Russia, Ukraine and the West

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Carlin
    replied
    Merkel reveals the Minsk Agreement was a stalling tactic that allowed the West to militarize Ukraine as an anti-Russian proxy and fortify it for an inevitable war.

    Leave a comment:


  • Carlin
    replied
    Newsweek:

    Ukraine's power grid could completely collapse within weeks if Russian strikes continue.

    According to the American edition at the moment about 50% of energy infrastructure facilities have been seriously damaged. In this regard the collapse can be expected by Christmas.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vangelovski
    replied
    "Admission". People are constantly mixing up their info. Politicians especially. I agree with Phoenix - if the Ukrainians really had 100,000 dead, then the number of wounded would probably be around 300,000. That's 400,000 men. If that were the case, there's no way the Ukrainians could have achieved the victories they have. One hundred thousand casualties rather than dead, is much more plausible, and has been reported by numerous sources lately.

    I also think the Ukrainians are creating a foothold on the east bank. It was previously reported the Russians had withdrawn from the river front and moved back a few kilometers.

    Ukrainian forces reportedly reached the east (left) bank of the Dnipro River across from Kherson City. The Ukrainian “Carlson” volunteer special air intelligence unit posted footage on December 3 of Ukrainian servicemen traversing the Dnipro River in boats, reaching a wooden marina-like structure on the east bank, and raising a Ukrainian flag on a tower toward near the shore.[1] Special Unit “Carlson” reported that this is the first instance of a Ukrainian flag flying over the east bank of the Dnipro River and emphasized this operation will provide a springboard for subsequent Ukrainian operations on the east bank.[2] If confirmed, this limited Ukrainian incursion onto the east bank could open avenues for Ukrainian forces to begin to operate on the east bank. As ISW has previously reported, observed Russian fortifications on the left bank indicate Russian forces are anticipating Ukrainian offensive actions on the east bank and have been constructing defensive lines south of the Dnipro River.[3] The establishment of positions along the eastern riverbank will likely set conditions for future Ukrainian offensive operations into occupied Kherson Oblast, if Ukrainian troops choose to pursue this line of advance in the south.

    https://www.understandingwar.org/bac...ent-december-3
    Last edited by Vangelovski; 12-04-2022, 06:54 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Risto the Great
    replied
    The admission of Ukranian casualties.

    Leave a comment:


  • kompir
    replied
    Originally posted by Risto the Great View Post
    That was shut down very fast.
    What was shut down?

    Leave a comment:


  • Risto the Great
    replied
    That was shut down very fast.

    Leave a comment:


  • Phoenix
    replied
    Interesting recent remarks from European Commission president - Ursula von Der Leyen.

    Condemning Russia for committing war crimes, she noted that 100,000 Ukrainian officers (she probably meant personnel) have been killed since the start of the SMO.

    What followed after this literal bombshell was a shitload of walking back from the EU and Ukrainian government that makes Karine Jean-Pierre and previously Jen Psaki at the White House look like rank amateurs.

    Videos of the speech have been edited to delete the death toll statement, as well as various manic protests and counterclaims were made by Ukraine.

    The 100K would be a horrific loss of life for the people of Ukraine to bear but what about those injured and unable to return to the battlefield?
    Injured soldiers could account for another 3X the numbers of KIA, bringing the tally closer to 400K KIA and injured in 9 months of battle, absolutely unsustainable losses.

    For a clearer perspective -

    Last edited by Phoenix; 12-02-2022, 09:31 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vangelovski
    replied
    Originally posted by Phoenix View Post
    Up to this point Russia has maintained a relatively softly, softly campaign (to control limited territory) and have done it with essentially indigenous forces…
    We've been through this before. The "indigenous" forces as you call them only account for 34,000 men (according to the Military Balance, that is all the armed forces of Donetsk and Luhansk have). It is well established that Russia sent in approx. 200,000 men. It's not "essentially" an "indigenous" force.

