I wish his keys of power would depose him already. I'm amazed the military is still supporting him as they continue to crumble under his leadership.
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
- Thread starter bhamv3
- Start date
From what I've seen, the "engage in foreign wars" military and the "make sure Putin stays in power" military are two distinct things, and the latter is much more powerful than the former.
The military is less well equipped and trained than the actual mafia groups that control the country. Stealing from army officers is a power game the mafia does to make sure the military (which deposed russia before) doesn't think about doing it again.
Yes, but even that military sees the failings of supporting a dictator who is clearly losing militarily, economically, and socially. They must be looking at alternatives within their ranks right now.
Last edited:
Dave
Staff member
I say this as a former member of the US military. This is not a solely Russian thing.
В одній з катівень на Харківщині правоохоронці знайшли коробку з вирваними зубними протезами - Накипіло
В підвалі одного з домів утримували полонених місцевих мешканців, АТОвців та полонених з ЗСУ. Сусіди постійно чули звідти крики. Поліції точно відомо про
nakipelo-ua.translate.goog
They keep uncovering these torture dens in retaken villages. Russians really liked their amateur dental work.
Attachments
It seems Ukraine is not very willing to take advice from billionaires. Perhaps they feel they are in a position to win a war of attrition against Russia, or maybe they feel things will sort themselves out before they have to.
Or, you know, it is simply bluster in an effort to maintain such a bargaining position for peace as they might feel they have.
Or, you know, it is simply bluster in an effort to maintain such a bargaining position for peace as they might feel they have.
Last edited:
So it's apparent Putin has dirt on Musk. Not surprising.
To be fair, Musk could just be awful. That's an option.
Time may tell if you are confusing 'dirt on someone' with 'military-strategic-political realities on the ground'. We will see.
Elon Musk's peace plan is literally give Russia everything it wants, which is, in very few words, fucking stupid.
GasBandit
Staff member
The military reality on the ground seems to be that Russia's conventional forces are a paper tiger. Hell, a wet-toilet-paper tiger.
Ukraine is entirely justified in retaking everything that Russia has stolen and forcibly resettled since Crimea 10 years ago.
And they seem to be able to do it.
The only question is whether Putin is so humiliated by this colossal debacle that he will actually break out the nukes. Which obviously would be beyond disastrous for Ukraine and eastern Europe and the world in general, depending on the yields deployed (and assuming they actually work)... but it would instantly mean the end of Russia, with extreme force. Once you escalate to using nuclear weapons, you can no longer use them as a deterrent - you are in nuclear war. And there is no nuclear war that isn't a world war.
Look, if we just give Germany back those pieces that were given to Belgium, Czechoslovakia, and Poland, and also Austria, more parts of Poland, the Netherlands, and the Elzas area in France, they'll back down and become good neighbors again.
Not agreeing is just increasing the risks of war. Do you really want to be responsible for another European war?
Not agreeing is just increasing the risks of war. Do you really want to be responsible for another European war?
There is no "could be"; we already know he is on many fronts. This is more like, "how awful is he THIS time?"
I actually wonder if it isn't more that Musk just idolizes Putin somehow.
I'm not sure that's actually better.
--Patrick
It is f*cking stupid, as you put it, if one believes continued resistance will get them a better deal. Otherwise it is just dozens or hundreds or thousands of lives lost for nothing gained. Now, nobody knows about the future, and some may well feel the chance is worth the risk.
And, let's face it, tne ones who make the decision on whether or not to continue to resist, are not likely the same people as those who stand to lose their lives on the front line, if the guess turns out to be the wrong one.
I'm not making any comments on who is justified to do what. That is a very muddy field when it comes down to two or more nations engaged in armed conflict. I'll settle for what the Hague tribunal might or might not say about the matter in the future. You know the saying, 'in war, the first casualty is always the truth.'
