pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,458
|
Post by pjw1961 on Feb 28, 2022 21:24:43 GMT
Careful, I got into right trouble a while ago with some people on here for pointing out there are some very dodgy elements in the Ukrainian political sphere, despite making it clear they are not connected to the current president and that Putin is worse.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,458
|
Post by pjw1961 on Feb 28, 2022 21:51:00 GMT
The following is from the twitter feed of a guy called Michael Kofman, who is Director, Russia Studies at CNA (Centre for Naval Analysis) and Senior Adjunct Fellow, CNAS (Centre for New American Security). He says "I follow Russian military capabilities, operations & strategy. Opinions are mine alone, hopefully." and appears to have a reputation as an expert on the Russian military.
"Long thread about how I think the first 96 hours have gone, still very early/incomplete impressions. The initial Russian operation was premised on terrible assumptions about Ukraine’s ability & will to fight, and an unworkable concept of operations. Moscow badly miscalculated. 1/
The Russian operation was focused on getting to Kyiv quickly, forcing a surrender, and pushing a small number of units forward quickly in a way that avoided large engagements with UKR forces. They’ve been skirting major cities, going for key road junctions/smaller towns, etc. 2/
Why did Moscow choose this course of action? A few theories: they didn’t take Ukraine & its military seriously. They wanted to avoid attrition & devastation because of consequences for pol goals in Ukraine, costs of casualties, and they want to hide the costs from the public. 3/
It is also possible that Russian military planners genuinely wanted to avoid inflicting high levels of destruction given how unpopular this war was going to be at home. Most Russian soldiers are young & have little interest in fighting Ukrainians as an opponent. 4/
What I’ve seen so far suggests that Russian troops were unaware they would be ordered to invade, and appear reluctant to prosecute this war. They don't see Ukrainians as adversaries and the military didn’t prepare them for this campaign. Outside of Chechens, morale seems low. 5/
This is an unworkable concept of operations. It seems they tried to win quickly and cheaply via 'thunder runs,' hoping to avoid the worst of sanctions & Western outrage. They’ve ended up in the worst of all worlds, trickling more resources into a failed strategy. 6/
However, this is barely a few days into the war. Ukraine has done remarkably well, but no analysts (except maybe in Moscow) expected Russia to defeat the largest country in Europe within 4 days, especially given UKR military capability. 7/
On the shambolic effort - Russian units are not really fighting as BTGs. They’re driving down roads in small detachments, pushing recon & VDV units forward. Tanks often by themselves and vice versa. Fires & enablers not used decisively, and often not used at all. 8/
Outside of the fighting NW of Kyiv we have a lot of smaller detachments, tanks, IFVs, often recon or VDV units pressing down roads & into cities. Small formations regularly outrunning logistics, without support, or letting support & artillery get ambushed behind them. 9/
Beyond large numbers of units strewn out in small detachments & checkpoints, we have the inverse situation as well. Long trains of Russian vehicles stuck in their own traffic jams, entering across the border. Air defenses not covering them, but stuck on the road with them. 10/
As companies & platoons run ahead to seize points, logistics can’t keep up, and they’re not being effectively covered by support. Most of the fights I've seen are small skirmishes, especially on the outskirts of major cities. These may be intense, but not major battles. 11/
The Russian failure is driven by the fact that they’re attempting to conduct a full-scale invasion without the mil operation that it would require, thinking they can avoid most of the fighting. This has led to not only unworkable force employment, but lack of employment. /12
The truth is that large parts of the Russian military have yet to enter this war, with many of the capabilities still unused. Not to take away from UKR great mil performance, and resilience, but I see a lot of early judgments & conclusions that need moderation. 13/
In the first 4 days, Russian tactical aviation, except for some Su-25s, largely sat on the sidelines. So have most combat helicopters. They have hundreds of both deployed in the area. Russia's air force is missing in action, and largely unused. 14/
The Russian military sought to use cruise/ballistic missiles to destroy/suppress UKR air defense and target air bases. However, they're not flying CAPs, or offensive counter air, and only today have I spotted the first Su-34 bomber conducting strikes. /15
Except for heavy shelling around Kharkiv, use of fires have been limited compared to how the Russian mil typically operates. Sadly, I think this will change. Russian mil is an artillery army first, and it has used a fraction of its available fires in this war thus far. /16
