War with Russia

[Milzy]

Most of the Russian army is now dead or injured thus, I guess, the reason for the Wagner spat.
So nearly all the current cannon fodder are draftees.

You listen to Western propaganda like a fool. Russia must have at least 4:1 army size without looking up their populations. Russia are doing this side project on the cheap while NATO throws billions at it. The drone war is perfect for not ending any time soon. The military industrial complex can keep on making more profits every year while cannon fodder on both sides continue to die. It’s so perfect the proxy wars can always be this way and we don’t have to nuke each other. Everyone’s a winner almost unless you’re killed in that region.

 

[stowie]

Since you have a counter argument, I will respond.
The “3 day” assertion has long been debunked – it is American, not Russian. Do keep up.

In the very article which you link to, it has

While examples do exist of prominent Russian talking heads suggesting that, in the event of a war, Kyiv would fall "in three days," most of these examples are not from the early winter of 2022, but from the spring of 2021, when Russian military hardware was being transported to within striking distance of the Ukrainian border and the Kremlin's mouthpieces appeared to have been testing out a variety of potential justifications for plunging the country into conflict.

"So that it is understood, yes, in a hot war, we would defeat Ukraine in two days," she said. "What is there to defeat? My god, it's Ukraine. We suppress their firing points, as we discussed during the commercial, and then we won't even have to bomb their unfortunate cities. God forbid that it ever come to that."

While Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko did say in a February 5, 2022 interview with Rossiya-1 host Vladimir Solovyov that a hypothetical Russian war against Ukraine would last "maximum, three or four days," the publicly fanciful Lukashenko did so in the midst of a rant about how, were a wider war to break out, "by the time [the Americans] get around to sending their forces, we will already be standing at the English Channel...they understand that fighting us is a hopeless prospect."

Leaked FSB emails indicated that the Russian government believed Ukraine would be defeated in days, with Russian friendly operatives in place in various levels of the Ukraine government who were supposed to enable the change. More than this, it can be seen from the Russian offensive that there was little expectation of a prolonged ground war with a huge overestimate on their military and logistics capabilities by Russian military and government executive.

 

[icowden]

You listen to Western propaganda like a fool. Russia must have at least 4:1 army size without looking up their populations. Russia are doing this side project on the cheap while NATO throws billions at it.

Whereas you seem to drink Russian propaganda like a fool.

The estimated size of the Russian army is about 1.15 million active personnel and 2 million reservists. The Ukraine has 200,000 active personnel 250,000 reservists and 50,000 paramilitaries. The difference is that the Ukrainian army is very well trained. Russia has been lax in both its training and its upkeep of military vehicles. Many Russians do not believe in the war with Ukraine and do not want to fight. Russia is committed in other places such as Crimea.

Putin's attempt to take Ukraine has been embarrassing. Russian men are fleeing conscription. The Ukrainians are proudly defensive of their country and this makes them far more of an adversary than Russia expected.

 

[RecordAceFromNew]

No you're seeing it wrong, instead of claiming others off seeing quality on the amount of responses while first off yourself complaining about a lack of responses maybe you should step back and take your time to take all the information in. and understand that if you created a problem by repeating the same thing over and over again, maybe you're also the only one that can solve it.

Think you have issues with comprehension - I see the lack of response (with substance) to be a good thing, because it shows so many who were loudly cheering the dark side (like you) have discovered events since demonstrated they no longer have arguments that can survive debate. Of course, those who are sore losers will still give empty response - that's life.

In the very article which you link to, it has







Leaked FSB emails indicated that the Russian government believed Ukraine would be defeated in days, with Russian friendly operatives in place in various levels of the Ukraine government who were supposed to enable the change. More than this, it can be seen from the Russian offensive that there was little expectation of a prolonged ground war with a huge overestimate on their military and logistics capabilities by Russian military and government executive.

So your reading of that article is focused on what a Russian TV talking head said a year before the war, while ignoring US government proclamations since?

To be fair, leaving the "3 day" story aside, I do believe the Russian expected it to be a short war - for the simple reason they had no interest in holding any part of Ukraine beyond Crimea (base of their Black Sea fleet), else they would not have put their trust in Minsk 1 / 2 being honoured for years, would they? Unfortunately, that ship has sailed, first by US/Boris spoiling the negotiation shortly after the war started, then by Merkel and Hollande admitting Minsk were merely delay tactics.

All because NATO quite liked to expand to the Russian border in Ukraine... As a student of politics, I welcome cogent challenge to this view, but please first explain why Bennett, Arahamiya and Stoltenberg, Bill Burns etc. said what they said. Then also do tell what the US would have done in the imaginary scenario where Russia or China formed a military alliance with Mexico, and started pointing missiles there at the US.

 

[RecordAceFromNew]

For those who agree with my view, the tragedy here is not without a silver lining. I mentioned before US overreach here has succeeded in cementing Russia in the Chinese camp, thereby reducing the chance of US waging a hot war with China. Separately, call it additional poetic justice or sweet irony, this overreach is more damaging strategically to that apartheid state intent on ethnic cleansing, than their thick partner-in-crime in Washington could have imagined, as explained by a pro-Israel Jew here.

 

[stowie]

Whereas you seem to drink Russian propaganda like a fool.

The estimated size of the Russian army is about 1.15 million active personnel and 2 million reservists. The Ukraine has 200,000 active personnel 250,000 reservists and 50,000 paramilitaries. The difference is that the Ukrainian army is very well trained. Russia has been lax in both its training and its upkeep of military vehicles. Many Russians do not believe in the war with Ukraine and do not want to fight. Russia is committed in other places such as Crimea.

Putin's attempt to take Ukraine has been embarrassing. Russian men are fleeing conscription. The Ukrainians are proudly defensive of their country and this makes them far more of an adversary than Russia expected.

Putin looked very weak a year ago. Ukraine had made significant gains in territory, the Wagner group were about the only effective force, troops were fleeing the front line and Putin's grip on power looked tenuous. Now this looks quite a bit different with Putin showing renewed confidence.

The Ukranian counter-offensive, although not a total failure, certainly failed in regaining territory. It allowed Putin some breathing space to negotiate huge arms contracts with N Korea and Iran. Although these arms are crude by Western standards, that is the war that Putin wants to engage in. Putin's biggest hope is Trump elected to the Whitehouse, which would probably lead to US aid drying up and fractures within NATO. I suspect the EU would try to fill the gap but it would be a big ask from a continent that has given military spending a low priority (although that has changed dramatically since the Russian invasion).

Meanwhile at the front, the core tactic of the Russian command is to throw as many expendable troops at the Ukraine front line as possible. The attrition rate is absolutely terrible and most governments could not get away with such a tactic. The aim is to deplete Ukraine arms supplies by getting them to fire it into Russian troops. In the air, they are trying to breach Ukraine air defence by using many cheap drones interspersed with more expensive missiles. However, I think here Ukraine has a system which should be able to counter, with cheaper defences for the drones etc. and the Patriot system reserved for the more complex missile, and it is a system which seems to be working.

Russia has already lost in the long run, but Putin isn't interested in the long run. He is interested in having a "win" for his legacy and a secure hold on power. Whoever comes after him will have to deal with the Nordic expansion of NATO, the massive brain drain of educated Russians on top of terrible demographics, two of the three biggest markets in the world not dealing with them and a China who is happy to take what they want but has clearly shown they won't back up rhetoric with any action that might damage other global relationships. They may take Ukraine but will then be engaged in a bitter guerilla war like in Afganistan with the West providing finance and intelligence to the insurgents.

 

[stowie]

To be fair, leaving the "3 day" story aside, I do believe the Russian expected it to be a short war - for the simple reason they had no interest in holding any part of Ukraine beyond Crimea (base of their Black Sea fleet), else they would not have put their trust in Minsk 1 / 2 being honoured for years, would they? Unfortunately, that ship has sailed, first by US/Boris spoiling the negotiation shortly after the war started, then by Merkel and Hollande admitting Minsk were merely delay tactics.

Russia already had Crimea, there would have been no need for Ukraine invasion just to retain it. That makes no sense at all.

Your argument over Russian security - even taken at face value - is flawed. Russia has a historic issue with its Western Frontier. It is impossible for Russia to defend with its infrastructure due to the geography (its very flat). Russia has historically managed this by controlling other countries to create pinch points in the geography. Controlling Ukraine does no good at all in securing this border, it would need all of Eastern Europe and part of Germany to create an effective frontier that Russia could defend.

Beyond any arguments over what was said, the initial invasion was obviously intending for a short war with limited resistance. Moving in for Kyiv as the starting point would have only worked if there was no resistance and the capital was able to be taken quickly. The Russian woeful logistics suggests that they were not intending to be in conflict for any length of time before being able to resupply from Ukraine. They didn't send their best soldiers and those that were sent weren't told what to do. Russia thought they had undermined government with moles who would turn as soon as Russian boots entered Kyiv, but their intelligence was stunningly misguided - at best these informants sat on their hands to work out who might win.

Putin made a grave miscalculation with Western support and his ray of hope now is that Trump becomes President and also weakens NATO whilst stopping Ukraine aid. This is a bit of a gamble. It was Trump who supplied anti-tank weaponry that halted the advances in Eastern Ukraine, not Obama who vacillated on the issue. Who knows what Trump might, or might not do? Meanwhile as said above, Russia faces some massive internal issues over the coming decades, it might win the conflict at some stage, but I suspect it won't hold it and when Putin leaves office, the power vacuum and state of the nation will be very dangerous indeed.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

Think you have issues with comprehension - I see the lack of response (with substance) to be a good thing, because it shows so many who were loudly cheering the dark side (like you) have discovered events since demonstrated they no longer have arguments that can survive debate. Of course, those who are sore losers will still give empty response - that's life.

Yeah you can dig yourself a hole and then try to make it deeper by claiming the ''other side'' did it, but it does not work that way.. You started talking about not getting a lot responses then turning around and claiming ''they no longer have arguments'' is simply wrong.
Russia is still in Crimea, still in parts of Ukraine that according to internationally agreed borders does not belong to them so the conflict still hasn't ended. People are just tired of your blahdieblah which has an tldr that always comes down to ''dictators are great'', ''nato are warmongers'' ''Whatever happened the USA has done it''

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Interesting @RecordAceFromNew and @dutchguylivingintheuk in conflict.
Myself?
I believe both might well be a little special.

 

[RecordAceFromNew]

Interesting @RecordAceFromNew and @dutchguylivingintheuk in conflict.
Myself?
I believe both might well be a little special.

Don't know why you bothered to tag me. It is easier to play the person than the ball, isn't it? Bravo @bobzmyunkle!

 

[RecordAceFromNew]

Russia already had Crimea, there would have been no need for Ukraine invasion just to retain it. That makes no sense at all.

Your argument over Russian security - even taken at face value - is flawed. Russia has a historic issue with its Western Frontier. It is impossible for Russia to defend with its infrastructure due to the geography (its very flat). Russia has historically managed this by controlling other countries to create pinch points in the geography. Controlling Ukraine does no good at all in securing this border, it would need all of Eastern Europe and part of Germany to create an effective frontier that Russia could defend.

Why give me your own opinion of what is or is not a red line to the Russian? Isn't it obvious the only relevant opinion is theirs? Which numerous Western diplomats and geopolitical strategists found and said in no uncertain terms? Then history has proved them right, and further confirmed by Bennett, Arahamiya and Stoltenberg. If you are unwilling to accept NATO expansion was the principal cause, what do you think the US would have done if the shoe was on the other foot, say if Russia were forming a military alliance with Cuba and Mexico with a view to point missiles there at the US?

I don't mean to be rude, but aren't you a living proof that democracy is doomed by showing even a perfectly intelligent person interested in politics is unable to be objective in the face of overwhelming evidence and logic? Isn't it then a bit rich criticising gammon voters' self-harm by putting Boris/Truss/Trump/Biden etc. in power, given extensive self-harm has already been done in support of this war?

Many here clearly believe they occupy the moral high ground - but what is moral about supporting the side that provoked the war, the same side that is supporting the slaughter of a thousand children a week for the past 11 weeks, after waging numerous wars with the "noble intention" of spreading democracy? The genocidal ethnic cleanser is the only democracy in the Middle East, supposedly.

I know what I said won't change a single mind, and you all think I am in the minority - but I am not. The "Global South" represents c88% of world population - they know Russia's invasion was wrong and illegal, so were Hamas' atrocities on 7th October, but since they don't get saturated by the miracles of our media's alternative reality, few are willing to criticize Russia or Hamas precisely because objectively history did not begin on 4th Feb 2022, or 7th October. They are also quietly watching our self-harm in slow motion from ringside seats.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Don't know why you bothered to tag me. It is easier to play the person than the ball, isn't it? Bravo @bobzmyunkle!

Perhaps I was being unfair.
You may be presenting a more coherent argument than @dutchguylivingintheuk.
Unfortunately the length and tone of superiority of your posts mean I am much less likely to be bothered to read them in full.

 

[stowie]

Why give me your own opinion of what is or is not a red line to the Russian? Isn't it obvious the only relevant opinion is theirs? Which numerous Western diplomats and geopolitical strategists found and said in no uncertain terms? Then history has proved them right, and further confirmed by Bennett, Arahamiya and Stoltenberg. If you are unwilling to accept NATO expansion was the principal cause, what do you think the US would have done if the shoe was on the other foot, say if Russia were forming a military alliance with Cuba and Mexico with a view to point missiles there at the US?

It isn't my opinion. It is geography. If we assume you are correct and that Russia is invading Ukraine to secure it's western border then just invading Ukraine does nothing to further this goal. Because Ukraine is also very flat and open to invasion (as has been seen...).

 

[RecordAceFromNew]

Perhaps I was being unfair.
You may be presenting a more coherent argument than @dutchguylivingintheuk.
Unfortunately the length and tone of superiority of your posts mean I am much less likely to be bothered to read them in full.

Nobody makes you read any post, certainly not mine, especially if you don't like my "tone". You made no subject argument, yet proceeded to make personal attack. You sure you aren't just a sore loser who took the wrong side of the argument?

 

[RecordAceFromNew]

It isn't my opinion. It is geography. If we assume you are correct and that Russia is invading Ukraine to secure it's western border then just invading Ukraine does nothing to further this goal. Because Ukraine is also very flat and open to invasion (as has been seen...).

Think you are imagining I ever suggested Russia invaded to "securing it's Western border".

Russia's principal demand has long been for Ukraine to stay neutral, in particular committing not to join NATO (or for NATO to agree not to admit Ukraine). It sounds like you have gone down some rabbit hole like land topology, a bit like a tabletop wargame to me...

Your response hasn't addressed anything I said, why don't you just give clear and cogent answers to my last post's questions? Is it so hard?