    And it's not a "softly, softly" campaign. The Russians have given it all they've got, going well beyond military targets and hitting civilian infrastructure. And Russia attempted to take at least half of Ukraine (at a minimum) with its southern, eastern and northern theatres.

    I'm not sure who you're trying to delude here...but I'm thinking its yourself.

    Leave a comment:


  • Phoenix
    replied
    Originally posted by Vangelovski View Post
    In terms of the Kinburn Spit, I think what is really being discussed is the whole peninsula, not just the spit itself. The strategic value is immense as it is the East bank of the Dnipro. I guess the next few weeks will tell how that goes.

    The value of ISW is that it tries to use primary sources and makes those sources available so you can judge their usefulness.

    The use and availability of precision missiles is an interesting question. It's hard to know how many Russia started with and how many it's able to produce.

    But here are some interesting numbers. In 270 days of war since Russia invaded in February, they have launched 4,700 precision (or guided) missiles. That is an average of 17 per day.
    (https://www.thestatesman.com/world/r...503132723.html).

    In comparison, during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the US launched 19,948 precision missiles in only 40 days of war. That is an average of 499 per day.
    (https://www.globalsecurity.org/milit..._30apr2003.pdf)
    I think your comparison between how many missiles have been fired by Russia in Ukraine Vs US in Iraq is a little misleading.
    You’re making an Apples Vs Oranges argument as the two conflicts were played out using totally different strategies…

    Up to this point Russia has maintained a relatively softly, softly campaign (to control limited territory) and have done it with essentially indigenous forces…on the other hand the USA conducted a brutal shock and awe strategy with allied support contributing to the overall firepower to quell an entire country and population
    Last edited by Phoenix; 11-23-2022, 08:40 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vangelovski
    replied
    Originally posted by Phoenix View Post
    I've noticed you've provided links to reports from the 'Institute for the Study of War' several times in this thread...Interestingly, Larry C. Johnson from Sonar21 calls the 'Institute for the Study of War' - the clown show!

    https://sonar21.com/for-the-love-of-...sion-missiles/
    In terms of the Kinburn Spit, I think what is really being discussed is the whole peninsula, not just the spit itself. The strategic value is immense as it is the East bank of the Dnipro. I guess the next few weeks will tell how that goes.

    The value of ISW is that it tries to use primary sources and makes those sources available so you can judge their usefulness.

    The use and availability of precision missiles is an interesting question. It's hard to know how many Russia started with and how many it's able to produce.

    But here are some interesting numbers. In 270 days of war since Russia invaded in February, they have launched 4,700 precision (or guided) missiles. That is an average of 17 per day.
    (https://www.thestatesman.com/world/r...503132723.html).

    In comparison, during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the US launched 19,948 precision missiles in only 40 days of war. That is an average of 499 per day.
    (https://www.globalsecurity.org/milit..._30apr2003.pdf)
    Last edited by Vangelovski; 11-23-2022, 06:06 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Phoenix
    replied
    Originally posted by Vangelovski View Post
    I don't know much about the strategic value of Snake Island, but a cursory reading shows that it has been fought over for centuries, including WWI and WWII. If it's that insignificant, why did the Russians take it in the first place? No matter.

    The Kinburn Spit is literally the East bank of the mouth of the Dnipro Gulf where the Dnipro River exits into the Black Sea. I think its strategic value lies in the fact that it provides direct land access to the southern part of the Kherson Oblast still under Russian control. It would give the Ukrainians a foothold from which to launch a counterattack from the East bank and draw Russian forces from further upstream causing weaknesses along the Dnipro where Ukrainians could launch further river crossings.
    This is like the disclaimer that comes with every financial investment product - 'Past performance is no guarantee of future growth' or words to that effect.

    I think the argument is rooted in anachronism, what may have been strategically important in previous low-tech wars (100 years ago) would probably not apply on the battlefield of the 21st century.

    The use of real-time data, satellite imagery, sensors of every description, precision guided munitions and the ability to move men and equipment very quickly, now makes previous strategies redundant.

    The Russians took Snake Island very early in the conflict, it was probably part of their initial strategy to move on as much territory as possible in the shortest amount of time to create diplomatic pressure and force Zelensky to the negotiating table as quickly as possible.

    As we know Plan A failed and instead of negotiating a settlement the Ukrainians fought back including various attempts to retake Snake Island, the Russians realised that Snake Island was an easy target from Ukrainian missiles fired from Odessa and from drone attack.

    The restricted size of Snake Island meant that Russian forces could not fortify their positions from constant fire from Odessa.
    Keeping Snake Island was a simple risk assessment of risk Vs reward.

    Far too much risk to men and equipment for little to no reward for keeping such a small parcel of land that was too difficult to fortify and to resupply with defensive equipment when those resources could be used more effectively elsewhere...Kiburn Spit will be the same burden for both sides.

    I've noticed you've provided links to reports from the 'Institute for the Study of War' several times in this thread...Interestingly, Larry C. Johnson from Sonar21 calls the 'Institute for the Study of War' - the clown show!

    Last edited by Phoenix; 11-23-2022, 05:59 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vangelovski
    replied
    Originally posted by Phoenix View Post
    Neither Snake Island nor Kinburn Spit are of any significant strategic value, their small land masses make it almost impossible to defend and to resupply.
    I don't know much about the strategic value of Snake Island, but a cursory reading shows that it has been fought over for centuries, including WWI and WWII. If it's that insignificant, why did the Russians take it in the first place? No matter.

    The Kinburn Spit is literally the East bank of the mouth of the Dnipro Gulf where the Dnipro River exits into the Black Sea. I think its strategic value lies in the fact that it provides direct land access to the southern part of the Kherson Oblast still under Russian control. It would give the Ukrainians a foothold from which to launch a counterattack from the East bank and draw Russian forces from further upstream causing weaknesses along the Dnipro where Ukrainians could launch further river crossings.

    Leave a comment:


  • Phoenix
    replied
    Originally posted by Vangelovski View Post
    How do you mean?
    The early Ukrainian (+Western +MSM) narrative around Snake Island was the myth that the Ukrainians were standing their ground against the might of the Russian invaders.
    The small Ukrainian garrison on Snake Island was defiantly 'sticking it up' to the Russian Navy..the nonsense of this included the story that the Ukrainians were killed by the Russians, when the truth was the Russians captured the Ukrainians as POW without much of a fight and they were later released alive and well.

    Snake Island was portrayed in a similar fashion to how they're running with the Kinburn Spit story at the moment.

    Neither Snake Island nor Kinburn Spit are of any significant strategic value, their small land masses make it almost impossible to defend and to resupply.

    Trying to connect the holding of either place for the protection of grain shipment routes and the wider control of the Black Sea (as they did with Snake Island) is a total nonsense.

    For the Ukrainians to suddenly go 'silent' on any activity regarding such missions flies in the face of the way they have conducted themselves from the beginning and to this stage of the conflict, they've essentially bullshitted about most things, from the 'Ghost of Kiev' to the Russians firing missiles at Poland.

    All of this nonsense serves only a singular purpose...good PR.

    The narrative is built around a good underdog story, using the ubiquitous Hollywood B Grade war movie of frogmen slipping out of the dark murky depths, in total silence, to conquer the enemy and save the day.

    It also serves the misguided notion that Ukraines Western patrons are getting value for the stream of money that is being poured into this bottomless pit of corruption and delusion.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vangelovski
    replied
    Originally posted by Phoenix View Post
    Sounds like Snake Island v2.0a complete nonsense.
    How do you mean?

    Leave a comment:


  • Phoenix
    replied
    Originally posted by Vangelovski View Post
    There's definitely something going on at the Kinburn Spit.

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/world...Vladimir-putin
    Sounds like Snake Island v2.0a complete nonsense.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X