Uh so has Debaltseve fallen?

[vincere]

Putin openly admits the pre-'referendum' plan to annex Crimea. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31796226

 

 

Ok, nothing new in a way; but to now openly admit it is 'something'.

[jep]

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. "

 

I am not sure about strategic miscalculations. Russia annexed Crimea and and diverted world's attention by agitating separatist nationalism.  All the while no body want to remember that Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees from both Russia and the West. It goes without saying that this has led to a massive loss of credibility. It's too late to arm the Ukrainian army since Russian would invade Ukraine before anything significant could be achieved. Short-term economic sanctions are rather cheap price to pay for the Crimea.

[Battlefront.com]

Putin openly admits the pre-'referendum' plan to annex Crimea. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31796226

 

 

Ok, nothing new in a way; but to now openly admit it is 'something'.

The fun thing is he's admitting to far more than the invasion of Crimea wasn't a spur of the moment event. Just look at how his own words fit into the timeline of events:

Feb 21 - Yanukovych flees to Kharkiv, can't get out

Feb 22 - Yanukovych arrives in Crimea by car

Feb 23 - Yanukovych departs Balaklava, Crimea for Russia most likely by his son's yacht

Feb 23 - Putin decides to invade Crimea to save Yanukovych, who is already in Russia

Feb 23 - first "demonstrations" started in Sevastopol only hours later

Feb 26 - Russia invades with conventional forces

March 1 - the Duma authorizes Putin to use force in Ukraine

 

Three things jump right out from this:

1. Putin's claim that he invaded Crimea to save Yanukovych is an outright lie since Yanukovych was already safely in Russia at the time of the invasion.

2. The prelude to the full scale invasion ("protests") started within hours of when Putin said he decided to invade. Anybody find it believable that he could get roughly 5,000 people in a foreign country organized with banners and a cohesive message within a few hours with no advanced planning? Anyone? Bueller?

3. Apparently the President of Russia does not need authorization from the Duma to conduct an outright invasion of a neighboring country. Or if he does, he apparently doesn't care.

 

I am not sure about strategic miscalculations. Russia annexed Crimea and and diverted world's attention by agitating separatist nationalism.  All the while no body want to remember that Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees from both Russia and the West. It goes without saying that this has led to a massive loss of credibility. It's too late to arm the Ukrainian army since Russian would invade Ukraine before anything significant could be achieved. Short-term economic sanctions are rather cheap price to pay for the Crimea.

Anybody who thinks that the future is already determined needs to rethink that assumption. Things are still in motion and Russia has a mountain of problems it needs to deal with successfully in order to come away from this "victorious".

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

I think you guys will find this interesting. Long ago I saw an analysis that sought to prove when the Russian invasion of Georgia started. They examined troop movements and traced their movements backwards. Because for a soldier to appear in a specific spot he has to be first ordered to move there and then he has to actually get there. Their conclusion was that Russia ordered the invasion of Georgia about 5 days prior to the actual conflict breaking out. It was a solid case and I've never seen it countered in any credible manner.

So on May 2, 2014 I made my own analysis of when the invasion of Crimea actually started. I combed through various reports and was specifically looking at how long it took to move troops around. And here is what I came up with:

 

Lastest possible date invasion was ordered = February 22nd

Earliest possible date invasion was ordered = any time earlier than the 22nd, but likely not more than about a week.

According to Putin, my "latest case" estimate was off by only a few hours. Not bad for a game designer

BTW, I still think the invasion plans started rolling around the 18th of February, but most of that would be considered "contingency planning". I think the real serious moves started around the 20th, but I actually do think that Putin didn't officially green light the operation until around the 22nd or 23rd. Which means I think Putin's statement about deciding on the morning of the 23rd is a half-truth. True because it is when he authorized the war to start, but false because that wasn't when the operation actually started.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

You will all want to check out this report:

https://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/201503_BP_Russian_Forces_in_Ukraine_FINAL.pdf

It details Russia's military involvement in Ukraine and along the border in a way no other published report has so far.

Obviously the details in this report should be treated with some degree of skepticism since the author is apparently using open source materials, just like us. However, quibbling about details doesn't change the overall observations and conclusions that are in this report. Specifically, the scope of Russia's direct involvement and the strain it is putting on the Russian military.

One doesn't need classified military analysis information to see that Russia has got itself involved in a conflict that its reforms were not designed to meet. Therefore, it should be no surprise that the weaknesses the 2008 reforms were designed to overcome are still present in the balance of Russia's forces. Further, it would be impossible for those weaknesses to not manifest themselves in the war against Ukraine as it is currently being fought (i.e. prolonged positional warfare against a reasonably competent, motivated, and equipped enemy force).

Keep in mind that the 2008 reforms of the Russian military were focused on creating a relatively modest sized force that could strike fast and hard with competency, thus achieving victory quickly and with minimal expense (men, material, support). Since Russia projected this was the type of force it would likely need, it is the type it designed and built. Crimea showed that the reforms were largely successful from a logistics and professionalism standpoint, two areas that Russia has not traditionally done well with. Likewise, the uniformity and quality of the equipment used was also noticeably better than previous military actions. Having said that, the invasion was more of an occupation and it did not see any combat and that means a significant aspect of it was not tested.

The conclusion of the report is as I've been saying for almost the better part of the last year. Russia reformed its military to fight a short, sharp, limited engagement where it had reasonable expectations of numerical and/or operational superiority over the enemy force. The war in Ukraine is almost the opposite of what was anticipated and planned for. If one looks at the historical record, the examples of other nations that started wars they were unprepared for doesn't give Russia much reason to expect "victory". Some quick ones off the top of my head:

Fascist Italy in North and East Africa, Yugoslavia, and Greece

Nazi Germany in Soviet Union (and more generally WW2)

Japan in China WW2

North Korea in South Korea

United States in Vietnam

Soviet Union in Afghanistan

Argentina in Falklands

Iraq against Iran

Iraq against Kuwait (First Gulf War)

Serbia against Slovenia, Bosnia, Croatia, and Kosovo

Russia in Chechnya (First Chechen War)

Eritrea in Ethiopia (1998)

ISAF in Afghanistan

United States in Iraq 2003-2006

Georgia in South Ossetia (2008)

Every single Arab war against Israel since 1948

Israel in Lebanon 2006

In all of these cases the attacker, obviously, waged war because it it felt it had the right combination of elements to secure victory as defined by them. In all of these cases the attacker grossly miscalculated and wound up at a minimum failing to secure its original war aims. In most cases the attacker suffered massive, if not total, defeat within a short period of time (ranges from days to a years). Searching my memory, I can find no significant example of a nation state that voluntarily started a war it was unprepared for and yet secured its original war aims and/or achieved a complete victory. I can think of a few minor examples, such as the US invasion of Grenada.

While it is too early to say that Russia will suffer a massive, if not total, defeat in Ukraine, it is even more unwise to speculate that it has already "won" as some have suggested. Especially because Russia was very clearly unable to secure its original war aims (i.e. destabilized Ukraine at minimal cost to Russia as a nation state).

Steve

[Buzz]

"... deployment of the Russian Ministry of the Interior’s Dzerzhinskiy Division in the role of ‘barrier squads’ – punitive action, anti-retreat troops – behind the lines of rebels and Russian regulars...."

 

Does not say a lot for the 'morale' of the forces.. well it could .. but not good for Russia's Ambiguous Warfare.

[AttorneyAtWar]

"... deployment of the Russian Ministry of the Interior’s Dzerzhinskiy Division in the role of ‘barrier squads’ – punitive action, anti-retreat troops – behind the lines of rebels and Russian regulars...."

 

Does not say a lot for the 'morale' of the forces.. well it could .. but not good for Russia's Ambiguous Warfare.

 

Wow...that sounds familiar, Just slap NKVD in front of it.

[Buzz]

NKVD was dissolved in 1946 ... wasn't it? 

[Battlefront.com]

Wow...that sounds familiar, Just slap NKVD in front of it.

Actually, the name of the unit is older. It comes from the founder of an organization, Cheka, that was probably worse than the NKVD:

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/putin-renames-police-unit-after-bloody-secret-police-founder/507588.html

http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/alan-johnson/rehabilitation-felix-dzerzhinsky

One can come to their own conclusions about what it means for Putin to rename security forces after a mass murdering leader of a terror apparatus. And while one is at it he, one can ponder what the significance of closing the only Gulag Museum last month means.

Steve

[Apocal]

Too off topic for me to describe my feelings about the competency and vision of Obama's opposition. It would be easier for me to just smear feces on my keyboard and post a picture of it since it would save me a lot of typing to convey the same sentiment. However, I'm not going to do that because I've had this keyboard for more than 18 years and I imagine it's hard to get poo washed out of all the nooks.

Hopefully that answers your question

Steve

 

Well, the Russians have all but come out and said that NATO putting boots in the Ukraine would be treated the same way as putting boots in Russia itself and Europe doesn't seem all that enthused about going ahead putting that resolution to the test, so I don't really have a problem with sitting back and letting sanctions work their magic. It isn't like Ukraine is some critical foreign policy objective; we can take our time and handle it without undue escalation.

[Schmoly War]

[dan/california]

My only questions about Putin are 1.  What name does he plan to adopt at his coronation?  2. his choice of Czarina? 3.  Will he try to install one of his daughters as his successor, or does he have an illegitimate son floating around somewhere?  He is a little old to bet on lasting long enough to perk an heir from scratch.

 

He wouldn't be the first Monarch in history to "discover" such a son at a convenient moment.

[Buzz]

Putin needs a successor because he can not retire and survive... IMO.

No Live Long and Prosper clause 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

 1.  What name does he plan to adopt at his coronation?  2. his choice of Czarina? 3.  Will he try to install one of his daughters as his successor, or does he have an illegitimate son floating around somewhere?

1. Pyotr.  Stalin was already taken, so rock will do for now.  

 

2. Taylor Swift (she just doesn't know it yet)

 

3. The secret hero of defeat of HATO in the Novorussia front will reveal himself to both exist and be the spawn of Putin at the proper time, astride two Armatas, each driven by bears fed only with the most tender of the homosexuals.  

[kaburke61]

LOL! #3 -- Sweet!

[dan/california]

1. Pyotr.  Stalin was already taken, so rock will do for now.  

 

2. Taylor Swift (she just doesn't know it yet)

 

3. The secret hero of defeat of HATO in the Novorussia front will reveal himself to both exist and be the spawn of Putin at the proper time, astride two Armatas, each driven by bears fed only with the most tender of the homosexuals.  

Absolutely brilliant!

[Battlefront.com]

I am inclined to agree with Dan

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Well, the Russians have all but come out and said that NATO putting boots in the Ukraine would be treated the same way as putting boots in Russia itself and Europe doesn't seem all that enthused about going ahead putting that resolution to the test, so I don't really have a problem with sitting back and letting sanctions work their magic. It isn't like Ukraine is some critical foreign policy objective; we can take our time and handle it without undue escalation.

In general I agree. I've argued pretty hard against getting out ahead of Europe despite their reluctance to deal with the problem instead of wishing it away. I've also argued pretty hard that Ukraine must be left on its own, for the most part, because that offers the best possibility for a favorable outcome for Ukraine. I also have argued in favor of letting the sanctions and free markets do most of the work since the first talk of sanctions was raised. Even if Russia manages to get Ukraine to collapse, Russia is itself not far behind it. Russia is, as Russia often is, it's own worst enemy. Give them some room to once again prove it.

That said, I am not in favor of shirking the US' treaty obligations to guarantee Ukraine's territorial integrity. Especially because the war is being waged by one of the fellow signatories. In a sense the US vouched for Russia's word as well as giving its own solemn promise. I don't think the US should give the world any more reasons to think that it isn't concerned about its word or its often stated principles of right and wrong.

