Uh so has Debaltseve fallen?

[BTR]

Me too

And this just in. A Russian language interview with a *conscript* Russian soldier who was fighting in Ukraine back in June. Including Lohvynove.

http://www.novayagazeta.ru/society/67490.html

I have not had a chance to read it yet.

Steve

 

Novaya Gazeta = Dojd TV. That's all there is to say about this  . 

[Battlefront.com]

Novaya Gazeta = Dojd TV. That's all there is to say about this  .

More reliable than RT and LifeNews

Steve

[BTR]

Yeah, of course, if you say so. 

[Kraft]

When this 

CIA controlled Su-25 (Yes that is a Su-25, stupid) shot down the poor people in MH17 RT was the only one brave enough to tell the ugly truth!

 

Any stories from Dojd TV that match this level of journalistic integrity? Based on the Interview alone I have not found any *Experts* or equally ridiculous stories.

Edited March 3, 2015 by Kraft

[kaburke61]

LOL "journalistic integrity" ... OMG!  I heard it was a UFO from a distant planet that was sympathetic to our Western imperialistic governments!

 

Whew! read you later post.....thank God it was sarcasm!

Edited March 3, 2015 by kaburke61

[AttorneyAtWar]

When this

CIA controlled Su-25 (Yes that is a Su-25, stupid) shot down the poor people in MH17 RT was the only one brave enough to tell the ugly truth!

 

Any stories from Dojd TV that match this level of journalistic integrity? Based on the Interview alone I have not found any *Experts* or equally ridiculous stories.

 

That is an SU-27...

 

I am not sure if you are kidding or not but I figured I would clarify that point at least.

[Kraft]

I was being sarcastic with this whole journalistic integrity thing. Comparing anything to RT is setting  the bar very low and I would like to know what bat**** crazy "debunk it in 1 google search!" reports they've been releasing that would justify this comparison. So yeah I know it's not a Su-25 (they want you to belive that  ) and the German NVA *Expert* did not convince me either! I wonder how RT found him though

Edited March 3, 2015 by Kraft

[AttorneyAtWar]

I was being sarcastic with this whole journalistic integrity thing. Comparing anything to RT is setting  the bar very low and I would like to know what bat**** crazy "debunk it in 1 google search!" reports they've been releasing that would justify this comparison. So yeah I know it's not a Su-25 (they want you to belive that  ) and the German NVA DDR nostalgia *Expert*  (who has no qualifications according to the few times he is being mentioned on the Internet) did not convince me either! I wonder how RT found him though

 

I was actually convinced that's something the Russian government would put out, bravo to you sir.

 

Edit: Oh the Russian government did release that...

Edited March 3, 2015 by Raptorx7

[Buzz]

From the start this is the way Russia has organized the official Russian military units in Ukraine (besides special forces). For the most part Russia did not just point to an organic company or battalion and say "this unit is going into Ukraine as a whole piece". That would run into serious problems within the Russian military bureaucracy because conscripts are not allowed to be sent into a combat zone without direct approval from the Duma (or something like that). However, if a soldier is excused from military service ("vacation") then there are no such restrictions. So they offer the soldiers incentives to go on "vacation" and then organize them into whatever force they wish to move into Ukraine.

However, over time the word got out that fighting in Ukraine wasn't the pushover that they were told it would be. Soldiers returning spoke of the chaos on their side, the unreliability of the forces they are fighting side by side with, and of course the murderous Ukrainian artillery fire. This reduced the genuine "volunteers" considerably. Especially conscripts. There is also some rumors (and at present that is what I call them) that bodies are not being returned to Russia in order to avoid repeats of the 76th Pskov funerals back in August.

More recently there have been a significant increase in reports of Russian contract and conscripts who are refusing to fight. Some are being forced to sign papers, a few times physical violence was used. In one case a conscript soldier was murdered after refusing to join. His family was told he committed suicide, despite the fact that he was talking with his mother (and begging for help) when the call was suddenly cut off with a scream. In another case a bunch of Marines in Murmansk refused to fight and someone recorded and uploaded their colonel screaming at them about being cowards and unpatriotic for refusing to fight in Ukraine.

And yes, there are sources to cite for all of these accusations. I am also sure that not all accounts are accurate in detail, or perhaps at all. But over time more and more of these things are slipping into the public sphere, which is to be expected. The more people that are involved in a conspiracy, the more time that goes by, and the more stress that surrounds it... the more information will leak out.

Steve

 

If these soldiers died in Ukraine fighting on a volunteers.. on vacation valor - victory tour it is so wrong  and ... (if?)... their bodies are not being returned to Russia... to their families... that is ye another new low in this campaign of collapse. 

