asurob

TBH, if you just take a look at the Google Map, the place where they tried to build the bridge is the only one in several kilometers where you could easily drive through the forest and make your way between the old riverbed fragments. There's a high voltage line crossing the forest there, so access by vehicle is provided along it's length. What is baffling to me is that Russians actually attempted the crossing in such an obvious spot.

THIS is the question of the day.
Smart militaries watch other wars and assimilate, project forwards and adjust accordingly.
How would NATO fight a UKR type opponent?
What will US pacific oriented forces take from the UKR way of war?
How would China fight a US pacific force informed by UKR experience?
This war is the Spanish Civil War of our time.

this is what is real.  If they don't want to end up dead in a field they should point their guns against their actual oppressors, meaning their officers and the officers above them all the way to the top.  I would be sorry for them except that if they crossed that field and got into position they would've sooner or later been firing on Urkrainians. 
I am hoping for a mutiny that brings in the Kadyrovs to restore discipline and the mutiny grows to where the Kadyrovs are wiped out.  Then the units involved just drive back to their own country.  Yeah, I know it's a dream but it's a beautiful dream. 

Recce by death, with mass fires follow up, is straight out of the WW2 playbook.  If that is the Russian design, sure it should work as long as the Russians can keep feeding that bloody "Find" and keep up momentum.
If the Russians are in fact much better than we have been led to believe, more in line with what we saw in 2014...then why are they not crushing the UA?  
I get all the numbers comparison hazards, but there is no getting around the fact that the RA had (note past tense) the clear advantage in mass.  They also had their choice of where to put that mass at the beginning of this.  So by all traditional conventional metrics, this thing should be over by now...and that did not happen.  Quite the opposite. 
Maybe the opening phase was just a wild winger, and the UA got lucky; however, we have seen the same thing in the Donbas Offensive phase; Russian mass is not working...and it is supposed to if all the textbooks still have any value.
My honest guess is that the Russian suck, but not as badly as we think - at least not initially during the opening offensive.  And something the UA was doing basically negated that mass.  I suspect it was a combo of ISR superiority - a lot of western strat stuff at play - UAVs everywhere, hybrid self-synchronizing tactics, all link back to integrated fires.  My working hypothesis is that Ukrainian defence has, and continues to be able to create friction along the entire Russian operational system.  This friction, along with Russia's own, has made all that mass nearly useless as it is dislocated and disrupted constantly.  To the point that up north it may have fallen under its own weight.

The Soviets and the Nazis were equal evil.  In case you have forgotten, and apparently you have, they were invading their neighbors prior to joining the allies, they were purging people within their borders they deemed unworthy of life, and they weren't exactly in a hurry to liberate places like Poland so the Nazis could do their work for them.  Oh and there is the small matter of they joined hands with the Nazis in their first invasion of Poland.  I'm not even getting into the topic of their advance across Germany and the absolute reprehensible things they did there.
The west supported the commies war against the Nazis because it was an enemy of my enemy thing not because we were pals with the Soviets.  
So yeah...Evil.

Hi all, I am a new account on this forum, but I have been reading this thread every day for the past couple months after getting referred to it from elsewhere. This thread, the daily ISW reports and Perun's videos are my primary sources for keeping track of what's going on in this war and why. Thank you everyone for the great contributions.
My account took a couple days to get approved, so this comment is out-of-date relative to the comment I wanted to respond to, but there have been several times the topic of China came up so I thought it would be worth posting anyway. I hope it's still interesting to someone. If not, please scroll past, I don't want to distract too much from the excellent analysis you all are sharing.
This is an area where I have a personal interest and some first-hand experience, having lived in China for several years.
I don't think it is very helpful to describe China (or any authoritarian country) as merely left wing or right wing, in particular when that statement comes from partisans in a democratic country. All too often there is a cynical incentive to try to associate the policies of the authoritarian regime with opposing political factions in the democratic system. I think it's better to assess the policies on their own.
Xi has overseen several socially conservative policies - for example broadcast restrictions on media featuring tattoos, piercings, effeminate men, same-sex relations and so on. But this is only part of a larger scale censorship effort that has also seen arrests of local citizen reporters and foreign media not only blocked at the Great Firewall but also pushed out of reporting from inside the country at all. He also spearheaded a popular anti-corruption campaign that coincidentally targeted all the senior party officials that might stand against him. And, of course, he removed term limits and will likely get a third term in the upcoming national congress. These are suspiciously autocratic moves, which is worrying in a country that since Deng has at least made a pretense of winding back the power of figureheads and trying to build more of a loyalty to the party as an abstract entity.
Xi has also allowed a populist rise of nationalism, xenophobia and Islamophobia, and he has put a strong emphasis on increasing national security and modernizing the military. One aspect of this was a revision to the national defense law that expanded the justifications for military actions, and placed more power into a military commission headed up by Xi.
On the other hand, in the past few years the party has also strengthened government controls over business. Notably it halted the IPO of Ant Financial, often portrayed overseas as a punishment for Jack Ma (co-founder of Alibaba) commenting on excessive regulation, but more likely just because the party wasn't happy that some of these tech giants are a threat to its power. Since then it has also been using anti-monopoly guidelines and other means to regulate major players in industries such as finance, tech and education. It's also hit several high-profile individuals for tax evasion, and for a brief period the official messaging seemed to be that speculation on real estate and the pursuit of excessive wealth was inappropriate, although that seems to have been tempered somewhat due to the COVID-related economic slowdown.
But a key point running through all of these policies is this: 党政军民学，东西南北中，党是领导一切的 - government, military, society and education - east, west, south, north and center - the party leads everything. And who leads the party? Recently the phrase "with Comrade Xi Jinping at the core" has become more common in the state media. This political structure isn't comparable to democratic countries where there is no singular authority and it's normal to have spirited and open debates on the issues.
I think the main thing to take away from Chinese politics under Xi is not to figure out if he represents a version of the left or the right in a democratic country, but to understand that his primary motivation is to ensure that the party retains control over every aspect of society. All policies are designed with that goal in mind. In my opinion Xi does have generally nationalist and socially conservative views, but I think he is also mindful that wealth inequality can lead to unrest and the downfall of the party, and that would be the ultimate sin.
TLDR: what Steve said
On how this affects the war in Ukraine - both the state media apparatus and the prevailing chatter on social media (which is ultimately shaped by what the state chooses not to censor) is solidly in the camp of this war somehow being a result of NATO expansion and American hegemony. I don't think there is an easy way for the party to publicly roll back its support for Putin. The issue will probably just remain in the current limbo, with the party simply claiming to remain neutral or impartial.
On what it portends for Taiwan - it's definitely useful for the party to study and learn from this war, but I don't think it will have an impact on its timeline for taking Taiwan. The party has enough problems with zero-COVID and a teetering economy right now - I don't think it is in a position to fast-track any actions. I suspect we might see some more signaling after Xi is confirmed for a third term (second half of this year) and then after the 2024 presidential election in Taiwan, which is likely to be the first where 18-20 year olds can vote (referendum on that later this year). Either way, it's interesting to see how the party has built up the mythology of Taiwan as a wayward little brother who is temporarily misguided and will someday return to the fold. That has benefits in that it creates popular support for "unification", but it might also make a full-blown invasion unpopular. Annexation is surely off the table now, after the PR disaster of Hong Kong 2019. A naval blockade is often suggested as a way to strangle the island, but that might only strengthen its people's resolve. I think if the party is to succeed in its designs on Taiwan, it will need Putin's failed "take the capital in 3 days" strategy to actually work. I would be very interested in a wargame that tackles this scenario.
Anyway, back to my lurking hole, and thanks again for the fantastic thread.

Dude. Not even close.

The Soviets and the Nazis were equal evil.  In case you have forgotten, and apparently you have, they were invading their neighbors prior to joining the allies, they were purging people within their borders they deemed unworthy of life, and they weren't exactly in a hurry to liberate places like Poland so the Nazis could do their work for them.  Oh and there is the small matter of they joined hands with the Nazis in their first invasion of Poland.  I'm not even getting into the topic of their advance across Germany and the absolute reprehensible things they did there.
The west supported the commies war against the Nazis because it was an enemy of my enemy thing not because we were pals with the Soviets.  
So yeah...Evil.

Welll, if you were far away, difficult to attack......and white? - ok, sure. 
But If you were right next door, say, a short ferry ride away and easily attacked (and white) then no, the Brits absolutely sat on you.
Canada - nope, USWoI x 2. Plus they still have bloody bears. Yah lets not.
Australia - Snakes and too bloody far away. Wayyyy too hot. Yah lets not.
Ireland - a few hours by boat, indefensible coast line, no major geographic land barriers. Badgers at most. Yes, jolly good, lets!
India became free because after WW2 the Brits couldn't feasibly attack and crush them.
It wasn't some moral decision, the English elites of the time dont deserve any credit whatsoever.
It was a sheer distance+mil/eco cost analysis. If they could feasibly attack and crush the uppity natives (white or black) then they absolutely and inevitably did. 
...
Its the same with Russia and Ukraine. Russia didnt attack Poland- because they feasibly can't. But they felt they could with Ukraine, so they did.
Simple "might makes right" that every single elite of every single empire has always used as their lodestar.

this picture is not "full context for foreigners".   That is a an extreme outlier of a picture.  It's like "jews for Hitler".  That is so misleading as to be a complete lie.  The 1 out of 10,000 exception is shown and we are meant to conclude the utterly, ridiculous "see, even the black folks loooooove the confederacy!"
ASL Veteran, you should ashamed of trying to pass this off as informative.

I don't think we can exclude Putin saying:
1. Ukraine does not exist.  That land is now considered by Russia to be part of Russia.
2. The Baltic States are in the Russian sphere of influence.  It is unfortunate that they are currently in NATO, but they will be forced out of it.
3. The same for various countries in Eastern Europe, which he might name specifically.
4. If Finland applies for NATO membership, Russia will consider it an act of war.
 
We, Russia, can do this because we are a nuclear power, and therefore no one can definitively stop us, even if it takes years of fighting.
Isn't this what you want, the Russian people?  You want to belong to something great.  
(He might throw in some "Nazi" language--but that is marketing, and ultimately not necessary for his assertion of Russia's supposed place.  He might put a long, fiery, but ultimately dreary, historical preamble to the above.  And some religion.  He feels both intensely, and feels --so-- slighted.  But, again, ultimately such verbiage is not necessary.  It is a sheer Power/Will exercise. )
At least, from what I had read, the above was sort of what he was telling everyone prior to Feb 24. Didn't he say something like "Now will you listen to me!", shortly after the invasion?
 
David
 
 
 

The West didn't side with USSR because Nazi Germany was a greater threat to the world, but because it was greater threat right there and then and when USSR also got into the fight against Germans - supporting it would've been the only logical step to take. Because, remember, USSR started World War 2 together with Germany as allies. Nobody forgot that for a second, hence "Operation Unthinkable".
The only reason the other half of Europe hasn't witnessed how much of genocidal maniacs Russians can be is because USA got nukes and everybody jumped under the umbrella - and even that didn't stop USSR from bringing death and misery to the world for the next 45 years. Name literally any genocidal regime after 1945 - and you can be damn sure USSR was, if not balls deep in it, then actively pouring stuff into it.
And, oh boy, if we are to talk deathcounts... In Ukraine alone Russia has murdered about as many Ukrainians as NG killed Jews. Russia killed millions in other countries it occupied, but Ukraine had it worse because it was the most populous of them and also because Russians just have that genocidal boner about us they can't seem to ever tame.
USSR and Nazi Germany are one and the same. Some just had to deal with it for 70 years instead of 7. And then USSR just called itself "Federation" instead of "Union".

This. 
For you folks who don't get this just imagine this scenario: say you get a pretty unjust ticket and you have to walk past a statue on the courthouse steps of a guy who owned your ancestors that is maintained by the jurisdiction you are going in to fight. I actually know someone who has had that experience in the United States. It still burns him years and year later.
My reaction was to imagine my father having to walk past the statue of the squalid English landlord who kicked my ancestors off his land when they were starving and couldn't pay their rack rents during the Famine in order to contest that ticket. Actually, I'm not sure I can imagine it. He'd want to blow it up. 

That's top level  trolling

You are all taking DMS way too seriously. He is Russian. His problem with NATO is that it prevents his soldiers from raping Poles and Lithuanians, not that it "expands" per se.
He is mad about Belgrade because Serbs had to pay for genocide they did instead of being admired as heroes like Russians treat their criminal grandfathers. If Serbs paid - that means Russians may pay too and he can't have that.
Because he knows what NATO is. It's a threat to him. But it's a threat not because it will attack Russians but because it will attack Russians when they will try to rape some woman in some NATO country.
He has no problem with a "day of a sledgehammer" (that video of a warcrime filmed by Russian soldiers themselves, where they murder a Syrian civilian with a sledgehammer) - because it's something Russians treat as a heroic deed.  To him his soldiers murder a Syrian Nazi, aka "the enemy". He will never get what's wrong with it, no matter how much you will try to explain it to him.
So don't try to think like a European when trying to argue with Russian.

No just no.  The only thing the west wants is for Russia to quit attacking it's neighbors.  Had Russia not invaded Ukraine none of what you mentioned would be an issue.  This is Russia's fault...not Ukraine's not NATO's and certainly nobody in the west.  You want to live in peace...perhaps put some pressure on your leadership to stop having delusions of grand empires...those days are over.  (For reference look at the UK...they are an empire no more.)

I can't remember what book it was in now, but something about the Cold War the Able Archer exercise where the world came close to becoming ash. Caspar Weinberger and other defense officials under Reagan were astounded to learn that the Soviets were extremely apprehensive of the NATO war-games, which simulated a heightened nuclear alert as well. The Soviets were 99% positive that Able Archer was the prelude to an invasion of the Warsaw Pact by NATO. Soviet reasoning was that it was EXACTLY what the USSR would do and then roll right into West Germany from the exercises. 
The US officials were dumbfounded to find this out, because they could not understand how the USSR would believe that. The reason: NATO would NEVER attack the Soviet Union, and they didn't understand how they could think that NATO would. They had NO idea of the Soviet mentality about this.
Blinders.
NATO practiced DEFENDING Western Europe from Soviet invasion. We never practiced an invasion of the Warsaw Pact, only local defensive counterattacks.
NATO will not attack Russia. It seem @DMS is under the same mis-apprehension that the Soviets were 34 years ago.
Dave

No just no.  The only thing the west wants is for Russia to quit attacking it's neighbors.  Had Russia not invaded Ukraine none of what you mentioned would be an issue.  This is Russia's fault...not Ukraine's not NATO's and certainly nobody in the west.  You want to live in peace...perhaps put some pressure on your leadership to stop having delusions of grand empires...those days are over.  (For reference look at the UK...they are an empire no more.)

The gap between perceptions is huge. One of them is much, much closer to perceiving the true nature of reality than the other. The facts are clear right now. While the Internet provides opportunity for lies, it also provides plenty of opportunity for corroboration, and the atrocities perpetrated are pretty close to 100% forensically established fact. The full extent of the war crimes and atrocities will probably take a few years to come out, but the fact that there are a lot, that they have mostly been committed by Russian forces and that they're as bad as any excesses of the SS is six-sigma clear right now.
Perhaps you can shed some light on the process of mental gymnastics that can reflexively deny the facts on the ground, in the context of the official (it's on the telly, so it's straight out of the Kremlin) propaganda that's spewing forth like acid bile. How is it inconceivable that Russian troops would commit atrocities when the mouthpieces of your leaders virulently encourage such treatment of your Ukrainian "brothers"?
Also, your immediate assumption that "derussification" might involve some sort of invasion and violence shows a massive, gigantic blind spot: the West has, since WW2 never wanted, nor believed it was feasible, to militarily invade and commit violence against the USSR or the RF. You've been told about this mythical threat for so long by the manipulative excrement you've had for leadership that you might even believe it. The correlation of forces has never supported the possibility (not for Napoleon, nor Hitler, nor NATO; some might argue that it might have been possible for the Western Allies for a brief moment, right at the very end of WW2, but the operation name for that endeavour is pretty much bang on...), and the most cursory inspection of military realities should allow you to reach that conclusion yourself.

Step one for poor DMS and his country's future: kill Putin, lay all the blame on him, pull out of Ukraine, at least to Feb22 borders, make eternal peace treaty w all neighbors.  Then actually have real elections in a year or so.  That would be the necessary start to stop being an endlessly violent aggrieved 'victim' who seems to need to lash out all the time.  It's a lot better to be a nice family in the neighborhood, not the crazy psycho w the conspiracy signs in the yard and an arsenal in the basement.

violence won't do it, sorry but you guys are gonna have to do this yourselves if you hope for Russia to rejoin the family of nations as anything other than a pariah state.

It's pretty simple math dude.  If there was one episode of this or two...we could say...outlying data....in data there are always extremes and this behavior is extreme.  But it has happened too often in the two (now third month) months of this war.  Further, Russia attacked Ukraine...for no other reason than the fact that Russia doesn't think Ukraine needs to exist as a country.  Sure Putin gave the order, but those orders are being followed by soldiers who for the most part look down on their little brothers as less than human.  Again, actions...simply put it has happened too often and the evidence is fairly overwhelming (Just look at Bucha) to believe that this is in fact the nature of the Russian soldier...don't get me started on history or how the Soviet's raped their way across eastern Europe (and china after they declared war against Japan) during the tail end of WW2.  If it quacks like a duck...it's a duck.

Some scholars define denial as the final stage of a genocidal process. Richard G. Hovannisian states, "Complete annihilation of a people requires the banishment of recollection and suffocation of remembrance. Falsification, deception and half-truths reduce what was to what might have been or perhaps what was not at all."
Crisis actors, Jewish Nazi soldiers, Mi-6 planted bodies, Chechens sending pics of dead sons that were captured alive on TikTok, countless cases of at best complete disregard for human life and at worst openly hunting civilians on video,..
but yes, as we have already seen with your Bucha comments every video is a fake, every picture constructed, every testemony read from script, I am sure there are also explanations about all the mass graves verified by countless international observers
The glorious Russian soldier does no wrong, as has been proven time and time again in history. Take care not to overdose on the copium.

And that's exactly why you are becoming an outcast to the rest of the world and your main tourist attraction will end up being Pyongyang at best.
Instead of taking responsibility for atrocities your army commits and doing something about it - you are trying to excuse and whitewash them, making you literally an accomplice to everything your soldiers do.

I really don't think we need to go further than Russian state tv itself to figure out the current and deeply unfortunate state of the Russian zeitgeist: