Strategic and tactical realities in CMBS

[ikalugin]

Lethal aid is not being provided currently.

It would be soon in my opinion.

[Battlefront.com]

Airport is by definition the sum of all it's elements. When talking about capturing it, it provides a false impression to the people who did not follow the situation closely. The reason why "holding new terminal" and "holding the airport" terms are related is because the new terminal is the primary point that loyalists manage to hold, capturing it would essentially give the separatists overall control of the airport.

Technically this is correct. But in terms of how both sides view the airport, it the new terminal is the focal point. Regardless, my point is the separatists continually claim they "control" or "have taken" the airport. When they say that they are talking about the new terminal. As I have said, the separatist and Russian media continually makes statements too soon or makes statements they know are not true. For example, Graham Philips went on Russia Today within the last day showing wreckage of a supermarket and claiming it was the new terminal.

http://ukrainianwall.com/fakes/fejk-propagandist-russia-today-grem-fillips-vydaet-snimki-iz-supermarketa-za-zaxvat-aeroporta/

Graham Philips is the modern day equivalent of Lord Haw-Haw.

 

The airport area is (was) by it's nature contested, from what I remember it was not clearly market as Ukrainian on the demarkation maps.

 

Irrelevant. The ceasefire stated that both sides were to stop fighting, pull back their artillery, and then the demarkation line could be adjusted. If there is a dispute it was supposed to be resolved in Minsk with words, not Donetsk with Grads and infantry.

 

Do you think UA army have a lot of ethnic poles?

In the video one of the soldiers siad "we dont have stuff like that" when merk shown them some of his gear.

I am going to ask this only one more time. If you refuse to answer my question I am going to give you a temporary ban. There is a specific rule against "baiting" and another one against "dodging". You are trying my patience to the point of breaking. If you continue you bring up Poles or flags without answering my question I will ban you. The choice is for you to make.

The question:

What is your point of drawing our attention to a "Polish sniper" or a Polish flag while drawing our attention away from other things?

Steve

[Weer]

What is your point of drawing our attention to a "Polish sniper" or a Polish flag while drawing our attention away from other things?

 

If you dont want to talk about this why do you continue to do that?

Some time ago you have said what stories about the polish snipers are propaganda and lie.

[wee]

Thank you for the warm welcome guys. Very nice from you.

 

Referring to my earlier message few pages before about the category B/C or Tier 2/3 troops (ukranian national guard and pro-russian militias), I was referring to these kind of units.

 

Ukranian national guard:

 

 

 

 

 

And the current Crimean equailent:

 

 

 

 

 

Man, those units looks just like the one I might most likely get assigned in mobilization!

Edited January 19, 2015 by wee

[Weer]

And the current Crimean equailent

 

Russian military doctrine do not support the usage of militant type of forces on the frontline. And even more - we do not plan to have any of them, coz in case of big war evryone will be mobilised into motor-rifle units.

[Battlefront.com]

About insurgents east of the Dniepr. Since the start Putin believed that Ukraine was a divided nation and that he could easily split away a large chunk of the country because the population wanted union with Russia. Or at least separation from Ukraine. He conducted specific actions based on this belief, so it is important to look at the results.

The intended outcome was "Novorussia" extending from Luhansk to Odessa and north to Kharkiv. This would offer Russia a "buffer" with the West, a land bridge to Crimea, and leave the Ukrainian state with almost nothing to draw power from (no Black Sea coastline, no heavy industry, no access to minerals, etc.)

The following describes both what we expected and what actually happened. Because, it turns out, we predicted Putin's actions very accurately years before they happened. Since he's done the same thing several times before, it was actually pretty easy to predict:

Phase I -> Sieze Crimea

Sieze Crimea by military force to ensure that, no matter what, it was going to be within the Russian sphere of influence. Initially I do not think Putin intended on annexing it, but conditions developed that obligated him to go that route. That is part of a larger discussion

Phase II -> Civilian Agitation

Deploy Russian "agents" into Ukraine to create civil unrest in the east and along the coast. This would be done in conjunction with local Ukrainian political and criminal organizations, both of which have long standing contact with various Russian based organizations (in particular the Eurasian Youth Union).

The purpose of this action was to show Ukraine and the world that a large chunk of Ukraine wanted to become a part of Russia or, at least, be "Federalized". A major component of this plan was a massive Russian state sponsored propaganda campaign to "shape events". The propaganda war was started long before Yanukovych fled, but now it was kicked into high gear.

The second component of the plan was to ensure there was a "spark" to light the fire. Soon after the invasion of Crimea happened, and before the so-called referendum took place, Russian citizens flooded over the border and went to a very specific cities. They traveled in small numbers and in large busses. They went with Russian flags, bats, pipes, and other things. When Ukrainian unity rallies were held, they counter marched and very often engaged in combat with them.