As to the present military situation on the ground, it is true that the Ukrainian forces have made some decent gains over the past couple of weeks. Perhaps the situation in Ukraine is a sort of a new normal such that even the germans operating in southern Russia had not faced in their time. Perhaps the situation is such that a weaker underdog really has a credible chance of defeating a militarily superior opponent, or at the very least holding them off until politics comes along and convinces the militarily superior side to accept a deal which is worse than what they might gained if they stuck to their guns until the end. We will see.
I think that is far from the only relevant question or issue in this present conflict. But we will see.
GasBandit
Staff member
This is not WW2. Ukraine is fighting on home territory and are using the best weapons the west can provide them. The Russians, as has been pretty well documented, are still using cold war weaponry that has been poorly maintained. Ukraine is not a weaker underdog, militarily speaking. It's been pretty much shown nightly on the news that Russia's conventional military forces are completely inept and logistically hamstrung. The Russian State Security regime has spent every waking moment since the fall of the USSR making sure that the military never poses a threat to the ruling class ever again. I wish I still had the link to the article about it.
Thanks Pat, I still think this is true, ha ha ha:
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
I love how this states it's "easily-read" when zero images are showing up for me.
halforums.com
Don't forget that Germany at the time was fighting a war on multiple fronts. Ukraine isn't going to have to worry about it's western flank and only has to leave a defensive group on the northern border just in case Belarus gets any funny ideas. War is very different when you have to worry about multiple forces coming on nearly all sides.
Russia has done little to show any actual military superiority in this fight, if anything they have shown they are weaker then pretty much every other nation around them. They said they would take Kyiv in three days and now they are doing forced mobilization that is losing then thousands of people per day. Most Russians don't even want to be in this fight, which is why their morale is so low.
Okay. Perhaps it may be constructive for me to expand a bit more on the issue. But first, please let me clear something.
Does this mean that Ukraine is doomed? Not necessarily. Nobody in their right mind would claim that North Vietnam was militarily superior to the United States, or that the Taliban was militarily superior to the Coalition. Yet they both won their respective conflicts in the end, according to a fashion. It is just that their victories were mainly brought about by mechanisms the primary component of which was not military superiority.
I would be very glad to address the actual points of the matter at hand, but I beg you all for your indulgence for a night to sleep. It is quite late over here, but I would be happy to continue the discussion tomorrow evening.
If you take a look at my posts here, I believe you will find that I have not made any claim as to the relative superiority of Russian vis a vis Ukrainian forces in theater. What I am saying is that Russia as a nation is militarily superior to Ukraine. Ukraine has nowhere near the military resources necessary to occupy Moscow and a sufficiently large part of Russian soil to force a peace settlement on Russia, thereby resolving the conflict to Ukrainian advantage through military means, and I think anyone who believes different is in need of a reality check. The reverse, Russia occupying Kyiv and a sufficiently large part of Ukraine to force a peace settlement on Ukraine, is not outside the realm of possibility. Ergo, Russia is the militarily stronger party.
Does this mean that Ukraine is doomed? Not necessarily. Nobody in their right mind would claim that North Vietnam was militarily superior to the United States, or that the Taliban was militarily superior to the Coalition. Yet they both won their respective conflicts in the end, according to a fashion. It is just that their victories were mainly brought about by mechanisms the primary component of which was not military superiority.
I would be very glad to address the actual points of the matter at hand, but I beg you all for your indulgence for a night to sleep. It is quite late over here, but I would be happy to continue the discussion tomorrow evening.
This is getting patently ridiculous.
1) First, the false premise, that since Russia was able to invade Kyiv but Ukraine didn't invade Moscow has absolutely nothing to do with military superiority. Military aggression, perhaps, but the more aggressive military is not the superior military, which has borne out now over a conflict that Russia expected to be over in weeks continuing over 6 months and failing to hold the areas they initially aggressively took.
2) Regardless of the false premise, the conclusion that Musk comes to appease Russia has shown to not be effective to fascist leaders in history, a reality that was borne out less than 100 years ago. Full stop, if one country wants to annex another country, the decision doesn't get to be made by terms of "whoever has the superior military gets to take whatever other land they want". This is the point of the UN, and more specifically NATO in this case. Russia simply does not get to say "Ukraine lands are ours now" and the world acquiesces because they have nuclear capabilities.
