Alexey K
-
Posts
296 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Alexey K
-
-
Agreed they are goals and that they are meaningful from the Russian perspective, but they are only achievable if Ukraine is brought to its knees first and kept there *forever*. This is because, contrary to original planning, Ukraine is showing absolutely no signs of willing to let Russia do either of these things to it now or into the future.
The problem is Russia is behaving like like it is playing a football match where there is 90 minutes of play and whoever scores the most goals wins. But in reality Russia is playing more than one match. Instead, it is like a season of football where you have to win enough games to make it to the finals, then win enough games to make it to the final match, and then you have to win the match. Even if you win all that, next year you have to repeat the process all over again.
Long term, Russian can not secure these the first goal at all, but could achieve the second goal if Ukraine agrees to it.
What is your definition of "brought to knees"?
And speaking of achievability. Ukranian position is irrelevant in achieveing both of that goals. Ukraine can not join NATO unilaterally without alliance's approval and NATO is not eager to accept Ukraine anymore. And Ukraine can not get Crimea from Russia on it's own without "big guys" commiting themselves to that cause. Just remember that Japan is hoplessly trying to get Kurials from Russia with zero progress. So, I would say both goals are already achieved. They only thing in question is was it worth it.
Because he doesn't want Russians getting any ideas in their heads about changes in Russia. It is why every year there are more restrictions on Russian freedoms, in particular speech and association. The 2011/2012 protests were a major turning point, but the need to suppress the truth about Russia's war in Ukraine has required even more.Russians are very smart people. And I really do mean that. So if they see that a revolution in one city can get rid of a dictator and corrupt system of government, raise their standard of living, and enjoy the benefits of close economic ties with Europe... what do you think a Russian might say to himself? "This could happen here if we try". At least that is what Putin is afraid of. And he is right to be.
Uh, you seem to have quite vauge understanding of Russians
1. Russian involvement in Ukranian civil war as widely known "secret" in Russia. And that is not a problem in the eyes of majority of Russians. Non-involvement would be an issue. Needless to say, taking Crimea back from Ukraine is widely supported. Even anti-Putin opposition is splitted over the matter.
2. Ukraine is not getting to be "stable improving democracy" any time soon due to same reasons Iraq hasn't become real democracy even after you've bombed it into rubble. And why Russia hasn't become democracy when western-backed politicians got to power. Democracy is not some sort of software you can install into coutry. It should be part of it's culture which is developed over centuries. People that got into power due to Ukranian coup a not better than those has been before simply because they are products of the same system, same culture.
3. Events of Euromaidan has actually solidified popular support of goverment. Before it's bloody and violent culmination many people in Russia supported both Ukranian and domestic opposition. After Euromaidan support has sharply decreased, that is not kind of change they want.
The plan was to take the industrial and port facilities away from Ukraine, which would also take away access to Black Sea oil/gas, coal, and other natural resources which the rest of Ukraine lacks. These would only be reintegrated with Ukraine under conditions favorable to Russia. Specifically "federalization". This would ensure that the central government in Kiev could never do anything Russia opposed because it would continue to control the "federalized" territories as it has controlled Ukraine for the last 24 years. Basically by making sure it is dysfunctional and corrupt.Hmm... do you really think, that Ukraine was disfunctional and corrupt just because of Russian influence?
No, it is not realistic because it turns out Ukrainians do not want to play the part Russia thought it would. Which was to split into two and not have any strength to resist Russia's actions. Driving tanks to Kiev was never the plan.
If it's not realistic, then why do you think Putin would bother doing that? Either he is stupid or that is not his goal
-
Speaking of that Fencer. In film about Crimea Putin himself called this to be a hooliganism.
-
Perfectly in line with their doctrine as well, they don't think they can defeat NATO with conventional means, so if we ever threaten what they consider a vital interest (in this case, Ukraine not being in NATO, where they'd become untouchable) Russia is going to nuke some off-brand, non-nuclear NATO member as a demonstration of resolve.
Hmm... Did you read Russian nuclear doctrine and condition which permit use of nukes?
-
25+ years of studying history, several (elapsed years) of studying modern Russian activities, and probably more than 1000+ hours studying this war each and every day since more than a year ago. What I stated is a prevailing consensus in the West. And I might add, the West has a lot of Russians in it so let's not start with the "the West doesn't understand Russia".
Granted, these are not the goals Putin started out with. Through Maidan it was to ensure Ukraine be a part of the Customs Union and not a part of anything Europe had to offer. But those are gone and I am sure he knows it. Ukraine is no longer in Russia's orbit and so Putin is practicing "Scorched Earth" to ensure that Ukraine is a mess for as long as possible. The last thing Putin wants is a stable, economically improving, Russian speaking democracy on his border.
Since you disagree, what do you think Putin's goals are in fighting this war with Ukraine?
Steve
Best and most honest answer I can produce: "I don't know"
My "best guess" offers two goals:
1. Finlandization of Ukraine, ensuring it's non-alignment to keep NATO off Russian border.
2. Securing Crimea and Sevastopol status as Russian territories.
Both of goals are meaingful from Russian perspective and achievable.
Speaking of your explanation. As for me, you paint Putin as some sort of cartoon villain who does evil things just for the sake of doing evil things.
Why "stable, economically improving, Russian speaking democracy on his border" should bother him?
And how exactly "destroying Ukraine as nation shold look like?
What is expected result of this goal?
Is it realistic?
How?
Russian tanks rush to Kiev?
-
I've been expecting this sort of thing from Merkel since the Spring of 2014. She has amazed me, no... stunned me, with her ability to avoid dealing with the reality that Russia will not stop its aggression until one of two conditions are met:
1. Ukraine is utterly destroyed as a nation
2. Russia is forced to withdraw from Ukraine
There is no third possibility where Putin one day wakes up and says "oh, what short sighted fool I've been!", so why take a course of action which is predicated on the hope that such an option exists?
Steve
Hm... funny. How did you infer Russian goals and from what?
-
Excellent, thanks! Was there anything in there specifically about missile deployments? Or did I get that confused with something else?
Steve
That was another part. He said that ground based ASM launchers"Bastion" was deployed to Crimea. It was also added that they were placed in a such way they could be seen from orbit. They also turned on search radar "loud on" to indicate weapon's presence to US ships.
-
The direct translation was something like "we discussed and considered using the nuclear option". I have not seen a direct translation of his comments about moving mobile missile launchers into position or having them on alert. But whatever he said, it apparently was detailed enough that he specified no nukes were on those missiles, but that he would put them on if he felt the need.
The mere fact that he explicitly stated he was even considering nuclear options in the context of violating Ukraine's sovereignty, is enough for me. However, I would love to get a direct translation. I haven't found a transcript yet in either Russia or English.
Steve
As direct as I can
K(ondrashow), P(utin):
K: While takling to Western leaders was it clear that they will not intervene with military means?
P: Of course not. That could not be clear from the beginning. That's why I had to order armed forces to be ready to any course of events.
K: Does that mean that we've put our nuclear forces into higher level of readiness?
P: We were ready to do that...
-
Links?I sincerely hope for all T-90 tank crewmen that you are wrong. It's a good tank but very outclassed by challenger/leopard 2/ m1a2 as well as crew training. Russians are very tough and very competent soldiers but they simply don't have the equivalent training and tanks to match up. They have relied on numbers which is fine for the overall strategy...not for the individual crewman.
Sorry, it's not being a fanboi, Russia has been innovative and superior in a number of weapons systems throughout history current modern battle tanks is not one of them
-
It shows the indiscriminate and brutal nature of the fighting in Ukraine. The Grad system is inherently inaccurate, and shows that it is fired into towns to terrorize people, not for any tactical military purpose. I didnt see any military targets around in the video, did I miss one?
I think you didn't miss one, Grad did it.
-
Thay guy is really BIG
-
I think the idea that there is a scripted set of actions that could be applied to "take a small village" or "advance through open terrain" without regard to the details of the map is entirely wrong. It require the whole gamut of synchronising in time and space the movements and positions of a whole range of units, and doing terrain analysis to determine fighting positions, cover positions, covered routes with respect to possible enemy positions etc.
Taking a small village isn't a limited task. If you can write an AI to do that, you've got 99.9% of the functioning AI needed for the whole game already. Or you've written something that is only going to work on very specific map configurations and hence, as womble says, you've got something where you need a specific plan per map in practice.
You've missed my point. Idea is that AI is supplied with array of ready solutions provided by players and/or extracted from replays. By using machine learning algorithms it infers new solution to specific situation and puts it into action.
-
Concur on underpants gnome planning cycle. It isn't like there's a ready AI waiting to be dropped in.
Development of good AI would be very risky and expensive investment.
If I were Battlefront busines guy I would probably turn down such feature request
But here we can dream a littte, can't we?
-
Heh. That outline reminds me of this foolproof business plan:
Yep, that was exactly my plan!
-
Because the variability in all those things is pretty huge, unless your AI can learn very general concepts, which requires very capable awareness of context. The senses have to be there to be able to detect the differences between "Small Village A" and "Small Village B". Or even "Small Village A from up a convex hill into a reverse slope defense" from "Small village A from up a concave hill where you can see and blast anything between you and the village, and the village itself. It's that sort of complexity which is always going to trip up AIs in CM.
Real trick is to formalize METT-TC and actions plan into quantitive variables. After that engine can perform analysis on arrays of known rules (METT-TC -> Action Plan) and interpolate action plan for known situation. Another approach is to write AI with hardcoded knowlege of tactics, unit properties, etc. Both ways offer great challenge
EDIT: BTW, creating good AI can be fruitful in another way. It might remove need for micromanagement. Player could give platoons orders like "assault that village, defend this one"
-
Kickstart whole thing?
-
T-14 is already in Alabino btw, but all spotters attempting to take a picture of it have been shot.
Red Guards Bear Cavalry is vigilant and protecting secrets of Motherland Russia!
-
Russia would need t cross the Dnieper as Alexey shoul know from the Stratfor posthe himself put up
In Ukraine Russia wouldn't have to cross Dnieper, it better use it as natural defence.
A lot of bridging equipment could possible be used for offensive through nothern Europe.
Unless Armata is actually a hovertank
-
Without better AI awareness, all such plans would be specific to the scenario, and pretty much couldn't address QB issues; that would make evolution slow. Having plans, and force composition as extractable elements that can be imported either wholesale or fragment-wise would be a step forward anyway. Along with a better orders UI, preferably built in the 3D environment.
Why specific? Their span should be limited. For example "taking small village" or "advance through open terrain".
These could be building blocks for higher level of strategy
-
Yes, it would. It's a very complicated game, with a very great many degrees of freedom to eliminate.
It can be crowdsourced to some extent. Consider having crowdsourced database of formalized METT-TC descriptions of tactical situations with local action plans.
Players can design and contribute their own plans. Alternatively, plans could be (semi)automaticly extracted from battle replays.
Depending on success of applications of that templates they are automaticly valued from worst to best. Worst are dropped over time to purge DB from rubbish plans.
P.S. Hey, I've just designed SkyNet!
-
I'am ready to pay $60 for skirmish AI in QB.
EDIT: Ready to pay even more for custom AI plugin API.
-
Very difficult. The way AI plans work is all steps are run sequentially, with no branching decision tree. You can have a time delay or a terrain trigger (or both!) for the next step, but it is always 1,2,3...8, never 1, 2, IF Casualties taken -2A; IF No Casualties -2B.
Scenario-hardcoded decision tree approach is too limited to develop really flexible and adaptable AI behavior. It would be very hard to create and maintain for scenario designer as well.
Scenario designer should give goals and constraints but not script every step and branch of plan, but that approach required dynamic AI coded into game engine.
-
Actually, there is no AI per se above TacAI level. Everything written in AI plan is linear actions sequence and have zero adaptability.
Real AI woud be generatin it's own AI plans during the game as situation changes.\
It would be difficult to deliver good AI for this game though.
-
The whole point of the 'rebel uprising', in my opinion, was for Putin to secure a land corridor to Crimea's west after the annexation. Slavic independence? Yeh right, more like the rail line that runs from Rostov-on-Don to Dzankhoi. Keeping Crimea supplied without that rail link is an expensive proposition. Last April they were past Mariupol and heading south to make the link-up. Today, not so much. Debaltseve was just a costly side-show. They may have pinched the pocket closed (with Merkel's help) but they're not a yard closer to having uncontested possession of the rail corridor.
I wanted to comment on this, but then decided not to, as right point of view is fixed in forum rules
-
I think Russia leaving treaties would mean more if they followed them in the first place.
Anyway. Nice to see some signs of military commitment in eastern europe.
ACFE was stillborn treaty anyway.
T-90 tank documentary (2014 in Russian)
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
And World of Tanks would be training simulator for unmanned AFV operators