The bulk of the Russian military has yet to enter the fight. Outside Kharkiv, most of the 1st Guards Tank Army, and 20th Army, are just sitting there. They pushed a few BTGs a considerable distance past Sumy, but I think a lot of Russia's forces are still on the sidelines. /17
Another point, Russian losses are significant, and they have had a number of troops captured, but they have been advancing along some axes. In general, Ukrainians are posting evidence of their combat successes, but the opposite is less true, distorting the overall picture. 18/
Hence my next thought. In a desperate effort to keep the war hidden from the Russian public, framing this as a Donbas operation, Moscow has completely ceded the information environment to Ukraine, which has galvanized morale and support behind Kyiv. Another miscalculation. /19
I won't comment on the host of official claims made in this war so far, except that I think Kyiv is doing a great job shaping perceptions & the information environment. That said, folks should approach official claims critically in a time of war. /20
Looking at the military effort, I think Russian forces are getting some basics really wrong, but we're also learning things that are probably not true about the Russian military as well. They're not really fighting the way they train and organize for a major conventional war. /21
The assumptions have Grozny 1994 vibes, while some of the operations remind me of classic mil org driven blunders. Sending airborne air assault brigades or naval infantry in early on to 'do their thing,' even though it is unnecessary, risky, or impractical. /22
What's next? Russia's political leadership is still not conceding their plan's failure, trying to take Kyiv quickly. But we're seeing them open up greater use of fires, strikes, and air power. Sadly, I expect the worst is yet ahead, and this war could get a lot more ugly. /23
I was going to add, that I've seen and read other explainer threads out there about the Russian military failure. I differ with some of those explanations, they're generally not coming from Russia mil experts, and 4 days into a war might be a bit early for conclusive statements. Also, looking at day 5, seeing major adjustments. Russian military is suspending unsupported thunder runs, resupplying, and reorganizing. Ukraine's military has performed really well, but I think we're going to see a different Russian approach moving forward."
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,976
|
Post by Danny on Mar 1, 2022 6:20:37 GMT
So here's the current state of play: Very surprised that Mariupol hasn't been taking yet. The absolute minimum Putin was expecting by now must have been to create the land bridge to Crimea, though almost certainly will still achieve it. But Kharkiv seems to be defending itself heroically and by all accounts Odessa is well prepared. It seems to me that the Russian-speaking population of Eastern Ukraine is not reacting in the way Putin expected. They were always an independent lot and not unthinkingly pro-Moscow. Viktor Yanukovich, the President and ethnic Russian-dominated Party of Regions leader, was planning to take Ukraine into the EU in the years up to 2013, until Putin leant on him. Maybe should consider the meaning of 'taken' too. That will not be territory safe for Russians to move around in. Ukraine has had years to prepare and ought to have organised resistance to take place behind the lines of occupied territory.
And yes, its likely an actual invasion will turn a proportion of ethnically Russian against Russia if the actual invasion is handled badly. Thats all part of why Russia needed a bloodless and fast victory. Gas prices are up about 12% and crude oil about 4.5%. Both having risen a lot less than I expected they would (ie good, or at least 'not as bad as expected', news) This was well signalled, so presumably industry will have already accounted to at least some extent for the invasion. Its also possible the huge price hikes in the last year are now having an effect on suppressing demand. Ah, the covid fallacy that any death is one death too many. No. It isnt. death is inevitable. The reason we fight wars is because what matters is the territory and not human life. Russia above all ought to understand spending lives to buy territory and that they understand this in Ukraine as well as anywhere else.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,976
|
Post by Danny on Mar 1, 2022 6:36:03 GMT
The following is from the twitter feed of a guy called Michael Kofman, who is Director, Russia Studies at CNA ...... Kofman discusses the situation within Ukraine now, and notes Russia has stayed its hand and has more forces and particularly violent and destructive forces it can apply. But he doesnt mention the wider circumstances, the impact using these will have on future events even if more force applied creates a victory now over Ukraine. The risk is this becomes another Afghanistan and after a violent military 'victory' Russia gets forced out becuse of ongoing attrition over the next ten years. Russia must always have undertood that use of extreme force guarantees an ultimately lost war, and thats why they did not proceed in that way.
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Mar 1, 2022 8:31:43 GMT
pjw1961 that's a good analysis from Kofman. I think a key point is that Moscow hoped they could do a very rapid capture of key objectives without inflicting too much damage. There are two possible narratives emerging. One is that Putin genuinely thought this war would be a walk over, resistance would crumble and the Ukrainians would largely reconcile themselves to Russian rule via a puppet regime. That this has been a massive miscalculation, the Ukrainian military has outperformed expectations and that Moscow didn't expect such intense resistances and Putin is now fighting for his political survival. This is very much the line Western media is following back upped by a very effective Ukrainian propaganda machine.
The other narrative is that the Russian attempted to take cities by stealth, always risky, and probes by light moving rapid forces. This has only been partially successful, but is now allowing them to bring up their heavier shock units and position them in order to cut off and capture the key cities either by siege or assault. This would have all been viewed as a possibility by the Russians. The Russians have been fighting the Ukrainians since 2014 and are aware of their willingness to fight (also I have my doubts that Putin in sincere when he expresses views that the Ukrainians aren't a real people, he will be aware that in 1941 many Ukrainians initially welcome the Germans as liberators from Russian rule, they soon turned due to the barbarism of the German vernichtungskrieg). Also, Russian intelligence must have been aware of the capabilities of the Ukrainian forces and their disposition. In this narrative, Moscow would never have thought that it would be over in 5 days and that the intensity would increase. A regime that is willing to drag a protesting woman carrying a small child from the streets isn't going to baulk from launching a full conventional war in Ukraine, which now looks like happening. Signs of the devastating ordinance Russia can deploy are starting to come through as is moves to achieve full air superiority.
Personally I think Putin is more that willing to spend the lives of his soldiers, hence the seemingly rash moves they made at the start. Western military doctrine, driven by a need to keep their own military casualties low, is to totally ensure air superiority before sending in ground forces. Russian military doctrine has always placed a high reliance on artillery. I would guess they will now encircle Kiev but assault Kharkiv.
This conflict has the propensity to prove to be the bloodiest since WW2. If there is a hell, Putin will be going there.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,458
|
Post by pjw1961 on Mar 1, 2022 12:10:41 GMT
The following is from the twitter feed of a guy called Michael Kofman, who is Director, Russia Studies at CNA ...... Kofman discusses the situation within Ukraine now, and notes Russia has stayed its hand and has more forces and particularly violent and destructive forces it can apply. But he doesnt mention the wider circumstances, the impact using these will have on future events even if more force applied creates a victory now over Ukraine. The risk is this becomes another Afghanistan and after a violent military 'victory' Russia gets forced out becuse of ongoing attrition over the next ten years. Russia must always have undertood that use of extreme force guarantees an ultimately lost war, and thats why they did not proceed in that way. I hope Putin agrees with you, but there is a risk that he has backed himself into a corner where he has to be seen to 'win' in the short term, even at a longer term cost to Russia's position, in which case the gloves will come off. Putin may not be worrying about the next 10 years but the next 10 days, and Russia have been very brutal in Chechnya and Syria and they know it works.