[Battlefront.com]

I don't want to get too off track. However, anybody that thinks RT or LifeNews are credible sources of information do not understand ow to evaluate credibility. RT's "Vatican expert" believes the Pope is an alien. I traced one of their "experts" in foreign relations to an experimental school for young children. No experience AT ALL in foreign relations of ANY SORT. How about the crucified child story? There are entire websites dedicated to exposing the credibility problems with RT and other state controlled media.

Look, there is only *one* reason for a state to have control of the media. And that is to control the truth. There is no other reason. And governments do not control truth for good purposes, do they?

As far as I know Novaya Gazeta is considered a credible source of information. At least I have not seen any evidence is its reporting is questionable.

Steve

[sburke]

But wait, the Pope IS an alien.  I mean check that hat and tell me one of the coneheads isn't under there.

 

 

 

 

[Macisle]

But wait, the Pope IS an alien.  I mean check that hat and tell me one of the coneheads isn't under there.

 

 

 

 

 

I needed a laugh this morning. That did the trick.

 

Thanks!

[John Kettler]

Steve,

 

Ref your #225, I don't see beaten broken soldiers on/in the AFVs and trucks (one truckload of infantry even has two war dogs). I do see some battered infantry on foot, but from what can tell,  every man still has his rifle, and I see lots of guys, most, in body armor. For a force that reportedly abandoned its heavy equipment, I see a lot, including tanks, BMP-1 and 2, Grad, towed 152 gun howitzers, 152 mm SPA, ACRV, box bodied command vehicles, one towing its HQ protection, a ZU-23. Was beginning to wonder where the casualties were, which is about when the ambulances appeared, followed by a very real example of walking wounded, non-ambulatory wounded, and shrouded corpses. Unlike the US government, the Ukraine government dares to show the ugly face of war to its people, and what would be the odds we'd ever be allowed to see unfettered criticism by the troops of higher command? The men don't appear hangdog and radiating defeat. To the contrary, I'd say they're pretty cheery on balance and have good morale.

 

Schmoly War,

 

If that's the trailer, I can but imagine how devastating the actual program will be. Wow!

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited March 4, 2015 by John Kettler

[Schmoly War]

Steve,

 

Ref your #225, I don't see beaten broken soldiers on/in the AFVs and trucks (one truckload of infantry even has two war dogs). I do see some battered infantry on foot, but from what can tell,  every man still has his rifle, and I see lots of guys, most, in body armor. For a force that reportedly abandoned its heavy equipment, I see a lot, including tanks, BMP-1 and 2, Grad, towed 152 gun howitzers, 152 mm SPA, ACRV, box bodied command vehicles, one towing its HQ protection, a ZU-23. Was beginning to wonder where the casualties were, which is about when the ambulances appeared, followed by a very real example of walking wounded, non-ambulatory wounded, and shrouded corpses. Unlike the US government, the Ukraine government dares to show the ugly face of war to its people, and what would be the odds we'd ever be allowed to see unfettered criticism by the troops of higher command? The men don't appear hangdog and radiating defeat. To the contrary, I'd say they're pretty cheery on balance and have good morale.

 

Schmoly War,

 

If that's the trailer, I can but imagine how devastating the actual program will be. Wow!

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Its live.

 

The putinbots are going ape**** in the comments.

 

Edited March 4, 2015 by Schmoly War

[Battlefront.com]

The putinbots are going apeshit in the comments.

When some can't dispute the facts, they smear the source. The comments offer no alternative explanation, they offer no evidence that VICE is an unreliable source. Heck, they can't even make a case that VICE is biased, since if you look at the full range of VICE's work they are *EXTREMELY* critical of Western actions all over the globe, not to mention making some pretty strong negative reporting about Ukraine post Yanukovych. So all they can do is attempt to distract and derail thinking with abuse and threats.

But getting back on topic. The fighting appears to be calming down. Reduced shelling, only a few small ground engagements. Current NATO estimates put the number of forces fighting against Ukraine at around 30,000 local and non-local militia, 14,000 organized Russian military. I do not know what the current estimate is for Ukrainian ATO forces, but it has long been around 50,000 in the immediate area. The 4th mobilization is well underway as well.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Here is a timely (and long) article about Debaltseve and its ramifications (as well as the bigger picture). Those of you who have read my posts in this thread will wonder if I might have written the article myself I assure you I had nothing to do with it, though obviously I find little to fault in its observations and conclusions:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/03/04/a-stalemate-ukraine-can-win-russia-war-donetsk-donbass/

Steve

[Zveroboy1]

Interesting article but nothing really new here except the 3-1 casualty ratio which I am going to take with a large pinch of salt.

