Given that Putin couldn’t resupply his forces a couple of hundred km from the border near Kyev, how is he proposing to take and hold the coast all the way to Odessa and beyond? Holding Donbas, and maybe Mariupol to make the Crimea land bridge seems ‘possible’.
There is already an "actual" bridge connecting Russia to Crimea so they can resupply that way. I'm amazed it's still standing.
Putin’s strategic ineptitude brings about exactly the thing he most fears.
But does he ?. I can't believe Russian strategists wouldn't have looked at every angle. Cause and effect innit 😕
Seems to me he's trying to hard to convince Finland to join NATO. Don't do it or else. I mean what country would listen to another telling them what to or not to do. They would seem more likely to act against such advice.
Is in truth Putin looking for a conflict with NATO.
OK, bit of a conspiracy thing here but what we know and what we've actually seen.
Russia invades, then seemingly pulls back. The west cites the Ukrainian military is so robust they have repelled the invader.
Russia is pretty much a military regime. ie everything about them is based on the military. Estimates puts their troops in the millions,and ok a bit of graft aside, they have invested in many modern weaponry. Planes, up to date tanks, hard arsed special forces etc etc.
Few of which appear to be in play in this conflict. All we are seeing is old stuff, old vehicles, less professional soldiers and more poorly trained conscripts.They could pitch 500,000 into the fray, but its limited to 100-150,000.
They have approximately 1500 attack fighters, and yes they do control the skies, but we're not seeing these assets really come into play
Clearly they have a huge number of assets, as we've seen rolling in on train transports, that 40 mile length of supply lines,
Is Russia looking for a prolonged conflict with the west and lulling us into a false set of circumstances.
It's just it seems like theres more to this than we're actually seeing.
I can’t believe Russian strategists wouldn’t have looked at every angle.
There is already an “actual” bridge connecting Russia to Crimea so they can resupply that way. I’m amazed it’s still standing.
I'm trying to work out, a bit like we had with the huge long convoy, if there's some brilliant strategy and timing being played out.
Things like all the new longer range artillery not *yet* in place and being used, Ukr planes being fixed and able to fly, but being held back it seems; counter attacks and push back in a specific few places, and then things like bridges and trains not yet being targeted.
Either Ukraine doesn't have the resources, or there is some brilliant strategy being played out and opportunities being lined up for when the time is right.
I also think the 'fifth column' fires in Russia could start having real impact....
@Thols
Ever heard the phrase - "Never underestimate your enemy" ?.
Because overconfidence leads to failure.
Ever heard the phrase – “Never underestimate your enemy” ?.
Because overconfidence leads to failure.
Exactly. That's why Russia is getting utterly thrashed by Ukraine.
This is an excellent podcast on the war in Ukraine.
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/doomsday-watch-with-arthur-snell/id1593634121
Is Russia looking for a prolonged conflict with the west and lulling us into a false set of circumstances.
As I had posted a few times, the Russians/USSR historically are not an efficient military power. Their victory in 1945 was only achieved with a massive loss of life and huge material support from the UK and USA.
Although they fought the largest German armies, the total resource of the Germans was about 55% in the East. It's a myth that they took on the vast majority of the German forces.
Ever heard the phrase – “Never underestimate your enemy” ?.
Thats why a lot of experts did think it would have been over in a few days maybe a couple of weeks.
Whilst the Ukrainians definitely deserve credit for their efforts its hard to conclude anything other than Russia isnt living up to the expectations of how well they would perform.
To take a couple of your points.
Their tanks mostly arent up to date. They have the T-14 but that seems somewhat mythical and most likely there are only a handful of them currently undergoing trials.
They also dont control the skies. The Ukrainian airforce can still operate and, more importantly, there is a shedload of anti air weapons available to Ukrainian force limiting the use of close air support.
its hard to conclude anything other than Russia isnt living up to the expectations of how well they would perform.
It's that that has me concerned. They should have trounced this, and should have the assets, if not the manpower to launch a bigger invasion, and Russia way of doing things is to sacrifice men to secure the victory, so in the Russian military/political leadership, 30,000 casualties in a military pool of over a million is a drop in the pond.
I also dont think , obviously i wouldn't know, but neither does the west know what the actual Russian timescale on this is. The media are touting it should have been over in a few days(Over by Christmas :?) but in reality, Russia could be considering a timescale measured in years.
30,000 casualties in a military pool of over a million is a drop in the pond.
They don't have a million soldiers. They have about 200,000. Their losses have been staggering. They've lost at least 25% of their best tanks, probably a lot of the remainder are in desperate need of major maintenance. They have thousands of tanks in reserve, but they aren't combat ready, they've basically junk that would require months of work to make combat ready. They have a large airforce that lacks guided weapons so they are using $50 million aircraft to deliver dumb bombs and losing them to MANPADS. They lack air superiority, so their pilots can't loiter over the combat area and attack Ukrainian logistics, they can only make a single attack at a pre-selected target. They lack the truck fleet to support long-range operations and lost so many trucks in the north that they are now using civilian vehicles which will not survive the abuse that combat operations brings. The list of problems just goes on, and on, and on.
Their biggest problem isn't equipment though, it's leadership. Their leaders, starting with Putin at the top and running all the way down to NCOs, is utterly corrupt and inept. Putin had a silly fantasy about rolling into Ukraine, being greeted as liberators, and installing a puppet government. His underlings were too afraid to tell him the truth, that his army was a paper army, only capable of putting on parades. So, they sent tens of thousands of conscripts to their deaths and unleashed genocide on Ukrainian civilians. Russia is getting its arse kicked because they are corrupt and inept from top to bottom.
but in reality, Russia could be considering a timescale measured in years.
That would make absolutely no sense. Apart from the lives lost, Russia just doesn't have the financial capability to support a prolonged war.
but in reality, Russia could be considering a timescale measured in years.
Yep, they will probably stubbornly cling on and refuse to acknowledge defeat. Hopefully they will accept reality after Putin dies.
I found this interesting.
a lot of the remainder are in desperate need of major maintenance
I remember reading about a (Nato?) inspection of a Russian naval fleet where it was revealed that all the turrets and movable defences were painted over to such an extent that they hadn't moved/been able to move for several layers of paint. Probably a decade or more. Maybe never.
It might have actually been the Black Sea fleet as well.
I can't find it now, but if true it's one of many indications that their military might isn't what he thinks it is.
I remember reading about a (Nato?) inspection of a Russian naval fleet where it was revealed that all the turrets and movable defences were painted over to such an extent that they hadn’t moved/been able to move for several layers of paint.
I read a similar thing about the Moskva, but related to the fire-fighting gear. Russian officers want the ships to look good for inspections so they paint over everything and the valves on the fire-fighting gear get locked solid with paint.
I remember reading about a (Nato?) inspection of a Russian naval fleet where it was revealed that all the turrets and movable defences were painted over to such an extent that they hadn’t moved/been able to move for several layers of paint.
Again, I just read an article that in struggling to find again, that the reason so many Russian (and Chinese) planes look really new compared to western forces is due to lack of flying hours. Apparently average NATO plane is flown many multiple more hours than Russian. This also explains why they have many old planes - they don't put the hours in to wear them our or break them.
Seems to me he’s trying to hard to convince Finland to join NATO. Don’t do it or else. I mean what country would listen to another telling them what to or not to do. They would seem more likely to act against such advice.
There comes a point when people who think that Putin is playing 4D chess may have to accept alternative possibilities.
Problem is, for conspiracy theorists, any evidence of ineptitude is taken as further evidence of genius. For example, the G.W. Bush administration wasn't inept, they just pretended to be to cover up for their incredibly well executed false flag attack on the World Trade Center. Or, maybe, lunatics hijacked planes and took down the WTC and the Bush administration was just incompetent.
All the evidence points to the Putin administration being utterly corrupt and incompetent. Speculation about some deeper plan is just fantasy.
https://twitter.com/crehage/status/1501835947146723328
Reports on Twitter that the Ukrainians have hit a command node near Kherson and killed another 2 generals. Unconfirmed.
If true, they are getting some top notch targeting info from (probably) NATO ISTAR air assets loitering around the region.
Yep, more 4D chess from Putin. Let Ukraine kill his officers instead of having to waste bullets purging them himself.
https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1517903640475967495
Russia and the UK have defence budgets roughly in the same band.
But Russia has gazillion of everything, MOD procurement can be wasteful, but its not that wasteful! And Russian kit isnt that cheap, well not unless it's a rusting hulk in a field with 2000 others.
Russia and the UK have defence budgets roughly in the same band.
But Russia has gazillion of everything, MOD procurement can be wasteful, but its not that wasteful! And Russian kit isnt that cheap, well not unless it’s a rusting hulk in a field with 2000 others.
A big factor is manpower costs. Russia has conscription, the UK has a professional Army and Navy. And the RAF....😜
A big factor is manpower costs. Russia has conscription, the UK has a professional Army and Navy. And the RAF….
That made me laugh - and I'm a RAF brat!
Presumably the conscripts get paid something?
Presumably the conscripts get paid something?
I think it's something like $30 a month.
Presumably the conscripts get paid something?
Yes, but no where near what a professional soldier/sailor/airman in the West gets, so they can afford many more of them. A false economy IMO though. Professional armies are always more motivated and and better trained than conscript ones. I know the Russians have some contract personal, but conscripts are the bulk of their forces.