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Mar 1, 2022 17:18:24 GMT
I've had a bit of a slow day at work which has allowed me to spend more time looking at the news in other non-Western countries. Watching the news from countries such as India you get a much more pessimistic view of the outlook for the Ukrainians. Putting it all together I get the sense that the Western analysis may be misinterpreting what is happening on the ground. Russia may feel that it doesn't have to take vast swathes of land to enforce control.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,976
|
Post by Danny on Mar 1, 2022 17:31:22 GMT
pjw1961 In this narrative, Moscow would never have thought that it would be over in 5 days and that the intensity would increase. A regime that is willing to drag a protesting woman carrying a small child from the streets isn't going to baulk from launching a full conventional war in Ukraine, which now looks like happening. Signs of the devastating ordinance Russia can deploy are starting to come through as is moves to achieve full air superiority.
Personally I think Putin is more that willing to spend the lives of his soldiers, hence the seemingly rash moves they made at the start. Western military doctrine, driven by a need to keep their own military casualties low, is to totally ensure air superiority before sending in ground forces. Russian military doctrine has always placed a high reliance on artillery. I would guess they will now encircle Kiev but assault Karkiv.
This conflict has the propensity to prove to be the bloodiest since WW2. If there is a hell, Putin will be going there. I dont think Putin ever intended a mass war of conquest and then occupation by force. Both Russia and the US have in recent years done this and ended being forced out again as the steady drain on their resources simply was too great a cost to continue occupation. rimeas was exactly yhe outcome he wanted this time too, a region content to change hands, just needing a bit of force to bring that about. Thats very very different to occupying a region which does not want to be occupied and holding it thereafter.
Sure he doent mind if few russians die. But there is still an acceptable number. Russia was forced out of afghanistan by the locals after a ten year attempt at subjugation, just as the US was later. The constant losses made staying there untenable and I think there would be enough Ukrainians willing to do the same. Putin knows this.
So this was always a limited objective war. Two things may have gone wrong already. First Ukrainians were less keen to become Russian citizens than thought. Second, Ukraine resisted much better militarily than expected. This invasion has already failed, and its now the best way to extricate from that. There is still potential to hold the pro russian regions and use the leverage of withdrawing from the rest to broker a peace to allow this to continue. Bu you have to hold the rest or look credibly like you can, before you can offer withdrawal to buy the territory you wanted.
At the moment its all going horribly wrong. the curious thing is that the west allowed the invasion to take place by not imposing all these sanctions simply at the threat of invasion. That was absolutely deliberate. Russia needed to end the conflict before public opinion turned against it and forced other nations to intervene economically, but its already lost that chance. Its hard to see how Russia can now win if it uses greater force to occupy all Ukraine, because then other nations will be forced by their own public opinion to maintain sanctions until the occupation ends. is only way out has always been to take limited territory where the people are basically pro Russian anyway.
|
|
|
Post by lens on Mar 1, 2022 17:47:54 GMT
I don't disagree but there is this modern invention called the internet (or more secure methods of communication) by which we can send satellite images to Ukrainian troops on the ground. I was thinking more along the lines of strategy than tactical matters, and measures which are only available to such as the US and UK governments. Order of battle, and even intelligence regarding future intentions, rather than images of present situation on the ground.
