Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

[Gaidin]

Another surprising/unsurprising thing is just how incompetent the Russian Army is.


https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-buch.../31728780.html


This is not what a competent army looks like. Russia's army has been reduced to a strategy of annihilation, where rather than engage in a proper assault on its targets it simply bombards them into submission, sending in mech units only when victory is already achieved. There is very little evidence of street to street fighting.


In that sense the second phase of the invasion is not radically different from the first phase. It is based on intimidation, and while the intimidation is far more extreme and damaging in this second phase there is no direct assault that would force Ukrainian submission. That is because the Russian army is incapable of executing such an operation. The mech units can't even reach Kiev, let alone assault it.


The Russian army is invariably overrated, particularly at the start of a war. In this case, there does seem to be a fear that if Russian army is told to conduct an assault it will disintegrate. Massive casualties, huge numbers surrendering, and endless lines of destroyed equipment. As in the video.


That's how revolutions are made in Russia. Not with protest, not with the elite, but with defeated armies returning home. True in 1905, true in 1917, true in 1988.

Russia's never really had the same kind of army as the West. Right now their convoy actually has armored units instead of just...you know...trucks just carrying and setting up fuel and food logistics and refueling points. You know, so they can have their tanks and infantry units actually make it to Kiev, having to take a crap along the way. And they've actually had resistance along the way, but one thing to beware of before saying they're doing absolutely horribly as they set up a forward operating base, Russia is probably more willing to take these losses than the West would be(in how our doctrine is more about taking these losses over 20 years instead of 6 days).

Tone down your omfg response and...be aware that things may be different now especially now that Russia is grinding them down with artillery and encircling cities. The airport in Hostomel is in Russia's hands though apparently it's usability is debatable. If nothing else Russia is apparently going to use it as a staging off point.

It'd be great to see Ukraine win this militarily...but uhh...you kinda need to see a lot more happen for that to occur.

[EmperorBatman999]

Canterbury, we have to be careful. The Russian army is always weak before it reforms to become a terrifying force. Think of the transformation between Narva (1700) and Poltava (1709), Tannenberg (1914) vs. the Brusilov Offensive (1917), and the Winter War (1940) compared to the beast that the Red Army became between Stalingrad and Operation Bagration (1942-1944). Russia will learn its lessons, rethink its structure and strategy, and become yet stronger.

[PointOfViewGun]

The OMFG response is warranted. So far we have seen a Russian army acting at the level of an army like that of Syria. They couldn't even deny the sky to the Ukrainians. What we have seen proves that the Russians did not have alternative plans. They simply assumed that Ukraine would buckle and accept the Russians with open arms. That didn't happen and they were not prepared to reinforce their forces, hence we saw convoys of abandoned Russian military equipment and Russian soldiers asking the local police department for fuel. Logistics should have been the easiest part of this as Ukraine is on the Russian border, not thousands of miles away.

Putin showed that any Western army could easily hold against Russia. Thats why Putin was so quick to remind people that Russia has nukes. The more capable ones could easily stop the Russian threat at the border with precision strikes. The biggest mistake of Putin in this conflict was to show how few cards it was holding other than one giant card he's hiding behind.

[Condottiere 40K]

Supposedly they reformed after the experience in Georgia which didn't quite go swimmingly, hence the break up of divisions to brigade combat teams, and an effort to recruit more professional enlisted personnel.

However, I think they've started switching back to divisions, with one brigade sized formation in readiness.

Trainingwise, there doesn't seem much improvement over the past fifteen years, and they're going to have to rely on artillery to batter down the enemy.

[Gaidin]

Putin showed that any Western army could easily hold against Russia. Thats why Putin was so quick to remind people that Russia has nukes. The more capable ones could easily stop the Russian threat at the border with precision strikes. The biggest mistake of Putin in this conflict was to show how few cards it was holding other than one giant card he's hiding behind.

It's not really that. The idea that the US and/or NATO could knock Russia back to their doorstep is not really a new idea and hasn't really been a new idea every since the 1950s. There's roughly four metrics this action would be measured by. The first being the stated objectives of the operation(as BS as we may argue what Russia said it was about); second, the geopolitical fallout success or failure; third, the actual military applications of what occurs(which to be clear, is still going on); and fourth, the personal impacts to the people who kicked it off.

The stated objectives will probably be subdivided. Putin's pretexts were to protect Russian lives. Such a patriotic reason to invade. Seems to not matter much once the need for V-U day comes into play and shells started flying. So...let's cross that one off the list. The next is to stop NATO expansion. That uhh. Right. Our favorite point here would be Finland and Sweden, who have never had a majority of their population want to be in NATO(fact check this). Now they do. Rather than slowing NATO expansion, Putin hit the gas on it, right up to their borders. Then we have the real reason. Uhh...uniting greater Russia, with Belarus and Ukraine. This seems a bit socially awkward at this point. But I could be wrong.

Geopolitically, the idea was to position Russia as a great power again. He reunited NATO. And after four years of Trump acting like a bull in a china shop and making us think the next 3 presidents over 15 years would have to fix relationships, Putin starting a ground war in Asia fixed it in 3 weeks. Not sure if this was his intention, but I'll take it. He sped up what is likely a European bloc. He severed economic and business ties. He cratered the Russian economy. It brought condemnation, and an ICC investigation.

Militarily, he wanted to show the world they are a peer. Can Russia still win? Yes. What's the issue here? Russia isn't exactly 1939 Germany with the Blitzkrieg. To wit, it took the United States 40 days to push through Iraq in 2003 with full air control. People here are shocked, SHOCKED, that it's taking them more than a week to push to and surround Kiev when they typical range averages 80km for logistical support. Will they win? Probably. They don't mind, obviously, using tactics that America's and the West's militaries don't use. Will they hold it? That's a bit of a harder question.

For the personal impacts, the messed up part of this is he wanted to leave this as his legacy. Had he left this off the table he'd have probably gone down as one of the great modern leaders of Russia. Because of this, he will probably be the one who relegated Russia to a major power rather than a great power. Even in a best case scenario, they take Ukraine. They still have to hold it. Ukraine may have something of an answer for that. In addition to Putin you have the oligarchs who had to give some tacit unofficial approval. They're now losing billions. They will continue to pay a price. That's a decision they'll have to make to live with. Thing is, if they had succeeded in taking it before NATO united in their world sanctions movement, this might be different. And this is one thing that America knows, but Russia should know it too. Taking a country is one thing, holding a country is another. This will become protracted, and this will undermine any hope of a Greater Russia.

Just seven days in. Even if he wins. He loses. That's the thing to remember. You can win, and still lose in conflicts like these. You can lose, and still win. And there's no real coming back. He's about to find out a lesson America's had to learn repeatedly. It's really easy to get into a place like this. It's really hard to get out. And Russia should know this already. The lesson typically doesn't take.

[Alastor]

Russian soprano dropped by the Met Opera, because she refused to "repudiate Putin". Replaced by a Ukrainian.

The war in Ukraine has put international arts organisations in a difficult position, and many have chosen to take a principled stance.

The Metropolitan Opera, based in New York, just announced that their superstar Russian soprano, Anna Netrebko, will no longer perform this season or next after she failed to comply with their demand that she repudiates her support for Vladimir Putin.

General manager Peter Gelb said the loss of Netrebko – one of the best singers in Met Opera history – was a great artistic loss.

But, he said: "With Putin killing innocent victims in Ukraine, there was no way forward."

The soprano will be replaced by a Ukrainian, Liudmyla Monastyrska, who made her debut in the opera house in 2012.

Increasingly, it looks like Russia’s isolation internationally will be felt for some time: a Met official said it would be hard to imagine a scenario where Netrebko would be able to return to the opera house.

Source BBC

It seems freedom of conscience is also a thing of the past in the west. This woman refused to prostrate herself before the mob and repudiate the leader of her own country, therefore she is evil and must be discarded. An increasingly common tale lately. Note how the article says that this was the "principled" stance, apparently betraying every freedom we are supposed to be holding dear, is the principled stance. Facepalm moment. Let's not forget also, these are the very same people the west is supposedly trying to convince that Putin needs to go. I guess that woman will now hate Putin. Right. Facepalm moment two.

But you know what, good on her, that she did not submit to this neo-mccarthy-ist witch-hunt. May she, and the rest of the Russian people treated so unfairly by the west in recent times, hold strong. Russians at large are not at fault for this war and they don't deserve this treatment. Hopefully, the west will remember its true principles and its humanity and realize that soon.

[Canterbury]

Tone down your omfg response and...be aware that things may be different now especially now that Russia is grinding them down with artillery and encircling cities. It'd be great to see Ukraine win this militarily...but uhh...you kinda need to see a lot more happen for that to occur.

There is overwhelming evidence that the drive from the north through Belarus towards Kiev has collapsed, everything from satellite imagery to captured documentation to Putin's screaming insistence that is everything is on track. It depends if you are willing to look at the evidence.


The argument that Russia is developing a FOB misses the point that they have been trying to do that for more than a week, and have failed. There is clear evidence that their columns have run out of food, fuel and in all likelihood ammunition. They are not deploying to attack because they cant physically attack.


This is why I linked that failure to the fact that Russia has not conducted a mechanised assault at any point of their invasion. Manoeuvring into position is demanding, something the Russian army has materially failed to do in the north, but a mechanised assault is extremely demanding. Such an assault is clearly beyond the Russian army, not just because they cannot get the resources in place, but because they face a catastrophic failure of Comms, Command and Control, extreme losses and ultimately a collapse in morale, with all the lethal consequences that would come from that. All the evidence suggests that the Russian army is little more than a bodyguard for its artillery.


There is no evidence that the Russian Army is any more capable than Iraq's Republican Guard, which was presented as a capable and well equipped force, and was in practice little more than a speed bump for real armies. That tactical and operational incompetence is reaching up through the strategic structure, into Russian military strategic decision making. If Russia cannot take cities by assault, and they cant, then the war will drag on, and Russia will begin to look to escalation as a solution. Full Mobilisation? Tac Nukes? Russia's military incompetence is in a very real sense extremely dangerous.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Netrebko and her mentor are infamously connected to the Kremlin. I suppose the performative arts are predisposed to performative gestures. Choosing to cut ties with known supporters of the Kremlin is bound to happen as Putin destroys its image abroad, especially in industries fully exposed to the public. Imo quite gracious to offer them the chance to repudiate their relationship and keep their jobs. At a time like this the negative publicity can pose a clear reputational risk to the employer and can be a fireable offense. There’s nothing principled about supporting Vladimir Putin.

A close friend of Russian president Putin, Netrebko also made headlines for donating 1 million rubles to Oleg Tsarov, a separatist leader in eastern Ukraine wanted by the Ukrainian government on charges of terrorism. He was also sanctioned by the European Union for calling for the creation of the Federal State of Novorossiya, known as “New Russia.”

We all know that superstar soprano Anna Netrebko is married to dramatic tenor Yusif Eyvazov. He was born in Algiers, Algeria, but grew up in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan. Politics apparently run deep in the Netrebko/Eyvazov family, as he reportedly forced organizers of an event in Dresden to fire the Armenian soprano Ruzan Mantashyan. Mantashyan was invited to perform at The Semper Opera Ball, scheduled to sing a duet with an American tenor, who was unable to perform. As a result, the opera house replaced the American tenor with Eyvazov. Initially, Eyvazo was very happy to perform until he learned that he was paired with a soprano from Armenia. After realizing Mantashyan’s ethnicity, Eyvazov refused to partake in the performance. Instead, he demanded she be fired from the program altogether. As a result of his outburst, the Dresden organizers rescinded Mantashyan’s invitation, in order to retain Eyvazov.

https://interlude.hk/outspoken-perfo...opera-singers/

Karma’s a

[antaeus]

Militarily, he wanted to show the world they are a peer. Can Russia still win? Yes. What's the issue here? Russia isn't exactly 1939 Germany with the Blitzkrieg. To wit, it took the United States 40 days to push through Iraq in 2003 with full air control. People here are shocked, SHOCKED, that it's taking them more than a week to push to and surround Kiev when they typical range averages 80km for logistical support. Will they win? Probably. They don't mind, obviously, using tactics that America's and the West's militaries don't use. Will they hold it? That's a bit of a harder question.

(Great assessment BTW)

The US/Iraq comparisons have been a Twitter favourite, but I'm not sure they matter. On the one hand, the US ended up with a traffic jam that was more than 100km long, so there's that (Just like the Germans in France and the Americans in Operation Market Garden), so it's evidence of the universality of the difficulties of moving thousands of support vehicles down roads at the same time. I remind myself that we're seeing open source imagery of logistics in real time, for the first time, so might have to temper my thoughts with the potential bias that creates.

