Jump to content
emccabe

ukraine military vs russia

Recommended Posts

Donetsk airport - strongpoint with TRPs at every bush, with huge amount of artillery support. And DPR have few tanks to breakthrough. Althouh, half of an airport it taken by milita. And airport is not surrounded.

The DPR covers the access in and out of the airport, shooting up reinforcements and resupplies. Totally surrounded? No, but close enough.

As for tanks, the separatists were attacking with tanks from the start when Ukraine had only light forces there.

Separatists have plenty of artillery and only one place they need to aim at. They have hammered the airport daily.

You also do not seem to understand the scale of ground combat taking place. The separatists have been attacking the airport or 6+ months and have not taken it. In fact, the first major defeat (and first publicized Cargo 200 shipment) was due to the airport fight very early on.

They took territory... And were surrounded several times, losing a lot of vehicles and men. No, not only by Russians. With their number superioty they could crash milita, if they only had capable command and motivated infantry. (common practice - massive shelling, then attack, infantry is suppressed, tanks attack alone, stay there just because rebels have no AT weapons, then they call new artillery strike - early WW2)

They *were* crushing the militia until mid August when Russia (not separatists) launched the counter offensive. Even with that the northern side held and the southern side quickly firmed up. Which is exactly why Russia was forced to counter attack. Ukraine was going to win within 2-3 weeks at the rate they were going and Russia could not allow that to happen.

Ukrainians had a lot of motor rifle, airmobile and tanks units against light infantry small in numbers, with few AT weapons. And they managed to lose >60% of light armor. To PTRDs, DShKs and NSV.

Again, you are trying to judge today's Ukrainian force with the one from 6 months ago. A very bad way to analyze the situation that is on the ground today. There is almost no similarity between the two time periods.

It is true that Ukraine's military started out hopelessly ill equipped and riddled with people that didn't want to fight. That is not the way it is today.

Oh, and it is a myth that the separatists only had light weapons to take out Ukrainian vehicles. Early on they had AT-4 and RPG-18 in large numbers. Here is the famous truck of RPGs they "captured" back in May:

YpiZ5_pJ2MA.jpg

And from the same time in Slavyansk:

attachment.php?attachmentid=217249&d=1397495167

Politics. Mariupol was empty, but wasn't taken.

It wasn't taken because you can't occupy a city of that size with the small force that was deployed. It would have left Russia and the separatists in a very bad operational and strategic position unless significantly more forces were deployed. Even the entire Russian force in Rostov wouldn't have been enough to safely maintain it. So taking Mariupol wasn't militarily feasible, so sensibly it wasn't attempted. I did think they might cut it off. That would have needed more forces, but at least it was possible.

What side pretends to be an army? Rebels are usually less trained, but not in this war.

Again, you are judging the Ukrainian performance incorrectly in my view. I've been doing this sort of analysis work for more than 20 years, so I'm confident in my perspective. As I am confident that the reason the Black Sea storyline we developed from 2009-2013 does not look almost exactly like 2014 because of a strange, unrelated coincidence.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am Austrian, I consume only german media (who dont "support" that "narrative" and RT only when I stumble over some link. I dont think RT is very informative even if only to counterbalance western media. It is easy to get all relevant facts from western media if you take the effort to differ between reported facts and conclusions or opinions. You might want to try this angle (or not): http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2014/february/09/victoria-nulands-ukraine-gate-deceptions/

I would not "try" anything from Ron Paul unless someone was holding a gun to my head. Even then I would ask for some time to consider my answer. We have a term for people like him and it is "wingnut".

I find it laughable to see suggestions that Obama and his government are so devious and effective. Anybody following Obama foreign policy knows it is the opposite. He will likely go down in history as the least effective, least competent, least engaged, and least creative Presidential Administration in modern history. Even when compared to the 8 years of Bush/Cheney. Which is a heck of an accomplishment, sad to say.

To call your posting about the responsibility for displaced People in Eastern Ukraine cynical is too polite.

Without Russia's direct actions in Ukraine there would be no war at all. Therefore the weight of responsibility for all death and destruction ultimately rests on the shoulders of Russian foreign policy. Just like the death and destruction in Europe in WW2 is the responsibility of the Third Reich. However, individual actions can be placed on the shoulders of Ukraine just as they can for the Allies in WW2. Just because the Third Reich started WW2 in Europe doesn't mean that fireboming Dresden can not be criticized as an immoral and illegal act.

I am shocked about the way you as an administrator are leading this discussion. When another opinion is voiced you denounce him as a Propagandist, Insult him and tell him to shut up for beeing OT. I recommend you read the forum rules.

I don't need to read the rules because I wrote them :D You misunderstood my point. And that is we are not supposed to be talking about the politics of this conflict, but the military and things directly related to the military aspects. I admitted I got sucked in and offered people a response before I started cracking down. You got your response.

Since I initially responded to one of your posts I am surprised I am OT. As long as the topic is the situation in Eastern Ukraine and not bashing Russia. I admit I am OT on this one.It is not you or your kids that are dying or displaced in Eastern Ukraine or will suffer in an escalation. So stick with your computer games.

Again, you misunderstood my point.

And dont worry I wont try to shatter your worldview on any of your forums again with my propaganda. And yes, I know you dont care.

I've debated the "facts" for 10 months now. I have heard all the arguments you've made many times before. I could tear apart each of your "facts" very easily, but that is the off topic direction this thread is not supposed to go in.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without Russia's direct actions in Ukraine there would be no war at all. Therefore the weight of responsibility for all death and destruction ultimately rests on the shoulders of Russian foreign policy. Just like the death and destruction in Europe in WW2 is the responsibility of the Third Reich. However, individual actions can be placed on the shoulders of Ukraine just as they can for the Allies in WW2. Just because the Third Reich started WW2 in Europe doesn't mean that fireboming Dresden can not be criticized as an immoral and illegal act.

Steve

Without the direct actions of France and England and Lend and Lease a lot of death and destruction most likely could have been avoided according your undisputable logic applied to Eastern Ukraine.

And it was the Third Reich ultimatly responsible for the firebombing of Dresden. If you send your army away to conquer the world the enemy will come and burn down your citys. Always was like that, always will be. Even precision ammunition wont change this.

If you reduce these actions to Bomber Harris or some other individuals you are loosing the big picture again. Hitler was warned about the strategic capabilities (likely monthly production of heavy bombers). 3/4 of the Luftwaffe were deployed against the SU. The enemy will use what he has one point or another. Thats what escalation is about.

I wont discuss your other points because I promised not to challenge your worldview and because talking to a wall seems to be more productive. Name me a wingnut and call it a day.

Edit: Btw, the article I linked is mainly about the ineffectiveness and shortcomings of the US government. If you would have spent 5 minutes of your precious time you would be in a position to know this. At least you realised it wasnt a Russian source. I am aware now it takes the threat of deadly force to make you consider reading a deviating opinion or beeing exposed to facts not fitting in your world view. Sorry for breaking my promise, but this one was too hard to keep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a question overall how is ukraines military doing I know that they are much better equiped then they were but are they loosing a lot if ground plus is there a map of the conflict that updates so I can see progress

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been watching all the Vice dispatches on Youtube (up to #30, April, right now) and I've taken a couple of things away from them, thus far.

1.)The Russian government was lying through it's teeth. Plain and simple. Anybody that denies that is being willfully ignorant. It reminds me of the same stuff Hitler did to get into Czechoslovakia and Poland but much more devious and subtle. It's like they went through the Eukraine one area at a time and "liberated" it through referendums after doing what they could to disarm the military/police in the area. And it's pretty funny how as soon as the town or military bases got taken over by the "people" the first thing the guy in charge says is that they need Putin to send men to "keep the peace". It was a rinse and repeat tactic. It's was like invasion by invitation and it insults your intelligence that they think you are that stupid to buy it, though, fools and shills surely have.

It's also funny how about 80% of the time the "not Russian soldiers" were trying to make sure nothing got filmed. Because you know, people with nothing to hide always do what they can to stifle information.

2.)The Eukrainian government royally screwed the military and left a lot of their soldiers and sailors completely in the lurch. The utter incompetence at the highest levels was pathetic. Those poor b*****ds sat around for weeks without any orders from anyone while the scheming went on outside their walls. I couldn't believe how much equipment, vehicles, ships, and actual man power Russia was able to annex with nary a shot fired. I can't say I blame many of the soldiers, marines, and sailors for going over to Russia considering how much of a joke their own politicians were. But I was actually laughing at the promises that were made to them if they did go. They definitely made a deal with the devil and he won't live up to one thing he promised them. You'd think after 60 some odd years of Communism these guys would know the score. Putin's nothing but an X-Commie trying to relive the dream as far as I am concerned and everyone else is the stepping stones to the destination.

LOL. Yeah, I know, I may not be as versed about this stuff as you guys, but that was my take on it.

Mord.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And they managed to lose >60% of light armor. To PTRDs, DShKs and NSV.

Eh, you seems to have neglected that big shipment of Russian army ATGM launchers they got. You know, from Putin's 'humanitarian' convoy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the maps I follow from time to time.

http://mediarnbo.org/2014/11/27/the-situation-in-the-eastern-regions-of-ukraine-27-11-14/?lang=en

Just a question overall how is ukraines military doing I know that they are much better equiped then they were but are they loosing a lot if ground plus is there a map of the conflict that updates so I can see progress

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Without the direct actions of France and England and Lend and Lease a lot of death and destruction most likely could have been avoided according your undisputable logic applied to Eastern Ukraine.

You've lost me. I have no idea what you're talking about now.

My point was rather simple. Russia elected, on its own and against all the urgings of the major countries of the world, to militarily invade Ukraine (Crimea and Donbas), fund and organize the "separatist" movement, and provide arms and "volunteers" to fight in Ukraine. As a result of this aggression people have been driven from their homes and (in Donbas) subjected to summary execution, privation, and extortion. Therefore, ultimately Russia is directly, and indirectly, responsible for the horrors that the civilian population.

And it was the Third Reich ultimatly responsible for the firebombing of Dresden. If you send your army away to conquer the world the enemy will come and burn down your citys. Always was like that, always will be. Even precision ammunition wont change this.

There are rules of war. If a country wishes to take the high ground, then it obeys the rules as closely as it can. Firebombing Dresden is an example of a punitive action that had no military objective. The same as the Third Reich bombing London and other populated areas of Great Britain. The international conventions to protect civilians does not have a special exemption for "he started it". Which means the weight of responsibility for some specific actions is purely with the Allies because they chose a course of action they knew to be illegal and, in the minds of many, immoral. That doesn't let the Third Reich off the hook for starting the whole thing, or it's much longer list of atrocities, but it does mean the Western Allies have some blemishes on their record.

I wont discuss your other points because I promised not to challenge your worldview and because talking to a wall seems to be more productive. Name me a wingnut and call it a day.

I can't call you a wing nut because your arguments are all over the place and therefore I don't know how to categorize you. I did call Ron Paul a wingnut because, by reasonable standards, he is. And his son is a junior wingnut. And I say that as someone who has a deep appreciation for the concept of Libertarianism.