 

I also question the attrition logic supported by the author.

Lots of people seem to think Russia is going to collapse and fold because of the weight of the sanctions imposed by the West on her struggling economy combined with the cost of the war, or because of internal public uproar caused by mounting Russian soldiers casualties.

 

While it is entirely possible, I think this is maybe wishful thinking.

It sounds like the West hopes the situation caused by the Afghan war in the 80's or the star wars arms race under Reagan is going to repeat itself and either bankrupt the Russian economy or cause so much internal turmoil, Russia will have to fold and a regime change will follow.

 

But I don't think this is the right model or comparison.

 

At the risk of rubbing you the wrong way Steve, until proven otherwise I am going to assume the bulk of the fighting in Ukraine is still carried out by the separatists themselves. There is little doubt in my mind that the whole affair was instigated, funded, guided, supplied by Moscow and the fighting is supported by Russian artillery, AA assets, military advisors, specops, volunteers and probably some whole combat units too, but the bulk of the blood being shed currently is Ukrainian not Russian.

 

As far as the economic situation is concerned, it seems to me that Ukraine is in an even worse shape than Russia. And the fear, real or not it doesn't matter, of having NATO on their doorstep is too big in the Russian psyche, the support for Putin too high at home, to have them fold and give up on such an important security issue for them and a matter of national pride, despite the hardships they might have to endure.

 

I think if you want to compare it to an another modern conflict to draw conclusions on, Yougoslavia might be closer. Of course there are no religious issues here and no atrocities on the same level being committed. And while it is of course really hazardous to venture out a guess as to what will eventually happen and way too early in any case, I am afraid it might resemble something closer to Yugoslavia which saw the partition of the country.

 

Maybe Putin will end up simply having to ditch and abandon the separatists, it wouldn't be the first time Russia does that when an ally stops being useful and becomes a liability, but it is far from certain this is what will happen.

[gunnersman]

It always struck me as interesting that such a geographically small sliver of Ukraine (separatists, AKA, miners, etc) is putting up such big fight.

Edited March 5, 2015 by gunnersman

[Battlefront.com]

Interesting article but nothing really new here except the 3-1 casualty ratio which I am going to take with a large pinch of salt.

 

I also question the attrition logic supported by the author.

Lots of people seem to think Russia is going to collapse and fold because of the weight of the sanctions imposed by the West on her struggling economy combined with the cost of the war, or because of internal public uproar caused by mounting Russian soldiers casualties.

 

While it is entirely possible, I think this is maybe wishful thinking.

It sounds like the West hopes the situation caused by the Afghan war in the 80's or the star wars arms race under Reagan is going to repeat itself and either bankrupt the Russian economy or cause so much internal turmoil, Russia will have to fold and a regime change will follow.

 

But I don't think this is the right model or comparison.

I don't see why not. The conditions are fairly similar, though more because of the oil price than sanctions. 1980s Soviet Union was overly dependent on oil revenue, as is the current Russia. A huge dip in oil prices means a huge dip in industrial capacity. The parallel is certainly there.

The other parallel is discontent amongst society and the power brokers within the Soviet Union. Remember, the Soviet Union was arguably more repressive than today's Russia, which meant it was able to hide the truth of the economic problems, losses in Afghanistan, the comparatively better living conditions in the West, etc. And yet people still figured it out and, after a while, got disgruntled to the point where there was not only a major political shift (Gorbachev) to address the real problems, but then a military/KGB coup to counter it. We're not at that stage yet, for sure, but to say it isn't possible doesn't seem like a very sound statement to make.

However, there are some significantly different factors involved in today's Russia that weren't present in the 1980s Soviet Union:

1. Many Russians have had a taste of a better life. Certainly the new, though still very small, middle class and the expanded upper classes have.

2. The Soviet Union had far more resources under its direct control and another huge amount under less direct control than modern day Russia.

3. The Soviet Union wasn't fighting a significant Islamic insurgency on its own soil. The Caucuses problem was pushed down, not solved. There's been two significant terrorist attacks in the last week. Too early to say if they are on the rise, but if it significantly increases it will add more stress to the Russian government expenses.

In conclusion, I think expecting a sudden change in Russian governance in the near term is definitely not to be expected. However, the monetary, social, and political costs of the war are unsustainable. Eventually either the Russian government will have to radically change its approach or it will become a failed state, ripe for internal conflict. I don't need to look at 1980s Soviet Union to make that prediction... it's pretty much the standard way autocratic and corrupt regimes fall apart. In short, they bite off more than they can chew and refuse to spit it out before they choke.

 

At the risk of rubbing you the wrong way Steve, until proven otherwise I am going to assume the bulk of the fighting in Ukraine is still carried out by the separatists themselves. There is little doubt in my mind that the whole affair was instigated, funded, guided, supplied by Moscow and the fighting is supported by Russian artillery, AA assets, military advisors, specops, volunteers and probably some whole combat units too, but the bulk of the blood being shed currently is Ukrainian not Russian.

I agree that the majority of forces actually fighting are separatists, which involve a large number of Russian nationals that aren't technically functioning as a part of the Russian military. If you look at the numbers I just quoted it's about 2:1 militia:Russian military. That is just about the normal ratio of fighting unit to support unit distribution. So yes, the Russian military might not be the primary fighting force, but they are the backbone of it in terms of everything else. And when the going gets tough, the regular forces are committed to combat for as short a period of time as possible.

 

As far as the economic situation is concerned, it seems to me that Ukraine is in an even worse shape than Russia. And the fear, real or not it doesn't matter, of having NATO on their doorstep is too big in the Russian psyche, the support for Putin too high at home, to have them fold and give up on such an important security issue for them and a matter of national pride, despite the hardships they might have to endure.

Ukraine is in worse financial condition, for sure. However, it has two things going for it that Russia doesn't:

1. A degree of financial support from other governments. It's debatable how useful this is, but it is greater than what Russia has access to.

2. Popular and political movements for fundamental change aimed at reform. Too early to say where this will wind up, but it's at least movement in positive direction.

The problem for Russia is that even if Ukraine collapses it doesn't "win" by default. Ukraine could collapse tomorrow and, at best, Russia would be no better off than it is now. One can make the case that it would be worse off. Failed states on borders do not generally produce good things.

 

I think if you want to compare it to an another modern conflict to draw conclusions on, Yougoslavia might be closer.

I see almost no parallels to Yugoslavia. That was a vicious ethnic/religious civil war between three major parties. There is no way to separate those issues from the conflict and there isn't anything like that (thankfully!) in Ukraine now.

 

Maybe Putin will end up simply having to ditch and abandon the separatists, it wouldn't be the first time Russia does that when an ally stops being useful and becomes a liability, but it is far from certain this is what will happen.

Rationally he should have ditched the separatists back in the Spring. Then in June. Then in July. And certainly in August. And... well, pretty much every month since. But he has done nothing but reinforce the existing policy. So yes, I agree with you that there is no signs of willing change coming from Russia. However, history shows that autocratic leaders often find their will isn't sufficient to keep things from falling apart.

Steve

[Zveroboy1]

There are more similarities than you might think. And no, the religious dimension was never central to the problem. It was merely an aggravating factor.

 

An ex Soviet block country with the communist rule keeping the lid on the boiling internal tensions gone, a country plagued with corruption, populism, nationalism and a weak central government, all these elements are present in Ukraine today to some extent.

 

Anyway this is off topic, but it is a lot more relevant to me than the comparison with Afghanistan. I know I am the one who brought it up in the discussion but I can't help but think that this is the model some experts in the West want to reproduce. Of course I might be wrong but this outcome is just wishful thinking to me.

 

Back to our topic, I am afraid that you have it backward about Putin.

 

If he hasn't ditched the separatists it is because he would lose face. And this is precisely when his popularity would plummet dramatically, not by standing up against the West as Moscow is portraying the whole affair. The internal risk for him is greater if he folds. The man has built his reputation on strength, machismo and restoring Russia's pride. Russia has felt humiliated by the West and the USA in particular since the fall of the Berlin wall and the lost of her superpower status. That this perception is justified or not is irrelevant, it is the mainstream view. He doesn't fear sanctions or internal trouble now with the majority of the population backing him, as strange as it may sound to people in the West, as much as he fears losing face. His veneer of strength would vanish and that would be the beginning of his downfall.

[Baneman]

 

Back to our topic, I am afraid that you have it backward about Putin.

 

If he hasn't ditched the separatists it is because he would lose face. And this is precisely when his popularity would plummet dramatically, not by standing up against the West as Moscow is portraying the whole affair. The internal risk for him is greater if he folds. The man has built his reputation on strength, machismo and restoring Russia's pride. Russia has felt humiliated by the West and the USA in particular since the fall of the Berlin wall and the lost of her superpower status. That this perception is justified or not is irrelevant, it is the mainstream view. He doesn't fear sanctions or internal trouble now with the majority of the population backing him, as strange as it may sound to people in the West, as much as he fears losing face. His veneer of strength would vanish and that would be the beginning of his downfall.