On the other hand, the US in Iraq had several operational restrictions that eventually evidenced how good their operation was (until it became an occupation). They chose their tempo based on the damage they sought to inflict relative to the damage they were prepared to receive (seems obvious I guess). For Russia, initially they probably had similar operational tolerances for both collateral and military damage (in expectation at least). Except that failed and now they've shifted. They're now doing standard by the book Soviet stuff - as evidenced by the repeat helicopter attacks behind enemy lines (look over your shoulder guys), their tolerances have slackened.

Russia might have had a similar motivation to the US/Iraq in the opening phases of the war... to shoot for a quick victory (while showing off their toys). Except Russia tried to achieve what the US did safely in a month (by aiming for Baghdad) in 48 hours, which quite frankly, is a "tell 'im he's dreaming" moment and a failing that probably will end up costing them tens of thousands of lives, and their economic and diplomatic future. We all expected a Blitzkrieg, and we got a mass special forces operation. But since the failure of that opening phase, and considering there hasn't been any real breakout, Russian pace has been consistent and impressive (if you're prepared to ignore the disaster they're leaving in their wake, and their much higher tolerance for casualties of all kinds).

I expected them to go with option B first... the failing for them in not doing that, is that they gave Ukraine time to rally the world and become the 'good guys'. Which likely will ensure this is a loss for Russia when they win in the field. Given the anger we're seeing in Ukraine, I can't see Russian occupation being secure even in the Russian speaking parts of the country - they're literally killing Russian civilians by the hundreds daily now. While there isn't the religious motivation that the US confronted in Iraq, it seems unlikely that the Russians could hold a country twice the size of Iraq, with 1/4 fewer troops - especially if they don't exercise restraint during the invasion (which increasingly seems the case). If you add to that the likely much smaller economic base from which to support the occupation, and the virtually limitless appetite to support Ukraine's self defence and the decoupling of energy markets... I can't see this as ending up as anything but a long term disaster for Russia.

As stated... if the real goal was quasi-imperialist... it likely included an unstated "you get Finland and Sweden because they would side with you anyway, and we get Ukraine and Belarus because they're not really not-Russian anyway" But what does this mean for Moldova? and will Russia ultimately fail because it materially diminishes the wellbeing of this new Russia-with-long-lost-Ukrainians... I mean that's the deal with absolutism - the people have to feel secure and better off, fear only keeps a leader in place so long.

[Vanoi]

https://news.yahoo.com/live-updates-...074543182.html

The Russians are shelling the biggest nuclear reactor in Europe. I'm no nuclear expert here but doesn't shelling a nuclear power plant run the risk of it melting down and spreading radiation throughout Europe?

EDIT: https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/1...001225198.html

The power plant is now on fire. Good luck to Europe. Remember to buy your iodine pills.

[antaeus]

I'm wondering:

A. What rational planner signs off on this plan.
B: What rational command team assembles the required assets to carry out the plan
C: What officers say "yes, we'll do that"
C: What soldiers say "yes, we'll do that"

Nuremberg defense says they're all to blame.

[Vanoi]

I'm wondering:

A. What rational planner signs off on this plan.
B: What rational command team assembles the required assets to carry out the plan
C: What officers say "yes, we'll do that"
C: What soldiers say "yes, we'll do that"

Nuremberg defense says they're all to blame.

This is the same Russia who has been apparently avoiding civilian casualties even though they have shelled Kharkiv to the ground. They have absolutely no concern for civilians whenever they be in Ukraine or the rest of Europe. I do not see one justifiable reason to shell a nuclear power plant unless you just want a bunch of bad to happen. From a country that experienced it themselves in Chernobyl.

At this point Russian leadership from the top all the way down are idiotic at best. Madmen at worst.

[bitterhowl]

I love how you quote the same question twice on different posts and still fail to provide a proper answer. What Russia doing now is an invasion. No amount of mental gymnastics can change that. Ukraine also has the right to share weapons to those that want to carry it. Ukraine doesn't have to declare war on Russia either. There is no logic in the question you're asking. Whoring around logic and reason can not create valid arguments or claims.

I quoted that post at second time just to provide a simple thing. I'm not a specialist at international law, I'm medic. So IDK about Ukrainian agreements with NATO countries about military assistance but during past years I heard many times that Western countries are ready to give assistance in a case of conflict. I find that agreement between Ukrain and US that I linked. So if Putin didn't declare war - he don't want to fight all enemies at once, what a stupid dictator. But when Zelensky make this

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

instead of declaring war - ask yourself why? To protect Ukrain? You say woman during a rape should use all measures for protection. Ukrain since the first day has an ultimate measure to smash Russia - decalre war and that's all.

It's simple. US is a patron and Ukrain is minion. Seems to me according to agreements in a case of declared war NATO should attack the enemy of Ukrain. I don't think NATO is afraid of Russia. But by some reasons unknown to me they don't want to do it. Only to seed bloody chaos. As usual in their foreign affairs.

[antaeus]

Ukrain since the first day has an ultimate measure to smash Russia - decalre war and that's all.

That is not a rational statement.

It's simple. US is a patron and Ukrain is minion. Seems to me according to agreements in a case of declared war NATO should attack the enemy of Ukrain. I don't think NATO is afraid of Russia. But by some reasons unknown to me they don't want to do it. Only to seed bloody chaos. As usual in their foreign affairs.

Fear has nothing to do with it. NATO is a defensive agreement. They aren't attacking Russia because they aren't being attacked by Russia. I get that you're amped up over this, but there's no need for the nonsense.

[bitterhowl]

I'm still waiting for a list of countries which was threatened by Post-Soviet Russia while defensive NATO run towards it's borders. And tell Afghani and Iraqi that NATO is defensive, c'mon.

And finally - Ukraine was attacked, go start to defend it according to agreement. What's the deal?

[Vanoi]

I'm still waiting for a list of countries which was threatened by Post-Soviet Russia while defensive NATO run towards it's borders. And tell Afghani and Iraqi that NATO is defensive, c'mon.

Iraq nor the Afghanistan invasions were NATO operations.

And finally - Ukraine was attacked, go start to defend it according to agreement. What's the deal?

There's no formal agreement between Ukraine and NATO or the US that requires the US or NATO to defend Ukraine in case of an attack.

[Gaidin]

I'm still waiting for a list of countries which was threatened by Post-Soviet Russia while defensive NATO run towards it's borders. And tell Afghani and Iraqi that NATO is defensive, c'mon.

And finally - Ukraine was attacked, go start to defend it according to agreement. What's the deal?

What you gotta realize is if planes of NATO members get involved, that counts should Russia shoot one down. So there's likely a reason they're sending equipment; and not uhh...manpower.

What you have to realize is in the past 30 years the two biggest wars were Afghanistan and Iraq. And those two countries just didn't have the good luck to be on treaties like NATO or the protection of Russia(whatever this may mean). Right now we're specifically sending equipment and should any given person go over there to aid them a god damn flare is being sent up into the sky to say THIS IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT and thus NOT NATO.

Yes. Doctors without Borders, which may be considering this, or not, do this without any true protection of any alliance. But they will still likely go.

[antaeus]

Iraq nor the Afghanistan invasions were NATO operations.

More technically, the Iraq invasion was a unilateral action by the US, which was opposed by many NATO members. Afghanistan was in response to an attack on the US, a NATO member, and thus Article 5 was justifiably invoked, and NATO was involved.

bitterhowl isn't making rational arguments though. So I'm not sure we should continue to engage.

[Vanoi]

More technically, the Iraq invasion was a unilateral action by the US, which was opposed by many NATO members. Afghanistan was in response to an attack on the US, a NATO member, and thus Article 5 was justifiably invoked, and NATO was involved.

bitterhowl isn't making rational arguments though. So I'm not sure we should continue to engage.

Actually NATO only got involved in Afghanistan in 2003 after the invasion. The only countries that initially participated in the invasion were the US, UK, Australia, and Canada. Other NATO members didn't involve themselves until the invasion was done. NATO headed the ISAF mission there afterwards.

[Gaidin]

Actually NATO only got involved in Afghanistan in 2003 after the invasion. The only countries that initially participated in the invasion were the US, UK, Australia, and Canada. Other NATO members didn't involve themselves until the invasion was done. NATO headed the ISAF mission there afterwards.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. NATO is going to have you participate in the way you are able to participate. I mean. Iceland for god's sake. They have no respectable military if at all. So they won't be there for the invasion. However, once in place, they are pretty handy. Iceland deployed legitimate detectives as military MPs for high level crap. So don't say this like it's a... bad thing.