The dual purpose of these actions were to suppress national expression of unity and to also make it look like the area wanted to become a part of Russia. Their hope was to act as a cadre, a flash point, to draw the local population into an open civil war.

The third component was to position very large amounts of Russian military forces, some with peace keeper symbols on them, along the Ukrainian border. The obvious intent was to be ready to move into Ukraine as soon as the conditions were acceptable.

Phase III -> Armed Uprising

With the propaganda war in full swing, and the population agitated/confused/distracted/fearful, Putin authorized armed groups moving over the border. They consisted of Russian and Ukrainian citizens working together to create the impression of a separatist movement. It was always, from the very start, directed from within Russia. However, the Kremlin initially kept its distance from the details and provided minimal direct support. But only a fool would think that these groups acted without any direction or approval from Putin.

The intent of the "separatists" was to destroy all forms of Ukrainian civil control in the targeted areas. They would then create conditions for a pretext for Russian military forces to intervene as "peace keepers" before the West could figure out what was going on. But Putin knew very well that this was an extremely risky thing for him to do, therefore he hedged his bets. The "separatists" were told that they had to achieve a certain amount of genuine local control/support before Russia could move in. Either that or hope that the Ukrainian government did something very, very stupid. The Black Sea backstory had such things happening, but in reality neither happened and Russia did not overtly invade.

What is unclear is if the plan was to form a base in Donetsk and Luhansk and spread north and west, or if the Kremlin already understood that Phase II didn't show much promise and therefore the plan was scaled down to only Donetsk and Luhansk.

Either way, the "uprisings" were contained within Donetsk and Luhansk. Attempts to spread further failed and, in fact, some of the edges weren't all that strong. As the Ukrainian government, and more importantly the people themselves, began to react to the danger the expansion of "separatist" control stopped. It was even reversed in a few places. The most important of which was Mariupol.

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

The point of bring all this up is that Russia already tried to get the areas east of the Dniepr to support union with Russia. It *utterly* failed to do that. Even in Donetsk the pro-Ukrainian rallies were larger than the pro-Russian rallies. Even when the Russian "tourists" beat Ukrainian unity marchers they kept coming back.

Since this time public opinion has hardened against Russian aggression and Russian control. Even those involved in the "Novorussia Project" have admitted that their dream is dead, though they in part blame their defeat on Putin undermining their efforts.

Russia had one shot at splitting away a big chunk of Ukraine without massive bloodshed and danger to its occupation forces. That opportunity is long gone. If Russia were to invade they would find a very dangerous and uncooperative local population. Unlike any previous "peace keeping" operation Russia has engaged in. I don't know if it would be on the scale of Chechnya in terms of violence, but it certainly wouldn't be like Transnistria, Abkhazia, or South Ossetia.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

If you dont want to talk about this why do you continue to do that?

Because you continue it.

Some time ago you have said what stories about the polish snipers are propaganda and lie.

It is propaganda because propaganda is the deliberate distortion of truth to push a false message. The best propaganda always has some element of truth to it, but using a point of fact to base false premise on doesn't mean the conclusion is truthful. Which is why I have continued to ask you the more important question about why this is important, not if there is a guy with a Polish flag somewhere on the front lines. Just like the picture posted yesterday of a separatist fighter at the airport with a Russian Marines unit badge on his arm isn't important.

Since you are not answering my question I do not expect to see you mention this ever again. Not unless you want that to be your last post. Think VERY hard before you post again.

Steve

[Weer]

It is propaganda because propaganda

 

Well. Now i realy have nothing to do here.

Think VERY hard before you post again.

 

Cya.

[ikalugin]

You may or may not believe me, but there was no propaganda plan and no plans for seizure of areas other than Crimea before Strelkov happened that I am aware of. And most likely such plans (especially media related) would have been known to me. Thus I think you read too deeply into this.

 

The main problem people have is that they think that Putin has some sort of multi level plan for what is happening (partially the result of what our media does ofcourse, but still). There is no such plan. Most decisions are done on the spot or without extensive planning, which is why the Crimea was a political surprise I think (there was no political intelligence on it because there was no intelligence to gather - the decision was an opportunistic gamble and it has worked).

 

p.s. - btw to which pro unity rally do you talk about?

Edited January 19, 2015 by ikalugin

[dan/california]

You may or may not believe me, but there was no propaganda plan and no plans for seizure of areas other than Crimea before Strelkov happened that I am aware of. And most likely such plans (especially media related) would have been known to me. Thus I think you read too deeply into this.

 

The main problem people have is that they think that Putin has some sort of multi level plan for what is happening (partially the result of what our media does ofcourse, but still). There is no such plan. Most decisions are done on the spot or without extensive planning, which is why the Crimea was a political surprise I think (there was no political intelligence on it because there was no intelligence to gather - the decision was an opportunistic gamble and it has worked).