3) Musk himself has no business inserting himself into the conflict, as he is neither familiar with the history of the conflict nor a qualified political negotiator. His only qualification is that he has money and a Twitter account. Not all opinions are equally valid, and more money doesn't make the opinion more valid. He's just as ignorant on this issue as he is in an effort to acquire Twitter because people have finally started calling him out for his bullshit.
If you're in Finland, it was literally 21:00 (9PM). Sure you haven't moved to Omsk or something
?Anyway, you've even pointed out the problem with your own reasoning: Vietnam won against the Vietcong not because of their own military might, but because of foreign support. The Taliban didn't win against Russia on their own, they had American weapons etc. Ukraine being constantly supplied with far more modern armaments gives them a serious edge. Them fighting on their own turf and for the survival of their country and identity - another thing they all have in common - is another.
Russia vs Ukraine in a void, sure, Russia has more resources (though they haven't used them to build up and modernize their army enough - and what good is ore in the ground if you cant' process it fast enough?), more manpower (but their morale is far lower and their training is, as well). Without international support and backing, Ukraine would fall. I don't think anyone really disputes that. There'd be a guerrilla movement and unrest for years to come, but Russia could probably take Kyiv simply by brute force.
However the fight is not in a void, it's in our international community. And while I'm aware that the West pretends the whole world supports UA and that isn't technically true (Serbia, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea all openly support Russia, China, India, Brazil all try to be pro-Russian neutral; many African nations are being pulled more to the Russian side), the fact of the matter is that as far as modern military might goes, and as far as economic power goes, the vast majority of the world is supporting UA.
This war will not end with UA taking Moscow. Aside from jokes and memes, I haven't seen anyone actually suggest it should. UA taking back all the land Russia annexed, up to and including the Crimea and the 2014 "people's republics"? That sounds more likely. For a win, UA doesn't have to enter Russia (except perhaps to bombard some military supply chain locations and bases); it just has to push Russia back out. How likely is that? Ehhhh. We'll see how both armies react to winter, and how soon Russia manages to turn nearly a million mostly unwilling and untrained civilians into an effective fighting force. But with Putin going the same way as Hitler - after every setback, taking more and more control away from local leaders and taking it upon himself, centralizing decision making - it doesn't look promising for RU at the moment. They lost momentum and it's not just that UA has been making gains - RU hasn't been making any. If UA had reconquered/liberated 10000 km² in the north but Russia had in the mean time made 4000km² gains in the south, so be it - but Russia has freed/occupied/conquered exactly 0m² in the past month. They're purely on the defensive. In a foreign land, with older and less suitable material, with lower morale, less efficient intelligence gathering, far longer supply lines, a far more troubled logistics operation, less strategic processing and evaluation tools, and so on and so on. With regards to the troops and materiel currently in play in the theater, UA seems to have the upper hand right now.
I've been based in South East Asia for some years now. I'm off to work, but I'll clarify my points in my previous post. It can be summarised in two assertions:
1. Russia is militarily superior to Ukraine.
2. The militarily superior side does not always win armed conflicts.
That's it. If anyone believes I am claiming that what follows from the two is that Ukraine needs to occupy Moscow in order to win, then obviously I'm not doing a good job at getting my points across.
I'll get back to the discussion in the evening.
1. Russia is militarily superior to Ukraine.
2. The militarily superior side does not always win armed conflicts.
That's it. If anyone believes I am claiming that what follows from the two is that Ukraine needs to occupy Moscow in order to win, then obviously I'm not doing a good job at getting my points across.
I'll get back to the discussion in the evening.
I think it has been pretty well shown that Russia doesn’t have the military to occupy enough of Ukraine to force Ukraine to accept a peace deal.
And the US was actually able to win battles in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Something that Russia has been unable to accomplish in Ukraine and seems like an important ability to possess to be declared militarily superior.
If one takes stock of the areas where it is easiest to establish relative strength in conventional warfare, then Russia is superior in manpower (as you mentioned), in the size of their defence budget, and in their possession of a formidable full-spectrum arms industry.
