Ukraine being better prepared fo war past 2014

T

tomo pauk

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
1 May 2011
Messages
885
Reaction score
680
Basically, what kind of preparations, purchases - both domestic and foreign, set-ups etc. should've Ukraine been doing after 2014 up until 2022. Intelligence gathering, preparations for retaliation, lessons learned from the Vietnam war and on - everything goes.

Note: no nukes, no NATO membership.

To start the ball rolling. Since I like the anti-aircraft everything: make the air defence network and it's assets distributed, more numerous, and with the greater degree of redundancy and with numerous and as advance as possible non-radar sensor net. Use the post-1980 stuff that can be turned into different anti-aircraft systems, eg. turn the AA missiles into SAMs. Plan for the decoys.
 
tomo pauk said:
Basically, what kind of preparations, purchases - both domestic and foreign, set-ups etc. should've Ukraine been doing after 2014 up until 2022. Intelligence gathering, preparations for retaliation, lessons learned from the Vietnam war and on - everything goes.
Click to expand...
Abide to Minsk treaties? Then the war in 2022 would not even start.
 
Arjen said:
Ever the optimist, right?
Click to expand...
Just knew the situation from both sides, not from just one. Russia was perfectly fine in 2014-2020 with the idea of Donetsk and Lugansk being autonomies within federated Ukraine, and Russian-speaking having constitutional protection.
 
Investing earlier and more heavily into the development, production and distribution of systems like the 2S22 Bohdana. This would have made them less reliant on trickling supplies of foreign SPGs and would have mitigated the losses that weigh heavy on them through counter battery fire and drones/loitering munitions like the Lancet.

2S22 seems simple and cheap enough to have been procured by Ukraine in numbers without outside involvement. Surely, eventually the manufacturing facilities would have been taken out, or at least the largest facilities, but until that happened they would have pumped out an indigenous, truck based SPG in 155mm.

Aside from that the obvious choices are drones, bombs and mines. Aircraft aren't really changing anything when bought in very small numbers anyway, which is what would have inevitably happened due to the high procurement and maintenance cost of most modern western offerings. Same with SAM systems. Remember in that period they would have paid for the stuff, not living from free handouts like they do now, where paying isn't a concern because it will never happen. And large SAM systems are very expensive. However they could have invested money to modernize the extensive catalog of systems they already had.

But yeah, mines, drones, bombs, artillery and SAM upgrades are my picks.

Something that would have been very expensive but very valuable would have been a smaller AEW&C type aircraft like the one Saab offers for example. These can greatly increase the effectiveness of already existing airborne and ground based assets.
 
re. 'Ukraine being better prepared for war past 2014'
Maybe not sell off their once extensive armed forces equipment :)

circa 2012, Ukraine WAS globally the 4th largest weapons exporter (SPPRI ATDB.) main export destinations China (59%), Saudi Arabia (12%), India (11%) followed by Jordan, Iraq and other Arab states.

all this prior to becoming the world's largest sink importer of weaponry, and currently the fifth largest armed state :/
 
Last edited:
Maybe whoever whispered into the ears of the leaders of Maidan "just do it duh we got your back" actually have the balls to back it up this time.

I'll add that there is no strong third party to reinforce the Minsk agreement, which were broken by both sides (a not uncommon phenomenon, seeing that Pakistan-India is also not upholding their commitment to the ceasefire). The West should've been poised to reinforce Ukraine from the onset of the conflict. Surplus Abrams, F-16s, HIMARS etc right always. Train and conduct joint exercise. Tell Russia "do it again you're dead, or get assimilated into China".
 
yeetmahboi said:
I'll add that there is no strong third party to reinforce the Minsk agreement, which were broken by both sides (a not uncommon phenomenon, seeing that Pakistan-India is also not upholding their commitment to the ceasefire). The West should've been poised to reinforce Ukraine from the onset of the conflict. Surplus Abrams, F-16s, HIMARS etc right always. Train and conduct joint exercise.
Click to expand...
You admitting that Minsk was broken by both sides but suggesting that the West should support one side. Aren't you self-contradictory?
 
