Rusknight
-
Posts
25 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Rusknight
-
-
Yeah I dont buy it either of course, but Im curious to why the ukranians would even attempt to put such lofty claims forward. Do they draw exanples from other events?
It's a nature of information warfare. It doesn't really matter how reasonable and believable statements you make just repeat them again and again and if you have enough media resources many people will belive that it's the truth. So if you bombing your enemy for several months just say that it's enemy bombing himself all this time and people will finally agree with you - sure, it's logical they bombing themselfs again and again it's their never-ending provocation.
-
Can anyone tell me the likelihood of a potential artillery provocateur from the russians in this case?
Yes, sure it's evil russians bombing Donetsk for several months already almost daily while Ukranian army has nothing to do with it. Ask Psaki about it, she will tell you the truth.
-
You are very wrong, Rusknight.
They will kill him with plutonium instead!
I doubt. Plutonium is how KGB eliminates enemies of Russia.
CIA or NSA will probably stuff him with coca-cola and hamburgers to death.
-
I didn't say US is a horrible place to live now. Nope. There is quite a high level of life there. Higher than in Russia for sure The point actually is that it's not the most democratic/free country in the world how US likes to present itself. However ordinary people don't care about democracy that much. They care about level of life (job, salaries, medicine, roads e.t.c.) and don't really care whether goverment watching them or not even if it breaks their right for private life e.t.c. Snowden showed US people that goverment watching them and what happened? Goverment was retired? Some new laws were implemented to prevent goverment from this? Nothing happened in fact. Ordinary people don't really care about freedom. Btw can you explain why US is at the 1st place in the world for the number of people kept in prisons per 100 000 of it's population. Russia is at the 10 place in this rating for example. Are there so many criminals in US or are US laws so severe or what? I personally have no exact idea but it makes me think bad about US justice though Russian justice is bad either I won't deny it.
For your note I don't belive russian state media and don't usually read\watch them. The same I actually don't belive US or other state medias cause they all lie more or less. I make my conclusions on many sources of information and I had an oportunity to visit various countries (China, US, EU ) and talk to people from these countries directly. You probably will be shocked but I never voted for Putin and don't support his internal policy while I find his external policy reasonable more or less.
It's not like I hate US or EU either, I just say about them here what I see in their actions without being blinded by US/EU propaganda (yes, western countries also has propaganda). I see that US nor tries to bring some real democracy anywhere, it just uses people dissatisfaction in various countries to change goverments there in profit of US first of all. I won't call US an evill empire for it however. I think the world is a cruel place and all countries in the world are fighting for their own interests except those that chosen a role of US sattelite already and betray their own interests in profit of US.
Steve, I hoped to get an answer from a native american on why US goverment keeps so many citizens in prisons? I am just puzzled with this fact. Is it how true democracy functions? You ignored this question so you don't know the answer (it's ok you may not know) or US goverment will prosecute you if you tell me the truth?
-
The difference is that in the west there is a lot of media with lots of opinions. If you look at Fox and compare it to other western channels (Let's say BBC) you'll see that they voice a very different opinion. Thats something that is very important for a free society.
Also, Fox is being accused for biased reporting by (alomst) everyone. I don't see general distrust against something like RT. Thats the difference between "The west" and Russia.
Without a doubt the USA is an extremely powerfull country. However, I don't think that it is fair to call everyone who sees themselves as allies sattelites. Look at Germany. During the Lybian crysis, when the UN security council decided whether or not to get involved, Germany did not support the resolution. If they were an american sattelite, would they openly oppose American interests?
Many western countries don't support the US and its politics because the US controls them. They support them because they share the same values. If you have the same goals you tend to stick together.
I like how US special services wiretaped Merkel - is it how allies and friends acts to each other?
Of course speaking about satelites I don't mean that they are by 100% controled by US. In fact US use the carrot and stick approach to control them but sometimes they can do something against US policy if population of their country is strongly against some US actions and ideas and if US won't punish them for it too harsh. National goverments still have to go via elections periodically so they cannot ignore all the time what people in their own country think and feel.
-
Well of course, you are linking Fox News, these are the guys who just recently said there are places in Britain and France where police and civilians don't go because they are afraid of the Muslims there. They apologized for it but they pull that kind of crap all the time.
The point of this video is not that they pull some crap there by mistake becouse they didn't check facts good enough. This video shows that they actually don't care about facts at all being a propaganda and as soon as it becomes clear that facts are against them and their propaganda they prevent a truth (or the opposite point of view at least) to be said. And they are still in business after it what ruins a theory about western medios being so special in terms of reputation.
-
Well, believe it or not, here in the "West" newspapers ( news media in general ) have to have verifiable facts to back up their stories. If they get caught making stuff up, they would lose all credibility and shortly thereafter go out of business. This sort of thing is taken very seriously.
So, yes, a US newspaper - but a highly respected one, not just some random blogger making up whatever he likes.
I think you should watch this video. It shows how some (I don't say all for sure) west medias work for goverment for propaganda purpoces instead of being a source of unbiased information. And against your theory it even doesn't ruin their media business.
-
Nice, so the only acceptable source to criticize Russia is a Russian source?
Read the article and check the sources it used. Those will check out unlike the sources you find in russian news that usually turn out to be non existent or faked. They include Bulgarian govt statements including ones from those defending the pipeline. It might make you look more serious if you actually can challenge the content versus just not liking the author.
Where did I say the source should be Russian? I would prefer Bulgarian sources on this exact matter.
-
Oh the story of that pipeline is beautiful. We have Russian agents bribing Bulgarian officials and starting fake "green" movements while intervening in Bulgarian affairs. It finally fell apart when Russia's cronies got greedy and started attacking one another causing a run on a Bulgarian bank. I'll see if I can dig that one up, it is such a classic example for what kind of a friend Putin is.
Yeah here we go, that wasn't hard. This is just such a perfect example of how the Kremlin treats it's "friends". No wonder so few people want anything to do with Putin's economic plans.
And you prove your version with the link to a US news-paper, seriously?
-
That is what Russia's leadership wants you to believe, but the opposite is true. The West simply doesn't want wars being fought within its territory. It does not want to have its right wing parties funded by Moscow. It doesn't want Russian dissidents assassinated on its soil. It doesn't want nuclear armed planes flying near its territory.
Look at things from another point of view. During the Cold War the West was lined up against:
Russia
Ukraine
Belarus
Georgia
The "Stans"
Poland
Hungary
East Germany
Czechoslovakia
Bulgaria
Romania
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
How many of these nations are now close friends/allies of the West? Almost all of them. A couple, like Belarus, are in an inbetween position. Neither friendly, nor adversarial. Only Russia is a problem. You can believe that the West has only animosity against Russia, and only Russia, but I don't see the evidence.
Well, when you believe what Russian media tells you then you're bound to come to this conclusion. Personally, I've not read ANYTHING that Kerry or Paski have said. I read a wide range of sources of information, including Russian and Separatist. I also have a very good understanding of economics. Oh, and have I mentioned that I expected this to happen many years before it did? Did Kerry or Paski tell me that too?
Steve
The truth is that most countries in this list are not friends or allies of the west but it's sattelites.
For example Bulgaria was really interested in building a new gas pipeline from Russia to Bulgaria (and further to other EU countires) via Black Sea called "South Stream" cause it would give a lot of energy for Bulgaria and EU and Russia wanted it as well, but EU blocked it cause US didn't want it to happen. Cancelation of this project is bad for Russia, it is bad for Bulgaria, it is bad for Europe, but who cares about Russia, EU or Bulgaria profit while US says NO. This is the difference between being a friend and sattelite.
-
You used the word independent, so has Putin. This is referencing his position. Ask the U.S. congress how they feel about the French. Our idiots were so dumb they banned french fries. Hardly a sign that France caters to US policy. (Or that the U.S. congress knows where french fries come from). The U.S. does have a tremendous amount of influence. We carry a significant burden of the financial costs in most of our alliances which makes sense considering the size of our economy. That does not mean we always get our way.
Regarding the comment about Russia, China and western relations, the thing the west is adamant on in economic relations is transparency and clear legal/financial rules. This is a point where Russia is clearly doing all the damage to itself. As long as Russia does not abide by the same financial behavior that everyone else does, there will be hesitancy from the international community to invest, the risks are too high for corporate standards. This predates the sanctions and drop in oil prices. The Yukos affair was really bad news in the western financial circles. Perhaps Russians do not see the shock waves it generated in the west, but it was a big deal here. That has been followed by other instances clearly indicating state involvement in rearranging businesses to suit it's purposes regardless of legal standing. This has included charges of theft where the supposed victim of the theft (a French company) denies any theft ever took place.
You speak about France here... acually France refused to provide Russia with Mistrals ships recentry under the pressure of US. These ships are no way a strategic weapon and the fact that France broke the contract will hurt France reputation at the world weapon market and France will have to play a big forfeit for Russia so it's against french interests and they didn't want to do so, they delayed a final decisions and still didn't state it clear enough,but US makes them to say NO.