In terms of equipment numbers, the pre-war relative situation was overwhelmingly in favor of the Russians in all categories. The extent of that in the current situation is more difficult to establish, since both sides of the conflict seem to be in the habit of extensively misreporting their own losses, and those suffered by the enemy. But even if we take the Ukrainian numbers as accurate, Russia should still have disheartening amounts left, even with the supplies by third countries into the Ukraine. There have been reports of Russia facing equipment shortages, though it is much more difficult to determine if these mean absolute shortages (the stuff does not exist), or if it a question of logistics (the stuff exists, but is not where you need it to be).
Ukraine no doubt enjoys an advantage in morale, which seems to be an area the Russians are struggling with. There are also reports of Ukraine enjoying an advantage in military leadership, made all the more potent by the Russian failure to appoint a single individual as theater commander until April, violating the principle of unity of command. Ukraine also seems to have better intelligence, in large part provided by third-ciuntry assets, whereas tactical recon is not the Russians' strong point.
Third-country aid in military materiel certainly needs to be taken into account. Particularly the provision of HIMARS systems to the Ukraine in June appears to have made an impact. After the initial Russian parade ground invasion got a bloody nose, the Russians fell back to their usual tactic of massed artillery, with good reason: it works. The period saw the greatest gains in ground by the Russians during the invasion. But HIMARS began to make a difference by targeting the Russian supply depots, causing periodic shell shortages to Russian artillery.
And that is the problem as I see it.
According to Finnish military open sources, Russia appears to be settling in for a long war. According to their assessment, Russian reinforcements from last month's partial mobilisation haven't yet reached Ukraine, and that it would be advantageous for the current Ukrainian offensive to be maintained as long as possible (edit: other sources estimate perhaps until late October before the offensive begins to lose steam) in order to regain as much lost ground and defensible positions as can be before they do. Link, only in Finnish I'm afraid.
If they are correct about Russian intentions and preparation for a long war, then the Ukrainian ability to resist Russia in the long run is dependent on the continued willingness of third countries to keep supplying them with advanced (and expensive) military hardware, in sufficient quantities, for the foreseeable future. Now, nobody knows about the future, but it seems to me that this is not necessarily a given, in a world of elections, budget cuts, and policy changes. How far is the natural sympathy felt by much of the world going to carry things?
To be sure, my personal sympathies and hopes rest with the Ukrainians. Their best chance, as I see it, is for military materiel support to keep on coming from the outside, with ever stricter sanctions targeting, among other things, component supply chains to the Russian arms industry. I'm just not at all sure if we collectively have what it takes to keep doing what needs to be done in order to make things work.
Last edited:
There is definitely sympathy for Ukraine from the rest of the world, but I feel like another motivation that is just as strong is the desire to hand Russia a solid defeat at the hands of someone Russia views as a (much) smaller/weaker power in order to gaslight Russia into the idea that their military is impotent and so should therefore abandon any other expansion ideas they might’ve had waiting in the wings and worry more about retaining what they already have.
—Patrick
1.) Russia's military industry actually relies massively on imported parts from other countries. It does not have the parts on hand to say... make it's aging nuclear arsenal reach it's full distance or produce guided anti-tank rockets enmass. This was by design: the entire Russian economy is run like a mafia and putting people with the knowledge and know-how to produce weapons that can defeat Russia's enemies also puts rivals in the power chain that could also defeat Putin. As such, most of it's high tech goods are produced outside the country, including important parts for tanks, planes, and long range artillery. Don't expect Russia's allies to keep supporting them forever ether... they don't have the resources to both fight their now emboldened enemies AND help out Russia.
2.) It's actually both an issue of supply AND logisics. Russia has proven time and time again it can't effectively supply it's units more than 5 miles away from a supply point... if they do a convoy, the convoy gets destroyed. Without control of the roads or the rails, Russia has no means to support it's army past a certain distance.
Dave
Staff member
And that's just a fuckin' shame.