Dilandu said:
You admitting that Minsk was broken by both sides but suggesting that the West should support one side. Aren't you self-contradictory?
Click to expand...
Why would the West support both side? The West orchestrated the uprising. It then left. I'm saying it had all the time to stay, arm-twist Ukraine into a better proxy and actually stands up for those they have used and discarded IOTL.
 
yeetmahboi said:
Maybe whoever whispered into the ears of the leaders of Maidan "just do it duh we got your back" actually have the balls to back it up this time.
Click to expand...

Even if the leaders had the minerals, they lacked the industrial capacity to back up such promises after skimping on defence for ~25 years. IIUC the average Typhoon production was about 20 per year and Rafale probably less and in 2022 Germany was making 70,000 155mm shells annually, enough for 7-10 weeks firing in Ukraine.

When it's all said and done it's Ukraine's responsibility to deter its adversaries, and against a giant like Russia it has to be better than the Russians on every level from schoolkids through industrial and government workers to fighting men and women. Alas Ukraine was (is?) hopelessly corrupt, so never stood a chance against and equally corrupt but much bigger foe.
 
The failure of the post 1991 settlement in Europe is bound up with the history of this organisation
en.m.wikipedia.org

Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
Neither NATO nor Russia were willing to see the OSCE become the framework for what Gorbachev called "The Common European House".
The events that unfolded have echoes of the Versailles years between 1919 and 1939.
As some have written above Ukraine should never have needed to arm itself. But neither should NATO and Russia.
 
Dilandu said:
Abide to Minsk treaties? Then the war in 2022 would not even start.
Click to expand...
I'll get a bucket over the head from the moderator, but I'll tell you this funny truth. Don't attack and interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation.
 
I will take this topic a little more serious.
tomo pauk said:
Basically, what kind of preparations, purchases - both domestic and foreign, set-ups etc. should've Ukraine been doing after 2014 up until 2022. Intelligence gathering, preparations for retaliation, lessons learned from the Vietnam war and on - everything goes.
Click to expand...
1. Somehow have either western allies or the country itself to outproduce Russia in fire power ranging from shells, rockets, missiles and kamikaze drones.

2. Set up a bunch of airfields really close to the western border near Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania, Get as much Rafales, F-16s, Typhoons and Gripens to be equal or greater in numbers compared to the Russian air force, have the pilots be trained for 2 years than ask for a whole lot of Meteor, Aim-120D and Aim-174B missiles. Have as much air defenses as possible to cover these airfields and a lot of ATACMS/HIMARS missiles to target potential threats from targeting the airfields since Russia can't compete with NATO in satellite imagery finding targets.

3. Have NATO go back to the drawing board in designing armored vehicles that are more suited for conditions in Ukraine then conditions in the middle east. Then have them mass produce those new armored vehicles ASAP.

4.the Shahed drone shocked Russia, the US and the rest of the world with how cheap they were to produce with long range and heavy payload strikes. Have a factory set up in Europe for them to deliver to you along with factories to produce more kamikaze drones along with some having EW protection capabilities.

5. Mass produce EW systems, especially the kind that also protect Ukraine's personnel.

6. Immediately secure the borders of Ukraine to prevent people from leaving, train as much able-bodied men as possible instead of having to find bodies to throw to the front lines through the white van off the street method.

Assuming you have the conventional means to repel the Russians or enough of a force to inflict heavier losses than before which would have given Russia enough intel to have not started their operation in late February 2022. I don't know how to deal with the 1000s of nukes part depending how much of a threat they see you in terms of their security requirements.
 
RedLegion said:
see that the arguments have run out and traditionally ad Iraq. Although it is rather jealousy that they themselves are not able to do the same.
Click to expand...
Translating to common English: "America have right to invade other nations, because it's AMERICA, duh, and its for common good, because AMERICA said so, and since AMERICAN weapon only kill evil terrorists, anyone killed must be evil terrorist"
 
Imagine taking a moral high ground in foreign affairs. Can anyone seriously believe their BS?
 
Rule of cool said:
Competence and integrity, and lots of it!
Click to expand...
I strongly doubt that those would have been enough to stop the Russian invasion, unless your comment is also aimed at NATO partners, not just Ukraine itself.
Given the OP's restrictions, from 2014 on, I can only see Ukraine to prepare to survive the worst of the first Russian incursion. With hindsight, nothing to deter it.
As it happened, the 2022 drive for Kyiv was an outright failure.
 
