Henry Kissinger on Russia and Ukraine

[Aida1]

Both the official RU and UKR sources are suspect.

That is a given. No one is promoting Russian claims. The problem is those deluded souls who really really want to believe Ukraine is 'winning' and on the cusp of a great victory. As has been mentioned several times the promotion of the destruction of even a single Russian vehicle and every minor Russian set-back as a great victory is so like the way Nazi Germany did it in their dying days.

Laughable. If your dear Russia was really able to batter huge holes in ukrainian defenses and had masses of armor to roll through them and encircle and destroy ukrainian forces, the Ukraine would have been beaten long time ago. Fact is that your dear Russia has lost much more than a single tank here and there and is unable or too stupid to execute deep operational breakthroughs. . Actually it is a mixture of both. Incompetence and heavy losses have reduced your dear Russia to crawl forward, sustaining heavy losses all the time. Not a sign of things going well. Russia has failed in its first objective and has been reduced to achieving much less. If the west wants, we can enable the Ukraine to throw the Russians back to the border.

[Cult Icon]

The Russian MOD claims up to 1000 Ukrainian troops killed by their artillery/missile/airstrike concentrations on various units everyday.

Ukrainian politicians have given a number of up to 500 Ukrainian troops killed per day in the Donbass about two months ago with average daily death ranging from 200-100 troops killed/day in the Ukraine.

Basically, 1.5 Ukrainian combat battalions are casualties per day in the Ukraine if there are 1200 casualties a day (200 KIA/day).

45 combat battalions a month.

[Cult Icon]

After the Russians take over the Siversk-Soledar-Bakhmut defense line, and then advance towards Kostyantynivka they would outflank the defense-in depth to the South, leading to a pocket. Toresk-Niu York had been attacked many times before, this fortified zone would also be outflanked.

[Aida1]

The Russian MOD claims up to 1000 Ukrainian troops killed by their artillery/missile/airstrike concentrations on various units everyday.

Ukrainian politicians have given a number of up to 500 Ukrainian troops killed per day in the Donbass about two months ago with average daily death ranging from 200-100 troops killed/day in the Ukraine.

Basically, 1.5 Ukrainian combat battalions are casualties per day in the Ukraine if there are 1200 casualties a day (200 KIA/day).

45 combat battalions a month.

Playing propaganda ministry for Putin again. Who cares.

[Michael Kenny]

Who cares.

err.............you, obviously.

[Aida1]

Who cares.

err.............you, obviously.

I do not care at all. I do not take him very seriously. He is spinning all the time in a very transparent way. He will avoid any discussion about his nonsense which confirms his weakness.

[ljadw]

Both the official RU and UKR sources are suspect.

That is a given. No one is promoting Russian claims. The problem is those deluded souls who really really want to believe Ukraine is 'winning' and on the cusp of a great victory. As has been mentioned several times the promotion of the destruction of even a single Russian vehicle and every minor Russian set-back as a great victory is so like the way Nazi Germany did it in their dying days.

Laughable. If your dear Russia was really able to batter huge holes in ukrainian defenses and had masses of armor to roll through them and encircle and destroy ukrainian forces, the Ukraine would have been beaten long time ago. Fact is that your dear Russia has lost much more than a single tank here and there and is unable or too stupid to execute deep operational breakthroughs. . Actually it is a mixture of both. Incompetence and heavy losses have reduced your dear Russia to crawl forward, sustaining heavy losses all the time. Not a sign of things going well. Russia has failed in its first objective and has been reduced to achieving much less. If the west wants, we can enable the Ukraine to throw the Russians back to the border.

Heavy losses are irrelevant . What is relevant is the final result .
And, deep operational breakthroughs are something from the past, from WW 2,and even in WW2,such breakthroughs failed to result in deciding victories .

[Cult Icon]

Why would we put much stock in RU MOD announcements ? I wouldnt believe the UKR stats on RU losses either. 33K dead (you are assuming 200 dead during the entire campaign) implies 132K wounded, out of an initial force of 200K or so, or about 80% losses. As the UKR were defending most of the time, this seems rather high.