Edit: Btw, the article I linked is mainly about the ineffectiveness and shortcomings of the US government. If you would have spent 5 minutes of your precious time you would be in a position to know this. At least you realised it wasnt a Russian source. I am aware now it takes the threat of deadly force to make you consider reading a deviating opinion or beeing exposed to facts not fitting in your world view. Sorry for breaking my promise, but this one was too hard to keep.

Your attitude is abusive and condescending. The threat of deadly force was specific to Rand Paul. The guy is a nutjob and therefore nothing he says has any value to me. He can be right about some things some times, but I guarantee that I've gained that knowledge from other sources that don't upset my stomach. Put another way, why wade through a pile of feces to find a dollar when there are easier ways to acquire dollars. I read and hear plenty of different view points and my own criticism of the US government's handling of pretty much anything is far deeper and well informed. I have found, through experience, that Rand Paul is not going to contribute to that knowledge base in any positive way. I also don't read anything written by (or more likely for) Sarah Palin. Not worth my time.

Just a question overall how is ukraines military doing I know that they are much better equiped then they were but are they loosing a lot if ground plus is there a map of the conflict that updates so I can see progress

They have lost almost no ground since the cease fire of September went into effect. Between mid August and then they lost significant ground, but retained most of what they gained since the start of Poroshenko's offensive. So on balance, they have more ground than they had in the Spring. By a lot.

Their military started out in a very bad state (see below), but now it is in a generally good state. The separatists have made no gains of any significance since the cease fire, but have taken significant casualties trying.

Ukraine has always maintained two groups. One group is actively committed to fighting the Russian backed separatist areas of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts (collectively a part of Donbas). This is called the ATO (Anti Terrorist Operation) area. The other group is held in reserve in the event of a full scale Russian invasion outside of the ATO.

The units in the ATO have stabilized over time and are fairly well equipped now (shortages of AT, night vision, and radios are still a problem). The quality of the units range from reasonably competent to extremely good. Morale is very good from what I've seen. In fact, when Ukrainian forces had to negotiate free passage through Russia to return to Ukraine the soldiers were interviewed upon returning. They were PISSED OFF, not demoralized. They had some harsh things to say about their own government's handling of military operations (a general of the ATO at the time is now facing criminal charges, BTW), but they expressed their desire to be rearmed as quickly as possible so they could get back into the fight. And they did.

The units outside of the ATO are more of an unknown since they haven't fought. What I have seen are reports of officers being sacked for incompetence even without fighting. That is a good sign that they are getting positive attention to their fighting capabilities.

As for equipment, it appears Ukraine is fielding more AFVs now than at any point in the war by a wide margin. The exception being the airforce. It's unclear what the size of it is now as it has been almost totally out of the fight since the flood of Russian MANPADs, AA guns, and AA missile systems made the environment too hostile for them.

1.)The Russian government was lying through it's teeth. Plain and simple. Anybody that denies that is being willfully ignorant.

Yes.

2.)The Eukrainian government royally screwed the military and left a lot of their soldiers and sailors completely in the lurch. The utter incompetence at the highest levels was pathetic.

This was not by accident. The Yanukovych government gutted the military budget and diverted large amounts of the remaining budget to the pockets of people that kept him in power. This was largely done to appease Russia who did not want a competent military on its border. Especially in a country that was already trying to break from Russian control.

What this means is that the military went into this war intentionally weakened through policy, corruption, and foreign influence. It's actually surprising they performed as well as they did.

In fact, it is *very* clear to anybody paying attention to the indisputable facts of the Crimean invasion that Putin wanted Ukrainians to fight back. This is what happened in Georgia and it gave Russia an excuse to invade outright. The new government in Kiev, very early on, stated "we are not going to be as stupid as Georgia and give Russia an excuse to attack us".

The most probable reason why Putin did not admit the Green Men were Russian military because he thought he wouldn't need to. He thought that there would be a shooting war on the first or second day and that all follow up Russian units would have an excuse to be there. When this didn't work the Russians tried a number of things. Primarily smashing down gates and charging into Ukrainian military bases, sometimes beating Ukrainian service personnel in the process. There was even a staged "altercation" where Russian special forces arrived on a bus (complete with a sign saying Maidan), faked an attack on the Crimean Parliament building, then drove away. Russian media reported this as a Right Sector attack. However, people filmed it and it was clear they were Russian forces, not Ukrainian. On top of that, people picked up the shell casings and they were blanks and not live ammo. The story fell apart very quickly and Russian media dropped it like a hot potato because they realized nobody bought it.

Anyway, the Ukrainian government also knew that Russia wanted their forces to shoot back so they were ordered to let Russia beat them up on camera instead of giving Russia an excuse for a larger military action. It might not seem like a dignified thing for a military to do, but in my opinion it is a far more difficult mission that it would be to fight. Ukrainian forces did extremely well and I think the VICE reports show that.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to military matters. Here's an indication of the fighting of Russian forces. It is a plaque recognizing the dead of the 17th Guards Motor Rifle Brigade (Separate), based in Shali in Chechnya. This is one of the units that was cited as being active in the Russian counter offensive. On this plaque are 10 names, 9 of them lost in action in August.

Translation:

17th Guard Separate

Orders of A.Suvorov and A. Nevsky Motor-Rifle Brigade

They lost doing their duty

.... Korchagin Oleg Nikolayevich 07.03.1979 - 18.11.2009

guard senior sergeant Aravedininov (?) Marsel Mukharamovich 22.08.1983 - 12.08.2014

guard senior (?) sergeant Kuzmin Konstantin Vladimirovich 11.10.1984 - 12.08.2014

guard sergeant Goncharov Dmitryi Sergeevich 24.08.1988 - 13.08.2014

guard sergeant Dzhankhuvatov Ibrahim Aslanbekovich 06.06.1989 - 13.08.2014

guard private Sayntkhanov Atay A...vich 04.07.1982 - 13.08.2014

guard private Uveniuk (?) Alexey Viktorovich 10.11.1976 - 13.08.2014

guard private Technev Husein H...ich 03.04.1975 - 19.08.2014

guard junior sergeant Ivanov Innokentiy Potapovich 21.06.1987 - 20.08.2014

guard corporal Larionov Vadim Alexandrovich 15.04.1992 - 20.08.2014

640x765.jpg

This shows:

August 12 = 2 KIA

August 13 = 4 KIA

August 19 = 1 KIA

August 20 = 2 KIA

For those who think that Ukrainian sources are totally unreliable in terms of reporting on Russian activities in Ukraine, consider that 4 of the 9 were listed by name in a Ukrainian journal on September 10:

Marseille Araptanov (aka “Headless Sniper”) – killed on August 12 ;

Konstantin Kuzmin – killed on August 16;

Vadim Larionov – killed on August, 21;

Innokenty Ivanov – killed in August.

This list of `cargo 200’ from the 17th Motorized Brigide is almost certainly incomplete, but this is the information we have at the moment..

https://burkonews.info/17th-motorized-brigade-southern-military-district-russian-federation-ukraine/

The Ukrainian source was not totally accurate in that it got the dates of the deaths wrong, but that is a minor point.

Here is another article about the 17th Brigade. It is from October 14 and found supporting evidence that (at the time) the unit was still deployed in Ukraine post cease fire:

http://burkonews.info/tankman-russian-officer-17th-independent-motor-rifle-brigade-participated-armed-hostilities-donbas/

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You want to look into "dodgy" rags-to-riches stories, you might inquire how Tymoshenko, former darling of the West, went from a penniless engineer to the richest woman in Ukraine in 5 years, also reselling discounted Russian Gas to Ukrainians.

Or how Poroshenko, current darling of the West, built his business empire on shady privatisation deals in the 90s. Poroshenko not only gave money to Yanukovych, but was a minister in his government in 2012.

Firtash was a backer of Klitshko's UDAR party during the "Maiden" uprising, his actions were one of the key in getting Yanukovych out in february and he was an early key backer to Poroshenko's presidential bid. It does not sound like his "Russian handlers" were doing a very good job. :)

Every Ukrainian "Oligarch" has his (or her) share of shady deals...that does not make them all "Russian Agents". ;)

This is off topic. But three quick points for you to consider, but not debate:

1. Tymoshenko was rejected by the population in the recent election. That is because they figured out who she really is.

2. As far as I know Poroshenko did not benefit from the corrupt privatization of Soviet assets. If he did, then only to a small degree compared to other oligarchs.

3. A smart man, or organization, senses the change of direction in the wind and orientates his sail so he gets ahead instead of falls behind. Look at the spending record of US corporations and pressure groups to see they generally back both parties in elections, but favor the one that is likely to win with more money.

4. Espionage is not concerned with motivation. If someone engages in an activity that is orchestrated by and for the benefit of a foreign power against ones own country, that is grounds for espionage. It doesn't matter if the person did it for politics, greed, sex, drugs... whatever... irrelevant. The international nature and primary purpose of a scheme sets this particular case apart from other oligarchs.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't need to read the rules because I wrote them :D You misunderstood my point. And that is we are not supposed to be talking about the politics of this conflict, but the military and things directly related to the military aspects.

Steve

This is off topic. But three quick points for you to consider, but not debate:

1. Tymoshenko was rejected by the population in the recent election. That is because they figured out who she really is.

2. As far as I know Poroshenko did not benefit from the corrupt privatization of Soviet assets. If he did, then only to a small degree compared to other oligarchs.

3. A smart man, or organization, senses the change of direction in the wind and orientates his sail so he gets ahead instead of falls behind. Look at the spending record of US corporations and pressure groups to see they generally back both parties in elections, but favor the one that is likely to win with more money.

4. Espionage is not concerned with motivation. If someone engages in an activity that is orchestrated by and for the benefit of a foreign power against ones own country, that is grounds for espionage. It doesn't matter if the person did it for politics, greed, sex, drugs... whatever... irrelevant. The international nature and primary purpose of a scheme sets this particular case apart from other oligarchs.

Steve

Some other news.

1. The big one is the SBU has apparently published their list of Russian units operating in Ukraine, where their HQs are, and where training camps are setup. They provide unit designations, street addresses, and 12 digit grid coordinates. Obviously Ukraine is sick and tired of people saying there isn't any hard evidence (despite all the hard evidence). It also indicates that Ukraine no longer sees a value in keeping this information hidden, which is generally standard practice for intel information of this nature.

Google Translate isn't working right now (at least not for me) so I haven't looked at it directly.

http://news.liga.net/news/politics/4197560-obnarodovan_sostav_rossiyskikh_gruppirovok_voyuyushchikh_protiv_ukrainy.htm

2. The new Ukrainian government was sworn in and most of the key acting ministers are keeping their jobs. This clearly indicates there will be no change in government policy in terms of progress towards membership with the EU, moves to combat corruption, and prioritizing the war against Russian aggression. Any thoughts Putin might have had that there was still a way to drive a wedge into Ukrainian politics should be out of his head completely now.

3. There are probably going to be more situations like this "riot" in Yuvileyne, Luhansk, yesterday:

B3YPeXzCQAARRxa.jpg

http://www.sobinews.com/#!2611-17-00/cmkl

4. Probably not unrelated, Putin has apparently appealed directly to the separatists to stop stealing the actual humanitarian aid that is in "Putin's Convoys". It's been widely reported (to no surprise) that the separatists unload the trucks and keep some for themselves and then sell the rest to civilians at high prices:

http://espreso.tv/news/2014/11/27/rosiya_vymahaye_vid_boyovykiv_prypynyty_rozkradannya_quothumanitarkyquot_na_donbasi

5. There are reports that some separatists are calling it quits and going home because of the cold and likely generally poor living conditions. Specific areas mentioned are Donetsk, Horlovka, Telmanovo and Novoazovsk. Obviously it is difficult to confirm this, but it's a predictable situation and I'm sure it's happening to some extent.

http://zn.ua/UKRAINE/boeviki-massovo-dezertiruyut-iz-za-holodov-is-160073_.html

Steve

Bolds by me. Please reread critically and reconsider your attitude. You are of course also free to debate.

They way you are handling this forum could qualify you for a director at RT.

I am out of this and this time for good, but me beeing me I cant restrain myself to make some last points:

1. I can beat you and your brother in a fistfight with my right hand tied to my back. I just choose not to because I had these kind of fights every day the last 10 months.

2. If Russia is the only one responsible for the dead and displaced in Eastern Ukraine, who is responsible for the dead protesters and policeman at Euromaidan?

3. If the prerevolutionary Ukrainian government would have sent the army to Kiev and Lemberg and I dont know which other Western Ukrainian city who would have been your bad guy?

4.Nobody did "force" England or France to declare war on Germany or the US to support Stalin. Without these direct actions there would not have been a world war. It is an existing but "highly debatable" position if these facts make These powers responsible for WWII.

5. Calling the strategic bombing during WWII a warcrime means stepping on difficult ground young padawan. I dont think you consider the implications for thousands of allied air crews with full knowledge of their payload and where this was delivered. I am sure you know Dresden is a symbol not a single event. Btw, there where no rules for air warfare back then. Even if you are going for using the rules for ground warfare analogous (and you can make a good point toward that) there is also the position talking about a breakdown of the rules of wars, which also is a good one. Cities as military targets? There are people without an politcal agenda that call Hamburg a decisive point in the war. War (the violent destruction of the enemy) is amoral by ist nature and isnt necessarily restricted to the destruction of the armed forces. I dont want to open this can. Hiroshima anyone? Mutual restraint by agreed rules of engagment is only thinkable if both parties are ready to accept defeat or fear breaking the rules more than loosing. Therefore its the exception not the rule. If you are trying to break down strategic developments to the responsibility of single persons and mix some morals into it you will loose the focus for the big picture. Punitive action as war crime? What about Sherman or Grant as war criminals? The later - one of the greatest man your country can be proud of - for supporting Sherman and letting him of the leash. Was the Wilderness Campaign with its high casualities morally better than the March to the Sea?

6. I know I am terribly OT on 4 and 5 but that pretty well describes why I got engaged in this "discussion". I am sure most people behind the gunsigghts on both sides bringing death and destruction to Eastern Ukraine are decent men. The probability might drop with irregular forces, no matter which side. Warfare is ugly and These guys wont change that. People that are having an agenda towards making a good guy/ bad guy situation out of a higly complicated ongoing conflict are fueling escalation and therefor get blood on their hands without leaving their living rooms. Thats why I dont think you are a decent guy and nothing you said on this forum did change my opinion. In the beginning I admit I was expecting some sort of clarifaction (and some other members more diplomatic than me, too) but you did everything to reinforce your point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was in Vientiane, Laos last week and, having gone downstairs for dinner at my hotel, was invited to sit with 12 very friendly and rather drunk gents 35-45. It turned out they were Russian military, specifically in air defense, SAM's etc. Despite my asking, they would not tell me if their S300/400 systems could kill stealth targets, but they did disclose the classified information that a common nickname for Poroshenko is 'Big Condom'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bolds by me. Please reread critically and reconsider your attitude. You are of course also free to debate.

They way you are handling this forum could qualify you for a director at RT.

I am out of this and this time for good, but me beeing me I cant restrain myself to make some last points:

1. I can beat you and your brother in a fistfight with my right hand tied to my back. I just choose not to because I had these kind of fights every day the last 10 months.

2. If Russia is the only one responsible for the dead and displaced in Eastern Ukraine, who is responsible for the dead protesters and policeman at Euromaidan?

3. If the prerevolutionary Ukrainian government would have sent the army to Kiev and Lemberg and I dont know which other Western Ukrainian city who would have been your bad guy?

4.Nobody did "force" England or France to declare war on Germany or the US to support Stalin. Without these direct actions there would not have been a world war. It is an existing but "highly debatable" position if these facts make These powers responsible for WWII.

5. Calling the strategic bombing during WWII a warcrime means stepping on difficult ground young padawan. I dont think you consider the implications for thousands of allied air crews with full knowledge of their payload and where this was delivered. I am sure you know Dresden is a symbol not a single event. Btw, there where no rules for air warfare back then. Even if you are going for using the rules for ground warfare analogous (and you can make a good point toward that) there is also the position talking about a breakdown of the rules of wars, which also is a good one. Cities as military targets? There are people without an politcal agenda that call Hamburg a decisive point in the war. War (the violent destruction of the enemy) is amoral by ist nature and isnt necessarily restricted to the destruction of the armed forces. I dont want to open this can. Hiroshima anyone? Mutual restraint by agreed rules of engagment is only thinkable if both parties are ready to accept defeat or fear breaking the rules more than loosing. Therefore its the exception not the rule. If you are trying to break down strategic developments to the responsibility of single persons and mix some morals into it you will loose the focus for the big picture. Punitive action as war crime? What about Sherman or Grant as war criminals? The later - one of the greatest man your country can be proud of - for supporting Sherman and letting him of the leash. Was the Wilderness Campaign with its high casualities morally better than the March to the Sea?

6. I know I am terribly OT on 4 and 5 but that pretty well describes why I got engaged in this "discussion". I am sure most people behind the gunsigghts on both sides bringing death and destruction to Eastern Ukraine are decent men. The probability might drop with irregular forces, no matter which side. Warfare is ugly and These guys wont change that. People that are having an agenda towards making a good guy/ bad guy situation out of a higly complicated ongoing conflict are fueling escalation and therefor get blood on their hands without leaving their living rooms. Thats why I dont think you are a decent guy and nothing you said on this forum did change my opinion. In the beginning I admit I was expecting some sort of clarifaction (and some other members more diplomatic than me, too) but you did everything to reinforce your point.

Well I have only one thing to say to all that.... Steve has a brother?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The DPR covers the access in and out of the airport, shooting up reinforcements and resupplies. Totally surrounded? No, but close enough.

As for tanks, the separatists were attacking with tanks from the start when Ukraine had only light forces there.

Separatists have plenty of artillery and only one place they need to aim at. They have hammered the airport daily.

You also do not seem to understand the scale of ground combat taking place. The separatists have been attacking the airport or 6+ months and have not taken it. In fact, the first major defeat (and first publicized Cargo 200 shipment) was due to the airport fight very early on.

We should understand their mentality. I also didn't understand, what were they doing.

Actually, some of the rebels and pro-Kiev special forces are former colleagues. Many of them were serving in same units. Hodakovsky and Donetsk Alpha and Berkut. Hodakovsky said some things, for that he was criticised. Something like "they are reservists, mobilised by force, militaries, who have an order, few of them are nazis from volunteer battalions and "Right sector", we don't like killing them". He said it several times. Many operations in spring were done by agreement. Airport operation also were to be by agreement. They came to negotiate with Kirovograd spetcnaz. There were a lot of such operations - when pro-Kiev forces saw that they are outnumbered and surrounded, they surrendered. But in airport someone (not Kirovograd spetcnaz) started shooting. Then that shooters (snipers) started to shoot at civilian cars, ambulances, didn't let to get away wounded and killed. Also came Su-25's. After that actions were small in scale.

More active actions started in August, when Slovyansk forces decided to try. Actually, there is not much sence in seizing airport. It is ruined, blocked. There is a company of poor guys that live in horrible conditions and are rotated very often. To rise a flag over ruins? Motorolla unit tries to do it, but they are not much supported.

Did you hear about last Hodakovsky statement? They pass humanitarian aid to airport defenders. Because they are "soldiers that have an order, few of them are "Right sector"" e.t.c. He must be trolling in such way. )

They *were* crushing the militia until mid August when Russia (not separatists) launched the counter offensive. Even with that the northern side held and the southern side quickly firmed up. Which is exactly why Russia was forced to counter attack. Ukraine was going to win within 2-3 weeks at the rate they were going and Russia could not allow that to happen.

Grozny also was to be taken "in two weaks". City battle would be long and bloody. With hundreds thousands of refugees to Russia.

Again, you are trying to judge today's Ukrainian force with the one from 6 months ago. A very bad way to analyze the situation that is on the ground today. There is almost no similarity between the two time periods.

It is true that Ukraine's military started out hopelessly ill equipped and riddled with people that didn't want to fight. That is not the way it is today.

Probably yes, they are better now. How much better? Will see in spring. :(

Oh, and it is a myth that the separatists only had light weapons to take out Ukrainian vehicles. Early on they had AT-4 and RPG-18 in large numbers. Here is the famous truck of RPGs they "captured" back in May:

AT-4 were out of date. 3 of 4 malfunctioned. They were complained about it many times.

It wasn't taken because you can't occupy a city of that size with the small force that was deployed. It would have left Russia and the separatists in a very bad operational and strategic position unless significantly more forces were deployed. Even the entire Russian force in Rostov wouldn't have been enough to safely maintain it. So taking Mariupol wasn't militarily feasible, so sensibly it wasn't attempted. I did think they might cut it off. That would have needed more forces, but at least it was possible.

Probably both reasons. EU threatened to increase sanctions if Mariupol would be taken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

640x765.jpg

It it is not a fake, that is a secret operation of Russian army in Ukraine? Who is the person, who made a photo? Noone saw him in the territory of military unit? Very strange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bolds by me. Please reread critically and reconsider your attitude. You are of course also free to debate.

They way you are handling this forum could qualify you for a director at RT.

More abusive comments from you. Great way to start another post. Especially when I have not censored anybody.

1. I can beat you and your brother in a fistfight with my right hand tied to my back. I just choose not to because I had these kind of fights every day the last 10 months.

No, I choose not to counter your arguments because it is totally off topic and I am not carving out an exception for myself. My comments about how easily I can kick some of the arguments you made into the trash bin is simply a statement of fact from my perspective. I'm sure you don't believe me, but I know a couple of people in this thread know what I am talking about. I can live with your disbelief. But I'll give you a taste of what I mean...

2. If Russia is the only one responsible for the dead and displaced in Eastern Ukraine, who is responsible for the dead protesters and policeman at Euromaidan?

OK, so a couple of police were killed and a bunch of protestors were killed in street protests. How does that excuse an invasion by a foreign power that resulted in an illegal annexation of territory and a bloody war that has killed thousands and destroyed billions of Dollars in infrastructure?

Plus, there is ample evidence that the police snipers were FSB. Which makes perfect sense if you've paid attention to previous Russian activities in troubled neighboring states.

3. If the prerevolutionary Ukrainian government would have sent the army to Kiev and Lemberg and I dont know which other Western Ukrainian city who would have been your bad guy?

Nobody invaded western Ukraine. The post-revolution government only sent the military east when Russian organized, Russian led, Russian armed, and Russian trained "separatists" started taking government buildings by force of arms for the sole purpose of benefiting Russian strategic interests. In normal terms this is called "an invasion" and if a military is not supposed to defend against an invasion, then why have a military?

4.Nobody did "force" England or France to declare war on Germany or the US to support Stalin. Without these direct actions there would not have been a world war. It is an existing but "highly debatable" position if these facts make These powers responsible for WWII.

You need to read some books about WW2. France and England had a defense treaty with Poland. Germany attacked Poland without any justification. So England and France were obligated to declare war on Germany. Not that it matters because Hitler's entire reason for being was to "revenge" the humiliation of Versailles. Which meant he was planning on attacking France anyway, just like he drove through Denmark, Holland, and Belgium without them declaring war on Germany.

But if your view of WW2 is that bad, I'm sure I can't correct it with a few paragraphs so I'll stop there.

5. Calling the strategic bombing during WWII a warcrime means stepping on difficult ground young padawan.

Question for the audience here. Do you get the felling this poster doesn't have a clue who he's debating?

I dont think you consider the implications for thousands of allied air crews with full knowledge of their payload and where this was delivered. I am sure you know Dresden is a symbol not a single event. Btw, there where no rules for air warfare back then. Even if you are going for using the rules for ground warfare analogous (and you can make a good point toward that) there is also the position talking about a breakdown of the rules of wars, which also is a good one. Cities as military targets? There are people without an politcal agenda that call Hamburg a decisive point in the war. War (the violent destruction of the enemy) is amoral by ist nature and isnt necessarily restricted to the destruction of the armed forces. I dont want to open this can. Hiroshima anyone? Mutual restraint by agreed rules of engagment is only thinkable if both parties are ready to accept defeat or fear breaking the rules more than loosing. Therefore its the exception not the rule. If you are trying to break down strategic developments to the responsibility of single persons and mix some morals into it you will loose the focus for the big picture. Punitive action as war crime? What about Sherman or Grant as war criminals? The later - one of the greatest man your country can be proud of - for supporting Sherman and letting him of the leash. Was the Wilderness Campaign with its high casualities morally better than the March to the Sea?

I have debated the morality of the Allied bombing campaign more times than I care to remember. My point is, and it remains, that even when one side is the clear aggressor and routinely violates the rules of war, it does not give the other side carte blanche to itself violate the laws. This is a simple principle of law. Therefore, there is room to debate the legality and/or morality of some Allied actions. Strong cases can be made on both sides, but ultimately the one responsible for the war is still the same. And in this case, Russia is responsible for the war in Ukraine and nobody else because it chose this course of action.

6. I know I am terribly OT on 4 and 5 but that pretty well describes why I got engaged in this "discussion". I am sure most people behind the gunsigghts on both sides bringing death and destruction to Eastern Ukraine are decent men. The probability might drop with irregular forces, no matter which side. Warfare is ugly and These guys wont change that. People that are having an agenda towards making a good guy/ bad guy situation out of a higly complicated ongoing conflict are fueling escalation and therefor get blood on their hands without leaving their living rooms. Thats why I dont think you are a decent guy and nothing you said on this forum did change my opinion. In the beginning I admit I was expecting some sort of clarifaction (and some other members more diplomatic than me, too) but you did everything to reinforce your point.

More insults. You don't seem to understand much of what I'm saying, so that's 1/2 the problem. If you don't understand the arguments of the guy on the other side of a debate, it doesn't put you in a very good position to judge them.

Now cut it out. Pursuing both personal attacks and insisting on off topic discussions are not endearing qualities.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It it is not a fake, that is a secret operation of Russian army in Ukraine? Who is the person, who made a photo? Noone saw him in the territory of military unit? Very strange.

Hehe... someone I know just won a bet. The question was posed "I know the Russians living in denial will find a way to dismiss this". The response from one guy was "of course. They will call it a fake". Though to be honest, it wasn't a difficult bet to win.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://liveuamap.com/?ll=48.432967;33.57602&zoom=6

I dont know how accurate this map is but it seems to update quite often with information about the fighting

It is an EXCELLENT starting point. However, there are several problems you need to be aware of:

1. Some of the items mentioned are rumors or at least lack documentation. Be careful to check the sources of each item, which is a general piece of advice.

2. Back when the frontline was changing dramatically their map favored official Ukrainian information rather than "best guess". Infonapalm has better maps as they show areas of strong control, contested control, and weak control.

The map as shown since the fighting calmed down is more-or-less accurate, though it still gives an impression of a solid front than there in fact really is.

We should understand their mentality. I also didn't understand, what were they doing.

Actually, some of the rebels and pro-Kiev special forces are former colleagues. Many of them were serving in same units. Hodakovsky and Donetsk Alpha and Berkut. Hodakovsky said some things, for that he was criticised. Something like "they are reservists, mobilised by force, militaries, who have an order, few of them are nazis from volunteer battalions and "Right sector", we don't like killing them". He said it several times. Many operations in spring were done by agreement. Airport operation also were to be by agreement. They came to negotiate with Kirovograd spetcnaz. There were a lot of such operations - when pro-Kiev forces saw that they are outnumbered and surrounded, they surrendered. But in airport someone (not Kirovograd spetcnaz) started shooting. Then that shooters (snipers) started to shoot at civilian cars, ambulances, didn't let to get away wounded and killed. Also came Su-25's. After that actions were small in scale.

Some of what you said is accurate for 6 months ago, not accurate since. Especially in the last 2 months.

Also, it is totally wrong to suggest that it was Ukraine that caused the first major attack on the airport. The separatists, newly reinforced with the first wave of Vostok "volunteers' from Russia, moved on the airport without provocation. They thought they had enough strength to overrun the Ukrainian forces and take the airport for their own purposes. The attack was badly beaten, in part with air strikes (Russia had not armed the separatists with Manpads and ZSUs yet). The attack against the airport has been going on ever since, with a brief period where the separatists were too much on the defensive to try and take it.

Again, I mention the airport to dispute your characterization of the Ukrainian forces as incompetent. Russia and the separatists have invested heavily in taking the airport and have failed with heavy casualties.

More active actions started in August, when Slovyansk forces decided to try. Actually, there is not much sence in seizing airport. It is ruined, blocked. There is a company of poor guys that live in horrible conditions and are rotated very often. To rise a flag over ruins? Motorolla unit tries to do it, but they are not much supported.

Again, you do not seem to understand the true nature of the fighting at the airport. There are also reasons for the separatists to take the territory even though the airport, today, is worthless:

1. Russia's primary intent is to create a "frozen conflict" as it has with a half dozen other pieces of other countries/regions. The idea is to make a region within an "enemy" state that is largely sustainable as an independent territory. Airports and cities are important parts of this strategy. The Minsk Agreement states that the territory the separatists have is, basically, the "frozen conflict" area. Because Russia and the separatists do not want Ukraine to be within Donetsk city and they need an airport (it is easier to rebuild this one than make a new one), they continue the offensive even though they signed a piece of paper saying they would not engage in offensive actions.

2. There is stupid pride involved, I am sure. Ukraine has repeatedly defeated the separatist and Russian forces that have tried to retake the airport. And defeated them badly. Fighting for pride is a dumb action, but I think many of the separatists are "not the brightest bulbs on the Christmas tree". Certainly the former "mayor of Slavyansk" was not very impressive.

Did you hear about last Hodakovsky statement? They pass humanitarian aid to airport defenders. Because they are "soldiers that have an order, few of them are "Right sector"" e.t.c. He must be trolling in such way.

Good propaganda, not something I have verified. Though I will say that I would rather Kodakovsky as my enemy's commander than Brezler or Girkin.

Grozny also was to be taken "in two weaks". City battle would be long and bloody. With hundreds thousands of refugees to Russia.

Right, so that is why even the Ukrainians have called the move towards Mariupol a "diversion". It would be lunacy to try and take Mariupol, even though various separatist leaders claim the could do it any time they wanted.

Oh, and by the looks of it I'd say very few refugees from a fight in Mariupol would go to Russia. They would either go to Ukraine, which is their home country, or they would stay and fight a guerrilla war. Or did you miss all the media coverage of average people of Mariupol helping dig anti-tank ditches and marching in support of Ukraine? It is not an area overly friendly to Russian hostilities. Which is why it was so quickly lost to the separatists. The majority of the population does not want to be swallowed up by Russia or the fake state of Novorussia.

Probably yes, they are better now. How much better? Will see in spring. :(

Unfortunately I also think we will see true tests in the Spring.

AT-4 were out of date. 3 of 4 malfunctioned. They were complained about it many times.

Yes, there was a lot of complaints. I always take complaints from the front (any front, any war, any time period) with a large degree of skepticism. For sure Russia sent "old stock" of weapons to offer protection from discovery of where the items came from, but I do not believe for a second that 3 out of 4 malfunctioned. I can believed that inexperienced crews might have driven 3 out of 4 missiles into the ground and blamed the equipment :D

Even if 3 out of 4 RPGs were defective, that truck alone had a couple hundred on it. So again I say that your characterization of separatist weaponry in the Spring of 2014 is not accurate.

Probably both reasons. EU threatened to increase sanctions if Mariupol would be taken.

Actually, the threat of more sanctions is linked to *any* significant Russian offensive. Taking Mariupol is not necessary for more sanctions.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for the audience here. Do you get the felling this poster doesn't have a clue who he's debating?

Steve

It's like a monster truck versus a wrecked car! Except a wrecked car at a monster truck rally doesn't attempt to justify the actions of those who have staged it for the show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As funny as that may be, I am saddened to see a Canadian, a group of people I normally have such high respect for, use a monster truck analogy. Next thing I know I'll see a Finn make a NASCAR analogy and an Italian quote Taylor Swift lyrics to make a point. It's akin to a Brit seeing a Texan make a cricket reference. It just feels... wrong!

"Not that there's anything wrong with that" :D

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As funny as that may be, I am saddened to see a Canadian, [...]Steve

I thought he is Austrian, not there should be a difference between general Austrians or Canadians ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As funny as that may be, I am saddened to see a Canadian, a group of people I normally have such high respect for, use a monster truck analogy.

Having seen some pictures of your vehicle collection, I was attempting to create a visual image that you could immediately relate to! ;)

Maybe I should have used a Rocky and Bullwinkle reference... Tough crowd! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought he is Austrian, not there should be a difference between general Austrians or Canadians ;-)

I was referring to who made the monster truck reference, not to the crushed car's nationality :)

Having seen some pictures of your vehicle collection, I was attempting to create a visual image that you could immediately relate to! ;)

Maybe I should have used a Rocky and Bullwinkle reference... Tough crowd! :D

Funny enough... I just dusted off Season 2 a few nights ago. Still hilarious :) Gotta love Moose and Squirrel!

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...