US/ NATO v. Russia - Misperceptions.

[VladimirTarasov]

John Kettler without going further into it, I think we should just leave it be so the thread doesn't get locked. Interesting links however. 

[John Kettler]

VladimirTarasov,

Understood. Fair enough.

Regards,

John Kettler

[JUAN DEAG]

Aw man! I was bored all day at school and was thinking about a fire come back to Vlad's response post to my video. I come home with some sick roasts in mind and people are getting sensible?  

 

P.S. Battlefront needs to add more emoticons so I can thoroughly express my sorrow.

 

[Kinophile]

@JUAN DEAG Battlefront should allow permanent editing of one's posts...but that's another battle, another front, another war  

Thank you @VladimirTarasov @John Kettler

----------------------------------------------------------

I'm primarily interested in how things could realistically, reasonable escalate re Ukraine v Russia.

The latest assassination bodes ill - there is already Western doubt about the provenance of the claiming Misanthropic Division; this position is supported by previous Russian crackdowns on the D/L leadership, often using Spetznaz to intimidate, push out or outright kill unwanted/unruly Donbass commanders. Of course, Ukraine runs its own Spec Ops warfare, which is similarly ruthless. These kind of operations are to be expected during a civil war - but coming in the middle of a fragile, barely existing "cease fire" this is a very unwanted event.

So, solely for the sake of analysis, lets first say Russia did kill off one of is major Separatist commanders.

A BASIC COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS:

More of these killings would possibly do several things beneficial for Russia in Donbass and domestically:

1. Clean out popular (thence dangerous to Russian control) Separatist commanders
2. Surge Separatist war enthusiasm in in its military forces (If blame is quickly and effectively placed)
3. Surge domestic support against Ukraine killer fascist regime etc
4. Provide a War Hero Martyr to the Separatists
5. Provide a 'reason' to start escalating against Ukraine with responding killings (and Ukraine is very vulnerable to those)

Negative consequences of this and further assassinations might be:

1. Losing experienced, comparatively capable Separatist commanders (these are useful for their local contacts, familiarity with the region, personal appeal to locals, ability to enforce discipline, spread Russia's message, etc).
2. Negatively affect Separatist morale (this could be short term, scattered, low scale depending on the victim)
3. Weaken control over other Separatist commanders if they see themselves being picked off or edged out of their own war - go too far and Russia could turn the Donbass leadership against them. This may already have been happening, with this killing being both an attempt to stop it and a warning other Separatist commanders about opposition. This could backfire even more as my impression is that Ukrainians (East & West), like Russians, don't just back off....

For Ukraine, the immediate positives  could be:

1. Revenge (not to be underestimated in its emotional appeal to a very angered and defensive populace and armed forces)
2. Killing off an experienced, comparatively capable Separatist commander
3. Killing off a useful contact/enabler for Russia's operations in the Donbass
4. Spreading fear among Separatist leadership 

For Ukraine, some negatives (similar but not identical to Russia's positives) might be:

1. Strengthen Separatist resolve with a prominent War Hero Martyr
2. Blacken Ukraine's reputation internationally (dirty ops rarely go over well with donors - well, revealed or blatant ones don't...)
3. Give Russia a pretext to start counter-assassinations against a vulnerable, brittle Ukrainian military/civilian leadership

Anyone else care to add/dismiss/chortle over?

 

[Machor]

Without knowing anything more about this, it could really be way more complicated. The BBC article states: "According to some reports, an ethnic Abkhaz commander in the rebel ranks had fallen out with Motorola and may have been motivated to have him killed." The Abkhaz are very likely to be closely connected with Kadyrov, and the forum has already seen several discussions of Kadyrov's power. So in the very least, there may be a third party here other than Russia and Ukraine - and this before we even begin to speculate on how the Separatist commanders have aligned themselves with the politics of the Bratva.

[Kinophile]

1 hour ago, Machor said:

. So in the very least, there may be a third party here other than Russia and Ukraine - and this before we even begin to speculate on how the Separatist commanders have aligned themselves with the politics of the Bratva.

Now THAT is an interesting angle!

[Kinophile]

Although, the question is are there enough Chechens etc to constitute a third faction - I know there has been a sizable Chechen contribution but from what I've read the Russians have very much kept them in check.

[panzermartin]

West from ancient times has always been interested in the east expansion and the vast russian land and resources. Napoleon, WW1, WW2 and now NATO. Its just history repeating itself, its not that hard to see. The author is right that NATO is the actual aggressor trying to gain ground since the fal of the Soviet Union. A look at the map is enough to understand. Cries about civil rights, civilian casualties are jut a humanitarian topping to a ruthless powergame. Middle east is badly messed up by miscalculated western interventions that brought nothing but chaos in the region. ISIS, rise of radical Islam, refugees drowning a few miles from Europe's borders. I think its a bit ridiculous to label Russia as the bad guy in this situation. 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

8 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

West from ancient times has always been interested in the east expansion and the vast russian land and resources. Napoleon, WW1, WW2 and now NATO. Its just history repeating itself, its not that hard to see. The author is right that NATO is the actual aggressor trying to gain ground since the fal of the Soviet Union. A look at the map is enough to understand. Cries about civil rights, civilian casualties are jut a humanitarian topping to a ruthless powergame. Middle east is badly messed up by miscalculated western interventions that brought nothing but chaos in the region. ISIS, rise of radical Islam, refugees drowning a few miles from Europe's borders. I think its a bit ridiculous to label Russia as the bad guy in this situation. 

Simply put, NATO will soon rule over most of Western Russia, and every home in Denmark will have all the Borstal it can handle.  We fill our harpsicord factories with Russian slaves, and built monuments to reality TV stars using the rubble of the great works of Russia.  

I'm glad you were here to point this out though.  

[panzermartin]

Sorry, I dont think there is a funny side in all this

[hattori]

Another consideration is that oil prices are predicted to start going up.  Since almost half of Russia's fiscal revenue (I could be wrong, I need to crunch Russia's numbers again) comes from oil, this could have a big impact on their priorities or policies.  I've seen a prediction of oil increasing up to $10 in 2017, which would be a 20% increase ... this could potentially mean Russia would have an extra 10% more money to throw around next year.  I'm not sure how big of an impact it will play, but I would guess Russia would feel increasingly better about it's position, and it's ability to withstand sanctions.   Plus they could throw some of that into domestic spending, something that always makes the local populace happy.

1 hour ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Simply put, NATO will soon rule over most of Western Russia, and every home in Denmark will have all the Borstal it can handle.  We fill our harpsicord factories with Russian slaves, and built monuments to reality TV stars using the rubble of the great works of Russia.  

I'm glad you were here to point this out though.

Try to stay on point with the topic, rather than passive aggressively trying to mock and ridicule someone so as to dismiss their viewpoint.

[Sublime]

Uh man he was on topic. He was responding to someone elses assertions..which frankly were about as ridiculous imo as his joke.

Comparing NATO to Napoleon or the German invasions of Russia ( when the West was at war with Germany ) is rubbish and a $hitty analogy. Second of all actually in WW1 the Russians sold the west out and made a seperate peace witb Germany ( and they ironically were terrified we.d do the same in ww2 to them )

Finally NATO is a DEFENSIVE alliance. You absolutely cannot compare NATOs actions with the blatant cynical realpolitik the russians practiced all along and you cant fault the new members who ur pointing to on ur map for joining since Russia basicallly occupied them.for 45 years and any attempt at dissent was met with gunfire and tanks.

NATO is never gonna invade Russia period. Dude noone even wants what the west mostly sees as a $hithole country.

There is a hilarious article in war is boring about the US head of missile defense making a complete fool of himself in July 2015 to his Russian counterparts.

 

And as far as his passive aggressive behavior. What credentials do you or the other guy have? I think theres about 4 ppl whi have the credentuals pzsaur has to comment on such things

Edited October 18, 2016 by Sublime

[Blazing 88's]

16 hours ago, JUAN DEAG said:

Aw man! I was bored all day at school and was thinking about a fire come back to Vlad's response post to my video. I come home with some sick roasts in mind and people are getting sensible?  

 

P.S. Battlefront needs to add more emoticons so I can thoroughly express my sorrow.

 

Lol, search for animated 'sorrow' gifs on the interwebz and post the image link.  Much better than emoticons anyways.  JMO.

[VladimirTarasov]

@kinophile in regards to Arseniy Pavlov's death it is likely Ukrainian operation. Arseniy never was involved in politics in Donbas for anyone to directly hate him. Many of my friends (not that it matters LOL!) and even some guys in Donbas (on the net ofcourse) speculate it was a Ukrainian operation however without any full evidence I'm not sure counter assassination operations will ensue. Pavlov is hated by the Ukrainians; in one of his phone call interview with KyivPost he said he killed 15 PoWs (it's not true no evidence most likely boasted because he hates the opposition's media) which basically put hatred against him, plus his battalion has killed many Ukrainian soldiers. I'm not sure if Ukraine did it or if it was internal feud but I don't think we'll find out who did it. In either case, I think the war will probably escalate sooner or later. 

Edited October 18, 2016 by VladimirTarasov

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

@kinophile in regards to Arseniy Pavlov's death it is likely Ukrainian operation.

No, that is the least likely scenario.  The thought that a Ukrainian group penetrated into his inner security ring and killed him is far less plausible than someone already close to him doing the deed.  Donbas warlords have been routinely assassinated over the years, in particular the last couple of months.  Including one who was gunned down in Moscow.  Moscow has also been directly involved in other purges of leaders in Donbas, in particular so-called Cossacks.

Here's a list of 6 high profile leaders assassinated prior to Pavlov:

https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/list-separatist-leaders-killed-donbas-motorola.html

Ukraine was not involved in any of these killings, so why rush to judgement that Pavlov is a new exception?  And is it a coincidence that Pavlov got killed only a couple of weeks after his DPR based unit was sent into LPR to allegedly help suppress the "coup" that resulted in some of the previously mentioned deaths?

Donbas is a warzone within a warzone.  Russian operatives, such as Pavlov, are there for personal reasons and that means conflict with others there for personal reasons.  The infighting between these various selfish and violent personalities is well established.  Pavlov was either in someone's way or pissed someone off.  He was killed because of it.  He isn't the first and he for sure will not be the last.  And Ukraine doesn't have to do a thing to make it happen.

Steve

[VladimirTarasov]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

No, that is the least likely scenario. 

In fighting in Donbas isn't unheard of I didn't dismiss it either. Some internal feuds between commanders happen, I'm not sure if Moscow has sent green men to put things in check. But Pavlov's case is a bit different IMO, he was a living hero and he didn't have enemies so to speak in Donbas. It is also possible the Ukrainian government wanted revenge and wanted to demoralize troops at the loss of such commander. Either way no one can be blamed and it'll be impossible to figure it out. It is very fishy on who did it who didn't. Ukraine has great special forces units they could pull off such infiltration, not like Pavlov and various other commanders have a Godly defense detail. But as you've said it could have been a commander who maybe had problems with him or didn't like him. 

[Battlefront.com]

18 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

In fighting in Donbas isn't unheard of I didn't dismiss it either. Some internal feuds between commanders happen, I'm not sure if Moscow has sent green men to put things in check.

They certainly have in the past, but I'm not sure Moscow is behind this one.  There is not enough information.  However, one article about his death did say that Motorola had very bad relations with his Moscow superiors.  Russia is accused of killing Batman and other leaders who were not easily controlled.

18 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

But Pavlov's case is a bit different IMO, he was a living hero and he didn't have enemies so to speak in Donbas.

Not true.  First, criminals don't care about "hero" status and therefore they will kill, arrest, dismiss, or other action if they feel it is in their best interests and they can get away with it.  In fact, because "heroes" have power and influence it often gets them into more conflicts.  Second, there are people that he doesn't work well with.  That's always the way it is with criminal organizations like the DPR/LPR that are run by ruthless people who are there to enrich themselves.  Even if it is petty jealousy.

18 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

It is also possible the Ukrainian government wanted revenge and wanted to demoralize troops at the loss of such commander.

Sure, it is possible.  However it is not the most likely scenario given the long list of high officials who have been obviously assassinated by non-Ukrainian government forces.

Steve

 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

8 hours ago, hattori said:

Try to stay on point with the topic, rather than passive aggressively trying to mock and ridicule someone so as to dismiss their viewpoint.

If I took every time I've written a coherent rational reply to the same exact statements made in a certain post, I would likely have a small novel's worth of writing for no great end.

Instead I treated it just as seriously as it deserved.  Like here's a few random points worth eyerolling:

" West from ancient times has always been interested in the east expansion and the vast russian land and resources. Napoleon, WW1, WW2 and now NATO. Its just history repeating itself, its not that hard to see."

This is pretty dumb.  It's like saying Russians will always invade Poland because it has called to them and that Japan is on the verge of returning to invade China.  There's zero, none, zip, nadda interest in controlling Russia any more than keeping Russia out of other people's countries.  

"The author is right that NATO is the actual aggressor trying to gain ground since the fal of the Soviet Union. A look at the map is enough to understand. "

Let's try this on for size:  Does flood insurance cause flooding?  More people get flood insurance, mysteriously where flooding occurs, so clearly flood insurance is bringing in flooding.  

NATO went where countries feel threatened by Russian actions.  It expanded because some protection against Russia seemed prudent when viewed through the lens of countries that had just left several decades of being economically, militarily, and culturally dominated by what realistically was a different brand of Russian empire.  Ukraine is proving to be a really good example of why inviting in NATO was pretty prudent actually.

" Middle east is badly messed up by miscalculated western interventions that brought nothing but chaos in the region. ISIS, rise of radical Islam, refugees drowning a few miles from Europe's borders. I think its a bit ridiculous to label Russia as the bad guy in this situation. "

The middle east is messed up for a variety of reasons.  Western intervention is one of them.  Reckless Soviet foreign policy played its role too.  So did Imperialism.  So has Autocratic dictatorships and non-representative government.  So has radical islam and the discrediting of moderate political-religious options.

Basically Syria isn't a "western" problem, in the reality that it's a terrible state that regularly murdered its own people, that suffered a revolution that would have happened regardless of anything done in the west.  It would have likely ended by now except for Iranian and Russian intervention, so as a result creepy Al-No-Chin can continue to rule from his skull throne or whatever.  The various rebel groups owe way more to their coreligionist sunni neighbors than anything coming from the West.

So again, the original post was laughably poor, and frankly had all the depth of a dinner plate.  I'm really tired of poorly educated "facts," regardless of if they're all "poor Russia!" "all Hail Trumplord!" or any other number of easily disproved but widely followed positions.    It's like we've just tossed out the brakes and fully embraced being ignorant because it is somehow agreeable.  

[Kinophile]

Stratfor does an article on the killing,  mentions done of the above notes. They have some decent detail on the killing itself,  especially the fact that the bomb in his lift was detonated remotely -  ie the killers were very nearby.

They note that it would be very difficult, but not impossible, for a Ukrainian operative(s) to get near and surveil him to the degree required without getting noticed.

It seems generally that the killing was really quite sophisticated (perfectly timed, zero civilian damage, bomb inside a perfect death trap, etc) so it was either high level state directed (UKR/RUS) or a high level criminal organization contract.  Either way, this wasn't thugs mucking about. Motorola pissed off some serious people. 

PS.  To my embarrassment, I previously missed that he was Russian, not local Donbass. Doh.... 

[Kinophile]

https://www.stratfor.com/snapshots/ukraine-what-we-know-and-dont-about-motorolas-murder?utm_source=paidlist-a&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=10/18/2016&utm_content=Daily+Intelligence+Brief%3A+Oct.+18%2C+2016&id=be1ddd5371&uuid=0096fb6e-9fa1-4488-b339-c3871d826a5d

[sburke]

17 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

" Middle east is badly messed up by miscalculated western interventions that brought nothing but chaos in the region. ISIS, rise of radical Islam, refugees drowning a few miles from Europe's borders. I think its a bit ridiculous to label Russia as the bad guy in this situation. "

The middle east is messed up for a variety of reasons.  Western intervention is one of them.  Reckless Soviet foreign policy played its role too. 

This is a point worth delving into a bit more.  When you look at the period up until the collapse of the USSR, who were it's friends in the Med.....

Libya, Algeria, Syria .....  This isn't to say Russia is responsible for the current situation, but it is also not innocent.  Those regimes were explicitly supported by Moscow and their arrested political development is what fed the Arab spring.  Add Iraq to that long list and you begin to understand what Russia's political alliances helped develop.  The middle east is an extremely complicated mess that has taken literally centuries to reach it's current messed up state.  No one state actor owns it and the resolution of the issues there will likely take decades.  The answers have to come from the people of those nations.  The continued intervention of outside parties isn't really helping anything.

 

[hattori]

I'm sure Russia contributed to the mess, and I'm sure the stage was set for ISIS by the power vacuum caused by the Iraq War, but I see (in simplist terms) the area's problems more as the muslim equivalent of the old European Catholic-Protestant wars.  There are a lot of issues between Sunni's, Shia's, and all the other sects of Islam that have been simmering for a long time, but kept bottled up by harsh leaders for centuries.  It also doesn't help when you basically have the muslin version of David Koresh or Jim Jones that controls thousands -- hundreds of thousands?  ISIS actually believes they have to fight the west (I'm not sure about Baghdadi, but the low level guys seem to believe) , where they will win at first and then be slowly beaten back, and basically lure us into a 'final battle' around the Syrian town of Dabiq ... where they will lose, but the savior will come down ... and save them.  And I guess presumably convert us all or something.  Since Baghdadi is supposed to be this new Caliph to usher in these times, I do wonder what would happen to ISIS if the U.S. or Russia actually managed to kill him.

Sorry, that is off topic, just another area of interest of mine.

 

[Abdolmartin]

39 minutes ago, sburke said:

This is a point worth delving into a bit more.  When you look at the period up until the collapse of the USSR, who were it's friends in the Med.....

Libya, Algeria, Syria .....  This isn't to say Russia is responsible for the current situation, but it is also not innocent.  Those regimes were explicitly supported by Moscow and their arrested political development is what fed the Arab spring.  Add Iraq to that long list and you begin to understand what Russia's political alliances helped develop.  The middle east is an extremely complicated mess that has taken literally centuries to reach it's current messed up state.  No one state actor owns it and the resolution of the issues there will likely take decades.  The answers have to come from the people of those nations.  The continued intervention of outside parties isn't really helping anything.

 

I agree with you on everything here except Iraq. Although Iraq was theoretically considered a third-world state supported by commies, as soon as it invaded Iran and started fighting on behalf of several Arab states against Iran, it also got a lot of support from the West, especially once the war took a turn against Iraq and the West wanted to maintain the balance of power. I'm not exactly debating that war itself, I'm saying that Iraq may actually be the site of some of the greatest Western geo-political blunders for not a decade, but almost three decades.

In addition, I believe that in the case of Arab states, the USSR merely exploited the available situation: Israel vs the Arabs, Israel's backed by the US, so the Arabs were the natural choice for the Soviets. Although it is not "innocent" (and I use that term very loosely, it's not like we're discussing seven deadly sins here), the vacuum was bound to be filled some way or another.

[Battlefront.com]

2 minutes ago, hattori said:

 Since Baghdadi is supposed to be this new Caliph to usher in these times, I do wonder what would happen to ISIS if the U.S. or Russia actually managed to kill him.

He would be replaced and the leadership would convince everybody there is a justifiable reason for it.  Like all cults (and ISIS is a cult in the classic sense) the rules are made up and can change any time as needed to maintain the power structure.  For example, ISIS said that the city of Dabiq would be an epic battleground where the forces of Christianity would be defeated and the world would (basically) end as we know it.  Then a bunch of Turkish backed Syrian fighters marched in last weekend and took it without much of a fight.  "Oh wait, we meant Al-Amaq was the spot for the apocalypse.  Carry on!".  Typical doomsday cult tactic once the "prophecy" has been proven false.

ISIS is just the current form a particular type of Islam is taking.  If ISIS gets knocked down hard enough something else will come up in its place.  It's the established pattern.  Ideologies can not be defeated on the battlefield.  Just look at all the neo-Nazi political parties in Europe as evidence.  Look at all the pro-Stalin believers in Russia.  Defeated, discredited, and exposed as frauds... yet there's millions who believe or are sympathetic to those systems of belief. Best that can be done is marginalize them and keep their ability to harm others to a minimum.  Killing leadership elements doesn't necessarily help make that happen.

To bring this around to something more relevant to this thread, the problem the world faces with Russia today is that it didn't move on from its Soviet past.  The Soviet Union was one of the most destructive systems this world has ever known and it isn't totally gone from this world.  In fact, there's ample evidence that the world today is more like 1980s than the 1990s from a geopolitical standpoint.  That includes meddling in the Middle East, Asia, South America, and elsewhere.

Steve

 

 

[hattori]

You make some great points.  I was actually thinking it might be more likely that ISIS would crack and split off into several different groups if Baghdadi went down -- but who knows.

In fairness to Mohammad, he did say "Dabiq or Al-Amaq" -- don't ask me why he couldn't nail that one down.

I fully agree the current political climate is more like the 80s than the 90s.  This is worrisome in that a lot of political players who knew the game during the cold war are now gone.  The new politicians seem very reckless, with a whole lot of 'I don't care what you think, I'm doing it anyways' on both sides.