|
|
|
Post by lens on Mar 1, 2022 18:13:52 GMT
There is still potential to hold the pro russian regions and use the leverage of withdrawing from the rest to broker a peace to allow this to continue. But you have to hold the rest or look credibly like you can, before you can offer withdrawal to buy the territory you wanted. That was my first thought, and how I logically thought it would go. (And it still might.) But the danger is that one assumes the enemy will always behave entirely rationally, even if erroneously - and historically that isn't always the case! One can only wonder about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, as example. Even if they had caught the US aircraft carriers in port, how did they ever think it was going to end well for them in the long term? You can apply similar thinking to Hitler refusing to allow a managed retreat from Stalingrad, and Saddams failure to allow in the weapons inspectors before the second Gulf war - if there weren't any WMD, why not let them in? (Only to reinstate such programmes in years to come after Western weariness had set in.) It's conceivable Putin has become obsessed with ideas of reinstating a Russian Empire, and in that case only totally absorbing Ukraine would be acceptable to him. Yes, not a sensible idea for all the reasons various people have given before, but if Putin has joined a list of obsessive leaders (Hitler, Stalin, Saddam as just three) who let their obsessions override common sense and pragmatism.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,458
|
Post by pjw1961 on Mar 1, 2022 18:33:06 GMT
I've had a bit of a slow day at work which has allowed me to spend more time looking at the news in other non-Western countries. Watching the news from countries such as India you get a much more pessimistic view of the outlook for the Ukrainians. Putting it all together I get the sense that the Western analysis may be misinterpreting what is happening on the ground. Russia may feel that it doesn't have to take vast swathes of land to enforce control. I fear you are probably right. Looking at the map of captured areas the Russians look to be doing well (from their point of view) in the south and have got almost all of the coast of the Sea of Azov, giving them the land corridor to Crimea they wanted. Meanwhile Kyiv and Kharkiv are close to being surrounded. The Ukrainians are obviously fighting as hard as they can but in serious military assets they remain hugely outnumbered. A Russian military victory remains much the likeliest outcome, although it may yet prove a huge political defeat if the alliance against them holds together. And just to make sure I am not misconstrued - this does not please me.
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Mar 1, 2022 18:46:10 GMT
I've had a bit of a slow day at work which has allowed me to spend more time looking at the news in other non-Western countries. Watching the news from countries such as India you get a much more pessimistic view of the outlook for the Ukrainians. Putting it all together I get the sense that the Western analysis may be misinterpreting what is happening on the ground. Russia may feel that it doesn't have to take vast swathes of land to enforce control. I fear you are probably right. Looking at the map of captured areas the Russians look to be doing well (from their point of view) in the south and have got almost all of the coast of the Sea of Azov, giving them the land corridor to Crimea they wanted. Meanwhile Kyiv and Kharkiv are close to being surrounded. The Ukrainians are obviously fighting as hard as they can but in serious military assets they remain hugely outnumbered. A Russian military victory remains much the likeliest outcome, although it may yet prove a huge political defeat if the alliance against them holds together. And just to make sure I am not misconstrued - this does not please me. Yes, unfortunately (unless anyone isn't clear as to where my sympathies are) the most likely outcome is a Russian military victory. Putin can look to Syria and Assad in terms of playing a long game if he needs to. I hope one day he is brought to justice for what he has done. In the words of many Ukrainians 'До біса Путіна'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2022 19:22:17 GMT
It's interesting that the Russians don't seem to have been able to knock out the internet or mobile networks yet. Taking them out early on would have promoted panic, made it harder for the Ukrainians to organise their resistance and stopped sharing footage of what's happening for propaganda purposes.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,976
|
Post by Danny on Mar 1, 2022 19:49:49 GMT
There is still potential to hold the pro russian regions and use the leverage of withdrawing from the rest to broker a peace to allow this to continue. But you have to hold the rest or look credibly like you can, before you can offer withdrawal to buy the territory you wanted. That was my first thought, and how I logically thought it would go. (And it still might.) But the danger is that one assumes the enemy will always behave entirely rationally, even if erroneously - and historically that isn't always the case! One can only wonder about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, as example. Even if they had caught the US aircraft carriers in port, how did they ever think it was going to end well for them in the long term? You can apply similar thinking to Hitler refusing to allow a managed retreat from Stalingrad, and Saddams failure to allow in the weapons inspectors before the second Gulf war - if there weren't any WMD, why not let them in? (Only to reinstate such programmes in years to come after Western weariness had set in.) It's conceivable Putin has become obsessed with ideas of reinstating a Russian Empire, and in that case only totally absorbing Ukraine would be acceptable to him. Yes, not a sensible idea for all the reasons various people have given before, but if Putin has joined a list of obsessive leaders (Hitler, Stalin, Saddam as just three) who let their obsessions override common sense and pragmatism. The attack on Pearl Harbour failed. The ships they hoped to target werent there. So we dont know what might have happened had it succeeded. On the whole though japan utterly under estimated the resources available to the US. But their thinking was probably similar to Putin now: certain territorial aims which could be achieved before their opponents got going, and then negotiate a truce.