Ukrainians launched a lot of counterattack activity in March, and it started to peter off in April. The Russian advance was often stalled by these counterattacks. These counterattacks were typically not the pre-planned and high impact ones, but the immediate counterattack, resembling German WW2 doctrine.

I would say that my loss count is rather low, as the Russians have spent most of their time in this war shooting and not closing in with the enemy. Ukrainian ground forces were 320,000 men in 2021, half of them professional and half of them paramiltiary/security units. Then they expanded greatly and raised territorial militias etc. This is a very infantry/militia rich force.

Ukr forces have constantly been reinforcing their forces (3 battalions per brigade and 2 battalions per regiment) and establishing new formations. The Ukr sources map shows units that were not present in the beginning of the conflict. They had hundreds of thousands of reservists and conscripts to fill up. What this war is, is a much larger, ill-equipped army fighting a small, heavy armed one.

Perhaps after the war things will become more clear but there is definitely a de-professionalization of the Ukrainian army due to high losses and expansion of the force. The initial version was the professional one, that was more aggressive in the attack. Ukrainian brigades were modeled after Russian influence with a lot of artillery (eg. 45 guns).

RU MOD are facts mixed with propaganda, that is up to you to decide. I think they exaggerate their kill claims but they do provide the caveat, "up to". They identify the units that they are targeting for strikes, which can be seen in the Ukrainian sources map and also NASA FIRMS (large red splotches) and on Telegram. I think there is a misconception in the Ukrainian general staff's reporting. It is the same as in WW2. Reconnaissance is a 24-7 activity, and a lot of "attacks" they claim are just Russian probes to observe, and sometimes to drop fires. The Russians fight in a very passive way, the attack pattern can't be merged with WW2 logic. They want to occupy with minimal fighting and maximum shelling.

The "Proxy" forces are different to the Russians. The political risk is linked to losses of Russian armed forces personnel, but the units of DRP/LRP conscripts/volunteers, PMCs etc. are more expendable, which is why they keep on using them to "close in" with the enemy.

[Cult Icon]

So as we can see, Ukraine now has many more tanks than what they started the war with. Eventually Europe will run out of WP tanks, but for now, Ukraine has more than ever.

Mad Dog

Significant reserves ? RU has none.

The Southern front is long and low tactical density compared to the Donbass, a rather empty frontline with units spread far apart.
As a result Ukraine in the Southern front captured terrain on the outskirts slowly for months. They would nibble on the outside edges, taking little bites. The Russians would commit resources and eject them. Then they would nibble again. And again. It should be notable to you that the Russians did not bother retaking most of this terrain and instead focused on the Donbass. Recently however they have shifted reserves to the Southern Theater and intend to be more active there. I think they intend to be more serious here, partially due to the damaged bridges.

As I wrote before the Russian goal of the SMO is the "demilitarization" of Ukraine, as in they aim to destroy the Ukrainian military while maintaining vague and ever changing territorial goals. The Donbass serves as the place where they established their meat-grinder.

It is also disputable as to what the Ukrainians control and what the Russians do. In Russian maps they show themselves more forward, and in Pro-Ukrainian maps they have less control. ISW is correct for calling it a disputed no-man's land "Claimed Ukrainian counteroffensives".



Ukraine had the second largest tank force in Europe in 2021, the figure you claimed is not even close to that.

Russian Army 2021 IISS

MBT 2,840 operational (with 10,200 in storage: 7,000 T-72/T-72A/B; 3,000 T-80B/BV/U;
200 T-90)

RECCE 1,700. IFV 5,220. (8,500 in storage) APC 6,100+

Naval Infantry (Marines)

ARMOURED FIGHTING VEHICLES
MBT 330
IFV 1,100. APC 400.

Airborne Forces
ARMOURED FIGHTING VEHICLES
MBT 160
IFV 130. APC • APC (T) 808.

Border Guard Service

ARMOURED FIGHTING VEHICLES
IFV/APC (W) 1,000 BMP/BTR

National Guard

ARMOURED FIGHTING VEHICLES
RECCE some BRDM-2A
IFV/APC (W) 1,650 BMP-2/BTR-70M/BTR-80/BTR82A/BTR-82AM

This is 13,530 tanks plus 200 (reported- who knows) T-62 and an unknown number of T-64.

Note that these IISS Figures do not include the large number of 1. T-62 2. T-64 that Russia gave to the DRP/LRP. They also gave T-72 and T-80 to the militas as well. The T-62 propaganda story was a very long time ago. I think it was in April? May? Remind me again.

Russia has a lot more tanks to draw from than donations from former Warsaw pact countries and abandoned Russian vehicles the Ukrainians claimed to acquired. It doesn't really matter anyway, the tank/IFV has not performed decisively on either side outside of giving Russia's its early advances at high cost.

As for the last bit, the Russians withdrew units to refit, and they will reappear again later as they have in the past. I am familiar with the arguments you present, it is viral in the US/UK media but is not well supported by evidence. Rotten Russian army journalism has become a cottage industry since March 2022. If only it be matched with rotten Ukrainian army journalism.

[Peter89]

So as we can see, Ukraine now has many more tanks than what they started the war with. Eventually Europe will run out of WP tanks, but for now, Ukraine has more than ever.

Mad Dog

Significant reserves ? RU has none.

The Southern front is long and low tactical density compared to the Donbass, a rather empty frontline with units spread far apart.
As a result Ukraine in the Southern front captured terrain on the outskirts slowly for months. They would nibble on the outside edges, taking little bites. The Russians would commit resources and eject them. Then they would nibble again. And again. It should be notable to you that the Russians did not bother retaking most of this terrain and instead focused on the Donbass. Recently however they have shifted reserves to the Southern Theater and intend to be more active there. I think they intend to be more serious here, partially due to the damaged bridges.

As I wrote before the Russian goal of the SMO is the "demilitarization" of Ukraine, as in they aim to destroy the Ukrainian military while maintaining vague and ever changing territorial goals. The Donbass serves as the place where they established their meat-grinder.

It is also disputable as to what the Ukrainians control and what the Russians do. In Russian maps they show themselves more forward, and in Pro-Ukrainian maps they have less control. ISW is correct for calling it a disputed no-man's land "Claimed Ukrainian counteroffensives".



Ukraine had the second largest tank force in Europe in 2021, the figure you claimed is not even close to that.

Russian Army 2021 IISS

MBT 2,840 operational (with 10,200 in storage: 7,000 T-72/T-72A/B; 3,000 T-80B/BV/U;
200 T-90)

RECCE 1,700. IFV 5,220. (8,500 in storage) APC 6,100+

Naval Infantry (Marines)

ARMOURED FIGHTING VEHICLES
MBT 330
IFV 1,100. APC 400.

Airborne Forces
ARMOURED FIGHTING VEHICLES
MBT 160
IFV 130. APC • APC (T) 808.

Border Guard Service

ARMOURED FIGHTING VEHICLES
IFV/APC (W) 1,000 BMP/BTR

National Guard

ARMOURED FIGHTING VEHICLES
RECCE some BRDM-2A
IFV/APC (W) 1,650 BMP-2/BTR-70M/BTR-80/BTR82A/BTR-82AM

Note that these IISS Figures do not include the large number of 1. T-62 2. T-64 that Russia gave to the DRP/LRP. They also gave T-72 and T-80 to the militas as well. The T-62 propaganda story was a very long time ago. I think it was in April? May? Remind me again.

Russia has a lot more tanks to draw from than donations from former Warsaw pact countries and abandoned Russian vehicles the Ukrainians claimed to acquired. It doesn't really matter anyway, the tank/IFV has not performed decisively on either side outside of giving Russia's its early advances at high cost.

As for the last bit, the Russians withdrew units to refit, and they will reappear again later as they have in the past. I am familiar with the arguments you present, it is viral in the US/UK media but is not well supported by evidence. Rotten Russian army journalism has become a cottage industry since March 2022. If only it be matched with rotten Ukrainian army journalism.

The biggest question will be Harkov. Urban warfare in a city of that size can mitigate the effect of artillery and can be hold for a long time.

Also a remark for the tank forces: the real question is not how many tanks are there, but how many can be operated and maintained. Keeping up operational numbers has three ways basically. One is to have an MRO organization in place and a steady flow of spare parts and other supplies. Second option is to assign more vehicles to the units. Third option is to send replacement in a proportionate amount of losses.

The inescapable reality of the Russian force structure is that although it is not capable to field a too large force for a prolonged time, its stocks are very large and the logistical support is by and large adequate to maintain a relatively low intensity war. Also the Russian economy will be hit, but it will not collapse, and can support this type of war in the foreseeable future.

The Ukrainian side is much more problematic, because they can not draw on stocks similar to that of Russia, and when it comes to fielding an army, we should consider Ukraine's prewar GDP that of Hungary (now it is much lower). If there wasn't Western help, the Ukrainian resistance would collapse very quickly.

But there is actually hope for them too, and that is to keep on fighting until the Western help takes effect, not only in the military and economic spheres, but also in diplomacy.

[Cult Icon]

Yea, it is wishful to write off 10,200 tanks. "poof!". The same thinking is not applied to Warsaw Pact donations.

There are rumors of Russian forces preparing in the interior, also the Russians have escalated their air forces in the SMO.

I also heard of the rumors of them planning to launch an offensive into Kharkiv.

I don't believe it personally, as the city is many times larger than Mariupol and they would have to demolish it block by block given the way they fight. However the Russians have performed a counterattack to improve their positions recently.

[Aida1]

Why would we put much stock in RU MOD announcements ? I wouldnt believe the UKR stats on RU losses either. 33K dead (you are assuming 200 dead during the entire campaign) implies 132K wounded, out of an initial force of 200K or so, or about 80% losses. As the UKR were defending most of the time, this seems rather high.

Ukrainians launched a lot of counterattack activity in March, and it started to peter off in April. The Russian advance was often stalled by these counterattacks. These counterattacks were typically not the pre-planned and high impact ones, but the immediate counterattack, resembling German WW2 doctrine.

I would say that my loss count is rather low, as the Russians have spent most of their time in this war shooting and not closing in with the enemy. Ukrainian ground forces were 320,000 men in 2021, half of them professional and half of them paramiltiary/security units. Then they expanded greatly and raised territorial militias etc. This is a very infantry/militia rich force.

Ukr forces have constantly been reinforcing their forces (3 battalions per brigade and 2 battalions per regiment) and establishing new formations. The Ukr sources map shows units that were not present in the beginning of the conflict. They had hundreds of thousands of reservists and conscripts to fill up. What this war is, is a much larger, ill-equipped army fighting a small, heavy armed one.

Perhaps after the war things will become more clear but there is definitely a de-professionalization of the Ukrainian army due to high losses and expansion of the force. The initial version was the professional one, that was more aggressive in the attack. Ukrainian brigades were modeled after Russian influence with a lot of artillery (eg. 45 guns).

RU MOD are facts mixed with propaganda, that is up to you to decide. I think they exaggerate their kill claims but they do provide the caveat, "up to". They identify the units that they are targeting for strikes, which can be seen in the Ukrainian sources map and also NASA FIRMS (large red splotches) and on Telegram. I think there is a misconception in the Ukrainian general staff's reporting. It is the same as in WW2. Reconnaissance is a 24-7 activity, and a lot of "attacks" they claim are just Russian probes to observe, and sometimes to drop fires. The Russians fight in a very passive way, the attack pattern can't be merged with WW2 logic. They want to occupy with minimal fighting and maximum shelling.

The "Proxy" forces are different to the Russians. The political risk is linked to losses of Russian armed forces personnel, but the units of DRP/LRP conscripts/volunteers, PMCs etc. are more expendable, which is why they keep on using them to "close in" with the enemy.

The usual spin. If the Russians are doing what they do it is out of dire necessity after the heavy losses they sustained. You failed to mention that the russians can only use their professional army which means it is difficult for them to replace losses. The Ukraine does not have that problem.

[Aida1]

So as we can see, Ukraine now has many more tanks than what they started the war with. Eventually Europe will run out of WP tanks, but for now, Ukraine has more than ever.

Mad Dog

Significant reserves ? RU has none.

The Southern front is long and low tactical density compared to the Donbass, a rather empty frontline with units spread far apart.
As a result Ukraine in the Southern front captured terrain on the outskirts slowly for months. They would nibble on the outside edges, taking little bites. The Russians would commit resources and eject them. Then they would nibble again. And again. It should be notable to you that the Russians did not bother retaking most of this terrain and instead focused on the Donbass. Recently however they have shifted reserves to the Southern Theater and intend to be more active there. I think they intend to be more serious here, partially due to the damaged bridges.

As I wrote before the Russian goal of the SMO is the "demilitarization" of Ukraine, as in they aim to destroy the Ukrainian military while maintaining vague and ever changing territorial goals. The Donbass serves as the place where they established their meat-grinder.

It is also disputable as to what the Ukrainians control and what the Russians do. In Russian maps they show themselves more forward, and in Pro-Ukrainian maps they have less control. ISW is correct for calling it a disputed no-man's land "Claimed Ukrainian counteroffensives".



Ukraine had the second largest tank force in Europe in 2021, the figure you claimed is not even close to that.

Russian Army 2021 IISS

MBT 2,840 operational (with 10,200 in storage: 7,000 T-72/T-72A/B; 3,000 T-80B/BV/U;
200 T-90)

RECCE 1,700. IFV 5,220. (8,500 in storage) APC 6,100+

Naval Infantry (Marines)

ARMOURED FIGHTING VEHICLES
MBT 330
IFV 1,100. APC 400.

Airborne Forces
ARMOURED FIGHTING VEHICLES
MBT 160
IFV 130. APC • APC (T) 808.

Border Guard Service

ARMOURED FIGHTING VEHICLES
IFV/APC (W) 1,000 BMP/BTR

National Guard

ARMOURED FIGHTING VEHICLES
RECCE some BRDM-2A
IFV/APC (W) 1,650 BMP-2/BTR-70M/BTR-80/BTR82A/BTR-82AM

This is 13,530 tanks plus 200 (reported- who knows) T-62 and an unknown number of T-64.

Note that these IISS Figures do not include the large number of 1. T-62 2. T-64 that Russia gave to the DRP/LRP. They also gave T-72 and T-80 to the militas as well. The T-62 propaganda story was a very long time ago. I think it was in April? May? Remind me again.

Russia has a lot more tanks to draw from than donations from former Warsaw pact countries and abandoned Russian vehicles the Ukrainians claimed to acquired. It doesn't really matter anyway, the tank/IFV has not performed decisively on either side outside of giving Russia's its early advances at high cost.

As for the last bit, the Russians withdrew units to refit, and they will reappear again later as they have in the past. I am familiar with the arguments you present, it is viral in the US/UK media but is not well supported by evidence. Rotten Russian army journalism has become a cottage industry since March 2022. If only it be matched with rotten Ukrainian army journalism.

Spin. Russia wanted to do regime change and failed completely. It is now limited to a territorial objective at a very heavy cost in men. Russia has suffered huge losses in armor which is the reason why it is limited to inching forward. You obviously failed to mention that russian incompetence led to its armor being defeated. Armor can be decisive if it's used the proper way.

[Aida1]

So as we can see, Ukraine now has many more tanks than what they started the war with. Eventually Europe will run out of WP tanks, but for now, Ukraine has more than ever.

Mad Dog

Significant reserves ? RU has none.

The Southern front is long and low tactical density compared to the Donbass, a rather empty frontline with units spread far apart.
As a result Ukraine in the Southern front captured terrain on the outskirts slowly for months. They would nibble on the outside edges, taking little bites. The Russians would commit resources and eject them. Then they would nibble again. And again. It should be notable to you that the Russians did not bother retaking most of this terrain and instead focused on the Donbass. Recently however they have shifted reserves to the Southern Theater and intend to be more active there. I think they intend to be more serious here, partially due to the damaged bridges.

As I wrote before the Russian goal of the SMO is the "demilitarization" of Ukraine, as in they aim to destroy the Ukrainian military while maintaining vague and ever changing territorial goals. The Donbass serves as the place where they established their meat-grinder.

It is also disputable as to what the Ukrainians control and what the Russians do. In Russian maps they show themselves more forward, and in Pro-Ukrainian maps they have less control. ISW is correct for calling it a disputed no-man's land "Claimed Ukrainian counteroffensives".



Ukraine had the second largest tank force in Europe in 2021, the figure you claimed is not even close to that.

Russian Army 2021 IISS

MBT 2,840 operational (with 10,200 in storage: 7,000 T-72/T-72A/B; 3,000 T-80B/BV/U;
200 T-90)

RECCE 1,700. IFV 5,220. (8,500 in storage) APC 6,100+

Naval Infantry (Marines)

ARMOURED FIGHTING VEHICLES
MBT 330
IFV 1,100. APC 400.

Airborne Forces
ARMOURED FIGHTING VEHICLES
MBT 160
IFV 130. APC • APC (T) 808.

Border Guard Service

ARMOURED FIGHTING VEHICLES
IFV/APC (W) 1,000 BMP/BTR

National Guard

ARMOURED FIGHTING VEHICLES
RECCE some BRDM-2A
IFV/APC (W) 1,650 BMP-2/BTR-70M/BTR-80/BTR82A/BTR-82AM

Note that these IISS Figures do not include the large number of 1. T-62 2. T-64 that Russia gave to the DRP/LRP. They also gave T-72 and T-80 to the militas as well. The T-62 propaganda story was a very long time ago. I think it was in April? May? Remind me again.

Russia has a lot more tanks to draw from than donations from former Warsaw pact countries and abandoned Russian vehicles the Ukrainians claimed to acquired. It doesn't really matter anyway, the tank/IFV has not performed decisively on either side outside of giving Russia's its early advances at high cost.

As for the last bit, the Russians withdrew units to refit, and they will reappear again later as they have in the past. I am familiar with the arguments you present, it is viral in the US/UK media but is not well supported by evidence. Rotten Russian army journalism has become a cottage industry since March 2022. If only it be matched with rotten Ukrainian army journalism.

The biggest question will be Harkov. Urban warfare in a city of that size can mitigate the effect of artillery and can be hold for a long time.

Also a remark for the tank forces: the real question is not how many tanks are there, but how many can be operated and maintained. Keeping up operational numbers has three ways basically. One is to have an MRO organization in place and a steady flow of spare parts and other supplies. Second option is to assign more vehicles to the units. Third option is to send replacement in a proportionate amount of losses.

The inescapable reality of the Russian force structure is that although it is not capable to field a too large force for a prolonged time, its stocks are very large and the logistical support is by and large adequate to maintain a relatively low intensity war. Also the Russian economy will be hit, but it will not collapse, and can support this type of war in the foreseeable future.

The Ukrainian side is much more problematic, because they can not draw on stocks similar to that of Russia, and when it comes to fielding an army, we should consider Ukraine's prewar GDP that of Hungary (now it is much lower). If there wasn't Western help, the Ukrainian resistance would collapse very quickly.

But there is actually hope for them too, and that is to keep on fighting until the Western help takes effect, not only in the military and economic spheres, but also in diplomacy.

Spin again. Russia has a big manpower problem as it cannot use conscripts and it also has a problem in producing certain weapon systems because of western sanctions. And the weapon systems the Ukraine is receiving enable it to take out more and more high value targets behind the line which inhibits Russia.

[Aida1]

Both the official RU and UKR sources are suspect.

That is a given. No one is promoting Russian claims. The problem is those deluded souls who really really want to believe Ukraine is 'winning' and on the cusp of a great victory. As has been mentioned several times the promotion of the destruction of even a single Russian vehicle and every minor Russian set-back as a great victory is so like the way Nazi Germany did it in their dying days.

Laughable. If your dear Russia was really able to batter huge holes in ukrainian defenses and had masses of armor to roll through them and encircle and destroy ukrainian forces, the Ukraine would have been beaten long time ago. Fact is that your dear Russia has lost much more than a single tank here and there and is unable or too stupid to execute deep operational breakthroughs. . Actually it is a mixture of both. Incompetence and heavy losses have reduced your dear Russia to crawl forward, sustaining heavy losses all the time. Not a sign of things going well. Russia has failed in its first objective and has been reduced to achieving much less. If the west wants, we can enable the Ukraine to throw the Russians back to the border.

Heavy losses are irrelevant . What is relevant is the final result .
And, deep operational breakthroughs are something from the past, from WW 2,and even in WW2,such breakthroughs failed to result in deciding victories .

The usual nonsense. Read your history instead of spewing out nonsense.