That made me laugh – and I’m a RAF brat!
lol! I got called 'pongo' enough times over the years by the crabs to feel justified in saying that! All's fair in love and inter service banter!
Their leaders, starting with Putin at the top and running all the way down to NCOs, is utterly corrupt and inept.
I thought the Russian military didn’t have real NCOs at all (not disagreeing with the gist of your point).
That made me laugh – and I’m a RAF brat!
Same here.
But Russia has gazillion of everything,
It appears that they have a gazillion - but half never existed in reality, a further quarter are out of service in storage, another 10% date back to 1976, and the rest are being chewed up in the current war.
Edit: they also buy a lot of 'cherries' it seems, for the non existent cake.
e.g. Su57's - they've built 15, 5 weren't strong enough, a few have crashed (including the first production one) and the new engine isn't ready. So they have three in the Russian Airforce: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-57
(Yes, I'm being that wiki-General)
IANARME.
Let's just take a moment to remember the human cost of this war.
https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1517870993766817792?s=20&t=9bZrf8RjGNhCJ-smJx_T6A
Presumably the conscripts get paid something?
On top of the minimal pay, they still need training, HRski, kit, food, transport, medical support from hazing....
Everything costs, even volunteers (in the UK at least turn out to cost quite a lot) when not in the military but duffing around in a charity shop.
Let’s just take a moment to remember the human cost of this war.
Hard to watch. Heartbreaking 😞
If Western Europe is curtailing Russian gas imports, does that mean that the Russians will no longer buy Seat, Skodas, VW, Audis, Mercs, BMW’s, etc.
The way the Russians drive, they’ll have no blimmin cars left in two years time.
Did someone order Pizza?
Fantastic cameo from Ruby Wax.
Well now, no surprise here... Ukraine was about to become as large an exporter of gas as Russia is...Russia unsuccessfully tried to negotiate access in 2013. Europe now needs gas supply to replace what it currently gets from Russia.
https://twitter.com/militaryhistori/status/1517936332361895947?s=20&t=nhO7apLJf2sLfUpZH_MLMA
Red flag or truth, this is an excuse to go to war with NATO - a worrying development.
Red flag or truth, this is an excuse to go to war with NATO – a worrying development.
Was reported a week or two back by Ukranian social media, which was pretty dumb.
apologies if it’s been done already.
Yeah it has more than once can't be bothered to post all the links showing it's a load of lies again, (there's tons of proof that Russia has been fighting in Donbass for the last 7+years)
But a quick Google will tell you the author is a long time Putin apologist, Syria, chechenya, Ukraine, MH17
He even said the Skripals just had'food poisoning'
According to Skype easy the Russians are investigating reports of the SAS in Ukraine
Shhhhh!
Well looks like Finland joining NATO is going to happen.
TBH, I'm a little worried that the Kok and Liik parties form an alliance and merge.
I thought the Russian military didn’t have real NCOs at all
They have guys who wear stripes on their sleeves. Whether that makes them a real NCO or not is another question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_ranks_and_insignia_of_the_Russian_Federation#Other_ranks
This is because "imperialism" isn't a descriptive term that defines actions, it's a moral term that defines European and U.S. policy as intrinsically bad and any anti-Western policy as therefore desirable. Russia and the USSR are anti-Western so they cannot be imperialist by definition. If the West opposes genocide in Ukraine and the West is imperialist by definition, then genocide in Ukraine must be anti-imperialist by definition.
https://twitter.com/AmmonCheskin/status/1517925722257563648
Imperialism and colonialism are not identical concepts. Colonialism is not used to describe the ebb and flow of empires in Europe over the past few centuries. On that basis, Neither Russia nor the USSR had colonies, as didn't the Austro-Hungarian Empire, for example. The British Empire did, as did the Spanish Empire.
As far as I can tell, there is a distinction between the two that is more than just geographical (ie whether the parts of the empire were in Europe or the New World). It is to do with how the colonies are exploited economically and the actual act of colonisation (movement of people). But I am sure there are examples of places that are called one thing but appear to be the other.
On that basis, Neither Russia nor the USSR had colonies
The "internalised" Asian states (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan) within the borders of both Imperialist Russia and the CCCP would probably disagree. The post WW1 Invasion of Ukraine by the Bolsheviks in 1919 created the Ukrainian Peoples Republic turned Ukraine into a colony, and it's difficult to look at the post WW2 soviet settlements in Eastern Europe as anything other than colonies - especially given the Invasions of Czechoslovakia and Hungary in the 50's. In fact it would be difficult to describe the Warsaw Pact countries as anything other than as colonies of the Soviets.
Imperial possessions yes, colonies I am not so sure. But I am only going on how the word appears to be used by folk who like to study such things. How are you using the word?