As many seems to not remember Forum rules:

Political, religious and nationalistic topics are strongly discouraged. Specific areas to avoid include your views on specific politicians and parties, Brexit, commentry about immigration, "SJWs" and "woke", antifa, Black Lives Matter, far-right politics and other social/political commentary. You are welcome to have opinions on all these subjects, but they are generally unrelated to the forum core subjects and your posts may be edited or deleted without warning for violations.

 
flateric said:
As many seems to not remember Forum rules:

Political, religious and nationalistic topics are strongly discouraged. Specific areas to avoid include your views on specific politicians and parties, Brexit, commentry about immigration, "SJWs" and "woke", antifa, Black Lives Matter, far-right politics and other social/political commentary. You are welcome to have opinions on all these subjects, but they are generally unrelated to the forum core subjects and your posts may be edited or deleted without warning for violations.

Click to expand...

Or in other words..,

Let’s not F up the forum.

Who is with me here?
 
Arjen said:
I strongly doubt that those would have been enough to stop the Russian invasion, unless your comment is also aimed at NATO partners, not just Ukraine itself.
Given the OP's restrictions, from 2014 on, I can only see Ukraine to prepare to survive the worst of the first Russian incursion. With hindsight, nothing to deter it.
As it happened, the 2022 drive for Kyiv was an outright failure.
Click to expand...

Yes, 8 years isn't long enough to root out corruption and reap the societal and military rewards that would ensue. However a robust anti-corruption campaign with patriotic undertones motivated by the Russian threat could yield some positive outcomes within 8 years.
 
1. Guard and operate the munitions depots better...Ukraine lost significant ammunition stockpiles through a series of 'accidents'...
2. Move the artillery ammunition factory from Sumy to Lviv and actually get it working...
3. Reduce artillery ammunition expenditure in training....reports indicate that the scale of expenditure far exceeded the benefits

The next 3 points depend on Western help, which did happen but not on the scale that was required..

4. Develop a proper NCO system with Western help
5. Clear out ex-Soviet trained senior officers faster and deeper, send more young combat experienced officers to Western staff colleges
6. Reform and improve the reserve system, possibly on the Finnish model. Ukraine had 800,000 men who had cycled through the ATO over the preceding 8 years but no ongoing training or effective call-up system. Most did answer the call, but that system/infrastructure could then have helped the ongoing training and mobilisation
 
Arjen said:
Given the OP's restrictions, from 2014 on, I can only see Ukraine to prepare to survive the worst of the first Russian incursion.
Click to expand...

That is not some chump change.
The (even) better prepared armed forces might've stopped cold the air-ground assault coming from Belarus, for example. With that assault not being a dire threat, Ukrainians can shift more and better towards the West- and North-going thrusts.
 
tomo pauk said:
The (even) better prepared armed forces might've stopped cold the air-ground assault coming from Belarus, for example. With that assault not being a dire threat, Ukrainians can shift more and better towards the West- and North-going thrusts.
Click to expand...

Better prepared would then have to mean politically as well....no use in having a better prepared military if your government is still in denial despite the US and UK providing advanced warning (and that intelligence coup is still not given the credit it deserves). You can prepare all you want but if the politicians send your main forces to the ATO area, leaving the main route to the capital practically undefended and lift the minefields that close access from Crimea to Kherson etc etc
 
Dilandu said:
Translating to common English: "America have right to invade other nations, because it's AMERICA, duh, and its for common good, because AMERICA said so, and since AMERICAN weapon only kill evil terrorists, anyone killed must be evil terrorist"
Click to expand...
Further translating that's the definition of "whataboutism". Russia invading another country to grab territory is about as justified as about any other land-grab, say the invasion of Cyprus in 1974 or the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. In short not at all.

And yes I respect that it's your patriotic duty to back Russia, if Greece was at war I would be certainly doing the same, but this doesn't mean that the rest of Europe won't be supporting the country being invaded.

Now shall we go to the actual premise of the what if, ie how either side could be better prepared? Although IMO that's too early to discuss such a thing without the thread descending to modern politics... as it has.
 
Lascaris said:
Further translating that's the definition of "whataboutism". Russia invading another country to grab territory is about as justified as about any other land-grab, say the invasion of Cyprus in 1974…..
Click to expand...
I really should point out that there are multiple legitimate points of view on the events in Cyprus back in 1974. International opinion was very much against the coup on Cyprus, the junta in Athens had become an international pariah and there was absolutely no support for Enosis in London or Washington. There also was no will in Britain to yet again intervene militarily in Cyprus to suppress ethnic violence, which might have preempted the Turkish Operation Attila. To this day, the Turkish Northern Cyprus is not broadly recognized and the displacement of Greeks and seizure of property was somewhat disproportionate to the number of Turks displaced from the south. All the same, from the standpoint Washington and London, the fall of the Greek junta was welcomed as the military regime was considered to be both bungling and brutal.

And to use the topic of preparedness from the example of Cyprus in 1974 as a metaphor for the current conflict, there was absolutely no military preparation that would have allowed the Cypriot National Guard to triumph. Even with a full and timely intervention by Athens, the outcome would not have been changed, in part because of the distances involved.
 
uk 75 said:
The failure of the post 1991 settlement in Europe is bound up with the history of this organisation
en.m.wikipedia.org

Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
Neither NATO nor Russia were willing to see the OSCE become the framework for what Gorbachev called "The Common European House".
The events that unfolded have echoes of the Versailles years between 1919 and 1939.
As some have written above Ukraine should never have needed to arm itself. But neither should NATO and Russia.
Click to expand...
Even as a small child I didn’t take Gorbachev’s “Common European Home” remarks very seriously. At the time it looked like a hollow attempt to divide America from its European allies and within a couple of years it seemed like a desperate play to manage the disintegration of the Warsaw Pact.

Common European Home - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
TinWing said:
I really should point out that there are multiple legitimate points of view on the events in Cyprus back in 1974. International opinion was very much against the coup on Cyprus, the junta in Athens had become an international pariah and there was absolutely no support for Enosis in London or Washington. There also was no will in Britain to yet again intervene militarily in Cyprus to suppress ethnic violence, which might have preempted the Turkish Operation Attila.
Click to expand...
In danger of derailing the thread further, one would note that while excuses could be found for the first invasion in July 20th, the afforementioned coup obviously, any excuse went out of the window the moment the Turkish army in August 14th broke the cease fire to grab a third of the island. Since this was done with democracy restored in both Greece and Cyprus and an international conference underway in Geneva to agree to a peaceful solution...
TinWing said:
To this day, the Turkish Northern Cyprus is not broadly recognized and the displacement of Greeks and seizure of property was somewhat disproportionate to the number of Turks displaced from the south. All the same, from the standpoint Washington and London, the fall of the Greek junta was welcomed as the military regime was considered to be both bungling and brutal.

And to use the topic of preparedness from the example of Cyprus in 1974 as a metaphor for the current conflict, there was absolutely no military preparation that would have allowed the Cypriot National Guard to triumph. Even with a full and timely intervention by Athens, the outcome would not have been changed, in part because of the distances involved.
Click to expand...
Actually I can easily give about half a dozen scenarios that the Turkish landings catastrophically fail, with or without direct intervention from Greece before even going to points of divergence about the preparedness of either side. But again this derails the thread which is what could be done by Ukraine before 2022.
 
Its hard for me to think that such a plan would be more effective. After all, if the Ukrainians increase their military preparations, it is obvious that the Russians will also increase their troops in the first stage of the offensive. Perhaps they will not choose to conduct a direct airborne operation against Kyiv. Instead, they will use exercises or any other methods to capture these permanent fortifications around Donbass before the regular mechanized brigades of the Ukrainian Armed Forces arrive. This will further increase the casualties at this stage and significantly raise the regional tension.
But if the goal is merely to cause greater losses, I think it might be a good idea to improve the deployment of the pre-war mechanized forces and purchase some FPV .Artillery equipment, 9K79 ballistic missiles would also be good assistance
 
Akatsukishio said:
After all, if the Ukrainians increase their military preparations, it is obvious that the Russians will also increase their troops in the first stage of the offensive.
Click to expand...

Could they though? They deployed most of their pre-war professional Army, 2/3rds of their operational tanks etc. If they called up reserves it would take further time and the Ukrainian's would have had to react to an even greater degree....they could con the Ukrainian's that the 'exercises' in Belarussia etc were just exercises, with the added benefit of putting immense pressure on Kyiv.....but calling up reserves on a large scale allied with the US/UK intelligence?? The Ukrainian's would have had to react...

Akatsukishio said:
Instead, they will use exercises or any other methods to capture these permanent fortifications around Donbass before the regular mechanized brigades of the Ukrainian Armed Forces arrive. This will further increase the casualties at this stage and significantly raise the regional tension.
Click to expand...

Problem is those pre-war fortifications and defence's largely held for the first 2 years...at enormous cost to the Russian's (and the DPR/LNR infantry) who assaulted them head on....the ATO line was already well prepared and well manned....

Akatsukishio said:
purchase some FPV .Artillery equipment, 9K79 ballistic missiles would also be good assistance
Click to expand...

No-one is going to see into the future and predict how game changing FPV will be...

But its all moot anyway...the Russian Armed Forces, even with reserves added and reinforcement do not have the logistical capability to operate on such a scale or away from rail heads...and those logistic routes have capacity that is limited....their only chance was the route they took, a lightning operation to try and 'steal' a victory...once that failed they were hanging in the air..
 
timmymagic said:
The Ukrainian's would have had to react...
Click to expand...
It is precisely this that I am worried about. Once the military preparations of both sides before the war change, the subsequent series of developments will no longer be like what we are seeing now. The Ukrainians might have sought NATO's help earlier, and NATO might have increased its investment in an attempt to stop the Russians' offensive, which seemed quite dangerous at that time, more quickly and promptly, rather than waiting for the offensive to collapse on its own due to the Ukrainians' obstruction and logistical difficulties. What follows might be too difficult to predict
timmymagic said:
Problem is those pre-war fortifications and defence's largely held for the first 2 years...at enormous cost to the Russian's (and the DPR/LNR infantry) who assaulted them head on....the ATO line was already well prepared and well manned....
Click to expand...
Sure. I just think these goals are a bit simpler compared to directly entering Kyiv by air assault. After all, with the Ukrainians increasing their war preparations, even if the first wave of troops entering by helicopter successfully seized the airport, it would be very difficult for VDV transport planes to reach here
 
Air

At least 2 air wings of some western standard aircraft. Goal is to get something that can be acquired rather quickly, at low price, and put premium on integration capacity - both munitions and avionics. That means American make is preferable.
Put as much modern kit (that's already integrated) into them as possible.
Concurrently do the same for other aircraft in an "everything goes" format.

Helicopters - get standoff munitions integrated and stocked.

Drones - invest in modern payloads. Let them be your AEW&C.

Ground

Focus on equipping and training territorials and reservists, and building fortifications. Get contractors to build fortifications to spec in their localities.
For maneuvering units - prioritize quality over quantity. One battalion equipped with APS, automated sensors and analytics, BMS, and fit for purpose engineering equipment - will have more effect breaching in that one critical area, than 5 battalions that end up being destroyed and routed because they're not equipped for the task.

Sea

Divest from manned vessels, redirect manpower and resources to area denial to prevent opening a southern front.
Invest in underwater capability. Particularly the ability to deploy sensors, combatants, and unique payloads.
I would not advise getting USVs because we only see their effectiveness in hindsight, and they are a short lived solution.

General

Air defenses should be prioritized in the C-RAM, VSHORAD, and missile defense roles, to protect population centers, bases, and critical infrastructure, and to provide some force protection to quality units. Longer range air defense particularly those suited against aircraft - are less cost effective.
One must remember that a modernized air force is already a potent air defense asset in itself. Air defenses should complement, not supplement these. At least as first priority.

Anything related to munitions and whatever fires them - top priority. Both in their acquisition and local production.
Rifles and bullets. Personal equipment can be very easily acquired elsewhere, no need for local production.
Barrels and shells.
A select few missiles deemed critical, produce them locally. Particularly those for GHQ level employment.

Infrastructure - stock up on all the necessary equipment to keep electricity, water, and internet in working order and disruptions as short as possible.

Pass reforms to enforce mandatory conscription between 18-21 and increase incentives for military careers. Those exempt from service on medical grounds will be integrated into emergency wartime industry and logistics.
Streamline manpower management to reduce relocation/reassignment as much as possible, to increase familiarity within units thus raising cohesion.

Formulate plans and train to degrade Russian logistics 50-70km from the border.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom