Great video, but I would like to point out there is a difference between "purchasing my own gear because it is better than standard issue gear" and "purchasing my own gear because there was no standard issue gear".
Unity of command might lead to a commander with battle tested troops loyal to him, who was not a political stooge, that might decide to seize power. Stalin feared Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov.
As for the Russian military not supplying basic items to their troops, when I was in the US Army infantry (now nearly 50 years ago, wow), the Army issued what we needed to perform our mission. We received a small allowance to maintain our uniforms, but most of us bought new items as the old ones wore out or went missing. This expense was not large. Many of us went out to the civilian economy and bought extra personal equipment for our own convenience, mainly "comfort-type" items. But by and large, we didn't _need_ to.
Anyway. The European space does not reflect the essence of the situation in Russia, the Western media often confuse the army of Russia and the army of its allies who live on humanitarian aid from Russia and think that Russia has everything very bad, in fact, all are given everything, everyone has enough of everything in abundance. The Russian military doesn't even take money with them to Ukraine because they are provided with everything. There are, of course, individual cases, but it depends on the commanders. Well, of course in Russia there are panicked people who take everything they can, from money to headache pills :D
@@J3sseReidSucser This may be the case for their professional army, but it's abundantly clear that many of the recently conscripted blokes where flat out told that the army was out of sleeping bags and mats, so if they wanted to sleep they had to buy their own. The combat nurse who brought them the news in the video I happened so see informed them that they would be issued with a uniform, helmet, weapon and boots. Everything else was at their own expense.
@@andersjjensen It's entirely possible that this could happen, but everyone I talk to from Russia says the only thing they really don't give is a butt pad
@@J3sseReidSucser lol units drafted "trained and equiped" by the Russian army and transported through Russia in Russian military veichles to go fight alongside Russian regular conscripts in a war that Russia started are part of the Russian army regardless of whatever little third world Soviet republic they where drug kicking and screaming from, and Russian conscripts are paid almost nothing officers regularly and openly sell issued equipment and supplies on the black market to supplement the poor income, and what little hasn't been sold to anti russian terrorist groups or western collectors is often poorly maintained, the Russian army is a joke at best the writing was on the wall since the Soviet Afghan war
That's overall very similar to what my friends and acquaintances who served recently did - GI gear covered all the REQUIREMENTS, personal purchases were about comfort and upgrades - everything from better underwear to a better sidearm, but not from danger of LACKING a capability.
Q: Why didn't Russian soldiers destroy equipment left behind? A1: The Russian army is extremely "Top Down" in nature. Personal initiative is frowned upon. Ergo, they didn't destroy the equipment because they weren't directed to by someone far up the command chain. A2: The destruction of equipment left behind is the action of a retreating force. These Russian forces were being routed. They didn't have time, especially when combined with item A1 above.
In addition to your two points, the destruction of equipment is the act of a retreating force. Everyone knows that the Russians didn't retreat. They deliberately redeployed, following a well-planned timetable. Just ask Igor Konashenkov(!)
I'd note: Sitting in semi-static frontlines is extremely bad for morale, especially if you don't rotate troops from the front. Its rather telling that what should have been an Shock Breakthrough Unit in 4th Guards Tank Division, sat largely static at Izium on a salient to nowhere, for the better part of 3-4 months. Daily routine without victory saps morale just as badly as all the other morale factors listed.
An interesting point regarding morale comes out of a couple of articles I have read post-mobilization callup by Putin. The phrase "cannon fodder" has been used by men who want to avoid the callup, giving you an idea of how the failures in Ukraine are being perceived by those Russians who thought they would not end up personally involved in the war. If your reservists and conscripts already think they are simply being sent out solely to die fruitlessly, that is going to be sheer hell on unit morale, cohesion, and operation. History has shown that units with such an abysmal condition are much more likely to break when engaged.
OK, I've written quite a bit below so I wanna open by saying that I appreciate your work and wish more historians were like you. 🙂 Just so we're clear on that. 8:14 Something a lot of people seem to overlook is the median income of a Russian soldier as opposed to that of an American soldier. I can't judge how comfortable a US soldier is buying a 5.11 Tactical gun holster or something, but, as a Russian, trust me when I say a lot of those conscripts are fucking dirt poor, as in food, utilities, and rent consume well over 50% of their income, and likely pushing 85%, in some cases 100%. There's an estimate that a conscript "starter pack" costs something between 120K and 180K rubles (and I forget if this even includes an armor vest and a helmet). The median monthly salary in Dagestan, Buryat Republic, and Khabarovsk Region is 22K, 21K, and 33K rubles respectively. I chose them because the regime likes to draw manpower from there as opposed to richer places like Moscow and St.Petersburg, where people can get real angry real fast. Now, surprise surprise, very few people have savings in places like Dagestan, so it's safe to expect a fair few of them to incur debt before they even get on the bus to training. This also inspires some ridiculous methods of saving costs, like officers advising conscripts to stock up on ladies' tampons to plug gunshot wounds with them. Just keep some of that in mind when you think of a Russian conscript buying his own crucial supplies 'cause his fucking country told him he's on his own and a US soldier buying something for himself that prefers over the standard issue stuff. End of rant. 🙂
100%. There's a huge difference between "I want this really cool accessory for my gun, I'm gonna buy it" and "you have to purchase your own helmets, body armor, uniforms, shoes, sleeping bags, tents, and virtually everything else except for a rifle" (which will quite probably be in terrible condition)
Let me put it to you this way. The average US Private has to be educated on how not to blow all his money because, if he lives in the barracks, he has free food, free housing, and free equipment as long as he keeps it from getting lost or wrecked. When I was in Afghanistan and Iraq, there were car dealerships set up for the guys who were drawing pay with nowhere to spend it. Buy the car in the combat zone tax free and it was delivered to your home when you returned to the states. Soldiers were paying for these brand new cars in cash because who needs to save money right? There were also bazaars where one could purchase televisions, high-quality mattresses, and gaming consoles to make your rack a bit more like home. Add in the additional food areas that you could pay for, the MWR areas with recreation such as pool and movies, and hot showers (hot water isn't much of a challenge in a 130 degree desert) and life wasn't that bad when you weren't getting shot at. But this motivates a US Soldier (generally there's always exceptions) to be a well-trained, educated, and free-thinking individual compared to your average conscript who is treated like a junkyard dog on the expectation that it will make them "tougher".
When friends of mine deployed to Afghanistan years ago they talked about how the Army gave them money to upgrade their kit. I’ve no idea if that’s true or not but I doubt the Russian army is shelling out extra rubles for sliders going on deployment.
You're right that many Russian soldiers are dirt poor; that's a big reason why they're just common criminals stealing everything including toilets! But tampons are very good for plugging bullets wounds. I think even many US soldiers have them.
This is a great example of why I go to TH-cam for some of my news intake. Mhv has been a source of knowledge for me for years now, and these videos on recent events is always super appreciated
Not to mention there's more accurate context here than most news broadcasters can stomach. Even DW and BBC are full of basic errors. I saw a UATV report that identified a swedish AT-4 as Russian RPG 26. These journalists must be on speed, with the number of stupid mistakes they make.
MHV uses no methodology to rule-out his biases, and therefore states only his biases. Correct? So, how much were you paid to advertise the nonsence you posted?
@@SwitchTF2 Ukraine was killing Russian Speaking Ukrainians in all the border towns. Russia put an end to that. They moved in unchallenged held every inch of the territory they took... They then moved Ukrainians from a few areas and withdrew some areas. Ukraine was completely nullified in every aspect. Now the pathetic western media says Ukraine is winning when Russia has simply withdrawn from unimportant and worthless land. The Border has been annexed and their isn't anything Ukraine can do about it.
I extremely highly recommend an old essay by the name of 'Why Arabs Lose Wars'. Sure, the essay itself refers to Arab militaries in the modern era, but I've found a LOT of the principles denoted within the essay strongly apply to the Russian military right now. Perhaps you should take a look at this essay as well?
When The Russians start even coming close to resembling ANYTHING like THAT; they've got cataclysmic problems... Hell the Iraqi Republican Guard in the 1991 Gulf War seems to be more competent than most Russian Formations in Ukraine and they lost Half their Force in that WAR...
@@cnlbenmc trust me while RU has its problems the Iraq never even approached the Ukraine or Russia in military prowess. if you think Russia does poorly you havent read on how Iraq performed, it would make Soviet Winter War blush
It's just conjecture. I find it amusing that you though you admit via your appreciation you know nothing yourself, you feel qualified to label the video detailed and careful. For all you know, it's end to end bullshit. You are simply reacting to the cartoon grade entertainment graphics and stylish accent of the speaker.
@@johnsmith1474 He cites his sources John Smith. His "conjecture" is directly trace-able. Like any good journalist Bernhard, invests a lot of time on his subjects. Go through his series of videos. He confers with museum curators, armor and military experts, and many other educated professionals. Once you've got an idea of the body of his work, then I don't think you'll claim he's "talking out his ass".
@@johnsmith1474 You speak very loudly for someone who doesn't seem to know the high quality reports Military History Visualized produces consistently. Try watching more of their content before wading in with both guns blazing.
There are two pieces missing from the analysis that may be important: First--is the acquisition of the eastern regions something the average Russian sees as worth fighting over? Likely not. Hard to motivate commanders or troops to lay their lives on the ground for something so obviously not an advantage to Russia. Second--What is the level of commitment to the national leadership vice the nation? Russia is not fighting a great patriotic war to liberate lands taken by a foreign adversary. This means that deep mobilization of the nation to fight this war is likely to be very unpopular and resisted internally. The Russian leadership has to gain its objectives--whatever those actually are--while limiting the scope of the war to appease the population. Many of the problems experienced by the Russian Army may well trace back to these questions. Fighting a limited war of aggression against a modern state is very difficult. Ukraine is not Georgia, Chechnya, or Armenia (or even Iraq). A related third observation may be that Russia really did expect the West (particularly the USA) to sit this one out. Whether that is due to ineptitude on the part of the USA or Russia, I do not know--likely both. But the introduction of western manufacturing and tech fundamentally changed the complexity of the operations in a manner that Russia clearly did not plan for.
yeah, about first, I originally had a "why we fight" part, but it is indirectly covered in the quote about the diversity of Russian troops, particularly the aspect that separatists don't want to fight outside. About second, I left the political level out of the picture, should have mentioned that explicitly.
Russia did not plan for anything lasting beyond days. The Washington Post has a very impressive long-form article on the lead up to the war, specifically the role of the FSB and how badly it screwed up. FSB leaders for Russia's Ukraine operation had plans to immediately move to Kiev, they were so confident of an immediate victory. It was a huge miscalculation.
The US and Russia both thought it likely that Ukrainians would not be motivated to put up a real fight. The US had trained the Ukrainian army to some extent but think Afghanistan, they had trained the army there too and it evaporated. As it became clearer and clearer that Ukrainians really backed their government in resisting Russia, and that they were using what they had in smart ways, then the US and the rest of the West dropped any idea of 'sitting it out'. Then Putin's goose was cooked, though it took many months of Western aid and a long, painful Ukrainian fighting retreat to make that fully visible to us all.
8:15 western troops did buy some of their own gear for use in Iraq and Afghanistan such as boots, magazines, and weapon attachments before some units began to issue them. The boots and magazines were purchased because they were upgrades from the government issued gear not because they were sent without
russian ppl have no money to buy military equipment. Even here, in Ukraine, you have to save up, in order to buy a Glock. Thus, buying bodyarmor, CADs, and other stuff, means you have to take a loan from a bank, and there are actually advertisements on ''mobilization loans''. Basically its: ''U see, Ivan, you die or go in debt for lifetime, but most likely both, good luck, pray to putin''
The WW1 battles of Tannenberg and the Masurian Lakes suggest Russian forces have a tradition of not working together unless there is someone definitely in charge!
It should be noted that following those battles, Russia still took another 3 years to break. They learned a lot in that time too. Never count them out entirely.
Of course Russia doesn't fear NATO ground forces why would it? NATO missiles within 10 minutes of moscow is why Russians don't want NATO an inch eastward, a promise that's been consistently broken and caused the war in georgia and in Ukraine, since 2014 and since February.
I agree. The sober truth is that the western alliance has no possibility of an end to the war on their terms unless Putin either negotiates or dies (and is replaced by a party willing to negotiate). If Allied forces enter Russia proper, NBC weaponry will be used on them so that's out. And right now, it's clear enough that he's not going to negotiate. Their call- up of reservists and their large- scale movement of men and material west makes it clear that he's intent on resolving this militarily. It's not hard to see why, since this war of attrition favors the Russians greatly. Best case scenario for the west is that they regain all of the lost Ukrainian territory- and then wait for a large- scale Russian offensive sometime in the first half of next year. It will be interesting to see how the west responds to it.
SUN TZU has some fitting quotes: - The Moral Law causes the people to be in complete accord with their ruler, so that they will follow him regardless of their lives, undismayed by any danger. - There are three ways in which a ruler can bring misfortune upon his army: (2) By attempting to govern an army in the same way as he administers a kingdom, being ignorant of the conditions which obtain in an army. This causes restlessness in the soldier's minds. - There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.
This is what you get when a dictator with expertise only in suppressing internal dissent and promoting propaganda is in charge of a major offensive military operation.
Radiation missiles and cheap effective combat drones have been a game changer. The moment the Russians switch on their systems or use their radar they are targeted, and if they hide in their holes and wait, they get grenades dropped on their heads. This is hindering their ability to consolidate leadership under a unified command and keeping their troops off balance with low morale. This is what happens when your military strategy never advanced past WW2.
the only part about this battle that will be like world war two for the Russians?... Yes, millions of Russians will die. But their goals will never be met. как сказать неудача по-русски? Зачем умирать за лилипута Путина, когда есть ради чего жить? при отправке на фронт? массово сдаться и дожить до повешения Путина? kak skazat' neudacha po-russki? Zachem umirat' za liliputa Putina, kogda yest' radi chego zhit'? pri otpravke na front? massovo sdat'sya i dozhit' do povesheniya Putina?
@@rafaelgoncalvesdias7459 New tactics aren't "kid's bullshit". That kind of thinking is part of why Russia is losing a war they should have won easily. That and being horribly corrupt.
Once again a very informative video, with a great selection of sources as well as illustrations. You have a consistently high level of quality in your videos mate - keep it up!
Thanks for a really informative video - I learned a ton! Quick pronunciation tip: the Ukrainian and Russian Kh (Kharkiv, Kherson) is pronounced like the German Ch, or a particularly harsh English H sound. It's never pronounced as K.
I was a soldier in Russian army from October 2021 until May 2022. Thankfully, I managed to leave the army and flee from the country the night mobilization was enforced, 30 minutes before they closed the borders. Many points in this video are completely true, or at least to some extent. If you guys want, I can answer some questions about insides of our army
@@therealbosstopob4l974 The problem with Russian army is complete indifference to the equipment and/or just basic lack of it. Corruption is widespread and deeply rooted in the system, which makes it almost impossible to acquire new equipment. Only those divisions which are created for "show" get it (AK-12, Armata T-14 tanks e.t.c), in reality all the new tanks and weapons are just nowhere to be found. In our division we had 4 tanks: 3 T-72B3M, and 1 T-64. When they were being prepared for relocation, T-64 didn't start up, one T-72 didn't as well, and other two barely made it to the border having a lot of engine problems. Out of 8 BTRs only 4 started up and went to Ukraine. When it comes to training, we have none. Those who serve by law (we have conscription law, where if you are from 18 to 27 you have to serve 1 year, except if you go to university's military courses and become an officer) usually just clean the barracks, as well as the territory of their base. Maybe 1-2 times in their year of service they go to the shooting range, and once a week they have morning training. At other times we were just sleeping, browsing internet and being depressed that our girlfriends probably cheat on us while we do that useless shit (cause you can't go home, maybe once, twice a year, or you can go every weekend, if you have money. You know what I mean) Those who serve by contract have a bit more training, but it's up to them. As they are privileged, they can just do nothing all day, and no one will say anything to them. Or they can actually go to shooting ranges, workout and keep their body in shape, but I've seen maybe 10-15 of them doing actual military things, but also I've seen hundreds doing jackshit. Whenever you see these military competitions, where Russian and US soldiers do boxing, or wrestling, or compete in any other sports, Russia usually send guys who were previously trained, e.g guys who were professional boxers as civilians, and learned nothing new while in the military, while Navy SEALs actually learn how to fight and shoot while serving. So overall I would say average quality of soldiers is way higher in western armies. We Russians excel in one thing - Defence. We don't have any attacking capabilities when we are unmotivated and have nothing to fight for (like now. This war is useless), however, as we've seen many times in history, when Russia gets boxed and attacked, for whatever reason, be it genetic memory, our roots, or just sheer anger and unwillingness to die (or all together) people start fighting like cornered animals, even with no guns, even with no armored vehicles or tanks, and honestly, any army in the world, even US, will have absolutely horrible time inside our borders, cause there will be so many guerillas. Any man, woman or child would be a potential threat, not to mention, that anybody who will be able to hold a gun, will sign in to fight. Think of it as a national spirit. And also winter... the deeper you go into Russia, the colder it will get, and trust me, at some point even Abrams will just stop working cause oil will freeze.
8:13. Eh, that's not entirely true. For US troops, you have your standard issue kit, depending on your MOS. You're provided everything. You _can_ purchase additional gear, like laser sights (before the ban), optics, boots, gloves, NODS, bivvy, etc., etc.
@@dxpsumma383...No, it wasn't, which is exactly why I commented. He said US forces also had to buy their gear like Russia ("in some cases"), and that's not true. All the required gear, or kit, is provided to you. You have the choice to buy additional gear, or pieces of your own gear (if it's approved). Some things you _are_ required to pay for. I'm not sure how it is in other branches, but in the Marine Corps., for example, you pay for your dress blues, and they cost a couple thousand dollars. They were about $2,800 back in 2001. This isn't part of your kit, though. If you're gonna troll, at least don't suck at it.
"A fish rots from the head." Putin is a former KGB officer without military experience, and his minister of defense is a political appointee without military experience. This explains the huge strategic blunders committed, for example, invading Ukraine during the Rasputitsa , the season of the mud. Any competent Russian officer could have told them that was a bad idea, but Putin is an absolute ruler who believes firmly in his own genius and doesn't like to hear objections or complaints.
08:10 On western troops bringing their own gear to afghan. I do think theres a big difference on troops bringing some bits and bobs that they think are better then allready provided by their armies. WHich is something soldiers always do in pretty much any war in history. Compared to needing to buy your own medkit or tampons, sleeping bags, wintercoat, boots and body armor ....... (thats going back to medieval times tbh )
Even in medieval times your baron would arm and armour you if you were to join his army. This is more like ancient times when each levied citizen brought his own family hoplon and linothorax if he could afford one.
"pretty much sums up what the situation appears to be from the West" Exactly. Using only western sources for a video is using only ones sides propaganda, no balance here, no vetting of information, no real analysis. This is such a bad take that it made me unsub. It will be many years after this war ends that we'll know what really happened and the real statistics, but for this kind on analysis I'll just tune-in to any mainstream western news channel.
Also do not underestimate the dictatorship/fascist dilemma of military leaders. As under an autocratic or fascistic state scapegoating is often used to divert responsibility from the President and lower positions. So apart from managing your forces and coordinating with other commanders, you must also think about political manoeuvring. Your life may depend on it. Rampant and much more deadly under Stalin, but mechanism is there now as well.
what? the fallout for failure is the same in western countries as in russia, by which I mean ZERO. in fact in russia probably more than in the us, because us leaders never get blowback from their failures. was anyone punished for Iraq, Afghanistan or Lybia? Nah they all kept their positions. this is just reaching, and badly informed at that
@@phunkracy As if, a core element of a liberal democracy is an increased responsiveness on the government's part to popular pressure and regular transitions of power to shake up the deadwood. Any leader that stays in power too long eventually becomes detrimental as they lose their grip. The buck stops here is a famous saying, but the principle of collective Cabinet responsibility is a similar tenet in parliamentary democracies. That acceptance that failures by subordinates reflect on the whole government, and the need to appease the people, is what makes democracies better places to live - Chile suffers from frequent earthquakes for instance. They had a particularly bad one in the mid 20th century and greatly reformed their system to keep people safe. Under Pinochet the building laws stagnated, but a flurry of new legislation came out during the 1990s, and when a quake occurred, larger than the devastating one decades prior, casualties were tiny, something like 18 iirc. Meanwhile thousands died in Iran from an earthquake in the 1970s and thousands were still dying from them in the 2000s.
Nah, Putin is already blaming everything at the West. Russian economic problem? The West. Russian retreat in Ukraine? The West. Russian military problem? The West.
American military are not required to buy anything that’s necessary for a combat operation. They’re supplied with uniforms, body armor, helmets, night vision, weapons, ammo, food, water, medicine, all personal medical gear, toiletries, sleeping gear, etc. everything they need is available. But they do have the option to purchase additional gear they might want, or upgrade certain things with approved items.
What a horror! We urgently need to send you the Minister of Defense Shoigu. Then your tankers will even have to buy tanks at their own expense. Shoigu will teach American generals how to steal money from the budget! Your soldiers will finally engage in proper military training. They will build houses for the generals.
@@АлександрИванов-ч4б3с "Your soldiers will finally engage in proper military training. They will build houses for the generals." We had that in Sweden up until the 1990's, where employed staff at various levels could use the state resources for personal use. For instance, if the helicopter squadron was scheduled for training with hanging cargo, it could be tasked to deliver building material to the summer house instead of flying a cement block back and forth over the airfield; or have the mechanics under training service the private car when there was little else to do.
It's hard to look at this conflict and not see significant parallels with the Winter War. There are many differences of course, but as well all know history does not truly repeat itself, it rhymes.
So, i am Russian, i have no military experience, and my understanding of the situation mostly based on reading telegram an Vkontakte posts of different people, who have different level of connection to ongoing events. And i can say that ur video is almost 100% how it looks for me from the inside. I repeat that i dont have access to some secret information, only open Russian sources. Troops that almost got surrounded in crasny liman, told they had no air support, no artillery support. Seems like we are running out of reserves too, in open telegram channels i was able to see the defections of future Ukrainian assaults weaks before they start. And the steel successfully perform them. Army dont bomb Dnepr bridges, allowing Ukrainians to transfer reserves fast. I cant really express my feelings about it, i am against this war, but loosing to country with African level of economy is a fucking joke. P.S speaking about corruption less then 1 week ago 1,5 MILLION military uniforms disappeared recently
@@rgwaldron the west & its media has successfully dehumanised Russians through artful - and subtle - propaganda that is all-encompassing. This is something they learned from the Nazis three quarters of a century ago, and lo & behold neo Nazis openly fight for Ukraine. Putin's many mistakes pale in comparison to his hopeless grasp of enemy - and every country that sanctions him is an enemy - propaganda, of its insidiousness, its effectiveness. All Russians are called "orcs" by westerners. Dehumanisation.
They moved a lot of their troops to support Kherson and only left a skeleton crew of mostly untrained units. However, there were some quality units. The Ukrainians Blitzed through the area at lightning fast speed. They often overran defenders and bypassed cities/villages, it was a classic tactic from Rommel/Guderian. They used ground based shock and awe. What do you do if you are a unit in an area and out of nowhere from every direction you have armor speeding your way? The Ukrainians also sent their special forces in ahead of time to soften up the area. Whole areas were encircled and then mopped up. They took over in a matter of days what it took the Russians months. They are continuing to advance along that axis as well. Right now it is showing the differences in the stark contrasts between military types. Ukraine has a better approach in every aspect. Russia is mobilizing men, ok, great. Just sending them off to the meat grinder. They do not have the skills. They will not have the unit cohesion. They are being forced there, which will mean low morale. This is not one of the great patriot wars in defense of the motherland. More and more men are coming home in body bags or wounded. They are also taking a lot of men out of the workforce, already many have left as well. A lot of this is a recipe for disaster.
An excellent summary of the factors contributing to the inevitable change in the momentum of the war. A piece like this adds to the conversation and understanding. Danke schoen.
Great video, but one small issue. Vladimir Putin did not call 300k men to arms. The number wasn't states anywhere except for what Shoigu said, but that number is nowhere in the actual law, so for all we know, this is a total mobilisation
The problem though is that if Russia hasn't officially declared war in Ukraine, there is no Russian law that supports a general mobilization that sends troops to another country. Those new conscripts would limited to serving only within Russian borders legally and that's already not happening.
@@tonysu8860 that's certainly true in light of the Russian law, but - and not to be cynical here, do we really believe law carries any meaning in Russia? I conscripted men were indeed sent to Ukraine, who would protest? Who would take responsibility for it?
@@frost3840 not following the laws of conscription and mobilisation (invalids, over-aged and so forth dragged into service) caused a high profile statement on Russian state television, demanding the situation to be rectified and the responsible for these abuses suffer the appropriate consequences.
@@johanmetreus1268 I haven't heard of that in truth, but can that change anything? Several city counselors have petitioned for Putin to resign, without any luck. Maybe I'm talking out of my ass here, but I think as long as they cover it up with a good lie, they can do whatever they want
The sad thing is this well stated video is already been obsoleted within hours. The Ukrainian Southern counteroffensive around Kherson suddenly started advancing at almost highway speeds in the past 24 hours.
@@andrewtaylor940 the russians waited far too long on mobilization, when ukraine mobilized from day 1. they got far too cocky thinking even with severe losses they can stand up to fully mobilized Ukraine
I feel sorry for the people who maintain the DeepStateMAP. The poor chaps had to make four updates in a single day. I don't think that's ever happened before.
The difference between the US and Russia, is that troops buy things that are usually better that what is issued, not what the unit fails to issue. During my time I had a complete duplicate set of initial issue TA-50 which I purchased on my own (including K-pot), in case I lost something or it was too damaged to turn back in to the Central Issue Facility (CIF).
@@baneofbanes It's been a while, but Tables of Allowance is what the TA stands for I think. TA-50 is the basic issue you receive based upon the unit to which you are posted. I was in the 82nd Airborne back in the late 80's early 90's. You received the Kevlar ballistic helmet with parachutist shock pad and retention straps; hook/pile tape lowering line and "H" harness; large rucksack with frame; Waterproof bags (2); 2 one quart canteens and one 2 quart canteen, LBE (load bearing equipment) with 2 mag pouches, canteen holders for the canteens; poncho and poncho liner; shelter half and tent pegs/poles; sleeping bag and sleeping mat; wet weather jacket and pants; over boots (galoshes) and Chemical Protective (MOPP suit) and gas mask; last but not least duffle bag.
There's one aspect where the advantage of unity of command shows: Ukraine's left-right punches in Kherson and Kharkiv won't be possible without someone at the top coordinated it. You simply need someone who's above the regional level to run multi-regional op like this. In Ukraine, that person is Zaluzhnyi. I don't think there's a real counterpart to him on Russia's side at the moment.
there are 2 generals in charge of 2 parts of the frontline in russian army northern part is commanded by a lesser general but it is more prioritized southern part is under a higher general but has less priority. So, uor glorious military hits both sides so those generals constantly fight for supplies and men to be delivered to them. Thus, russia has to either completely lose one front, or juggle the supplies and lose both north and south.
It won't matter if they had a counterpart at this point. Their professional units took a lot of hammering and I doubt that the newly mobilized troops have the knowledge to carry out a coordinated assault.
Dictators fear competent people. They fear competent people leading a competent army even more. That is also why there usually are a lot of competing factions in a dictatorship, with decision making all the way at the top. This makes the chain of command long and slow, and will make the lower ranks not show initiative or creativity.
I used to have a lot of respect for this channel for its deep historical and military analysis. It turned to bullshit propaganda in February 2022 and it remains such today. Very sad.
Like I've been saying to myself since before the Kherson and Kharkiv counter attacks, was that Russia's Half way measures of manpower shortage will catch up and hold out until their eventual crumble and collapse, and right now their whole frontlines is cracking, and crumbling and on the verge of total collapse within the next two months should the new reinforcements not be substantially Trained or used effectively.
@@qwaszx2 4 weeks (not even a month like looking) have passed since the beginning of the Kharkiv offensive (September 6 and he writes a comment on October 4) and the Russian lines were broken again
As far as "unity of command" it seems that perhaps the Russian war effort is being hindered by the kind of "Hitler military interference" problem that had cost the Nazi invaders so dearly during their invasion of the Soviet invasion. Certain supposedly politically important goals or unobtainable dreams take priority over competent and effective military strategic leadership. Xombi Xombi's comment is spot on. A truly strong military leader would be a threat to a paranoid egomaniac narcissist.
Thing is, German High command wasn't exactly competent by any standards, they were just as politicised as Stalin's army. The only reason they managed to get so far is because they were fighting against nations that hadn't fully embraced combined arms - the Polish army lacked numerical superiority in the air and on the ground, and the French were so convinced of the Maginot's invincibility that they ignored any chance that Germany could go through Belgium again. When it came to the invasion of the USSR, the generals proposed an overly ambitious plan that satisfied their mythos of invincibility rather than any sound military theory. Franz Halder literally ignored strategic goals needed to continue the German war effort, such as the Caucasuses and instead focused on the flashy goals like Moscow that would please Hitler and his own ego
I think Putin 100% believed that Zelenskiy would run if he made a move towards the capital. Believing some FSB profile. It’s him and the FSB who messed up from the start.
@@johnroach9026 There are a couple things here that I think you don't quite have correct, so if I may. 1. It's been a while since I've been heavily involved in WW2 history, but to my knowledge, it wasn't necessarily the French being so convinced of the Maginot's plan they forgot about Belgium. Rather, everyone knew the most likely place for a German attack would be Belgium, after all, no idiot would attack head-first into the most heavily fortified defense-in-depth series fortifications (and even if they did, the French would have plenty of time to react); therefore, France prepared to counterattack the expected Belgium offensive. They knew the Ardennes weren't covered very well, but it was heavily forested and narrow, so they expected that should any German forces attempt to attack, they'd either be extremely bogged down, or at the very least, slowed down enough to give France plenty of time to attack. And if the Germans did anything as suicidal as attacking the Maginot head on, then the French High Command could go to bed happy. However, as we all know, this didn't happen. The Germans managed to go through the Ardennes dramatically faster than expected and encircled the French forces counterattacking into Belgium. This was the brainchild of Erich von Manstein, who proposed that the German plan not target going through Belgium, but target the expected counterattack as its main goal. In essence, to use an analogy, France is defending a house against an invader and has to cover the back and front. They barricaded the back steel door with heavy sandbags and has a Berthier rifle aimed at the weaker wooden front door. There is a tiny unbarricaded window, barely enough to fit someone (supposedly) in the back of the house, but France wagers that if someone tries to go through it, they'd either get stuck or take so long and make so much noise that France would notice and could take their time countering them. What actually happened was that Germany's brother knocked on the front door, France got its attention turned there as it expected, and then Germany showed off its Olympic gymnast skills and leapt through the back window and had a gun pressed up against France's head before France could react. 2. As for Moscow being the target, I suggest you search up the Soviet Union's major rail lines in 1939. I have a feeling you'll immediately notice why Moscow might've been an attractive target. Of course, a large part of the motivation for taking Moscow likely would've been political, but the majority of the major railroads in the Soviet Union went through Moscow. If the Soviet Union lost Moscow, logistics would become dramatically more difficult. Not to mention that taking Moscow would have denied the Soviets of a large amount of industry and infrastructure they had built up in Moscow. Of course, as you know, the Germans split their forces, and unfortunately for the Germans, Italians, and various allies, and rather fortunately for much of the rest of the world, they found it difficult to continue to execute the war to a victorious conclusion. 3. I would agree with your assessment that the German military was politicized, especially in the second half of WW2, but I wouldn't say it was anywhere near as bad as the Soviet militarily. The Germans did not conduct a Great Purge for one and I believe it wasn't uncommon for senior military generals to stand up to Hitler, especially in the first half of WW2. The German military I'd say had some very positive military traditions (effective initiative distribution at all levels, positive recruit policies, maneuver warfare primacy, combined arms, officer corps professionalism, and an expectations for senior officers to subject themselves to the harshness the soldiers endured) that served them well in the first half of the war, but which lost some of its lustre after several years of rough wars depleting quality from the rank-and-file. Coupled that with increasing political meddling (a reminder that some of Germany's most visionary and effective military leaders were sacked by Hitler for disagreeing with him either militarily or politically) and increasingly disorganized and incoherent upper echelons of command and I think you could say Germany's military command was rather lacklustre by the later stages of the war, which perhaps you agree with. Though, excepting the death throes of the regime, even when it was particularly bad and with Hitler sacking some of his top commanders, I still wouldn't say the politicization was as bad as the Sovet Unions' politicization of the officer corps; though, I agree that it definitely got pretty bad by the end. Again, for as bad as it got, especially after the attempted coup, it wasn't the Great Purge. I'd say it was more it buckling under the combined stress of 6 years of total war fighting outnumbered constantly under bombardment with numerous structural issues extant since the early days of the war finally revealing its severity when put under pressure. Though, perhaps one could argue that the Soviet command had gotten less politicized by the end of the war. I'd still say the German military command was a leading example of how to build an effective military in the first half of the war minus all of the more unpleasant, potentially internationally illegal stuff. But as I was saying, the second half, maybe not so much. Still offers many lessons. . . on things that may be best avoided. My apologies that point 3 is somewhat less organized. I didn't have as clear of a structure when writing it and don't have the time to edit it. I hope it is still coherent enough, unlike the German high command near the end of the war. If something I said is wrong, please do let me know. It's been a while and some things (like knowledge of the USSR's military structure) aren't areas where I'm necessarily the most versed in.
I've seen a lot of good WW2 videos of yours. Could you compare the WW2 campaigns and operations with the current war in Ukraine? Seems to me that Kharkiv (and brutality) are always focal points.
9:20 I suspect there are 3 reasons why a lot of intact Russian equipment was left behind: 1) Logistics - lack of fuel and maintenance 2) Speed of the withdrawal - tanks and other equipment were considered too slow and were left behind, and 3) Poor training - troops not taught to destroy equipment rather than let it fall into enemy hands.
Concerning your point about abandoned but not destroyed tanks - in several videos where lots of captured tanks could be seen (like captured from a depot) there were no machine guns on the turret. The storages on the side (where tools & kit are stored if I'm correct) as well es the hood in the back (where the engine is) were open. To me that seemed like everything of value that was portable was taken by the retreating Russian army, suggesting there was at least time to do basic preparations for retreating. The open engine hoods suggested (to me at least) there has been some tinkering with it. I would not count on all of the intact looking tanks being so intact on the inside. /edit: great video, as always. :)
That's not the type of sabotage that's going to stop a vehicle from being redeployed and it's obvious. What needs to be done, is throwing a grenade into the engine bay at the very least.
For tanks and armored vehicles, Russia is Ukraines largest arms supplier. Many are totaled on the battlefield but salvaged for any useful parts and returned with damaged vehicles to rear-area repair facilities. Many are just out of fuel and abandoned on the road leading back to the Motherland and are painted, the radio present changed and they are ready for battle.
Many of them are intact though and are quickly reused by the Ukrainians. For example the captured T-90M looked brand new on the inside. It even had the latest targeting system installed. This really goes to show that Russian troops have very low morale and got completely routed during the Kharkiv offensive.
Russian army in Ukraine consists of two parts: - professional soldiers who fight for money, and won't defend the lost cause(you can't collect your paycheck if you're dead). They get outflanked, they fall back. - conscripts/volunteers who do not have a clue what they are doing, neither in principle nor in practice. They get outflanked, they panic and run or get captured.
The calls on the Russian side for using tactical nukes is particularly ridiculous because it's highly unlikely that the Russians have many troops who are trained and equipped for operating in a nuclear environment. The Soviet Army often trained troops for this task but given the dumpster fire that is Russian logistics in the present time I strongly doubt that they could pull it off.
If they were used only on the Ukrainian side of the border as a defensive move to stop an assault build-up. it would work. But I think if Putin even considered that option, he'd never have launched the political and social disaster of mobilisation.
Outstanding point! I never thought of that. BTW I love the intelligent comments MHV's videos get. So many other videos' comment sections are sewers of stupidity. Here you can actually learn stuff.
Seeing how much embezzlement has already fucked them (aka the tanks, and body armour they claimed to have), I doubt they have a working nuke, and it they do, is it actually launchable? Has the silo had maintenance? Is the warhead still stable? Will it survive a launch?
Valiant effort explaining situation. Many thanks for providing sources for most statements. It helps to separate wheat from chaff in the analysis. It would be a bit more work, but consider color coding sources, in same categories as GroundNews does. It would be much more informative. Thanks
Interesting way to just say russia is outnumbered 3 to 1 on any spot of the frontline and as so any hiccups or losses cause a major ripple effect through the entire undermanned logistical units trying to stabilize the front. For reference, 10,000 troops along a 100 mile front is 100 per mile, your enemy has 30,000 along that same front so to say 300 per mile. Most logical thing for those 10k troops to do is use firepower to their advantage from a distance and vice versa for the 30k troops( close the gap, make the entire line unstable) Outnumbered like that is realistically a walk in a park.
Look at "Perun" to get a sense of the impact of corruption on Russian logistics capabilities. He does a fantastic job of explaining the Trickle Down effect - but not as Regan/Tatcher economists tell it, Jim....
I've been waiting on pins and needles for your very qualified and researched analysis on current events in Russia, thanks so much, and keep up the great, independent work!!
