GAZ NZ Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 http://russia-insider.com/en/2015/03/03/4052 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 GAZ NZ, Though I haven't the faintest idea whether I'm reading fact or fiction, there is no doubt in my mind that I'm reading serious military analysis. It's exactly the same as the sorts of things I used to read in translation while wearing the Red Hat as a Threat Analyst during the Cold War. I'm about halfway presently between Map 3 and Map 4, for want of a better quick reference. In terms of polemic, compared to what I used to read in the official Russian military literature, his blog is practically free of it. For which I'm grateful. Thanks for sharing this. Regards, John Kettler 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexey K Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Hm. This article present picture that wildly differs from what Steve wrote. It would be nice to heare Steve's comments on that article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thewood1 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 It is well written, but the first paragraph sure seems to show that this is no balanced military analysis...second sentence this term jumped out at me..."fascist junta". Obviously not an impartial observer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wee Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Every time when I read sitreps and analysis from East Ukraine, and I encounter phrases and terms like "fasicst junta", "bandit", "thug", "gang", "imperialist", "capitalist" or "plot", I get very nostalgic. Fresh breezes from 1920s or 30s Soviet representations and politic propaganda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTR Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Ah, Cassad. Love him or hate him he's got some insight. Predicted annexation of Crimea and the breakout of civil wars in Ukraine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kraft Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 (edited) Colonel Cassad' is a Russian blogger (reportedly one Boris Rozhin from Sevastopol, Crimea) and blog that does not attempt to hide its pro-rebel sympaties, thus the referrences to Kiev government as "junta" etc. Its value is in that it has sources on the ground and its reports frequently turn out to be more accurate than the reporting of the other side. My problem with this entire thing is - besides the language bias (this goes both ways, I would not take a pro West blog as serious if they could only mention Putin with power hungry KGB thug and USSR nostalgic psychopath somewhere in the sentence.. like throwing in "criminal" just for good measure when talking about AFU General Staff or this whole fascist junta thing. He just needs to add "Nazi" to reach RT level ) - that there is not a single of his "sources on the ground" being linked. He is throwing a lot of numbers around and does not even attempt to explain why they are more reasonable than 0 or 9999. And Battlefront has an equal track record of "predictions" yet they seem to tell almost opposite stories. Edited March 5, 2015 by Kraft Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zveroboy1 Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Probably not entirely accurate but it is the most detailed account of the events I have read so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GAZ NZ Posted March 6, 2015 Author Share Posted March 6, 2015 Glad you like it John. I found it a good analysis. I felt some bias towards russia ie rebels are rebels and not actual russian troops. We all know they are russian troops. But it didnt seem to overplay russian capability. All in all it seems the best breakdown ive seen so far. I was quite surprised of all the detail in this and it being posted so quickly. Would you post this online so soon after the battles with tensions still going lol Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Probably not entirely accurate but it is the most detailed account of the events I have read so far. Detailed in the sense he writes a lot and throws a bunch of unsupported statements out there including saying no Russians were really involved. I don't buy that for a moment nor do I buy his characterization of the internal strife in LPR/DPR. So overall interesting but not something that I would consider accurate despite the sheer volume of his descriptions of the battle. There is however enough that leaks through oddly enough to support quite a bit of Steve's theories about why they went to plan b. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Detailed in the sense he writes a lot and throws a bunch of unsupported statements out there including saying no Russians were really involved. I don't think he said that. "The NAF quickly redeployed the GRU Spetsnaz into Logvinovo, which met the strike of the unblocking group that tried to recapture Logvinovo and unblock the road." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Vanir Ausf B, Somehow I missed seeing the quote in your #11, but I certainly didn't miss this one. "By and large, there were no reserves left for a strike on Uglegorsk. so a joint assault group made of various units was formed — starting from the GRU DPR Spetsnaz and ending with small volunteer squads from various units that stood on calm locations." The one I found saw me go from seizing on the "GRU Spetsnaz" part to second guessing myself because of the "DPR" in the middle of the unit type. Given what you found, did Cassad make a mistake later and leave out the fig leaf "DPR" in his writeup? If the unit referenced was simply some sort of DPR Spetsnaz, then why invoke the GRU aspect. After all, "GRU" ties things squarely back to Russia? Also, I thought the characterization of the "Donbass" Battalion as being punitive was notable. sburke, Why is it unreasonable to talk about factionalism among the various separatist entities? I recall reading several items talking about that, with the ultimate result that Girkin pretty much forced everyone under his control. Regards, John Kettler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LUCASWILLEN05 Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 I am not saying this is a bad source but, as a historical document it is obviously biased. Though I would use it I would be extremely careful and seek balancing sources from the oher side to corroborae evidance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zveroboy1 Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Detailed in the sense he writes a lot and throws a bunch of unsupported statements out there including saying no Russians were really involved. No. Detailed in the sense that the sequence of events for the whole operation is really fleshed out. It goes without saying that you need to use your critical judgement when reading these and arm yourself with a healthy dose of scepticism. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GAZ NZ Posted March 7, 2015 Author Share Posted March 7, 2015 Russians were involved. We all know that. Hes written it in a way to explain what happened but the rebels are russian troops in most cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreDay Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 I would like to add my few personal notes in reagrds to this topic, if I may... I have been following Colonel Cassad (amongst other Russian and Ukranian observers) for quite a while. He is a very intelligent and well informed analyst, but a military expert he is not. He has also never made any effort to hide his pro-Russian (anti-Maidan) agenda, so there is no need to call him out on that. He does have very close ties to anti-Kiev forces in Donbass and Russia proper; so his reporting is definitely notable. When talking about GRU Spetsnaz, he is refering to DNR GRU (Russian abbreviation for Chief Intelligence Directorate) units; as opposed to Russian spec ops operatives. DNR GRU was created by Colonel Petrovski (aka "callsign Gloomy") who was a Chief of Intelligence for 22nd Spetsnaz GRU Brigade prior to his retirement. He also happens to be a Donetsk native (going back for multiple generations); so he is not exactly an outsider to this conflict. It is very hard to tell how much of the DNR GRU Spetsnaz are Donabass natives vs. how many are Russian nationals... However, there is absolutely no evidence (that I have seen) to suggest that the rebels are Russian troops in most cases. There are some Russian troops there for sure (Cassad would refer to them as "vacationers" or "north wind"); but their size and their role in this winter offensive is highly debatable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zveroboy1 Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Yes definitely DNR specops. At least that's what the author meant. Agreed on the last point too. People who think Russian troops are doing most of the fighting are as misinformed as people who deny Russian involvement. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreDay Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Agreed on the last point too. People who think Russian troops are doing most of the fighting are as misinformed as people who deny Russian involvement. Yep, that pretty much sums it up for me. Without a popular anti-Maidan movement in Donbass there would have been no resistance to Kiev forces; no matter how much the Russians would have wanted it (as was the case in other "supposedly" pro-Russian regions like Odessa and Kharkov). Almost everything that I've read from Donbass local observers points me to the fact that they feel absolutely no alligance and a strong degree of resentment towards Kiev governement's actions with or without Russian influence. Which again (of course) does not cancel out Russian military and political involvement into DNR and LNR affairts; nor their military support for the rebels... However let's be clear here - none of it would have been relevant if not for the local popular resistance to Kiev regime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Do Right Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 (edited) Gaz NZ,Thanks for the site. This same site, has an article, Bombshell:Ukraine's Gold Reserve (20tones) missing. They are saying U.S. did it, but, did Inot put up a video mistaking the Russian tank for having a bar of gold on the dash board. Where one of you smart people, corrected me, it was theSUV dash board observers or filmers of the tank drivers following that had a bar of gold. Either way, who puts a bar of gold on a dash board, while filming. Makes me suspicious, either they are knuckleheads showing what they are up to, no thinking or it was staged. What do you think guys and gals.http://russia-insider.com/en/politics_ukraine_society/2014/11/19/04-47-13pm/ukraines_gold_officially_missing Edited March 28, 2015 by Do Right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 Closing as this thread is too old to resurrect.Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts