Kinophile
-
Posts
4,359 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
22
Posts posted by Kinophile
-
-
What's this now...
? Just a cutter, so far
-
2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
I could be mistaken, but I am nearly positive that if workers are actively working on a military project they are legitimate targets under international law.
Steve
Oh absolutely. They weren't laying water pipe. Active contribution to fortifications. I bet they weren't told that they were a legitimate target.
-
https://twitter.com/kromark/status/1612852512838807557?t=jWgRiecngfJHGy2sGRYM1A&s=19
Come to Ukraine, dig a trench, get $90 for the day, die under the HIMARS god.
-
7 hours ago, TheVulture said:
Isn't it more that Soviet - and by extension Russian - air doctrine wasn't interested in trying to achieve and superiority in the sense that NATO thinks. The Russians focus on achieving temporary, local air superiority sufficient to be able to launch strikes in direct support of ground troops. NATO tries to achieve permanent, theatre wide and superiority to use and power to hit rear areas to destroy logistics, HQs, communications and interdict movement.
Hence Russian and doctrine isn't too try and contest this with air power. Instead they focus on an array of ground based anti-air systems for defence, and punching local holes in enemy air cover for the duration of a single mission.
Since replacing an entire and defence network and air force is a very major undertaking, Ukraine also still has the legacy Soviet system, much the same as the Russians.
So neither side has an air force designed to maintain superiority over and behind enemy lines. And both sides (more so the Russians, at the start of the war at least) have plentiful artillery, and that artillery is doctrinally supposed to fulfill the role that is the province of Close Air Support in NATO doctrine.
So I'd have thought it was to be expected that artillery would be playing much of the NATO CAS for in this conflict, because both sides have Soviet-legacy ground and and forces designed to fight that way. And while Ukraine is becoming more NATO-like in many ways, this is something that would require the complete retooling of most of the armed forces before it can be changed significantly.
Yes, isn't this because RuAir is essentially conceived as battlefield support, flying artillery, subordinate to ground needs rather than as a separate strategic arm?
-
3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
Oh man, that couldn't have been timed any better for our conversation here
Steve
Pshaw!
-
Ref Soledar:
-
10 minutes ago, billbindc said:
Patrushev, pere and fils would be strong contenders. So would Ivanov and his kvost if the idea was to bring in someone untainted by the current debacle. Remember that visibility isn't really a big indicator of political viability because mass politics isn't that important in this milieu. Remember where Putin came from?
And that's Prigozhin's mistake. He's playing to the crowd but the crowd doesn't have that much power. The key is who can direct the institutions of force. Prigozhin has one in Wagner, that's not even the biggest on paper, that is dependent for resources on the powers that be back in Moscow and is pushing in a revolutionary, unsettling direction that's quite likely to unite the rest of those institutions of force against him.
Watch the grey men, not the clown waving his arms in the mud.
Great points, thank you! Loving the discourse.
I'll counter and corrupt your point re Putin - he rose on the back of popularity, and stayed there on the fear of the Bad Old Days.
The key thing I always note about Wagner is that it is intensely loyal to Prig and taps a deep well of willing recruits/support in its hyper nationalist and aggressive image. It is catnip to younger men. Its new, exciting, dangerous and active, different and tough, all qualities that the Nazis embodied and were a huge draw.
The FSB and MoD by contrast, are slow, obtuse old and uninspiring.
My money is on Priggy, and where he puts his battlefield weight is where we should watch for 2023.
-
The above exchange points to my basic thesis - There's nothing the Russian MoD can do to win the war because it is politically sockpuppeted.
It has no war winning strategy because it lacks the strategic means to crush Ukraine, due to NATO/EU backing.
So whatever it plans to do in 2023 will be determined by domestic politics to a ridiculous degree, and what it actually does will be limited to at most operational success.
I doh the AFRF in Ukraine will break forward to the Dniper. I think they'll hold, grind forward in Donbass and attempt a distracting, dramatic assault somewhere else. Essentially 2023 as a holding year to rebuild long term force quantity, then go for 2024.
Thats a strategy.
But hey, it's the Russian MoD so anything sensible is anathema...
-
20 minutes ago, billbindc said:
Should Putin fall, his policies are up for grabs but the form of the state itself is quite unlikely to change unless an actual revolutionary agent such as Prigozhin can alter its composition. On this we agree...I don't believe that's a realistic scenario.
It doesn't need to change, for Prigozhin to take over, though. He can smooth his way with a LOT of funds available, plus who wants to pick a fight with the "only" force actually "winning"? Prigster is firmly within the Russian Zeitgeist.
Wagner is just his gun held idly in the hand to make a message clear.
The only real opposition could be FSB, and they have no one visible right now.
-
1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:
Ooooo... I disagree strongly with this. Putin is absolutely the regime. For someone to take over for Putin it will have to either co-opt the entire system from within (e.g. a coup of elites already in power) or to crush it from outside (Prigozhin). There is no realistic scenario I can think of where an outsider, like Prigozhin, can simply remove Putin and gain possession of the existing state apparatus intact. Of course if Prigozhin cuts enough deals with the insiders, perhaps. But Putin has built a system that is not all that amenable to such deal making. And that is by design
This one factor pretty much undermines everything you laid out that follows.
Stevea
Maybe to clarify:
Putin created a system that allows his Regime to exist in the form he wants.
Once Priggy Boi takes over it'll be his preferences and priorities projected onto that system, which he will morph and modify to his taste, creating the Prigozhin Regime.
QuoteThere is no realistic scenario I can think of where an outsider, like Prigozhin, can simply remove Putin and gain possession of the existing state apparatus intact.
Surely you don't think Wagner and his domestic base/relationship building is about battlefield success and economic enrichment? There is absolutely a realistic scenario - Prigozhin uses Wagner to ensure his seizure. Putin has held only one thing back from him, public legalization of PMCs.
And now we see the Patriot PMC coming into play, with others. The Russian elite aren't originalists, but they watch each other like hawks.
Prig has no "formal" position but he us not an outsider, he is part if the system, the extreme edge of it, but he's got a big bloodied boot firmly in the existing power structures.
Wagner aldo gives him a nice big seat at the power table. No one else apart from Putin has his level of public support. There doesn't even need to be a coup, just Putin anoints Prig for the next election and steps back to retirement.
-
8 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
OK, here's an intellectual game we've not played in a while! What realistic options do people think Russia could pursue to achieve a better outcome than what it is doing now? Keep in mind that regime preservation is the ultimate goal, so any strategic shift that puts the regime more at risk is not likely viable.
Steve
I'll bite.
I guess I should work backwards from the final point, Regime Preservation, as "Russia" is the regime.
I'll Also caveat that it's impossible for Russia to win the war in 2023.
1. Putin is not the regime. He has built a system of government that can now exist without him. There is a very clear favourite in waiting, who is building an unassailable military, political, geographic and economic base within Russia so that when the transition starts he is highly probable to win. Prigozhin will maintain and intensify the system into a truly totalitarian form, national prison complex. I don't know of many other Russian characters who are pre positioned to take over and could also maintain the system.
2. For the system to be preserved Prigozhin must come out of this war on top.
3. Prigozhin will stop at nothing the achieve his own success. He will die otherwise, Russian political history being what it is.
4. The military is not a fan of Prigozhin, but in a political succession fight I suspect it'll stand by. The MOD is not exactly an inspiring source of leadership, so asking troops to turn on or disarm Wagner forces is unlikely to end well. Gerasimov will stay out, then support the winner.
5. The Wagner Group and Priggy is the spine stiffening element oof the Russian War effort.
6. If the Russian MoD is defeated 2-3.more times in 2023 then it'll just get more men, change in leadership, and stumble forward again. It is a creature of the system, while Wagner exists both inside and above the system.
7. The MoD is turtling for now but will attack. Even so, it's irrelevant, politically. But If Wagner is truly defeated (a big ask) then real Instability will begin back home. Wagner is the active agent in the political mix.
So, what must Wagner do to achieve Prigozhins victory?
1. Wagner must win at Bakhmut.
2. It must capture the Donbass, or be perceived as doing so, MoD be damned.
3. It must become independent of MoD logistics.
4. It must transform to a truly independent mechanized force, a Marine Corps type military entity within the invasion force.
5. It must be seen as the real fighting force, so acting as fire brigade to MoD **** ups suits it. Leading a major breakthrough operation is beyond its ability or interest. Grinding through streets, it can manage that. Coordinating a Kharkiv level op is far in its future.
Functionally, the only way Russia can improve its situation (militarily AND politically) is to attack (duh). The political priorities are the Donbass, so the MoD will remain fixated on that front. Any other attacks I suspect will be spoilers or distractions.
To achieve any success it will need 10-1 numbers at the breakpoint.
The 500k mobilization will happen. They've had a long time to fix things (yes no guarantee in Russia). Some videos still surface but the intake system appears to have un-ckusterf**ked, to some degree. The first mobilization worked, helped by the weather for sure,, but still.
The MoD is currently incapable of taking an independent stance on the course of the war. What Putin wants, it does. Putin wants Donbass, so hello WW1/3.
To win, the MOD would need to either take on the system itself (deeply unlikely, see creature more above) or gain a heavyweight ally. If Suvorokin kicks out Gerasimov, then with Prigozhins support he could maybe change things.
Do what would they do? Possibly, attack Kharkiv. It's at right angles to UKR line, it's close to Russ logistics andoD knows the ground.
Ukraine would have to defend it, and the sheer size of the theater would duck in a lot of the UKR troops intended for counter attack.
Wagner could drive that operation, giving them a new narrative with more heft. Keep throwing Zeks into the lawnmower while MoD attacks on smaller, localised but supporting efforts to retake all of Luhansk.
Ta da, 2023 ends in a Russian victory for that year.
-
36 minutes ago, fireship4 said:
According to The Warzone, in an article about rumours around planned Western tank provision, the Stryker is not suited to winter conditions, being replaced in Alaska by the BvS10 Beowulf/CATV.
Very interesting
-
5 hours ago, Huba said:
AFV floodgates are opening up even more:
If there's any vehicle I find innately appropriate to the new UKR way of war, it's the Stryker family. I cannot WAIT to see what they could do with these beasts. Sure, the Bradley's, yay. But the Strykers are a perfect match for the Kossak mentality.
-
Thank you @Butschi, good clarification.
There is an added wrinkle though - with the end of WW2 the demonization of Germany in Europe could finally start to die off. Slowly but inevitably.
However, with Russia, Ukraine will always have it on its shoulder. Russia has never been a good neighbour when it was itself whole and unified under stable leadership.
We can hope for civil strife to pull Russia away and into itself but that won't last. Yet another tyrant will emerge and Ukraine will again face oppression.
So, I fear (like you) that the dehumanization of Russians is here to stay, in some firm or other.
Now, sure, Poland. Okay. But has Poland moved on? And if anything, this war will have just revived and confirmed their very low opinion of Russia. Actually, isn't there literally a poll last year showing exactly that?
Russia is its own worst enemy.
-
3 hours ago, Butschi said:
- Dehumanizing the enemy - while it serves a purpose now - is way easier to do than the other way round. Now, Russians are in Ukraine and in order to drive them out again, the only way seems to be paved with dead Russian soldiers. But this war will come to end, be it in a week or 10 years. And after that the Ukrainians and Russians will still be there and will still be neighbors. And yes, one day, the Ukrainians will have to forgive the Russians just like (most of) the world forgave Germany. The Russians will have to work very hard to deserve forgiveness, true, but without it forgiveness this will never end. We Germans had this "Hereditary Enemy" bull**** way too long and see where it got us.
Ref "most of" above - but thats the point, here. For WW2 the vast majority of the allies were unaffected by direct German action (eg. invasion). They suffered losses but not destruction of their nationhood, attempted annihilation of their population, etc. But Poland did, and even now I would be very loath to say to a Polish person that Poland has "forgiven" Germany. Like Steve above, I'm pretty certain what my Polish relatives would say to that particular line; and if I pushed further I'm 100% certain they would get...excitable. We're only one generation removed from the war so things are still deeply remembered. Hell, the civil war in tiny, silly little Ireland is still a very touchy and quickly emotive subject.
The deeper, fundamental issue isn't that there is a war on; dehumanization is an unwanted aspect that, and as you very rightly note, is a very slippery slope. The Hereditary Enemy bull**** between France and Germany was exactly that - but because at no point did either country talk about extermination of the opposing population and annihilation of their culture. But the Nazis stated those exact goals for Poland and Russia. So the war in the East became utterly and maximally brutal because the aggressors stated aims were maximalist in the extreme.
So the real issue in this war, now, is that Russia under Putin has also stated its deliberate intention to erase Ukraine as a social entity, and, crucially, followed through on that intent.
The extreme nature of its war aims can only be countered by a completely unyielding and uncompromising defense - because the Russians have created that need. Every Russian soldier within the bounds of Ukraine is part of that horrific project of eradication of another people.
On the broader strategic level it is impossible for Ukraine to strategically defeat Russia. It only has a decent chance at the operational and tactical levels and there is no other path to victory than killing as many Russians as possible as quickly as possible. If dehumanization of Russian soldiers helps that then have it, Ukrainians. You face cultural and social genocide otherwise, so **** it. They started it - and they show zero signs of stopping.
In some ways, and on a more theoretical level, I don't really blame them, I blame Putin and his ilk. But I never forget that everyone knows right from wrong, knows that the repeated rape of a child is just wrong, to stand by and allow it to happen is just wrong, to be part of an organization that perpetuates it is just wrong, to not say or do anything is just wrong. And I'm talking about Catholic Church in Ireland. I blame the Popes at the time and I blame every single Priest and Nun who stayed silent and did nothing. Collective guilt is absolutely a thing, when nothing is done by anyone to stop the wrong.
Russian soldiers in occupied Ukraine are not doing anything to stop this invasion, so every single one inside those borders deserves to die. Very simple - it's them or Ukraine dies.
That's not dehumanizing, that's the brutal truth Ukraine is living day to day.
---
P.S. I don't want to come across as browbeating in the above. It's tricky, with a tricky subject like this. I'm honestly interested in your response.
-
10 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
The lengthy planning process also enables each decision to be better informed than it would otherwise be and to be utilized by Ukraine to optimal effect. Loading a bunch of X onto some railcars and dropping them in Ukraine without such planning is stupid.
Which I've seen noted was a major reason NATO a d US were not on board with Polish Migs for F16's etc. NATO didn't like the rushed aspect and fundamentally doesn't fight or rush around without significant planning/political consulting.
That can make it slow at the start but once that NATO avalanche starts rolling, well, dont be a Russian forest in its way. Or a Libyan dictator.
-
16 minutes ago, Billy Ringo said:
I've said this since the first week of this war, and it's still true:
Kill Putin's ego, end the war.
There is virtually no other valid reason to continue this war, except Putin's ego and self-serving desires.
Im not convinced it would. Prigozhin has positioned himself as Putin 2.0, and he's too politically and socially invested in the war. He views it as his own 2nd Chechnya, a nice Rally Around The Flag for his supporters. He wont stop the war, he'll triple down. He's type of ****er who'll set up full fledged extermination camps in occupied territories, who'll depopulate whole cities to make way for Russian colonists, whole create a whole slave class of Khohols.
-
4 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:
By that same logic, I could wish every single American soldier to suffer and die because of historical US war crimes, atrocities and support for repressive regimes, but that would be absurd - even though the average American combat soldier is a volunteer and has way more political say in the running of his/her country than the average Russian.
Do they really have all this information? Where is that coming from? They live in a propaganda bubble and the ones getting mobilised are not the guys with education and wealth. They are mainly poorer guys from the countryside. The ones escaping to the West are the relatively privileged and informed, like the "fortunate sons" who could dodge the draft for Vietnam.
About motivations for going to war, I'm sure some of the Russians want to go plunder, but so do some of the international volunteers going to 'fight for Ukraine'. As we recently saw in the interview with the British volunteer.
In any army, there will be good people and bad people. There are literally hundreds of thousands of individual people with their own motivations and background. Wishing suffering and death on all of them is the wrong way to go, in my opinion. Let's instead wish that the people responsible for this war, and the soldiers who commit war crimes, get what they deserve.
If they are even real at all, these intercepted phone calls are cherry picked exactly for the reason to make us feel the Russian army is made up of subhuman brutes bent on rape and plunder.
How many intercepted calls have there been, and how many calls have Russian troops made in total? The Russian army is very large, yet we point to a handful of calls and say "Look, this proves that they are all orks".
Well, I'm 100 pct sure some of them ARE orks and deserve a bad fate. But I'm also sure not all of them are. I'm not going to sit here and look at videos of people getting blown to bits and cheer because I make myself believe I can judge them and their character from a drone view.
I know this is an unpopular and uncomfortable position to take on a military forum in the middle of a horrible war. I don't blame Ukrainians for being in mental survival mode. But when it comes to people like myself and others on this forum, who live safely away from the fighting, I think we should try to keep a sense of perspective and not forget our humanity in this, even though we see so many things done that are inhumane.
Sure the calls are subject to editorializing, absolutely.
But what of all those videos, of large groups of men, whining a put not having the tight tools to kill more Ukrainians? Pure self defense?
And like I said, not a single, not one video released by any unit notes at any point that they are against the war in and of itself. They don't want to be cold, unfed or shelled by their own side, sure.
But if the mobilization had happened in Feb and they were fighting in nice warm August with enough weapons then the videos wouldn't be about those issues, it would be the usual Rar Rar Victoria, and I guarantee still not an iota of regret or doubt about being in someone else's country, killing their women, destroying their cities and entombing children inside their own homes. They'd be in their "Happy Time", a la 1941 Wehrmacht.
Any halfway decent person in occupied Ukraine can see it all and more.
And yet, not a single damn video of We Should Not Be Here Killing Ukrainians.
The lack of any thought in this strain is a very simple moral filter.
-
For once I'm timely with a link:
https://newlinesmag.com/essays/historical-perspectives-on-russias-war-crimes-in-ukraine/
-
37 minutes ago, Vet 0369 said:
I must say that I feel extreme sympathy for any combatant in this war who is not actively participating in war crimes. I enlisted in the U.S.M.C. In 1969 in the middle of our conflict with North Viet Nam. I can say for a fact that not everyone with whom I served supported the U.S. position, however, they still fought and some died. After I learned “both” sides of the conflict, I can understand why North Viet Nam invaded South Viet Nam, and can’t fault their reasoning (side note: the United States was the first country to recognize the sovereignty of North Viet Nam after it declared independence from France). All that said. We had a saying, “My Country, may She always be right. But, right or wrong, She’s my country!” I will never condemn, enblanc, the fighting men and women of an enemy just because they choose to remain loyal to their country regardless of how f’d up I think that country is.
Point of fact Steve, we live in an area where during one particular rebellion, one ninth of the population was in active rebellion (one third of the total population supported the rebellion). One third of the population actively opposed that rebellion and stayed true to their country, and we should condemn them because they stayed loyal to their country?
He's not condemning their loyalty, but their behaviour. One is a political position, the other is an ethical one. My personal view is that you're conflating and equivalizing the two.
They can certainly be bound together - Democratic societies (ie a political construct built on equality of freedom) almost always demand an equivalent ethical equality of actions from their citizens.
By contrast a fascist or authoritarian society insist on the direct opposite, the deliberate disconnect of political from ethical - minority freedom (ie the ruling elite) maintained by force and with no ethical equivalence, as everything is delineated by who has control over force within the society writ large.
The rejection of over-riding ethical principles as even equivalent to the political priorities (control) is explicit and overt, a publicly stated and glorif definition of Fascism and its ilk.
With the Russian Mobiks I *believe* Steve is pointing out that their behavior implies their agreement with their right to use violence against Ukrainians. I'm not Monsieur Steve so don't take that as writ.
But It's the agreement with the objective that is so odious - they're not accepting something unpalatable or distasteful, they're all for it. They want better training and weapons to kill more Ukrainians because killing Ukrainians is why they are there - and they're completely OK with that.
There's not a hint, not a single goddamn hint of doubt in any of those videos that the invasion is 1) Unjustified or 2) Immoral.
Let them die in droves. Good ****ing riddance. It's their simplistic, cruel, childish, selfish, apocalyptic, fascist ideology or the Ukrainian drive for democratic freedom.
One is a political lie denying any ethical grounds, the other is an ethical standpoint as the basis for free & fair society, and those are not compatible.
-
1 hour ago, The_Capt said:
That is not a strategy, it is wishing. The best definition of a strategy I have heard is “a theory of success”. What you have there is an envisioned end-state, and not a very good one. This war could end right now and in the long term it will cost more than Russia has gained. Russia will be a pariah for years and living under sanctions for a generation. It’s economy is going nowhere but down and towards out. Russia invaded one of its best customers and alienated the rest of Europe. What was the plan for that? How is this going to make Putin’s position more secure with the elites? Will the cling to the captain that ran the ship aground?
A good strategy cannot solve for part of the problem, it must solve for the whole thing. A strategy provides a framework in which effort aligns with outcomes. It provides a vision and a certainty to marshal collective will. It solves the problems it creates before they happen. It aligns position and power, Ends, Ways and Means, narrative and demonstration. A strategy defines and delineates. And finally a strategy is a sentient thing, it is self aware and adapts while still retaining its identity.
I mean if someone has some inside knowledge here please speak up. Best I have heard was this entire war was aimed at avoiding a looming Russian identity crisis. It is of course creating one. Beyond that I cannot see the game here, to the point I am convinced that those in power in Russia cannot either. The failure of the initial plan is generating its own strategy - keep throwing things at the problem and hope. And make sure that when the music stops it is somebody else’s fault.
Exactly, a Strategy is not just the desired end state but also how to get there, and why in that particular manner.
Russia is now chasing a moving target of an end state, with a concomitant lack of strategic clarity or definition.
-
3 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:
Every time I watch a video like that, I find myself thinking "Are these really the people we are supporting? Maybe we should just let leave them to enjoy this war that they seem to find so funny".
Personally I read those on a deeper level, past the faux humour, as deeply bitter and angry videos - "we're losing our best and brightest to these stupid a**hats?"
The comedy is of the darkest kind, which is always just a veneer over an enormous surging rage. Just listen to George Carlin
-
17 minutes ago, FancyCat said:
I wish nothing but suffering on Russia and all Russian soldiers in Ukraine. Exceedingly war crimey especially in comparison to the "less powerful" Ukrainian military and their campaign to force out Russia from Kherson.
In Ireland we have a name for that type of person, a Knacker.
The kind of nihilistic, multi-generational low grade Scumbag who is utterly untrustworthy and has no qualms burning down a house they've burgerled. Try to fight back is pointless, they've nothing going on in their lives so you just become their newest mission. For them and all their asshole cousins. Cops are the true terror for them, because they're also cowards. Every country has these people.
Russian command seems to have drawn exclusively from that class to the point where it absorbed, subsumed and institutionalized that mentality. Now it seems that at all levels and services the AFRF is innately competent at only two things - Greed and Cruelty, all aspects I would apply to a true Knacker.
Anything more complex, requiring character points beyond those two and they struggle for any success.
But they are fully able to plan, execute and follow through on any plan thay involves hurting someone who cannot hit back. They're really ****ing good at that.
-
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-january-7-2023
I do love the ISW's droll bemusement style:
QuoteConsidering that the recent rate of gains in this area has been on the order of a few hundred meters a day, at most, it is highly unlikely that Russian forces will be successful in cohering a mechanized push towards these GLOCs and move towards encircling Bakhmut.[2] Ukrainian forces in Bakhmut would still have GLOCs available even if the Russians cut the E40, moreover, making the entire discussion of an encirclement at this point bizarre.
Their sentences can be over-long and awkwardly constructed, but the commentary is spot on.
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
He has some value when not projecting and just analysing.
Ref the too many chefs, that would make sense. Syrski coming in to add clarity and restructure the heirarchy is exactly his job. He needs to deal with one commander, not a group, otherwise how can he reinforce correctly.
If it's accurate then he probably came just in time to clarify the defense and harmonize the logistics/demands.