty much everything against city outskirts.
You think Putin is afraid losing sleep? He already tried to bomb the Kiyv dam multiple times, he wants to destroy the city plainly, and simple.
https://uacrisis.org/en/the-russian-occupiers-tried-to-blow-...
If Kiyv dam is breached, it will flood the Zaporizhna nuclear plant.