The retreat- or rather not- from Stalingrad was I agree an example of what happens when there ceases to be a good outcome possible, and by then Hitler was already unhinged. I dont see any evidence Putin is unhinged despite the name calling. His goal is probably still to die in office and pass power to his chosen successor. We already know the strategy of a modest incursion gaining territory essentially permanently is tried and tested and gained Crimea. Its a long way to interpolate from that that someone who has thus far simply repeated the same previously successful trick is unhinged.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2022 21:45:18 GMT
I don't disagree but there is this modern invention called the internet (or more secure methods of communication) by which we can send satellite images to Ukrainian troops on the ground. I was thinking more along the lines of strategy than tactical matters, and measures which are only available to such as the US and UK governments. Order of battle, and even intelligence regarding future intentions, rather than images of present situation on the ground. Apologies for the slight misunderstanding but yes, I hope we are doing anything and everything we can do now to help (from outside of Ukraine). However, for the battle that is coming then I'm sure what 'lines of strategy' we can offer for advice being so detached from the on the ground decisions. That 40km convoy of tanks and military vehicles outside Kyiv looks like a very soft target IMO, provided the local forces have the C21 weapons to destroy that C20 approach. They don't need to knock out every vehicle, just ensure the roads are blocked by the smouldering carcasses of enough of the lead units (maybe going for the 2nd decile in the column to split off the lead units) - that might also 'break the will' of the attackers, or at least dampen their morale. Anti-tank weapons are easy to use but there is still an 'art' in how you use them - especially if you only have limited quantities. So, if that is what you mean then we agree. However, once the battle starts then the lines of communication by necessity become very short - although outside imagery of the enemies movements and positions are obviously still very useful if we can continue to help provide some of that.
|
|
|
Post by lens on Mar 2, 2022 0:46:28 GMT
Anti-tank weapons are easy to use but there is still an 'art' in how you use them - especially if you only have limited quantities. So, if that is what you mean then we agree. I don't disagree with that - but my point is that intelligence can (is) much more than just showing up present dispositions of forces. (The long column outside Kiev in this case.) That's the point about the difference between strategic and tactical intelligence. Aerial (and satellite) imagery is good at giving the latter, less so the former. As example, in WW2, intelligence gained from Enigma decryptions was indeed valuable - but breaking the Lorenz messages later in the war was the real gold. The latter gave an insight into Hitlers and his generals minds. A particular example may be in the run up to D-day when Lorenz decrypts reassured the allied commanders that the deception to make the Germans believe the assault would come in the Pas-de-Calais had been successful. A general truism is that intelligence isn't enough by itself - no matter how good intelligence is, a hugely superior force will nearly always win out against a much weaker one. But it can (and has) acted as a force multiplier when used properly. It's also true that getting good intelligence about the enemy is one thing - the other is stopping it getting useful intelligence about yourself! In the case of the convoy under question, then I must say I find it pretty surprising to find such a large convoy strung out and apparently moving so slowly. The very opposite of Blitzkreig. If I was a soldier there I'd be feeling very nervous, because as you say, taking out a few vehicles blocks the road and renders vehicles either side unable to move and consequently more vulnerable. And whilst the photographs show a convoy is there, deeper intelligence could show (for example) which are the most valuable units to try to destroy first, which units are least battle hardened and easiest to attack, whether fuel is an issue, and so on. And such matters - possibly even intentions of it's future planned deployment - may be discerned by the western powers in ways the Ukrainians themselves are unable.
|
|
|
Post by lens on Mar 2, 2022 1:11:15 GMT
The attack on Pearl Harbour failed. The ships they hoped to target werent there. ........But their thinking was probably similar to Putin now: certain territorial aims which could be achieved before their opponents got going, and then negotiate a truce. I think it's wrong to think in terms of "failed" or "suceeded" as an all or nothing. Pearl Harbour could have been more decisive for the Japanese - but it could also have been far, far less successful. I believe at the time they were (mostly) pleased with how it had gone, even if Yamamoto had some reservations. But it would be naively optimistic to assume such an operation would have total, complete success, and here the success rate mainly influenced timescale rather than eventual outcome. If they had sunk the carriers, the Americans would have taken longer to turn the war in the Pacific round, but I just don't see they would ever have just said "oh well, let's just sign a peace treaty then". when there ceases to be a good outcome possible, and by then Hitler was already unhinged. I dont see any evidence Putin is unhinged despite the name calling. There is definitely a school of thought which has it that Stalingrad was what tipped Hitler over the edge. His command had always been dubious in terms of not taking his generals advice, but after Stalingrad - which he had made into a very personal battle - he seems to have retreated into himself and mistrusted his own officers even more. But I personally think such matters are rarely nice and simple. It's worth reading what John Simpson has to say: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-60574277 . In particular: "These are all major setbacks for him. They stem from Putin's own miscalculations, made while he isolated himself from Covid. He saw only a very few advisers, who we can assume told him what he wanted to hear."Perhaps yet another oddity that can laid at the hands of Covid! How odd (and worrying) that someone in charge of nuclear weapons and not worried about launching an invasion that has already killed thousands, is so afraid of Covid (even after vaccinations) that he has to sit far from his staff at the end of a ridiculously long table and largely isolate himself? When even if he did now catch it, in him it's unlikely to be more severe than ordinary flu? Well, I'm afraid I can see mental health issues in a few people I now know as a result of their isolation over the last two years, though fortunately none are able to order an invasion........
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,976
|
Post by Danny on Mar 2, 2022 7:13:39 GMT
A general truism is that intelligence isn't enough by itself - no matter how good intelligence is, a hugely superior force will nearly always win out against a much weaker one. Oddly the US as a superpower with that power essentially unbroken has still failed to beat many small enemies and has had to abandon territories it occupied time after time. Ditto Russia, though it also suffered a national collapse. I do not believe Putin is unaware of this history of failure after failure by powerful nations to hold objectives.
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Mar 2, 2022 8:49:22 GMT
A friend of mine in Washington told me that one theory that is being floated, is that Putin is actually seriously ill (which explains the long tables). This ties in with assessments that he sees this as a 'last chance' to ensure Ukraine does not fall permanently in the west orbit and that he will use all means necessary to 'keep/regain' Ukraine. That Putin will see success in doing so as part of his legacy, the reassertion of Russian power and control over areas that were 'lost' as a result of the collapse of the USSR. If this is the case we are all in very dangerous situation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2022 9:15:34 GMT
A friend of mine in Washington told me that one theory that is being floated, is that Putin is actually seriously ill (which explains the long tables). This ties in with assessments that he sees this as a 'last chance' to ensure Ukraine does not fall permanently in the west orbit and that he will use all means necessary to 'keep/regain' Ukraine. That Putin will see success in doing so as part of his legacy, the reassertion of Russian power and control over areas that were 'lost' as a result of the collapse of the USSR. If this is the case we are all in very dangerous situation. Maybe it's a symptom of paranoia? Or a symbol that he's in absolute control. And I'm sure he carries a gun at all times, so perhaps it's to give him more time to use it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2022 9:26:22 GMT
A friend of mine in Washington told me that one theory that is being floated, is that Putin is actually seriously ill (which explains the long tables). This ties in with assessments that he sees this as a 'last chance' to ensure Ukraine does not fall permanently in the west orbit and that he will use all means necessary to 'keep/regain' Ukraine. That Putin will see success in doing so as part of his legacy, the reassertion of Russian power and control over areas that were 'lost' as a result of the collapse of the USSR. If this is the case we are all in very dangerous situation. There was a discussion on that on CNN last night. Yes-not good news if true.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2022 9:29:01 GMT
"Ukraine Crisis Media Centre" FB feed just reported that Bulgaria/Poland/Slovakia have "given" 70 MIG29s & SU25s. They will be flown from "Polish airfields" by Ukrainian pilots.
|
|
|
Post by lens on Mar 2, 2022 9:33:48 GMT
A friend of mine in Washington told me that one theory that is being floated, is that Putin is actually seriously ill (which explains the long tables). By "ill" do you mean mentally or physically? As John Simpson's piece suggests, the long tables are believed due to a certain paranoia about his catching Covid, which has also led to his self isolation and consequent mental health problems. If he was ill in the sense of cancer, heart disease or whatever I don't see how it would explain the long tables etc? Which brings us back to what I posted earlier: "the danger is that one assumes the enemy will always behave entirely rationally, even if erroneously - and historically that isn't always the case!" There's much debate along the lines of "why is he doing that? It doesn't make sense?" Believe that Putin isn't acting rationally and you may have an explanation?
|
|
|
Post by birdseye on Mar 2, 2022 12:09:07 GMT
His beliefs might be wrong / irrational/ prejudiced but his actions be perfectly rational in the light of those beliefs. He talks of de-nazification, and of Ukraine as a natural part of Russia being held captive by Ukranian nationalists. He regards NATO as threat, something which is plainly silly. He talks of anti Russain sentiments. And he talks longingly of the Soviet Unions collapse as a tragedy.
All these things seem to have coloured the action. He wants to de militarise Ukraine and you only do that is you see the pre existing situation as a threat. He expected the Ukrainians to welcome liberation so the initial approach was a long way short of the horrific actions he took in Chechnya. He sees western sanctions as an unwarranted aggressive action. For their part the Ukranians never took note of Russian paranoia.
In short he believed his own propaganda, took action on it and now has no alternative but to follow through. With his action man self image ( remember all those bare chested videos) he wont simply call it off.
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Mar 2, 2022 17:41:21 GMT
Hi lens Physically and/or mentally.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2022 19:32:37 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2022 20:38:10 GMT
Just FWIW then Belarus doesn't rank very high as a military power: www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing-europe.phpAlso Lukashenko has faced protests about his rule from his own people in the past. I'm not sure what the 'mood' is in Belarus but his hold over Belarus is not rock solid and if his troops join the invasion of Ukraine they'll be less able to suppress an uprising at home. PS Unclear if they have/haven't joined Russia yet. If/when they do then perhaps 'the West' can 'help' via indirectly assisting an uprising in Belarus to give Belarusians the chance to overthrow the Lukashenko dictatorship (not regime change using external military force but encouraging domestic democracy with indirect help to those seeking to establish democracy in their own country). www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/belarusalert/dictator-vs-democracy-belarus-one-year-on/If Russian forces then had to intervene in Belarus to support their puppet Lukashenko then they'd start to become even more stretched and 'the West' could send arms to help Belarusians fighting for their own country.
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,385
Member is Online
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Mar 2, 2022 21:00:44 GMT
“Middle-class Russians banned from fleeing with their wealth as sanctions begin to bite”
”Russia has banned its citizens from leaving the country with more than $10,000 (£7,500) in cash as thousands of people flee abroad, sickened by Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and fearful of economic collapse.
Cash machines have run out of US dollars and tickets to the few destinations still accepting flights from Russia are now nearly impossible to find as the impact of Western sanctions and Moscow’s counter-restrictions bite.”
Telegraph
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,976
|
Post by Danny on Mar 3, 2022 8:21:40 GMT
Russia supposedly taken a city. But once they are in charge of said city, it becomes their responsibility to maintain food water and electricty supplies. While it seems the population are engaging in civil disobedience and simply challenging troops personaly who are not willing to use force against the civilians.
Thats kinda disastrous for Russia. Its a no win situation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2022 9:40:49 GMT
Ukraine crisis: What sanctions could West still impose on Russia? www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60529926I'll pick out a few points: "We are at a seven or eight out of 10 on the escalation ladder right now.. There is definitely still room to go with tightening" "My sense is that it's going to become politically untenable to say we'll keep paying Russia for oil, gas and coal,"
|
|