The story about troops buying their own gear is backed up by the prices of military stuff going way up on Russian Ebay, suggesting very high demand for gear. Perun's video about corruption gives a very plausible explanation of a lot of the logistics problem. Basically, shit gets stolen.
I'm not Russian nor do I support their position but the very idea of internal thieves selling off desperately needed military material makes my blood boils.
@@marlarki5280 Wars are not fought by armies but by societies so the Russian army will reflect their society, backward repressive inefficient and thoroughly corrupt and rotten to the core.
The U.S. military issues gear but some commanders give the option to the service members to buy their own plate carriers but they still use the issued plates. Some people also buy different pouches like drum pouches for saw drums or mag dump pouches.
Yeah, we (late Cold War) always had our "Gucci" gear we purchased, but we could have done quite well with nothing but government issue. I mean, I might *prefer* my personally procured stuff, but the USGI stuff wasn't *bad*. In fact, most of my personally purchased stuff was stuff that was in the supply system - I just wanted to make sure I always had *mine* (for example, I preferred the older style H-yoke suspenders on my web gear and the older canvas buttpack in lieu of the then current issue Y-yoke suspenders and nylon buttpack... and the H-yoke meant i could carry *two* buttpacks so I could Lillie out of my web gear without a rucksack for about a week in temperate or hot weather. Super nice for a light infantryman...)
They were lost long before the mobilization. There has been a huge black market for all kinds of Russian military equipment ever since the Soviet Union broke down.
There were no 1.5M uniforms obviously. Kleptocracy strikes again. We'll see if this moves the needle in regards to Russian citizens penchant to put with outright corruption. Certainly good if you want Putin's admin out.
I'm sure those uniforms are being covertly allocated to General Steinov's secretly gathering army of crack veterans so that Russia could launch a counterattack when the Ukrainians least expect it. Definitely not sold by opportunistic officers and soldiers, of course. ;)
I really enjoyed this. Many thanks for putting this together in a concise and informative way. This other analysis is also very good by Perun, "Russian Mobilisation - what does it mean for the war in Ukraine?" Though is over an hour long.
Nice report. Now, someone needs to do a report on winter warfare. If the Russians are so poorly supplied, how will they fare when winter hits? I propose that winter could bring a complete collapse of the Russian military. Once the ground freezes, armor can move again. I can see the Ukrainian forces multiplying their superiority with their secret weapon, one the Russians don’t have access to: gloves, coats, and sleeping bags. Oh, and more food as the calories needed can easily double in winter fighting conditions. Really, how can the Russians cope when they are so poorly provisioned right now? So far no one is talking about this.
Agree. The missing uniforms are winter gear. The russians will be be in danger without it. I predict that the russian army will collapse some time after it snows. The ukranains will be warmly dresssed and well fed, led by intelligent commanders who are allowed to make their own decisions, well supplied, motorised and with high morale. not a good time to be a ruzzian in the front lines
Hi Chris, andother good vidya, but a few bits of corrections are in order. First, armor. Poland uses the US-sized tank battalions - 58 tanks to each, 4 companies of 14 tanks (12+2 for company commander and his second), plus 2 tanks for battalion commander and his second. We have 2 battalions using Leopard 2 A5 (106 total), but one company in these is on older Leopard 2 A4. Next to that, theres 2 more battalions on Leopard 2 A4. We got 142 of those, and all are undergoing an upgrade to L2PL standard, which is a "budget" version liberally taking from A5 through A7. Next up are 233 PT91s - a deeply modernized T72. Uparmored (ERA) beyond what russian Kontakt-5 can do, but weak on the punch (same old 2A46 cannon). Their core value are modern digital radios, a passable Fire Control system, and night vision, something soviets and russians always struggled with. Some of these were already sent to Ukraine. So... that's 8 battalions.... and the structures have 13. The remaining 5 were supposed to have old vanilla T72s, and as you said, they are all gone now. None of the units were anywhere near combat ready though. As for APCs. No, we don't have a "mix" of soviet machines. Particularly, we don't have any BTRs. Even in soviet era, we used OT-64 SKOT instead. Some 2500 of them, and they were mostly scrapped through the 90s. That portion of the "fleet" has been replaced with a mix of nearly 900 Patria AMV, locally designated "Rosomak". About 300 are IFVs, the rest are APCs of various roles. Also, NONE of these have integrated antitank missiles. This will be rectified soon, with the arrival of the first 70 vehicles with a new, ATGM-equipped turret. Instead, there are dedicated APCs that carry a command&commo system and two Spike ATGM teams each. The other "half" are ca. 1200 remaining BMP-1s. I will elaborate on those in follow up comment.
Now, just as you said, Poland's territory is incredibly boring: sea to the North, Mountains to the South, and great plains all the way in between, with just one major water feature, the Wistula river, running roughly South to North halfway between eastern and western border. However, this is FAR to perfect a picture. You see, Poland has a very unique feature. While our "bodies of water" are NOT impressive, roughly every 5 miles, there is a "body of water" that is either deeper than 5 feet, or broader than 65. You are already feeling the drift eh? Yup. That means you can't ford it directly because of the depth, or the JABS isn't long enough to get you across. Meaning, your army will be navigating a veritable maze needing to stop every few miles for fording/bridging, or look for local bridges, which may be blown up already or simply nowhere good enough. In fact, quite a few have a limit of... 10 tons. No, not even your wheeled APC will take that, and forget the Abrams. Hence, so many outdated BMP-1s and obsession with new, amphibious IFV, the Borsuk (Badger). Decent armor means it has to be barn-sized to float :) And BMP's, despite all the outdated-ness, have one virtue: they are tracked, and cheap. They can cross tough terrain and, at least in theory, float. Yeah we know it's not really true.
And another correction. Patriot? Yes, we're getting two batteries, each with two firing units. But that's the current delivery. There are 6 more outstanding batteries on order, but with delivery dates to be yet negotiated. In the meantime, we're getting 2 batteries of Narew system, which is essentially Britain's Sky Sabre with the CAMM missile and the local fire control system and radar. One is in pre-delivery checks, and the other will arrive next year, with ...21 more batteries to follow under framework agreement. As for the air force, your take is correct - 3 squadrons of F16 Block 52, and 3 squadrons of modified soviet platforms. However, this will also change soon: in 2024, we're slated to take first deliveries of F35s, coming from LRIP batch 16, because we've ordered Block 4 machines for 2 squadrons. Also on the way, with the first 12 landing next year, are 48 FA-50 Golden Eagle LCAs, enough to form/rearm 3 squadrons. And Navy... uh. No, let's skip that... HOWEVER, we have some "things that float". Like 2x Perry class "museum" frigates. What counts though, is that we have full 2 batteries of NSM (Naval Strike Missile). Coastal ASM missile "artillery". Considering their range... well, we might not have much of a fleet, but we can sure blow out of the water any enemy fleet that gets too cocky in our part of the Baltic pond.
now you destroyed it. Seriously did you guys think nationalist militants that reveir burning people alive would role over with their jew leader because you surrounded a capital city and pulled off precision strikes?
Russia only allows troops to retreat with permission from command, and there are rumors Putin gave a "not one step back," order. A civilian leader may ignorantly believe that an order to not retreat means troops will keep fighting. But most retreats are for one of two reasons: "if we don't retreat now we will be surrounded and destroyed," or "if we don't retreat now the troops will rout." Preventing those retreats is not a good thing, no matter how politically savvy it may seem.
Note: westerns buying gear are usually high speed and or extremely dedicated and the equipment they buy is usually top tier with the basic issue being more than sufficient to operate, this is a case of " we are not the same"
Regarding the effect of long-range strikes on food, water and medicines - it’s a really funny question :) UA forces have a small number of M142 and M270 which are the first-priority targets for russians. We would never utilize these strikes on water, food, or medicines. The real reason of this lack is corruption in russian army. Unlike in UA, there aren’t many volunteers who gather donations and bring the stuff to battle units because russians still assume their army is somehow great and is able to supply their troops. In reality, UA soldier usually avoid consuming captured russian military rations because in Ukraine we don’t even feed pigs with stuff like that.
Great video, but I would like to point out there is a difference between "purchasing my own gear because it is better than standard issue gear" and "purchasing my own gear because there was no standard issue gear".
Unity of command might lead to a commander with battle tested troops loyal to him, who was not a political stooge, that might decide to seize power. Stalin feared Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov.
And the US Minecrafted Patton and later Adm Forest to name a few;)
@@Br1cht no proof of pattons death being an assasination just a stupid claim thought of decades after it happened
@@Br1cht or the Germans with Rommel
@@Br1cht Patton was a trashbag Nazi sympathizer. Real war heroes became Presidents in the U.S. Look at U.S. Grant or Ike, as two examples.
This is 100% spot on.
As for the Russian military not supplying basic items to their troops, when I was in the US Army infantry (now nearly 50 years ago, wow), the Army issued what we needed to perform our mission. We received a small allowance to maintain our uniforms, but most of us bought new items as the old ones wore out or went missing. This expense was not large. Many of us went out to the civilian economy and bought extra personal equipment for our own convenience, mainly "comfort-type" items. But by and large, we didn't _need_ to.
Anyway. The European space does not reflect the essence of the situation in Russia, the Western media often confuse the army of Russia and the army of its allies who live on humanitarian aid from Russia and think that Russia has everything very bad, in fact, all are given everything, everyone has enough of everything in abundance. The Russian military doesn't even take money with them to Ukraine because they are provided with everything. There are, of course, individual cases, but it depends on the commanders. Well, of course in Russia there are panicked people who take everything they can, from money to headache pills :D
@@J3sseReidSucser This may be the case for their professional army, but it's abundantly clear that many of the recently conscripted blokes where flat out told that the army was out of sleeping bags and mats, so if they wanted to sleep they had to buy their own. The combat nurse who brought them the news in the video I happened so see informed them that they would be issued with a uniform, helmet, weapon and boots. Everything else was at their own expense.
@@andersjjensen It's entirely possible that this could happen, but everyone I talk to from Russia says the only thing they really don't give is a butt pad
@@J3sseReidSucser lol units drafted "trained and equiped" by the Russian army and transported through Russia in Russian military veichles to go fight alongside Russian regular conscripts in a war that Russia started are part of the Russian army regardless of whatever little third world Soviet republic they where drug kicking and screaming from, and Russian conscripts are paid almost nothing officers regularly and openly sell issued equipment and supplies on the black market to supplement the poor income, and what little hasn't been sold to anti russian terrorist groups or western collectors is often poorly maintained, the Russian army is a joke at best the writing was on the wall since the Soviet Afghan war
That's overall very similar to what my friends and acquaintances who served recently did - GI gear covered all the REQUIREMENTS, personal purchases were about comfort and upgrades - everything from better underwear to a better sidearm, but not from danger of LACKING a capability.
Q: Why didn't Russian soldiers destroy equipment left behind?
A1: The Russian army is extremely "Top Down" in nature. Personal initiative is frowned upon. Ergo, they didn't destroy the equipment because they weren't directed to by someone far up the command chain.
A2: The destruction of equipment left behind is the action of a retreating force. These Russian forces were being routed. They didn't have time, especially when combined with
item A1 above.
Russian troops who destroy equipment without *explicit* orders to do so risk being accused of sabotage.
A lot of what they left behind was 30 to 40 years old. I hope the Ukrainians have a lot of good mechanics / restorers.
@@johnneill990 we do ;) BTW many abandoned vehicles have mines but this doesn’t work.
@@johnneill990 Tanks to the "tractor troops" Ukraine is able to bring these puppies out into workshops and never ran out of fresh tanks 🙂
In addition to your two points, the destruction of equipment is the act of a retreating force.
Everyone knows that the Russians didn't retreat. They deliberately redeployed, following a well-planned timetable. Just ask Igor Konashenkov(!)
I'd note: Sitting in semi-static frontlines is extremely bad for morale, especially if you don't rotate troops from the front. Its rather telling that what should have been an Shock Breakthrough Unit in 4th Guards Tank Division, sat largely static at Izium on a salient to nowhere, for the better part of 3-4 months. Daily routine without victory saps morale just as badly as all the other morale factors listed.
Ukrainian troops are rotating to the front for 48 or 72 hours at a time the same cannot be said for the Russian troops.
An interesting point regarding morale comes out of a couple of articles I have read post-mobilization callup by Putin. The phrase "cannon fodder" has been used by men who want to avoid the callup, giving you an idea of how the failures in Ukraine are being perceived by those Russians who thought they would not end up personally involved in the war.
If your reservists and conscripts already think they are simply being sent out solely to die fruitlessly, that is going to be sheer hell on unit morale, cohesion, and operation. History has shown that units with such an abysmal condition are much more likely to break when engaged.
OK, I've written quite a bit below so I wanna open by saying that I appreciate your work and wish more historians were like you. 🙂 Just so we're clear on that.
8:14 Something a lot of people seem to overlook is the median income of a Russian soldier as opposed to that of an American soldier.
I can't judge how comfortable a US soldier is buying a 5.11 Tactical gun holster or something, but, as a Russian, trust me when I say a lot of those conscripts are fucking dirt poor, as in food, utilities, and rent consume well over 50% of their income, and likely pushing 85%, in some cases 100%. There's an estimate that a conscript "starter pack" costs something between 120K and 180K rubles (and I forget if this even includes an armor vest and a helmet). The median monthly salary in Dagestan, Buryat Republic, and Khabarovsk Region is 22K, 21K, and 33K rubles respectively. I chose them because the regime likes to draw manpower from there as opposed to richer places like Moscow and St.Petersburg, where people can get real angry real fast. Now, surprise surprise, very few people have savings in places like Dagestan, so it's safe to expect a fair few of them to incur debt before they even get on the bus to training. This also inspires some ridiculous methods of saving costs, like officers advising conscripts to stock up on ladies' tampons to plug gunshot wounds with them.
Just keep some of that in mind when you think of a Russian conscript buying his own crucial supplies 'cause his fucking country told him he's on his own and a US soldier buying something for himself that prefers over the standard issue stuff.
End of rant. 🙂
yup
100%. There's a huge difference between "I want this really cool accessory for my gun, I'm gonna buy it" and "you have to purchase your own helmets, body armor, uniforms, shoes, sleeping bags, tents, and virtually everything else except for a rifle" (which will quite probably be in terrible condition)
Let me put it to you this way. The average US Private has to be educated on how not to blow all his money because, if he lives in the barracks, he has free food, free housing, and free equipment as long as he keeps it from getting lost or wrecked.
When I was in Afghanistan and Iraq, there were car dealerships set up for the guys who were drawing pay with nowhere to spend it. Buy the car in the combat zone tax free and it was delivered to your home when you returned to the states. Soldiers were paying for these brand new cars in cash because who needs to save money right? There were also bazaars where one could purchase televisions, high-quality mattresses, and gaming consoles to make your rack a bit more like home.
Add in the additional food areas that you could pay for, the MWR areas with recreation such as pool and movies, and hot showers (hot water isn't much of a challenge in a 130 degree desert) and life wasn't that bad when you weren't getting shot at.
But this motivates a US Soldier (generally there's always exceptions) to be a well-trained, educated, and free-thinking individual compared to your average conscript who is treated like a junkyard dog on the expectation that it will make them "tougher".
When friends of mine deployed to Afghanistan years ago they talked about how the Army gave them money to upgrade their kit. I’ve no idea if that’s true or not but I doubt the Russian army is shelling out extra rubles for sliders going on deployment.
You're right that many Russian soldiers are dirt poor; that's a big reason why they're just common criminals stealing everything including toilets! But tampons are very good for plugging bullets wounds. I think even many US soldiers have them.
your pictograms are always top notch. I am often fascinated how you can capture an abstract term in a pictogram
Thank you!
So suggestuve and also funny in places.
This is a great example of why I go to TH-cam for some of my news intake. Mhv has been a source of knowledge for me for years now, and these videos on recent events is always super appreciated
Not to mention there's more accurate context here than most news broadcasters can stomach. Even DW and BBC are full of basic errors. I saw a UATV report that identified a swedish AT-4 as Russian RPG 26. These journalists must be on speed, with the number of stupid mistakes they make.
Rumble wont censor him for saying Nahtzee. Alphabet is evil.
MHV uses no methodology to rule-out his biases, and therefore states only his biases. Correct? So, how much were you paid to advertise the nonsence you posted?
@@SwitchTF2
Ukraine was killing Russian Speaking Ukrainians in all the border towns. Russia put an end to that.
They moved in unchallenged held every inch of the territory they took... They then moved Ukrainians from a few areas and withdrew some areas.
Ukraine was completely nullified in every aspect.
Now the pathetic western media says Ukraine is winning when Russia has simply withdrawn from unimportant and worthless land.
The Border has been annexed and their isn't anything Ukraine can do about it.
@@HegelsOwl Can you name a few biases and explain this? I'm probably wasting my time, but since you can spell, maybe you can think too.
I extremely highly recommend an old essay by the name of 'Why Arabs Lose Wars'. Sure, the essay itself refers to Arab militaries in the modern era, but I've found a LOT of the principles denoted within the essay strongly apply to the Russian military right now. Perhaps you should take a look at this essay as well?
Arabs only fight well if driven by religious fervor. Arab nationalism is non existent.
When The Russians start even coming close to resembling ANYTHING like THAT; they've got cataclysmic problems... Hell the Iraqi Republican Guard in the 1991 Gulf War seems to be more competent than most Russian Formations in Ukraine and they lost Half their Force in that WAR...
The Russian military is the one that trained the arabs.
its a really bad essay tho. but MHV takedown would be entertaining
@@cnlbenmc trust me while RU has its problems the Iraq never even approached the Ukraine or Russia in military prowess. if you think Russia does poorly you havent read on how Iraq performed, it would make Soviet Winter War blush
Bernhard, your research, detailed explanations, and careful analysis are of great value. Many thanks once again.
Glad you like them!
It's just conjecture. I find it amusing that you though you admit via your appreciation you know nothing yourself, you feel qualified to label the video detailed and careful. For all you know, it's end to end bullshit. You are simply reacting to the cartoon grade entertainment graphics and stylish accent of the speaker.
@@johnsmith1474 He cites his sources John Smith. His "conjecture" is directly trace-able. Like any good journalist Bernhard, invests a lot of time on his subjects. Go through his series of videos. He confers with museum curators, armor and military experts, and many other educated professionals. Once you've got an idea of the body of his work, then I don't think you'll claim he's "talking out his ass".
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized hi 😅
@@johnsmith1474 You speak very loudly for someone who doesn't seem to know the high quality reports Military History Visualized produces consistently. Try watching more of their content before wading in with both guns blazing.
There are two pieces missing from the analysis that may be important: First--is the acquisition of the eastern regions something the average Russian sees as worth fighting over? Likely not. Hard to motivate commanders or troops to lay their lives on the ground for something so obviously not an advantage to Russia.
Second--What is the level of commitment to the national leadership vice the nation? Russia is not fighting a great patriotic war to liberate lands taken by a foreign adversary. This means that deep mobilization of the nation to fight this war is likely to be very unpopular and resisted internally. The Russian leadership has to gain its objectives--whatever those actually are--while limiting the scope of the war to appease the population.
Many of the problems experienced by the Russian Army may well trace back to these questions. Fighting a limited war of aggression against a modern state is very difficult. Ukraine is not Georgia, Chechnya, or Armenia (or even Iraq).
A related third observation may be that Russia really did expect the West (particularly the USA) to sit this one out. Whether that is due to ineptitude on the part of the USA or Russia, I do not know--likely both. But the introduction of western manufacturing and tech fundamentally changed the complexity of the operations in a manner that Russia clearly did not plan for.
yeah, about first, I originally had a "why we fight" part, but it is indirectly covered in the quote about the diversity of Russian troops, particularly the aspect that separatists don't want to fight outside.
About second, I left the political level out of the picture, should have mentioned that explicitly.
Russia did not plan for anything lasting beyond days. The Washington Post has a very impressive long-form article on the lead up to the war, specifically the role of the FSB and how badly it screwed up. FSB leaders for Russia's Ukraine operation had plans to immediately move to Kiev, they were so confident of an immediate victory. It was a huge miscalculation.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Wars can not be separated from politics.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized van Clausewitz is a bit dissapointed in you now :)
The US and Russia both thought it likely that Ukrainians would not be motivated to put up a real fight. The US had trained the Ukrainian army to some extent but think Afghanistan, they had trained the army there too and it evaporated. As it became clearer and clearer that Ukrainians really backed their government in resisting Russia, and that they were using what they had in smart ways, then the US and the rest of the West dropped any idea of 'sitting it out'. Then Putin's goose was cooked, though it took many months of Western aid and a long, painful Ukrainian fighting retreat to make that fully visible to us all.
8:15 western troops did buy some of their own gear for use in Iraq and Afghanistan such as boots, magazines, and weapon attachments before some units began to issue them. The boots and magazines were purchased because they were upgrades from the government issued gear not because they were sent without
russian ppl have no money to buy military equipment.
Even here, in Ukraine, you have to save up, in order to buy a Glock.
Thus, buying bodyarmor, CADs, and other stuff, means you have to take a loan from a bank, and there are actually advertisements on ''mobilization loans''.
Basically its: ''U see, Ivan, you die or go in debt for lifetime, but most likely both, good luck, pray to putin''
The WW1 battles of Tannenberg and the Masurian Lakes suggest Russian forces have a tradition of not working together unless there is someone definitely in charge!
Yes, look at poor Brusilov. He led a successful campaign but his counterpart delayed and then did not use new tactics he employed.
Like Stalin with Zhukov
It should be noted that following those battles, Russia still took another 3 years to break. They learned a lot in that time too. Never count them out entirely.
If you live in a society like Russia you learn to fear and mistrust everyone, especially authority figures.
10:45 proves yet again that Russia was never worried about NATO and that it can launch an invasion.
Of course Russia doesn't fear NATO ground forces why would it? NATO missiles within 10 minutes of moscow is why Russians don't want NATO an inch eastward, a promise that's been consistently broken and caused the war in georgia and in Ukraine, since 2014 and since February.
Given that you don't even know what the word "proves" means, I don't think you should think so highly of your own analysis.
I agree. The sober truth is that the western alliance has no possibility of an end to the war on their terms unless Putin either negotiates or dies (and is replaced by a party willing to negotiate). If Allied forces enter Russia proper, NBC weaponry will be used on them so that's out. And right now, it's clear enough that he's not going to negotiate. Their call- up of reservists and their large- scale movement of men and material west makes it clear that he's intent on resolving this militarily. It's not hard to see why, since this war of attrition favors the Russians greatly.
Best case scenario for the west is that they regain all of the lost Ukrainian territory- and then wait for a large- scale Russian offensive sometime in the first half of next year. It will be interesting to see how the west responds to it.
Something about a German explaining war just makes it sound so much more... authentic.
I believe he's Austrian though.
Achtung, baby!
@@TheTomasio1975 You know who else was Austrian?
Germans said the Nazis were winning last time too.
@@SirAntoniousBlock Mozart?? Sigmund Freud?? Arnold Schwarzenegger?? 😉🙃
SUN TZU has some fitting quotes:
- The Moral Law causes the people to be in complete accord with their ruler, so that they will follow him regardless of their lives, undismayed by any danger.
- There are three ways in which a ruler can bring misfortune upon his army:
(2) By attempting to govern an army in the same way as he administers a kingdom, being ignorant of the conditions which obtain in an army. This causes restlessness in the soldier's minds.
- There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.
This is what you get when a dictator with expertise only in suppressing internal dissent and promoting propaganda is in charge of a major offensive military operation.
Perhaps look at NK, but benefitted is questionable.
ussr benefited from prolonged warfare,aslo the quote is innacurate.
Radiation missiles and cheap effective combat drones have been a game changer. The moment the Russians switch on their systems or use their radar they are targeted, and if they hide in their holes and wait, they get grenades dropped on their heads. This is hindering their ability to consolidate leadership under a unified command and keeping their troops off balance with low morale. This is what happens when your military strategy never advanced past WW2.
the only part about this battle that will be like world war two for the Russians?... Yes, millions of Russians will die. But their goals will never be met. как сказать неудача по-русски? Зачем умирать за лилипута Путина, когда есть ради чего жить? при отправке на фронт? массово сдаться и дожить до повешения Путина?
kak skazat' neudacha po-russki? Zachem umirat' za liliputa Putina, kogda yest' radi chego zhit'? pri otpravke na front? massovo sdat'sya i dozhit' do povesheniya Putina?
Of course, "Anti-Radiation Missiles ...", just a typo.
Kids Bullshit. Game changer was well trained boots on the ground. As ever since WW1
@@rafaelgoncalvesdias7459 No substitute for training. Good equipment is also essential.
@@rafaelgoncalvesdias7459 New tactics aren't "kid's bullshit".
That kind of thinking is part of why Russia is losing a war they should have won easily.
That and being horribly corrupt.
Once again a very informative video, with a great selection of sources as well as illustrations. You have a consistently high level of quality in your videos mate - keep it up!
Thanks for a really informative video - I learned a ton! Quick pronunciation tip: the Ukrainian and Russian Kh (Kharkiv, Kherson) is pronounced like the German Ch, or a particularly harsh English H sound. It's never pronounced as K.
so, kharkiv is pronounced as hard-kiv ?
@@PrograError I think drop the d, so har-kiv?
@@gwtpictgwtpict4214 It is indeed Harkiv. And Herson.
I was a soldier in Russian army from October 2021 until May 2022. Thankfully, I managed to leave the army and flee from the country the night mobilization was enforced, 30 minutes before they closed the borders.
Many points in this video are completely true, or at least to some extent. If you guys want, I can answer some questions about insides of our army
Why do some Russian military equipment look old and rusty? What’s the training like compared to western armies counterparts?
@@therealbosstopob4l974 The problem with Russian army is complete indifference to the equipment and/or just basic lack of it. Corruption is widespread and deeply rooted in the system, which makes it almost impossible to acquire new equipment. Only those divisions which are created for "show" get it (AK-12, Armata T-14 tanks e.t.c), in reality all the new tanks and weapons are just nowhere to be found. In our division we had 4 tanks: 3 T-72B3M, and 1 T-64. When they were being prepared for relocation, T-64 didn't start up, one T-72 didn't as well, and other two barely made it to the border having a lot of engine problems. Out of 8 BTRs only 4 started up and went to Ukraine.
When it comes to training, we have none. Those who serve by law (we have conscription law, where if you are from 18 to 27 you have to serve 1 year, except if you go to university's military courses and become an officer) usually just clean the barracks, as well as the territory of their base. Maybe 1-2 times in their year of service they go to the shooting range, and once a week they have morning training. At other times we were just sleeping, browsing internet and being depressed that our girlfriends probably cheat on us while we do that useless shit (cause you can't go home, maybe once, twice a year, or you can go every weekend, if you have money. You know what I mean)
Those who serve by contract have a bit more training, but it's up to them. As they are privileged, they can just do nothing all day, and no one will say anything to them. Or they can actually go to shooting ranges, workout and keep their body in shape, but I've seen maybe 10-15 of them doing actual military things, but also I've seen hundreds doing jackshit.
Whenever you see these military competitions, where Russian and US soldiers do boxing, or wrestling, or compete in any other sports, Russia usually send guys who were previously trained, e.g guys who were professional boxers as civilians, and learned nothing new while in the military, while Navy SEALs actually learn how to fight and shoot while serving. So overall I would say average quality of soldiers is way higher in western armies.
We Russians excel in one thing - Defence.
We don't have any attacking capabilities when we are unmotivated and have nothing to fight for (like now. This war is useless), however, as we've seen many times in history, when Russia gets boxed and attacked, for whatever reason, be it genetic memory, our roots, or just sheer anger and unwillingness to die (or all together) people start fighting like cornered animals, even with no guns, even with no armored vehicles or tanks, and honestly, any army in the world, even US, will have absolutely horrible time inside our borders, cause there will be so many guerillas. Any man, woman or child would be a potential threat, not to mention, that anybody who will be able to hold a gun, will sign in to fight. Think of it as a national spirit. And also winter... the deeper you go into Russia, the colder it will get, and trust me, at some point even Abrams will just stop working cause oil will freeze.
@@Slavalanche Hi mate, before the war I heard Ukrainian army was as corrupt. Their weapons weren't any better initially. What's your take?
Danke für die Zusammenfassung
8:13. Eh, that's not entirely true. For US troops, you have your standard issue kit, depending on your MOS. You're provided everything. You _can_ purchase additional gear, like laser sights (before the ban), optics, boots, gloves, NODS, bivvy, etc., etc.
@@dxpsumma383...No, it wasn't, which is exactly why I commented. He said US forces also had to buy their gear like Russia ("in some cases"), and that's not true. All the required gear, or kit, is provided to you. You have the choice to buy additional gear, or pieces of your own gear (if it's approved).
Some things you _are_ required to pay for. I'm not sure how it is in other branches, but in the Marine Corps., for example, you pay for your dress blues, and they cost a couple thousand dollars. They were about $2,800 back in 2001. This isn't part of your kit, though.
If you're gonna troll, at least don't suck at it.
"A fish rots from the head." Putin is a former KGB officer without military experience, and his minister of defense is a political appointee without military experience. This explains the huge strategic blunders committed, for example, invading Ukraine during the Rasputitsa , the season of the mud. Any competent Russian officer could have told them that was a bad idea, but Putin is an absolute ruler who believes firmly in his own genius and doesn't like to hear objections or complaints.
Plus he wanted to show brotherhood to Chinese Olympic propaganda.
08:10 On western troops bringing their own gear to afghan.
I do think theres a big difference on troops bringing some bits and bobs that they think are better then allready provided by their armies. WHich is something soldiers always do in pretty much any war in history.
Compared to needing to buy your own medkit or tampons, sleeping bags, wintercoat, boots and body armor ....... (thats going back to medieval times tbh )
Even in medieval times your baron would arm and armour you if you were to join his army. This is more like ancient times when each levied citizen brought his own family hoplon and linothorax if he could afford one.
Great video, pretty much sums up what the situation appears to be from the West.
Glad you enjoyed it.
Exactly,.... from the west,....
@@ernestocienfuegos6800 OK clever clogs how does the east explain how the Russians advance slower than your toenails?
"pretty much sums up what the situation appears to be from the West"
Exactly. Using only western sources for a video is using only ones sides propaganda, no balance here, no vetting of information, no real analysis.
This is such a bad take that it made me unsub.
It will be many years after this war ends that we'll know what really happened and the real statistics, but for this kind on analysis I'll just tune-in to any mainstream western news channel.
"from the West" hmmm I wonder if that's a problem . . .
Also do not underestimate the dictatorship/fascist dilemma of military leaders. As under an autocratic or fascistic state scapegoating is often used to divert responsibility from the President and lower positions. So apart from managing your forces and coordinating with other commanders, you must also think about political manoeuvring. Your life may depend on it. Rampant and much more deadly under Stalin, but mechanism is there now as well.
True, a famous American president once said " the buck stops everywhere" and "no, I don't take any responsibility".
Bs. Nothing to do with fascism or its principles.
what? the fallout for failure is the same in western countries as in russia, by which I mean ZERO. in fact in russia probably more than in the us, because us leaders never get blowback from their failures. was anyone punished for Iraq, Afghanistan or Lybia? Nah they all kept their positions. this is just reaching, and badly informed at that
@@phunkracy As if, a core element of a liberal democracy is an increased responsiveness on the government's part to popular pressure and regular transitions of power to shake up the deadwood. Any leader that stays in power too long eventually becomes detrimental as they lose their grip. The buck stops here is a famous saying, but the principle of collective Cabinet responsibility is a similar tenet in parliamentary democracies. That acceptance that failures by subordinates reflect on the whole government, and the need to appease the people, is what makes democracies better places to live - Chile suffers from frequent earthquakes for instance. They had a particularly bad one in the mid 20th century and greatly reformed their system to keep people safe. Under Pinochet the building laws stagnated, but a flurry of new legislation came out during the 1990s, and when a quake occurred, larger than the devastating one decades prior, casualties were tiny, something like 18 iirc. Meanwhile thousands died in Iran from an earthquake in the 1970s and thousands were still dying from them in the 2000s.
Nah, Putin is already blaming everything at the West.
Russian economic problem? The West.
Russian retreat in Ukraine? The West.
Russian military problem? The West.
Weird how their lines haven't actually collapsed then... 🤔
An excellent summation. I especially enjoyed the links on your quotes
American military are not required to buy anything that’s necessary for a combat operation. They’re supplied with uniforms, body armor, helmets, night vision, weapons, ammo, food, water, medicine, all personal medical gear, toiletries, sleeping gear, etc. everything they need is available. But they do have the option to purchase additional gear they might want, or upgrade certain things with approved items.
What a horror! We urgently need to send you the Minister of Defense Shoigu. Then your tankers will even have to buy tanks at their own expense. Shoigu will teach American generals how to steal money from the budget! Your soldiers will finally engage in proper military training. They will build houses for the generals.
@@АлександрИванов-ч4б3с
"Your soldiers will finally engage in proper military training. They will build houses for the generals."
We had that in Sweden up until the 1990's, where employed staff at various levels could use the state resources for personal use.
For instance, if the helicopter squadron was scheduled for training with hanging cargo, it could be tasked to deliver building material to the summer house instead of flying a cement block back and forth over the airfield; or have the mechanics under training service the private car when there was little else to do.
@@johanmetreus1268 Things are much worse with us. I think only mass public executions of generals will help.
Another excellent analysis Bernhard. Thank you.
Thank you.
It's hard to look at this conflict and not see significant parallels with the Winter War. There are many differences of course, but as well all know history does not truly repeat itself, it rhymes.
“Don’t worry, Steiner’s army will relive us” somebody in a bunker, maybe
Mein Furher....Steiner...
It workt, Ukrainens Steiner did somthing. how long the can hold there gains is a diverent question
So, i am Russian, i have no military experience, and my understanding of the situation mostly based on reading telegram an Vkontakte posts of different people, who have different level of connection to ongoing events. And i can say that ur video is almost 100% how it looks for me from the inside. I repeat that i dont have access to some secret information, only open Russian sources. Troops that almost got surrounded in crasny liman, told they had no air support, no artillery support. Seems like we are running out of reserves too, in open telegram channels i was able to see the defections of future Ukrainian assaults weaks before they start. And the steel successfully perform them. Army dont bomb Dnepr bridges, allowing Ukrainians to transfer reserves fast. I cant really express my feelings about it, i am against this war, but loosing to country with African level of economy is a fucking joke.
P.S speaking about corruption less then 1 week ago 1,5 MILLION military uniforms disappeared recently
*Not defections but directions
The world is appalled at the death of young Russians in this as well.
I heard before invasion, Russian military sold fuel to Belarus.
@mattaddison19 and they are still goat herders and bombing themselves into dust
@@rgwaldron the west & its media has successfully dehumanised Russians through artful - and subtle - propaganda that is all-encompassing. This is something they learned from the Nazis three quarters of a century ago, and lo & behold neo Nazis openly fight for Ukraine. Putin's many mistakes pale in comparison to his hopeless grasp of enemy - and every country that sanctions him is an enemy - propaganda, of its insidiousness, its effectiveness.
All Russians are called "orcs" by westerners. Dehumanisation.
They moved a lot of their troops to support Kherson and only left a skeleton crew of mostly untrained units. However, there were some quality units.
The Ukrainians Blitzed through the area at lightning fast speed. They often overran defenders and bypassed cities/villages, it was a classic tactic from Rommel/Guderian. They used ground based shock and awe. What do you do if you are a unit in an area and out of nowhere from every direction you have armor speeding your way? The Ukrainians also sent their special forces in ahead of time to soften up the area. Whole areas were encircled and then mopped up. They took over in a matter of days what it took the Russians months. They are continuing to advance along that axis as well.
Right now it is showing the differences in the stark contrasts between military types. Ukraine has a better approach in every aspect.
Russia is mobilizing men, ok, great. Just sending them off to the meat grinder. They do not have the skills. They will not have the unit cohesion. They are being forced there, which will mean low morale. This is not one of the great patriot wars in defense of the motherland. More and more men are coming home in body bags or wounded. They are also taking a lot of men out of the workforce, already many have left as well. A lot of this is a recipe for disaster.
Mobile crematoriums were overloaded
An excellent summary of the factors contributing to the inevitable change in the momentum of the war. A piece like this adds to the conversation and understanding. Danke schoen.
Excellent video. I got more information from this video, than I have from all the national news coverage, here in the U.S. Thank you.
Thanks for talking in chat Bernard
Great video, but one small issue. Vladimir Putin did not call 300k men to arms. The number wasn't states anywhere except for what Shoigu said, but that number is nowhere in the actual law, so for all we know, this is a total mobilisation
And with the formal annexation of the four Ukrainian territories, Russian conscripts can openly be deployed there.
The problem though is that if Russia hasn't officially declared war in Ukraine, there is no Russian law that supports a general mobilization that sends troops to another country. Those new conscripts would limited to serving only within Russian borders legally and that's already not happening.
@@tonysu8860 that's certainly true in light of the Russian law, but - and not to be cynical here, do we really believe law carries any meaning in Russia? I conscripted men were indeed sent to Ukraine, who would protest? Who would take responsibility for it?
@@frost3840 not following the laws of conscription and mobilisation (invalids, over-aged and so forth dragged into service) caused a high profile statement on Russian state television, demanding the situation to be rectified and the responsible for these abuses suffer the appropriate consequences.
@@johanmetreus1268 I haven't heard of that in truth, but can that change anything? Several city counselors have petitioned for Putin to resign, without any luck. Maybe I'm talking out of my ass here, but I think as long as they cover it up with a good lie, they can do whatever they want
Yes, I very much have been looking forward to your analysis.