 

In other words, he'd rather indirectly cause the deaths of thousands and misery to many more because otherwise he'd lose face and ( probably ) power.

Yep, that sounds like he has the best interests of Russia at heart...

[Hister]

Baneman, he is not really the only one playing it out that way. 

[Battlefront.com]

There are more similarities than you might think. And no, the religious dimension was never central to the problem. It was merely an aggravating factor.

For sure I was oversimplifying. I was actually in Yugoslavia just before it broke up. Somewhere I even have a HDZ lapel pin someone gave me. My knowledge of that conflict is probably deeper (though dustier) than that of the conflict in Ukraine. As I said, I don't see many similarities. Though, of course, if you look hard enough there are always some valid points of comparison. Just like you can say there are similarities between a Ferrari to a Yugo

 

An ex Soviet block country with the communist rule keeping the lid on the boiling internal tensions gone, a country plagued with corruption, populism, nationalism and a weak central government, all these elements are present in Ukraine today to some extent.

Sure, underlying problems within the Ukrainian state are not all that different than many other states in transition from autocratic regimes to more accountable ones. But the single biggest factor in this conflict in Ukraine is the direct involvement of a stronger neighboring state. That sets it apart from conflicts like Yugoslavia. Though for sure there are some parallels between Serbia's "we're not involved" strategy of waging war as is Russia's.

 

Anyway this is off topic, but it is a lot more relevant to me than the comparison with Afghanistan. I know I am the one who brought it up in the discussion but I can't help but think that this is the model some experts in the West want to reproduce. Of course I might be wrong but this outcome is just wishful thinking to me.

Sure, comparing a Ferrari to a Yugo is more appropriate than comparing a Ferrari to a boat. And no, I don't think anybody in the West wants to repeat anything even remotely similar to Afghanistan or even Iraq. Both are acknowledged to be examples of what not to do.

 

Back to our topic, I am afraid that you have it backward about Putin.

 

If he hasn't ditched the separatists it is because he would lose face. And this is precisely when his popularity would plummet dramatically, not by standing up against the West as Moscow is portraying the whole affair. The internal risk for him is greater if he folds. The man has built his reputation on strength, machismo and restoring Russia's pride. Russia has felt humiliated by the West and the USA in particular since the fall of the Berlin wall and the lost of her superpower status. That this perception is justified or not is irrelevant, it is the mainstream view. He doesn't fear sanctions or internal trouble now with the majority of the population backing him, as strange as it may sound to people in the West, as much as he fears losing face. His veneer of strength would vanish and that would be the beginning of his downfall.

 

This is not really the place to debate Putin's mindset and motivation, nor that of the powers that he has to keep in balance or otherwise he will find himself being the ex-President. But I will say that I very much understand that he (and his backers) are viewing the world in a very, very different way than those of the Ukraine and the West. The thing is that what Putin and his powerbase want and what they are likely to get are not the same thing. Continuing to wage war in Ukraine offers Russia more possibilities of accelerating all the things you mentioned than it does avoiding them.

 

Baneman, he is not really the only one playing it out that way.

Quite. Putin could not wage this war if there were significant disagreement amongst those who are responsible for Putin remaining in power.

Steve

[Buzz]

Here is a timely (and long) article about Debaltseve and its ramifications (as well as the bigger picture). Those of you who have read my posts in this thread will wonder if I might have written the article myself I assure you I had nothing to do with it, though obviously I find little to fault in its observations and conclusions:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/03/04/a-stalemate-ukraine-can-win-russia-war-donetsk-donbass/

Steve

 

Good read... Thanks.

 

"Ukraine’s military doesn’t have to be stronger than Russia’s for Ukraine to win."

 

"Putin’s strategic miscalculations — starting a war without knowing how to finish it has to be the greatest of them — have maneuvered him and Russia into a dead end with no easy escape. "

[Zveroboy1]

. And no, I don't think anybody in the West wants to repeat anything even remotely similar to Afghanistan or even Iraq. Both are acknowledged to be examples of what not to do.

 

 

 

I was talking about the Soviet Union - Afghanistan war in the 80's and the neocon myth that the Soviet Union collapsed because of it. And how by waging a proxy war and arming the mujahideens with stingers the USA bled out the SU which caused the fall of the Communist regime, either financially or by sowing the seeds of discontentment at home.