There are alternatives to blatantly sending Javelins to Ukraine. If some in the US were devious and clever enough to circumvent Congress to arm Iran in exchange for hostages, they can figure out how to get Ukraine some weapons without Russia having smoking gun evidence. Or put another way, treat Russia the way it treats others.

Steve

[Schmoly War]

"What the ****, Satana" - Azov battalion does a good showing........ and Simon Ostrovsky escapes death yet again....

 

Edited March 11, 2015 by Schmoly War

[Ashez]

Azov battalion clearly shows its allegiance:

[Ashez]

 

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.

 

 

 

That's actually a very profound observation. We (here in the West) are always told that our geo-political opponents are despotic, violent, and irrational (at best). That is something that is pretty much expected by any decent researcher of foreign affairs; and our treatment or Russia and Putin (in particular) is no different in that respect. What I fear however, is that few Westerners realize that an alternative to Putin is not some pro-Western liberal government (a-la 1990s); but much rather a more nationalistic and militant force (a-la Strelkov/Dugin/Prokhanov) that would make Putin look like a pro-Western liberal democrat. We are playing with fire when it comes to Russian political landscape, yet I don't see any visionaries in the US or EU governments to calculate the consequences of our actions.

 

 

I think these two posts are the best this thread was able to produce so far.

I dare to add that every month of sanctions strenghtens Putin a little and strenghtens the Russian 'hawks' even more at the same time. Putin was never so popular in Russia as he is now and 80% of Russians declares USA enemy. Regardless of the propaganda on both sides everyone pretty much knows by now USA and US money was involved on Ukraine during the coup. And for Russians Putin is a hero who restored Crimea, a leader they always wanted.

 

I don't think any sactions are going to break them. Especially when they all think their leader is doing the right thing. In fact I think the only effect sanctions are going to bring is putting DEFCON at 2. Or worse.

Edited March 11, 2015 by Ashez

[Ashez]

My only questions about Putin are 1.  What name does he plan to adopt at his coronation?  2. his choice of Czarina? 3.  Will he try to install one of his daughters as his successor, or does he have an illegitimate son floating around somewhere?  He is a little old to bet on lasting long enough to perk an heir from scratch.

 

He wouldn't be the first Monarch in history to "discover" such a son at a convenient moment.

 

Pretty bad joke. Especially concerning that if Putin does promote/support his daughter he does it in a very discreet way. Contrary to Joe Biden who has blatantly 'installed' his son in Ukraine's biggest gas company. Long live Biden dynasty!

[Rokko]

Everyone knows Azov are mostly Neo-Nazis. Them and Aidar. They don't hide that and you can see lots of Neo-Nazi tatoos, Totenkopf patches and what not in the video (not to mention their black Sun/Wolfsangel emblem). BTW if seen enough evidence of Neo-Nazis among the Separatists as well.

 

Also, it seems Azov was turned into a regiment lately, whats that all about?

[Battlefront.com]

Azov battalion clearly shows its allegiance:

Just curious if this picture was ever proven to be legit. For sure there are a lot of fakes floating around out there. Not that I'm saying there aren't any neo-Nazis fighting for either Ukraine or Russia in Ukraine, because there are plenty on both sides. There's also monarchists, Orthodox religious fanatics, and even "Allah Akbar" heard every once and a while.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Pretty bad joke. Especially concerning that if Putin does promote/support his daughter he does it in a very discreet way. Contrary to Joe Biden who has blatantly 'installed' his son in Ukraine's biggest gas company. Long live Biden dynasty!

I'm going to stop this right now. If you want to repeat Russian propaganda verbatim and not point out that when Putin wants something he just has the guy arrested and gives the billions of Dollars of stuff away to his friends, then you should probably not post any more.

Somewhat related, the Brits are threatening to publish Putin's personal holdings that they know of. The estimates I've heard are somewhere in the $70-$90 Billion. I don't know what the KGB pension plan is, but it sounds like it's pretty nice!

Steve