The sad thing is this well stated video is already been obsoleted within hours. The Ukrainian Southern counteroffensive around Kherson suddenly started advancing at almost highway speeds in the past 24 hours.
Why is it obsolete? He stated that he didn't include the most recent events and the structural factors do not change.
@@untruelie2640 true. It’s still astonishing how fast things in the ground are changing.
@@andrewtaylor940 the russians waited far too long on mobilization, when ukraine mobilized from day 1. they got far too cocky thinking even with severe losses they can stand up to fully mobilized Ukraine
I feel sorry for the people who maintain the DeepStateMAP. The poor chaps had to make four updates in a single day. I don't think that's ever happened before.
thats not sad that is good news
The difference between the US and Russia, is that troops buy things that are usually better that what is issued, not what the unit fails to issue. During my time I had a complete duplicate set of initial issue TA-50 which I purchased on my own (including K-pot), in case I lost something or it was too damaged to turn back in to the Central Issue Facility (CIF).
What exactly is a TA-50?
@@baneofbanes It's been a while, but Tables of Allowance is what the TA stands for I think. TA-50 is the basic issue you receive based upon the unit to which you are posted. I was in the 82nd Airborne back in the late 80's early 90's. You received the Kevlar ballistic helmet with parachutist shock pad and retention straps; hook/pile tape lowering line and "H" harness; large rucksack with frame; Waterproof bags (2); 2 one quart canteens and one 2 quart canteen, LBE (load bearing equipment) with 2 mag pouches, canteen holders for the canteens; poncho and poncho liner; shelter half and tent pegs/poles; sleeping bag and sleeping mat; wet weather jacket and pants; over boots (galoshes) and Chemical Protective (MOPP suit) and gas mask; last but not least duffle bag.
There's one aspect where the advantage of unity of command shows: Ukraine's left-right punches in Kherson and Kharkiv won't be possible without someone at the top coordinated it. You simply need someone who's above the regional level to run multi-regional op like this. In Ukraine, that person is Zaluzhnyi. I don't think there's a real counterpart to him on Russia's side at the moment.
there are 2 generals in charge of 2 parts of the frontline in russian army
northern part is commanded by a lesser general but it is more prioritized
southern part is under a higher general but has less priority.
So, uor glorious military hits both sides so those generals constantly fight for supplies and men to be delivered to them.
Thus, russia has to either completely lose one front, or juggle the supplies and lose both north and south.
It won't matter if they had a counterpart at this point. Their professional units took a lot of hammering and I doubt that the newly mobilized troops have the knowledge to carry out a coordinated assault.
Dictators fear competent people.
They fear competent people leading a competent army even more.
That is also why there usually are a lot of competing factions in a dictatorship, with decision making all the way at the top.
This makes the chain of command long and slow, and will make the lower ranks not show initiative or creativity.
Valuable information and synthesis.
Thank you Bernhard. Excellent video.
Excellent content. Subscribed. Your English is excellent.
seriously high quality content! keep up the quality!
"Let us start at the top, or lack thereof" Nice turn of phrase.
I used to have a lot of respect for this channel for its deep historical and military analysis. It turned to bullshit propaganda in February 2022 and it remains such today. Very sad.
Another excellent presentation- the skill is to take a complex subject and make a short, very informative and focused video.
Like I've been saying to myself since before the Kherson and Kharkiv counter attacks, was that Russia's Half way measures of manpower shortage will catch up and hold out until their eventual crumble and collapse, and right now their whole frontlines is cracking, and crumbling and on the verge of total collapse within the next two months should the new reinforcements not be substantially Trained or used effectively.
Months?... I can't see Russia hold on for two weeks. By November Ukraine may already have most of Luhansk oblast at this rate.
@@qwaszx2 4 weeks (not even a month like looking) have passed since the beginning of the Kharkiv offensive (September 6 and he writes a comment on October 4)
and the Russian lines were broken again
Excellent analysis - thanks! Prefer more of this longer type analysis.
Sehr gute Zusammenfassung!
Danke!
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized What did you say about my mom!... and grandma?!?
@@ffffffff5500 not funny
Oh man, looking at the maps & news this minute, this video was prophetically timed.....
As far as "unity of command" it seems that perhaps the Russian war effort is being hindered by the kind of "Hitler military interference" problem that had cost the Nazi invaders so dearly during their invasion of the Soviet invasion. Certain supposedly politically important goals or unobtainable dreams take priority over competent and effective military strategic leadership. Xombi Xombi's comment is spot on.
A truly strong military leader would be a threat to a paranoid egomaniac narcissist.
YES! That suddenly hit me watching this. Thank Dog! It means, historically, that d'bad guys will eventually lose
Thing is, German High command wasn't exactly competent by any standards, they were just as politicised as Stalin's army. The only reason they managed to get so far is because they were fighting against nations that hadn't fully embraced combined arms - the Polish army lacked numerical superiority in the air and on the ground, and the French were so convinced of the Maginot's invincibility that they ignored any chance that Germany could go through Belgium again. When it came to the invasion of the USSR, the generals proposed an overly ambitious plan that satisfied their mythos of invincibility rather than any sound military theory. Franz Halder literally ignored strategic goals needed to continue the German war effort, such as the Caucasuses and instead focused on the flashy goals like Moscow that would please Hitler and his own ego
I think Putin 100% believed that Zelenskiy would run if he made a move towards the capital. Believing some FSB profile. It’s him and the FSB who messed up from the start.
@@johnroach9026 There are a couple things here that I think you don't quite have correct, so if I may.
1. It's been a while since I've been heavily involved in WW2 history, but to my knowledge, it wasn't necessarily the French being so convinced of the Maginot's plan they forgot about Belgium. Rather, everyone knew the most likely place for a German attack would be Belgium, after all, no idiot would attack head-first into the most heavily fortified defense-in-depth series fortifications (and even if they did, the French would have plenty of time to react); therefore, France prepared to counterattack the expected Belgium offensive. They knew the Ardennes weren't covered very well, but it was heavily forested and narrow, so they expected that should any German forces attempt to attack, they'd either be extremely bogged down, or at the very least, slowed down enough to give France plenty of time to attack. And if the Germans did anything as suicidal as attacking the Maginot head on, then the French High Command could go to bed happy. However, as we all know, this didn't happen. The Germans managed to go through the Ardennes dramatically faster than expected and encircled the French forces counterattacking into Belgium. This was the brainchild of Erich von Manstein, who proposed that the German plan not target going through Belgium, but target the expected counterattack as its main goal.
In essence, to use an analogy, France is defending a house against an invader and has to cover the back and front. They barricaded the back steel door with heavy sandbags and has a Berthier rifle aimed at the weaker wooden front door. There is a tiny unbarricaded window, barely enough to fit someone (supposedly) in the back of the house, but France wagers that if someone tries to go through it, they'd either get stuck or take so long and make so much noise that France would notice and could take their time countering them. What actually happened was that Germany's brother knocked on the front door, France got its attention turned there as it expected, and then Germany showed off its Olympic gymnast skills and leapt through the back window and had a gun pressed up against France's head before France could react.
2. As for Moscow being the target, I suggest you search up the Soviet Union's major rail lines in 1939. I have a feeling you'll immediately notice why Moscow might've been an attractive target. Of course, a large part of the motivation for taking Moscow likely would've been political, but the majority of the major railroads in the Soviet Union went through Moscow. If the Soviet Union lost Moscow, logistics would become dramatically more difficult. Not to mention that taking Moscow would have denied the Soviets of a large amount of industry and infrastructure they had built up in Moscow.
Of course, as you know, the Germans split their forces, and unfortunately for the Germans, Italians, and various allies, and rather fortunately for much of the rest of the world, they found it difficult to continue to execute the war to a victorious conclusion.
3. I would agree with your assessment that the German military was politicized, especially in the second half of WW2, but I wouldn't say it was anywhere near as bad as the Soviet militarily. The Germans did not conduct a Great Purge for one and I believe it wasn't uncommon for senior military generals to stand up to Hitler, especially in the first half of WW2. The German military I'd say had some very positive military traditions (effective initiative distribution at all levels, positive recruit policies, maneuver warfare primacy, combined arms, officer corps professionalism, and an expectations for senior officers to subject themselves to the harshness the soldiers endured) that served them well in the first half of the war, but which lost some of its lustre after several years of rough wars depleting quality from the rank-and-file. Coupled that with increasing political meddling (a reminder that some of Germany's most visionary and effective military leaders were sacked by Hitler for disagreeing with him either militarily or politically) and increasingly disorganized and incoherent upper echelons of command and I think you could say Germany's military command was rather lacklustre by the later stages of the war, which perhaps you agree with. Though, excepting the death throes of the regime, even when it was particularly bad and with Hitler sacking some of his top commanders, I still wouldn't say the politicization was as bad as the Sovet Unions' politicization of the officer corps; though, I agree that it definitely got pretty bad by the end. Again, for as bad as it got, especially after the attempted coup, it wasn't the Great Purge. I'd say it was more it buckling under the combined stress of 6 years of total war fighting outnumbered constantly under bombardment with numerous structural issues extant since the early days of the war finally revealing its severity when put under pressure. Though, perhaps one could argue that the Soviet command had gotten less politicized by the end of the war. I'd still say the German military command was a leading example of how to build an effective military in the first half of the war minus all of the more unpleasant, potentially internationally illegal stuff. But as I was saying, the second half, maybe not so much. Still offers many lessons. . . on things that may be best avoided.
My apologies that point 3 is somewhat less organized. I didn't have as clear of a structure when writing it and don't have the time to edit it. I hope it is still coherent enough, unlike the German high command near the end of the war.
If something I said is wrong, please do let me know. It's been a while and some things (like knowledge of the USSR's military structure) aren't areas where I'm necessarily the most versed in.
.
I really enjoy your videos, in particular you creative icons!!
One of your top two or three videos ever. Outstanding synopsis of the situation.
Excellent! So glad you are doing these videos. Sorry I only see this one- I will look for others from u.
I've seen a lot of good WW2 videos of yours. Could you compare the WW2 campaigns and operations with the current war in Ukraine? Seems to me that Kharkiv (and brutality) are always focal points.
9:20 I suspect there are 3 reasons why a lot of intact Russian equipment was left behind:
1) Logistics - lack of fuel and maintenance
2) Speed of the withdrawal - tanks and other equipment were considered too slow and were left behind, and
3) Poor training - troops not taught to destroy equipment rather than let it fall into enemy hands.
Yes, this makes sense.
And sympathy for Ukraine, getting stronger with every new frontline orc conscript.
Wonderful Video.
Will you make one about mobilisation?
Thank you, unlikely, I wanted to cover the mobilization, but was a bit late for that.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized oh sorry, i think i was to ambigous. I was asking about mobilisation as a concept. And maybe the evolution of it.
Unlikely, years ago I wanted to cover various "basics", but I ditched that idea a while ago for several reasons.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized it nit too late as lots did video before lots of facts were known and a sober video on mobilisation would be interesting
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Slightly ironic, that…😉
ukraine took so heavy lose to ever break the first defense, and now their "summer counteroffensive" totally ded
Concerning your point about abandoned but not destroyed tanks - in several videos where lots of captured tanks could be seen (like captured from a depot) there were no machine guns on the turret. The storages on the side (where tools & kit are stored if I'm correct) as well es the hood in the back (where the engine is) were open.
To me that seemed like everything of value that was portable was taken by the retreating Russian army, suggesting there was at least time to do basic preparations for retreating. The open engine hoods suggested (to me at least) there has been some tinkering with it.
I would not count on all of the intact looking tanks being so intact on the inside.
/edit: great video, as always. :)
That's not the type of sabotage that's going to stop a vehicle from being redeployed and it's obvious. What needs to be done, is throwing a grenade into the engine bay at the very least.
For tanks and armored vehicles, Russia is Ukraines largest arms supplier.
Many are totaled on the battlefield but salvaged for any useful parts and
returned with damaged vehicles to rear-area repair facilities. Many are just
out of fuel and abandoned on the road leading back to the Motherland and
are painted, the radio present changed and they are ready for battle.
Many of them are intact though and are quickly reused by the Ukrainians. For example the captured T-90M looked brand new on the inside. It even had the latest targeting system installed. This really goes to show that Russian troops have very low morale and got completely routed during the Kharkiv offensive.
@@JR-ut2ne You don't care about the equipment if your army doesn't care about you.
@@rodwallace6237 while funny meme, it's closer to.. 5th largest arms supplier.
Really great analysis.
Name everything a military can do wrong in warfare, that will cause them to lose the war.
Russia: "We tried all of those things."
"We already beat their professional army.
Next we face their amateur army."
What kind of bullshit is this
Seeing MHV giving a presentation on something that JUST HAPPENED instead of some ancient WW2 conflict is surreal.
Kherson sounds Herson (h as in have), not Kerson.
thanks
Russian army in Ukraine consists of two parts:
- professional soldiers who fight for money, and won't defend the lost cause(you can't collect your paycheck if you're dead). They get outflanked, they fall back.
- conscripts/volunteers who do not have a clue what they are doing, neither in principle nor in practice. They get outflanked, they panic and run or get captured.
The calls on the Russian side for using tactical nukes is particularly ridiculous because it's highly unlikely that the Russians have many troops who are trained and equipped for operating in a nuclear environment. The Soviet Army often trained troops for this task but given the dumpster fire that is Russian logistics in the present time I strongly doubt that they could pull it off.
If they were used only on the Ukrainian side of the border as a defensive move to stop an assault build-up. it would work. But I think if Putin even considered that option, he'd never have launched the political and social disaster of mobilisation.
Outstanding point! I never thought of that. BTW I love the intelligent comments MHV's videos get. So many other videos' comment sections are sewers of stupidity. Here you can actually learn stuff.
What are your sources for the state of Russian logistics?
@@BigSmartArmedsource: having eyes
Seeing how much embezzlement has already fucked them (aka the tanks, and body armour they claimed to have), I doubt they have a working nuke, and it they do, is it actually launchable? Has the silo had maintenance? Is the warhead still stable? Will it survive a launch?
Valiant effort explaining situation.
Many thanks for providing sources for most statements.
It helps to separate wheat from chaff in the analysis.
It would be a bit more work, but consider color coding sources, in same categories as GroundNews does.
It would be much more informative.
Thanks
Interesting way to just say russia is outnumbered 3 to 1 on any spot of the frontline and as so any hiccups or losses cause a major ripple effect through the entire undermanned logistical units trying to stabilize the front. For reference, 10,000 troops along a 100 mile front is 100 per mile, your enemy has 30,000 along that same front so to say 300 per mile. Most logical thing for those 10k troops to do is use firepower to their advantage from a distance and vice versa for the 30k troops( close the gap, make the entire line unstable) Outnumbered like that is realistically a walk in a park.
It really is that simple, a lot of the so called analysis in this video was recycled propaganda that ought to have been fact checked.
Great video! Thanks. Been a fan for a long time and it's good to see your analysis on this topic.
Look at "Perun" to get a sense of the impact of corruption on Russian logistics capabilities. He does a fantastic job of explaining the Trickle Down effect - but not as Regan/Tatcher economists tell it, Jim....
Love that guy’s channel, the fact he provides sources like MHV does makes them 10000x better than most of the commentators on TH-cam.
@@thunderbug8640 Though Perun does loooooong videos.
@@djd8305 That he does lol. Not padded though which is the important thing.
@@djd8305 , most channel viewer tend to think they are too short lol
Very good analysis very informative! Thank you
I've been waiting on pins and needles for your very qualified and researched analysis on current events in Russia, thanks so much, and keep up the great, independent work!!
As always very well explained! A long time Sübscriber🤗
Another great analysis of western propagandistic cliches about Russia. Thank you!
Thanks for explaining the situation
The story about troops buying their own gear is backed up by the prices of military stuff going way up on Russian Ebay, suggesting very high demand for gear.
Perun's video about corruption gives a very plausible explanation of a lot of the logistics problem. Basically, shit gets stolen.
And there are also accounts of conscripts who show up with their own equipment, have it confiscated for "redistribution."
I'm not Russian nor do I support their position but the very idea of internal thieves selling off desperately needed military material makes my blood boils.
@@marlarki5280 Wars are not fought by armies but by societies so the Russian army will reflect their society, backward repressive inefficient and thoroughly corrupt and rotten to the core.
I appreciate the detailed deep dive while staying non biased. Great work ethic brotha 💪🏼💯😎
I hope you can do more on the war in Ukraine. You give a lot of insight. Maybe try the Civil War. Many previous narratives are now being re-examined.
The U.S. military issues gear but some commanders give the option to the service members to buy their own plate carriers but they still use the issued plates. Some people also buy different pouches like drum pouches for saw drums or mag dump pouches.
Yeah, we (late Cold War) always had our "Gucci" gear we purchased, but we could have done quite well with nothing but government issue.
I mean, I might *prefer* my personally procured stuff, but the USGI stuff wasn't *bad*. In fact, most of my personally purchased stuff was stuff that was in the supply system - I just wanted to make sure I always had *mine* (for example, I preferred the older style H-yoke suspenders on my web gear and the older canvas buttpack in lieu of the then current issue Y-yoke suspenders and nylon buttpack... and the H-yoke meant i could carry *two* buttpacks so I could Lillie out of my web gear without a rucksack for about a week in temperate or hot weather. Super nice for a light infantryman...)
It's great that you can do analysis of current events, a pity they are happening. Thank you
Very insightful breakdown
Russian media have reported that 1.5M uniforms are "missing". They must have gotten lost during the mobilization.
They were lost long before the mobilization. There has been a huge black market for all kinds of Russian military equipment ever since the Soviet Union broke down.
There were no 1.5M uniforms obviously. Kleptocracy strikes again. We'll see if this moves the needle in regards to Russian citizens penchant to put with outright corruption. Certainly good if you want Putin's admin out.
I'm sure those uniforms are being covertly allocated to General Steinov's secretly gathering army of crack veterans so that Russia could launch a counterattack when the Ukrainians least expect it. Definitely not sold by opportunistic officers and soldiers, of course. ;)
@@tessjuel I bought ex soviet military gear in Singapore in the early 80s, so tactical losses were well underway before the USSR fall.
I really enjoyed this. Many thanks for putting this together in a concise and informative way. This other analysis is also very good by Perun, "Russian Mobilisation - what does it mean for the war in Ukraine?" Though is over an hour long.
Nice report. Now, someone needs to do a report on winter warfare. If the Russians are so poorly supplied, how will they fare when winter hits? I propose that winter could bring a complete collapse of the Russian military. Once the ground freezes, armor can move again. I can see the Ukrainian forces multiplying their superiority with their secret weapon, one the Russians don’t have access to: gloves, coats, and sleeping bags. Oh, and more food as the calories needed can easily double in winter fighting conditions. Really, how can the Russians cope when they are so poorly provisioned right now? So far no one is talking about this.
Agree. The missing uniforms are winter gear. The russians will be be in danger without it. I predict that the russian army will collapse some time after it snows. The ukranains will be warmly dresssed and well fed, led by intelligent commanders who are allowed to make their own decisions, well supplied, motorised and with high morale. not a good time to be a ruzzian in the front lines
Hi Chris, andother good vidya, but a few bits of corrections are in order.
First, armor. Poland uses the US-sized tank battalions - 58 tanks to each, 4 companies of 14 tanks (12+2 for company commander and his second), plus 2 tanks for battalion commander and his second.
We have 2 battalions using Leopard 2 A5 (106 total), but one company in these is on older Leopard 2 A4. Next to that, theres 2 more battalions on Leopard 2 A4. We got 142 of those, and all are undergoing an upgrade to L2PL standard, which is a "budget" version liberally taking from A5 through A7.
Next up are 233 PT91s - a deeply modernized T72. Uparmored (ERA) beyond what russian Kontakt-5 can do, but weak on the punch (same old 2A46 cannon). Their core value are modern digital radios, a passable Fire Control system, and night vision, something soviets and russians always struggled with. Some of these were already sent to Ukraine.
So... that's 8 battalions.... and the structures have 13. The remaining 5 were supposed to have old vanilla T72s, and as you said, they are all gone now. None of the units were anywhere near combat ready though.
As for APCs. No, we don't have a "mix" of soviet machines. Particularly, we don't have any BTRs. Even in soviet era, we used OT-64 SKOT instead. Some 2500 of them, and they were mostly scrapped through the 90s. That portion of the "fleet" has been replaced with a mix of nearly 900 Patria AMV, locally designated "Rosomak". About 300 are IFVs, the rest are APCs of various roles. Also, NONE of these have integrated antitank missiles. This will be rectified soon, with the arrival of the first 70 vehicles with a new, ATGM-equipped turret. Instead, there are dedicated APCs that carry a command&commo system and two Spike ATGM teams each.
The other "half" are ca. 1200 remaining BMP-1s. I will elaborate on those in follow up comment.
Now, just as you said, Poland's territory is incredibly boring: sea to the North, Mountains to the South, and great plains all the way in between, with just one major water feature, the Wistula river, running roughly South to North halfway between eastern and western border.
However, this is FAR to perfect a picture.
You see, Poland has a very unique feature. While our "bodies of water" are NOT impressive, roughly every 5 miles, there is a "body of water" that is either deeper than 5 feet, or broader than 65. You are already feeling the drift eh? Yup. That means you can't ford it directly because of the depth, or the JABS isn't long enough to get you across. Meaning, your army will be navigating a veritable maze needing to stop every few miles for fording/bridging, or look for local bridges, which may be blown up already or simply nowhere good enough. In fact, quite a few have a limit of... 10 tons. No, not even your wheeled APC will take that, and forget the Abrams.
Hence, so many outdated BMP-1s and obsession with new, amphibious IFV, the Borsuk (Badger). Decent armor means it has to be barn-sized to float :) And BMP's, despite all the outdated-ness, have one virtue: they are tracked, and cheap. They can cross tough terrain and, at least in theory, float. Yeah we know it's not really true.
And another correction. Patriot? Yes, we're getting two batteries, each with two firing units. But that's the current delivery. There are 6 more outstanding batteries on order, but with delivery dates to be yet negotiated.
In the meantime, we're getting 2 batteries of Narew system, which is essentially Britain's Sky Sabre with the CAMM missile and the local fire control system and radar. One is in pre-delivery checks, and the other will arrive next year, with ...21 more batteries to follow under framework agreement.
As for the air force, your take is correct - 3 squadrons of F16 Block 52, and 3 squadrons of modified soviet platforms. However, this will also change soon: in 2024, we're slated to take first deliveries of F35s, coming from LRIP batch 16, because we've ordered Block 4 machines for 2 squadrons. Also on the way, with the first 12 landing next year, are 48 FA-50 Golden Eagle LCAs, enough to form/rearm 3 squadrons.
And Navy... uh. No, let's skip that... HOWEVER, we have some "things that float". Like 2x Perry class "museum" frigates. What counts though, is that we have full 2 batteries of NSM (Naval Strike Missile). Coastal ASM missile "artillery". Considering their range... well, we might not have much of a fleet, but we can sure blow out of the water any enemy fleet that gets too cocky in our part of the Baltic pond.
this video did not aged well....
In the words of Robert Baratheon "Which is the bigger number, five or one?"
Our defenses collapsed so hard, that the shock wave destroyed entire ukranian energy infrastructure.
now you destroyed it. Seriously did you guys think nationalist militants that reveir burning people alive would role over with their jew leader because you surrounded a capital city and pulled off precision strikes?
They’re not retreating. They’re advancing in another direction!
Retrograde Movement.
And the Ukrainians are chasing them in panic. 😁
They are gloriously regrouping from the battlefield.
This was a great🙂 education for me.
SLR107FR31 still watching 👀. Awesome work as always bro 👏
Hey, long time no see!!! Thank you!
Thanks for an interesting update.analysis
Russia only allows troops to retreat with permission from command, and there are rumors Putin gave a "not one step back," order.
A civilian leader may ignorantly believe that an order to not retreat means troops will keep fighting. But most retreats are for one of two reasons: "if we don't retreat now we will be surrounded and destroyed," or "if we don't retreat now the troops will rout."
Preventing those retreats is not a good thing, no matter how politically savvy it may seem.
Note: westerns buying gear are usually high speed and or extremely dedicated and the equipment they buy is usually top tier with the basic issue being more than sufficient to operate, this is a case of " we are not the same"
Regarding the effect of long-range strikes on food, water and medicines - it’s a really funny question :) UA forces have a small number of M142 and M270 which are the first-priority targets for russians. We would never utilize these strikes on water, food, or medicines. The real reason of this lack is corruption in russian army. Unlike in UA, there aren’t many volunteers who gather donations and bring the stuff to battle units because russians still assume their army is somehow great and is able to supply their troops. In reality, UA soldier usually avoid consuming captured russian military rations because in Ukraine we don’t even feed pigs with stuff like that.
Most of the Russian rations are probably tins from the soviet era. Eww!
@@cleanerben9636 nope, their generals stole a lot of money implementing a new crappy at unified ration
Top video - good summary.