 

p.s. - btw to which pro unity rally do you talk about?

And your rank in whatever the NKVD is calling itself these days is?

[Stagler]

Russian military doctrine do not support the usage of militant type of forces on the frontline. And even more - we do not plan to have any of them, coz in case of big war evryone will be mobilised into motor-rifle units.

 

Actually, I do believe it does. It cultivates formations wherever it is. Just look at all the evidence.

 

And your rank in whatever the NKVD is calling itself these days is?

 

Haha, its funny that across the medium of the internet, all manner of people can come together and have a discussion about things that they feel passionate and knowledgable about that would of necessitated an impromptu trip to Prague or Budapest in the 1980s. I do believe it is the SVR also at this time.

I dont believe pretty much anything the Russian government comes out with these days.

Edited January 19, 2015 by Stagler

[Weer]

Just look at all the evidence.

 

Where did he get those pictures btw?

Actually, I do believe it does.

 

They are not part of our military doctrine.

When russia will start mobolisation all coscripts will go into carde brigades to fill them to full strength.

[BTR]

Hearts and minds, connecting to the locals, that sort of this. Every military tries to cultivate some sort of local support whenever they are in a combat zone to gain legitimacy if nothing else. Still, current doctrine has nothing on militia formations and their deployment on the front-line.

[ikalugin]

And your rank in whatever the NKVD is calling itself these days is?

Lel, I just go around the media and such circles a lot. For example this guy:

Broke one of our chairs with his sheer weight. He isn't fat, just very tall and broad in shoulders.

Edited January 19, 2015 by ikalugin

[Plinko]

And your rank in whatever the NKVD is calling itself these days is?

 

Let's not sink to this level please.

[Stagler]

Hearts and minds, connecting to the locals, that sort of this. Every military tries to cultivate some sort of local support whenever they are in a combat zone to gain legitimacy if nothing else. Still, current doctrine has nothing on militia formations and their deployment on the front-line.

 

Exactly, it makes military sense to do so.

 

Every doctrine has a portion outlining protocol working with local authorities.

Edited January 19, 2015 by Stagler

[Battlefront.com]

You may or may not believe me, but there was no propaganda plan and no plans for seizure of areas other than Crimea before Strelkov happened that I am aware of. And most likely such plans (especially media related) would have been known to me. Thus I think you read too deeply into this.

Unless you are one of the few people at the very closest circle of Putin's government, I do not think you have the authority to know everything that goes on.

I think it is impossible for us to have predicted the events in Ukraine by total and complete accident. I do not believe in coincidences on this scale. Especially when our basis for Black Sea was based on previous Russian government behavior. Therefore, I think it is unwise for me to start doubting my understanding of what is going on.

 

The main problem people have is that they think that Putin has some sort of multi level plan for what is happening (partially the result of what our media does ofcourse, but still). There is no such plan. Most decisions are done on the spot or without extensive planning, which is why the Crimea was a political surprise I think (there was no political intelligence on it because there was no intelligence to gather - the decision was an opportunistic gamble and it has worked).

Actually, I largely agree with this. Putin is ex-KGB and so are most of his closest advisors and even a few oligarchs. Their mindset is to keep a large goal in mind and "push and pull" events to achieve that goal. They remain flexible and adapt to the situation as it unfolds. Like any way of acting, it has pros and cons.

For decades the direct Russian involvement in Ukrainian politics has been at the governmental level. Politicians, military, police, and pretty much anything that had an impact on maintaining power. But some say Putin recognized the shift in popular mood would one day topple the government in a meaningful way, so he started to look at backup plans(some say around 2010). However, as you say most of Russia's specific planning was concentrated on Crimea.

We theorized before the war that Putin had a very specific plan for Crimea and only a loose outline for the rest of Ukraine in order to achieve the strategic objectives I outlined above.

As per long standing Soviet/Russian operations, after Phase I was complete the planning for Phase II became more specific. In this case, the various Russian nationalist groups (ranging from neo-Nazis to Russian Orthodox fanatics) were given a green light to cause trouble in Ukraine. Organizations with long standing ties to Putin and the center of power, like Durgin's Eurasian Youth Group, were given instructions to cause problems. I doubt GRU/FSU were standing by the busses with clipboards recording what happened, but they were none-the-less knowledgeable about what was going on.

Girkin did not rise out of nowhere. Organizations in Russia supplied him with men and small amount of weapons. Many of the initial armed "separatists" had come straight out of Crimea. I even saw an individual that I was able to identify as an early "self defense" guy in Simferopol who then appeared on the streets of Slavyansk. The thought that these armed men could have participated in the Crimean operation (i.e. definitely operating under orders from the Kremlin) and then suddenly started acting 100% on their own is unbelievable.

The "uprisings" were rumored to have been mostly funded by ex-Yankovych allies seeking refuge in Russia. There are rumors that was the price they had to pay for government protection, but they could have done it on their own. I don't know if we will ever know the truth. But for sure, the "separatists" had a lot of money from the very start and they very quickly got weapons from Russia.

It seems that the early weapons that came from Russia were purchased by the "Novorussian Project" coalition. The quantity was large and it is unlikely Russian government officials were not involved. Certainly there is evidence that Russian border guards were instructed to not interfere with movements over the borders. There is also some evidence that Ukrainian border guards were (initially) taking bribes to let them through.

As for the propaganda offensive? One of the actors that was hired to perform in front of Russian TV cameras appeared in Simferopol and other Ukrainian cities during the same timeframe. To me this is an obvious sign of there being a coordinated effort, even if no other signs existed at the time. And they did. It's also odd to think that a state would take total control of the media and not use it to achieve state goals, so it is odd to think that Russian media was not deliberately directed to produce certain reports during this timeframe.

But now I am getting into more details than is necessary

My point is that Russia already tried to pull the population away from Ukraine and towards Russia. It utterly failed. Even the small chunk of eastern Ukraine now under military control is not solidly for union with Russia. Something the separatist leaders have complained about bitterly since the "uprising" started. So if the Russian military is thinking they are going to have no problem in their rear areas, they are fools. Utter and total fools. Personally, I do not think they are fools and so I think they would not invade unless they had a plan to deal with a largely hostile occupied population.

 

p.s. - btw to which pro unity rally do you talk about?

There were almost daily pro unity demonstrations going on in most of the major cities on the east side of Dniepr. For the most part they were significantly larger than the pro-Russian groups and the Unity ones were not the ones starting the fighting. Even the infamous Odessa tragedy happened after pro-Russian thugs opened fire on unity demonstrators with small arms. In particular the AK armed local crime leader known as "Boatsman" (or something like that).

Again, my point is that even in the early days of this crisis the population was never, ever in support of joining with Russia. In some areas more than others for sure, but overall the expression of the people was that they wanted to be a part of Ukraine. This was during the time when Russia had the most amount of credibility and the Kiev government the least. The reverse is true today.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Let's not sink to this level please.

Yes, I agree.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Related to current events, for the first time in a very long time the Ukrainian government has said that two large Russian Army forces crossed over the border in Luhansk. Of course this can not be independently verified, but it is plausible given the reversals in the airport area. Putin and other officials have also made some statements in the past 2 days that indicate the fighting has them concerned.

Steve

[BTR]

As ever, until there is proper evidence I'll dismiss these claims as another "Swedish submarine hunt". These declarations have been so numerous, and the amount of Russian casualties declared so high, that it reminds me of the boy who cried wolf. 

[Cogust]

BTR,

 

You know that the Swedes found physical evidence that a sub had been there, right?

 

But they couldn't tell if it was a Russian sub or just a Russian sub operated by local separatists though.

[BTR]

@ Steve in regards to demonstrations.

 

This is a subject of faith and point of view as much as any other spread by media. Ukrainian media and their stories have known to be grossly skewed and outright fabricated, so how much is really happened is unknown. You could say the same about Russian media as well, which wouldn't be untrue. However, what baffles me is that people chose to believe one, or another instead of discontinuing both altogether.

 

@ Cogust,

 

With such a massive media campaign or hysteria (take your pick here whichever word seems to reflect your opinion on the matter more), the Swedish military were bound to find something. I think they ever found more than one (correct me if I'm wrong), which is quite representative.  

[ikalugin]

BTR,

 

You know that the Swedes found physical evidence that a sub had been there, right?

 

But they couldn't tell if it was a Russian sub or just a Russian sub operated by local separatists though.

They did not find a Russian submarine, did they? For all we know it could have been an USN submarine, doing an intel run.

 

Or the Swedish Armed Forces looking into getting some money.

Edited January 19, 2015 by ikalugin

[Cogust]

BTr,

 

Media hysteria sounds like what we had here in Sweden, first time since the 80'ies so the journalists went all-in and over-the-top at the same time.

 

They know that it was a sub there, they have even shown some of the evidence. I don't think that they wanted to catch it even if they could do it, and I doubt they could do it without helicopters as they have failed earlier when they used depth charges abundantly.

 

U-137/S-363 was a bit easier to find, but they had apparently got lost as Russians tend to do when going abroad.

[Cogust]

ikalugin,

 

No they haven't got a positive ID on the identity, but since 100% of all found subs the last 40 years have been Russian there is a more than 50% chance that this one was Russian as well.

 

It doesn't really matter where it cam from from me, it got the attention the Navy wanted and the politics have finally woken up which is good news.