-
Insult me, or anybody else, like that again and you'll be banished.
I am sure I know more about life in the US than you do. I am now quite suspicious that I know more about life in Russia than you do. Or at least I'm better able to compare the two together.
Back in the Soviet days there was a similar argument coming out of Moscow. Yet all around where I lived I had Russians, Ukrainians, Baltic people, Poles, and a smattering of other people form areas dominated by the Soviet Union. It gave me the idea, as crazy as it might sound, that the Soviet Union wasn't the "worker's paradise" that it said it was.
Back in those days people were smuggled into the US in the boot of a car. In Soviet Russia? They were smuggled out in the boot of a car. While it is true that Russians are not barred from leaving the country like the old days, clearly not many people want to move to Russia except people looking for low wage jobs. And even then, mostly from ex-Soviet Republics. Now, thanks to Putin's actions in the last 2-3 years the number of educated/skilled foreigners moving to Russia has slowed and now totally reversed. And thanks to the collapse of the Ruble, in large part due to Putin's policies, even the low paid workers are thinking twice about moving to Russia.
So if the US is the most horrible place on Earth to live... what does that make Russia by comparison?
This common argument coming from Russians saddens me the most. You so fully believe state media that you think that nobody in the world wants justice for themselves. Nobody wants fair treatment under the law. Nobody wants economic opportunities. Instead you believe all people are as content as Russians to be taken advantage of by a tiny number of people who are using government as both a source of personal enrichment and a means of keeping it that way. Therefore, in your thinking, anybody who is inspired to fight against their government must be doing it because the CIA tricked or paid them to.
This is a terrible, terrible mindset to have. And it shows how well Putin's policies have translated into a compliant and docile population. Which is just the way he wants it to be.
Steve
I didn't say US is a horrible place to live now. Nope. There is quite a high level of life there. Higher than in Russia for sure The point actually is that it's not the most democratic/free country in the world how US likes to present itself. However ordinary people don't care about democracy that much. They care about level of life (job, salaries, medicine, roads e.t.c.) and don't really care whether goverment watching them or not even if it breaks their right for private life e.t.c. Snowden showed US people that goverment watching them and what happened? Goverment was retired? Some new laws were implemented to prevent goverment from this? Nothing happened in fact. Ordinary people don't really care about freedom. Btw can you explain why US is at the 1st place in the world for the number of people kept in prisons per 100 000 of it's population. Russia is at the 10 place in this rating for example. Are there so many criminals in US or are US laws so severe or what? I personally have no exact idea but it makes me think bad about US justice though Russian justice is bad either I won't deny it.
For your note I don't belive russian state media and don't usually read\watch them. The same I actually don't belive US or other state medias cause they all lie more or less. I make my conclusions on many sources of information and I had an oportunity to visit various countries (China, US, EU ) and talk to people from these countries directly. You probably will be shocked but I never voted for Putin and don't support his internal policy while I find his external policy reasonable more or less.
It's not like I hate US or EU either, I just say about them here what I see in their actions without being blinded by US/EU propaganda (yes, western countries also has propaganda). I see that US nor tries to bring some real democracy anywhere, it just uses people dissatisfaction in various countries to change goverments there in profit of US first of all. I won't call US an evill empire for it however. I think the world is a cruel place and all countries in the world are fighting for their own interests except those that chosen a role of US sattelite already and betray their own interests in profit of US.
-
I think we are maybe going overboard with the Russia bashing.
Last I heard, Russia still had most of its tactical nukes aimed at China, that might deter China from making a grab at Siberia.
I also doubt the US would stand by and let China invade another sovereign country, I mean fair is fair.
I personally think that russian people mentality and russian culture much more close to the West than to the East and we would better cooperate with US and EU to balance growing power of China, and Russia actually wanted to cooperate with US and EU after USSR failure, however it was showed to Russia quite clear that West doesn't want any fair cooperation with Russia.
-
Or Russia simply has an inferiority complex as it's economic power puts it outside of "great power" status. Russia is not and never will be the power that the USSR was. That bloc was politically and economically unsustainable. China is a rising economic power, which unfortunately is also not paying attention to long term demographics and their economic model, however they are far and away in a different economic status than Russia.
Russia can try and stay "independent" and in a few decades will be a trivial little backwater with nothing of significance to contribute to the world economy. That is not the model China is following. Isolating oneself from the world economic community and hoping your one cash cow will keep you afloat is not a serious economic plan, however it is the only one Putin has. China will probably take Siberia from you leaving the European facing rump state to jump up and down and make lots of noise hoping to get someone's attention living on it's past glories. That is the future Putin is delivering for you.
Where did I say that Russia want to isolate itself from world and world economy? By independence I mean that Russian people whant to have a goverment that will make decisions for the profit of Russia. We don't want a goverment that will do what US president tells them to do against our national interests as EU leaders used to already.
-
Regarding how the West treats Russia...
We live in a monopolar world now. US pretends to be the king of this world. Other big countries should be US sattelites or they get problems in some way - economical, political, military. Europe is US sattelite now so it is allowed to live quietly while US controls it's political establishment and says Europe what to do even if it turns against EU real profit - like with anti-russian sanctions which hurt Europe much more than US, and US made Europe to apply them anyway.Russia, China and some other countries are friends of the West till they follow US as its sattelites either and do what US wants them to do irrespecrtive of Russian or Chinese real profit and national interests. As soon as Russia or China try to defend their own profit and interests they become enemies, "threats to all civil world" e.t.c. So while Russia stays independent country it will be treated by West (US) as an enemy. I hope Russia stay independent however.
-
I don't say russian current strategy is good. Frankly speaking if I were a president of Russia I don't know what decision I would make in case of Ukraine since all decisions look as no-win decisions for Russia. Just let Ukraine go to west and become a part of EU and NATO? it would be a great strategical fail for Russia irrespective of whether Russia see itself as some local empire or as a democratic state. NATO and US are not friends of Russia anyway and won't be its friends untill Russia won't become their satellite while Russia wants to stay independent. Support rebbels there preventing Ukraine becoming a EU and NATO member? - it costs Russia a lot already politically and economically so it's not a perfect decision either.
What I say here is that the way Russia choosen by supproting rebels is not something new. US did the same thing in other countries supporting rebbels when they wanted to change the goverment of these countries to more loyal for US or just creat a mess there. US actually supported rebbels and revolution in Ukrain first initiating all this mess. Then Russia had to react by supporting the opposite force.
When you speak about people protesting against corruption and so, I do agree that it's a valid point to protets but it still not a valid reason for US to come there and creat a mess just to have a mess and nothing else. Lybia wasn't a democratic state for sure, but people there actually had a better life before US and NATO decided that Lybia is not democratic enough. What's the result? A lot of people killed and a complete mess and anarchy there now. The same thing happend with Irac already. US came there and created a complete mess as a result. Looking at this I am comming to an idea that creating a mess all other world making other countries weaker by stimulating some local conflicts and civil wars there is a real strategy of US in fact to stay the only big, stable and powerfull country in the world of chaos. -
Of course the US supported the protests in Ukraine. That's because people were sick of being repressed and having their tax money pay for gold toilet seats for the ruling elite. The person most responsible for Maidan is Yanukovych. The second person most responsible for Maidan is Putin. The US only helped people who wanted to be free from oppression help themselves. Which, according to Russian mentality I've seen, is a bad thing. Because repressed people should not seek something better for themselves.
Steve
I thought only children believe in generous US that supports protests and revolutions in various countries over the world just becouse US loves liberty and freedom so much that it wants to share it with all other nations . Now I see that I was wrong. Even some old people belive in these fairtales. Steve, you are from US, right? If so, you live in the country where big brother watching you even more closely now than it was in USSR evil empire or in modern Russia. Did you hear anything about "big data"? US goverment watching all citizens automatically without any adjudgement. US goverment also use tortures against citizens of other countries. I would say that some European countries are much more democratic places to live than modern US in fact. Do you really beilve that such country as US really want to save other nations from some kind of dictatorship while US slowly transforms into George Orwell's novel itself?
US invades other countries or support protests and revolutions there if US has some real profit from it. Why US won't invade north korea now and won't free poor north korean people from dictatorship? No profit for US to invade there, so they don't care about poor north korean people. Why US supported protests and even revolution in Ukraine? Cause Ukraine is a Russian sattelite. US treats Russia as an opponent and will do everything to make Russia weaker. Taking Ukraine from Russian influence will make Russia weaker. Creating a conflict between Russia and Europe will make both Europe and Russia weaker. US doesn't need nor strong Russia nor strong Europe nor let them to cooperate. The same way US acts in Asia against China or supports various conflicts in middle east. So now Russia and US fighting for Ukraine in fact. Russia supports local rebells and provide them with weapon (sure they wouldn't be able to fight against regular Ukraine army without a weapon) , money and mentorship I suppose. US supports the new Urkanian goverment and provide it with money, political support, mentorship, will lilkely send some weapon to it soon either, and pushing Russia with sanctions of course.
The funny thing here is that Russia called and prosecuted as agressor in this case while US did the same things over the world (US supported Libian rebbels figting against their govermernt for example) and nobody prosecuted US for this simply becouse US is a superpower and can do anything it wants. It just shows that we live in a world of double standards. What the hell US did in Irac or Afganistan or Lybia? All these countries have nothing to do with US in fact. When USSR invanded Afganistan or when Russia has some interests at Ukraine now it have a clear reason for it at least cause these countries are USSR/Russian neighbours so it's a matter of Russian national security either what way these countries following by. The same as US had a valid reason to be furious about Cuba being USSR satellite and about USSR missiles at Cuba, Russia has a valid reason to be furrious about Urkaine becoming US satellite and by possible US/NATO missiles at Ukraine in the future.
-
In case you do not know, I've been studying warfare for almost 30 years. I received my degree in history, with a specific focus on the Eastern Front and the war between the Third Reich and Soviet Union. I have a very good knowledge of the post war European/Soviet stand off. I am fairly familiar with the Soviet's actions in Afghanistan and the various Russian wars/incursions/interferences since the fall of the Soviet Union. I did the research and design for CM Shock Force. I have been following the war in Ukraine nearly every single day since the start of the war (I peg it to Feb 20th) using a wide range of sources.
In short... yes, I am quite serious.
As I said, this argument of yours is basically correct as of last Spring and earlier. But I am examining what the facts are on the ground today, not where they were a year a go. Hitler and many of his top generals were fools to base their perception of Soviet capabilities each year based on their performance the previous years. This did not serve them well. These same people dismissed the capabilities of the US Army of 1944 based on the disasters of 1942/43 in North Africa. Despite Germany losing that theater.
So when I make a statement about how I see forces fighting this Spring, I am basing it on current information and not old information.
Now, to get one thing out of the way. The Russian armed forces, as it exists on paper within the Russian Federation, has not fought any war in Ukraine except for the takeover of Crimea. This means it has not executed a full scale combined arms war against Ukrainian forces, which means we must be careful about examining Russia's total military capabilities based on what Russian forces *have* (and are) fighting in Ukraine.
In August there was a large scale Russian Army counter offensive in Ukraine. These units were made up of mostly "volunteers" from standing Russian military units. They were not, however, organically trained with each other and they lacked many supporting arms and equipment they were used to. This means the Russian forces fighting in Ukraine during the summer were not the same as the Russian military units that stayed on Russian soil. For supporting documentation of direct Russian involvement, see this thread starting here:
http://community.battlefront.com/topic/116661-ukraine-military-vs-russia/page-8#entry1557383
This means the full effect of a Russian combined arms offensive has not been seen so far in this war. Therefore, just because the August counter offensive did not go as well as Russia hoped it would (I am convinced of this, but it is just an opinion), that does not mean if Russia had committed full spectrum forces the result would have been equally mixed. I expect it would have been significantly better. But of course it could not do that since it had to pretend it wasn't in Ukraine at all. Well, except for "lost" soldiers and those "on vacation".
OK, so what about today?
The Russian military has absolutely no history of fighting a protracted war of maneuver AT ALL and no history of a war against a mechanized enemy that lasted more than a few days (Georgia). The performance of Russian logistics even in these limited circumstances was not good. Putin has done a lot to improve the logistics side of things, but only in anticipation of small scale, quick attack scenarios. Which is why the attack on Crimea was very well executed.
While it is true that Russia has gained a lot of experience with the logistics of supporting a prolonged unconventional war in Ukraine, it still hasn't had to deal with the difficulties of a large scale organized attack. Based on what I know about the current and past history of Russian and Soviet capabilities... I do not think they can sustain the size, scope, and duration necessary to knock Ukraine out before things go very badly for Russian forces. *AGAIN* I am saying this about this coming Spring, not last Spring. Last Spring Russia would have done quite well.
The other thing that Russia lacks is a history of effectively fighting a war of maneuver in the face of a determined, mechanized enemy capable of causing major casualties in a very short space of time. Here is where traditionally Russia has done OK with. In the past there were always more warm bodies in boots to send forward to replace those who had fallen before them. I personally do not believe that modern Russia will find such behavior acceptable, so I don't think this is a viable strategy any more.
On the topic of fighting forces. Putin has invested heavily in updating and modernizing the Russian armed forces, and it shows very positively in places. And that is the KEY to this whole discussion. The improvements have been far from even.
After Chechnya and Georgia, Putin recognized that a largely conscript army using outdated equipment and doctrine simply wasn't going to work any more. He saw what the West was doing and realized that he had to do something similar, but on a scale that Russia could afford. Wisely, Putin assessed what Russia was most likely need a military for... interfering in the affairs of a neighboring state and internal security. He probably knows, deep down, that there's 0.00% chance of winning a conventional war against NATO in a military sense.
The correct response to the anticipated needs of the Russian state caused Russia to focus on making a fairly small amount of its armed forces VERY GOOD and not spend much resources on the rest. If you think you only need 50k forces to solve your problems, why would you spend the resources to improve the rest of the military? It would be a very big waste of money and time. Georgia was the first test case and it showed that this reshaping of the Russian military was working, though still in need of improvements.
The problem for Putin is that his modernization program was based on a Georgian scenario, not a Ukraine 2015 scenario. The two are ENTIRELY different.
Currently the Ukrainian ATO has forces equal to Russia's top line force. While I agree that Russia's force is overall superior, attacking Ukraine on its home territory is going to require a lot better force ratios than 1:1 even with quality taken into consideration. Especially since by the time Spring arrives the ATO will likely have 2:1 numerical superiority in the immediate theater. This is not a recipe for Russian success, but a near certain script for Russian disaster.
As I said in my previous post, any buildup of Russian forces along the Ukrainian border would be easily detected and documented as it was during the Spring of 2014 and into the Summer. This would allow Ukraine sufficient time to redeploy forces as needed. To cover the approaches to Kiev better it would mean reducing the ATO force size, but with its superiority in numbers that wouldn't be a problem for a defensive battle.
The rest of what I said before remains my prediction.
Steve
I don't really bother whether your a war expert and historian or not. I just read what you write here and you write quite weird things for anybody who made even a minimal research about Ukraine and Russian armies capabilities and their current state.
1. What about diference in millitary budgets I mentioned before (3rd place in the word for Russia, 37th place in the world for Ukraine)? Do you really belive that country which spends so little on it's army can stand against the country which spends so much?
2. What about the fact that Ukraine has almost no aviation? 160 outdated planes vs 2000 russian ones where at least a half is modern or upgraded? 160 planes is a very optimistic evaluation in fact becouse they lost some of these planes already. Besides nobody knows how many of these planes can fly becouse they obviously didn't spent enough money on them before. They also doen't have enough pilots since they didn't invest enough money in training either. So Russia will simply rule the sky in any massive conflict with Urkaine.
3. Ukrainian army might got some experience durring the last year but they also lost most of their best armoured vehicles and helicopters in these fights.They lost so many t64 already that they now even take old t72a from reserve on pair with btr70 and other equipment 30 years old. Do you belive that equipment which spent 30 years somewhere in reserve is a good equipment in fact?
To summarize if a massive Russian invasion happen and NATO won't help Ukraine, instead of some world war II tactics with close range fights Russia would rather play with Ukraine in a modern war using great advantage in aviation, artillery and recon - the same way US did in Irac against outdated Saddam forces. What for to have a tank vs tank battle if enemy tanks can be eliminated with modern ground assault planes or AT helos which Russia has for example or with ground ATGMs Kornet - 5500m range, 1300mm penetration...
-
You kind'a left out the small detail of the former Yugoslavs slaughtering each other wholesale. And you left out the other small detail that Russia was part of the military force that entered the country to stop the conflict along with NATO.
They were probably slaughtering each other but so what? Why NATO should bomb on side of the conflict (the one which they like more)? It was still a NATO agression against this country.
Russian peace-making forces were there in accordance with the resolution №1244 of UN while NATO bombed the country on it's own just becouse they wanted to do so...
-
Plans, schmans. That's what militaries do. There might even be plans stored away somewhere in the Canadian Force HQ for an invasion of the US (yeah probably not) but I know there are plans for what to do if the US invades us. Military HQs are "what if scenario" and plan generators.
I know you guys in Russia have been fed a long diet of NATO wants to invade us and destroy us various other crazy stories. I don't want to get to sucked to far into that rat whole but let me simply assure you that that was never the intention of the NATO governments and it sill isn't. Oh I know someone somewhere can find some crazy government official or elected parliamentarian saying things that make you nervous - trust me we Canadians know all about that. But the existence of plans and some low ranking guy's statements are not evidence of hostility.
I know you guys in the West have been fed a long diet of USSR wants to invade you and destroy you various other crazy stories
Sounds weird for you, right? The truth is that both sides during cold war were ready to invade and destroy each other if things go wrong. What is really weird that cold war ended but NATO still exists and even becoming larger. Who was the enemy of NATO after cold war ended and why NATO countries invaded other countries several times? What should non NATO countries think and feel when NATO bombed Yugoslavia? Did Yugoslavia attack NATO first?We are not kids to belive in fairtales about open hearted military block which exists just for self-defence. The world is a cruel place where different countries compete for resources and dominance. NATO is an instrument that allows several western countries rule the world and say other countries outside NATO what they should or shouldn't do. Fist law on pair with economics power is still the real law of the modern world. If you don't see it you are an actual victim of propaganda.
-
The question for me is - why does Russia see the EU and/or NATO as a threat to its national security ? Who wants to invade Russia nowadays ? Why ?
Even in the Cold War days, it was always a case of "Stopping the Soviets invading" not "Invade Soviet Russia
Why Russia shouldn't see it as a treat?
NATO was created even before Warsaw PACT as a dirrect opponent to USSR durring cold war. You are wrong saying that western plans was only about stopping the Soviets invading. West actually had some offensive plans either. The first plan called Peancer made by US in 1945 (even before NATO creation) was about bombing USSR with nuclear weapon which USSR didn't have yet.
While cold war ended in 91 and Warsaw PACT with USSR disappeared, NATO still exists and even growing taking new members, but not Russia. NATO and US as a real leader of NATO performed several invasions already to various countries over the world like Irac, Afganistan, Yugoslavia while these countries didn't attack NATO, so it was offence actions from US and NATO. Of course they stated some reasons for such invasions but it was invasions anyway. So how Russia can be sure that NATO or US wouldn't like to invade it for some reason sooner or later?
-
How many pairs of boots on the ground with the motivation to actually push do the RF have? How many of those would be needed to hold what they take? The Ukraine's air power is minimal, but US/NATO air can be delivered as soon as the first Russian air strike goes in, give or take a few hours. So, at best, that's a wash; at worst the RF air force is grounded pretty rapidly and unable to conduct air support operations sooner than that.
Much of Russia's military expenditure had to go to securing it's astonishingly long land borders. The army is mostly conscripts, and as you say, why would they want Kiev, even if their political masters went off the deep end and started something they couldn't come out of with any credit? And it's still a shadow of its Warsaw Pact days. If Steve is right about the 50000 career/volunteer soldiers, the UK alone has a larger professional force than that. Trying to grind a conscript army into an asymmetric war wouldn't get the Russians any further in Ukraine than it did in Afghanistan.
Why is Russia kvetching so about Ukraine choosing the West's apron strings over Moscow's? That's the reason Russia might go into Kiev: non-rational macho brinksmanship, of the "If we take their capital they will sue for peace and cede us control of the Donbass region," kind. Not with the intention of holding it.
So you admit that Ukraine cannot fight against Russia without dirrect NATO support? Nice, that's what I was talking about actually.
It's not 19-th century anymore to evaluate army power by pairs of boots first of all. LOL. How many US soldiers were fighting in Irac in 2003 against how many Saddam soldiers? Internet sources says US forces had 5 divisions against 23 divisions of Saddam? So what? US army was much more powerfull becouse of better equipment and training.
Why is Russia kvetching so about Ukraine choosing the West's apron strings over Moscow's? - you ask... Well why USA was and still furious about Cuba choosing the red way? The answer is simple - no country in the world would like it's neighbours getting influenced by its opponents too much. So Russia treats possible Ukraine affiliation to EU and NATO as a direct threat to Russian national security. It's an obvious logic.
-
Unless Steve has his numbers wrong, and, being the professional in the field, I'd tend to place more confidence in that than yours, your estimation of the scale of the Russian army's troop strength is perhaps a little high. Oh, and don't forget the Russians' other commitments, when you count heads and available forces.
What are you even talking about? Do you have Google? Use it!
According to open sources Ukrainian army has 160 millitary jets + 23 transport planes in service now. Almost all of them they got from USSR - so they are quite outdated and Ukraine didn't upgrade them.
Russian Army has 2 000 millitary jets in service now (not counting those that are in reserve). A big part of them are made in USSR either but many are upgraded already. Besides Russian army gets some new jets every year. In 2014 they got 90 completly new jets for example. It's a half of all Ukranian Air force!
The scale difference is simmilar for other weapons: like helos, tanks, artillery e.t.c.
I don't even speak here about level of training and about how many people can Russia mobilize if it needs so, while Ukraine is almost out of it's reserves already.
Russia spent 87,8$ milliards on it's army in 2013. It's in a 3-rd place of millitary expences in the world after US and China.
Ukraine spent 5$ milliards on it's army in 2013. It's in a 37-th place of millitary expences in the world.
So, again, what are you even talking about? Without direct NATO millitary help, Ukraine has no a single chance to stand against Russian army for more than a couple of weeks in the best case.
The reason why Russian army is not in Kiev yet is simple - what's the reason for Russia to take Kiev in fact? Nobody needs world war III here just to expand a big country a little bit more. While Russia took Crimea becouse majority of people there really wanted to be with Russia and it was historically a part of Russa, while it supports Donbas becouse a lot of people there were isnpired with Crimea precedent and it's histotically a russian land either with russian population mostly, it would be suicide for Russia to go to Kiev simply becouse most of the people there are Ukranians and they don't want to be in Russia. So even if Russia capture Kiev with millitary forces what profit would it get? Nothing. Just problems.
-
The original storyline pitted the Russian forces against the same surprised, corrupt, and conflicted Ukrainian forces that existed prior to Yanucovych fleeing and had to deal with the "uprising". If Russia had launched a broad offensive into eastern Ukraine in March or April would have been a relatively "easy" fight to the Dnieper.
That was then, this is now (as the saying goes!). Since this time Ukraine has had time to fix many of their fundamental problems and now have considerable combat experience, greater numbers, increased military spending, and months of preparation under their belt. If Russia launches a general offensive into eastern Ukraine this Spring or Summer I highly doubt Russia would get anywhere close to the Dnieper.
Russia no longer has the strategic element of surprise it had back in Winter/Spring 2014. An offensive in 2015 would be characterized by a major Russian buildup along the border where they intended to invade or act as a decoy. NATO would be very quick to pass along intel about this buildup. Unlike last Spring, Ukraine would be quick to respond to with their own deployments to counter the Russian intentions. This would most assuredly doom a Russian invasion to major casualties and slow progress. Or at the very least, unequal progress.
Where Russia experienced breakthroughs it would quickly find itself challenged to the point of stalling, or at least hesitating. This would allow rear echelon and frontline shifts to help counter the actions. Which, in turn, would limit Russia's overall ability to advance beyond a fairly narrow strip of territory.
Realistically Ukraine of 2014 would have needed NATO support prior to have achieved similar results. Now? No. By Spring the Ukrainian forces intend on having roughly 100,000 forces available for the war they are already fighting. That's about double what it is now. The increase is coming from new forces being built right now and rotating in the older units forward. These forces are very motivated to fight. Russia, on the other hand, has only about 50,000 non-conscript dependent forces to put into the battle. That means it would have to use *all* of its best forces *and* at least 150,000 largely conscript forces to have enough to do the initial attack, plus about another 100,000 in reasonably close proximity to move in for replacement and occupation duties. Russia, simply put, doesn't have these sorts of forces ready to fight such a campaign. They certainly lack the logistics infrastructure and experience to support such an effort in the face of significant opposition.
In short... if Russia attacked today's Ukraine it would be almost a national suicide mission. They would be effectively defeated on the battlefield, which would likely mean Putin would be deposed. Which is why I think we have thankfully moved past the prospect of a full Russian invasion.
We are going to include irregular forces, for both sides, in a future Module. It was simply too much to do all at once.
Steve
Are you serious? OMG...
Ukraninan and Russian armies are simmply incomparable to each other from the point of scale, equipment and trainig. The simple fact that Ukraine has almost no aviation says a lot. It's like discussing how long Mexico can stand against US if US decide to invade it - a week maybe? I have nothing against Ukraine and actually hope that such a war won't happen, but they simply didn't invest enough money and efforts in their army for years and it's impossible to build a powerfull army just at once even if you get millions of dollars and some equipment for it from EU and US. Ukranian officials actually understand it and say that in the case of the massive russian invasion they won't be able to stop it without dirrect NATO help.
Sounds weird for you, right? The truth is that both sides during cold war were ready to invade and destroy each other if things go wrong. What is really weird that cold war ended but NATO still exists and even becoming larger. Who was the enemy of NATO after cold war ended and why NATO countries invaded other countries several times? What should non NATO countries think and feel when NATO bombed Yugoslavia? Did Yugoslavia attack NATO first?
Strategic and tactical realities in CMBS
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted · Edited by Rusknight
US will hardly invest enough money into Ukraine to make it a prosperous country, but to let it survive, not to get economics disaster (what can lead to an uncontrolled goverment change) - sure, why not? US can give it enough money for it. It's not a business loan for US it's their geopolitical expenses.