New offensive in Donbass?

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Re: Nidan

 

 

 

I know I brought this up before, and maybe you will tell me to go f myself, but then I will be very very sad.

 

I will rip off your head, ram my ovapositor down your throat and lay my eggs in your chest.

Which is to say that's not an unreasonable request.

 

That said, between IanL and Steve that sort of wraps this one up.  It's like arguing with the 9-11 Conspiracy folks, they're going to argue you to death about Iran-Contra and that you can't not-not prove nanothermite beams were installed by black helicopters, while ignoring the larger picture.

 

I can comfortably say the world would be a better place with Russia out of the Ukraine, and the current spike in tensions only has Russia to blame upon.  

[Battlefront.com]

It's the classic Russo-debate non sequitur.  Well, I'm not going to talk about where you have me dead to rights, so let's visit something I have a prepared propaganda line for!

I have found, over and over again, how superficial these Kremlin talking points are understood by the people who present them. Whether it be Iraq or Ferguson, the understanding and knowledge of these things is razor thin. Which is why when someone challenges them on it that line of argument quickly disappears and another fantom argument is put in its place.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

panzersauerkrautwerfer:

 

Your posts are cogent, funny at times and mostly on point, but could you please pleeeeeze take a few minutes of extra time to format your direct responses to other posters and include their handles so that I can read them without having to back up several posts or pages to see who made the posts you are quoting.  Maybe its just me, but I find it annoying at best especially during a running exchange that is becoming a more interesting read.

 

I know I brought this up before, and maybe you will tell me to go f myself, but then I will be very very sad.

It's a good point now and the other time you brought it up

Steve

[AttorneyAtWar]

Would all this be happening if our current "Administration" had not decided to withdraw U.S. influence from the world stage?

 

The U.S. has no influence over the world stage anymore...right.

 

This goes back to a point I made in regards to Obama making an angry face when he was talking to Putin, maybe than Russia would have backed off. There are far more intelligent people than I who would argue vehemently that we have far to much influence.

Edited June 5, 2015 by Raptorx7

[Nidan1]

Re: Nidan

 

 

I will rip off your head, ram my ovapositor down your throat and lay my eggs in your chest.

Which is to say that's not an unreasonable request.

 

 

Ewwwwwwww, I hate bugs 

 

It's a good point now and the other time you brought it up

Steve

See, even the Big Kahuna agrees with me!

 

The U.S. has no influence over the world stage anymore...right.

 

This goes back to a point I made in regards to Obama making an angry face when he was talking to Putin, maybe than Russia would have backed off. There are far more intelligent people than I who would argue vehemently that we have far to much influence.

Right, even something as small as a disagreeable expression, or calling them an "Evil Empire" could have restrained Putin even a tad.

[Battlefront.com]

Would all this be happening if our current "Administration" had not decided to withdraw U.S. influence from the world stage?

Yup, absolutely. The opposition to Ukraine's massive corrupt and harmful previous government goes back to at least 2004. The reasons for Maidan were due to the people of Ukraine seeing the agreement with the EU as being an inevitable step towards better governance because the EU requires certain reforms to be accepted as a member. Even an associate member. So when Yanukovych bowed to Russian pressure/bribes (see next point), it clearly signaled to the Ukrainian people that there was no possibility of reform from within. The US government didn't have to tell Ukrainians that because the Ukrainians are smart enough to figure that out for themselves.

OK, so even if we accept the theory that the West, and the US in particular, was trying to influence the Ukrainians to become a less repressed, less corrupt, less foreign controlled state (because that is what the Russians are arguing, though they can't see it!) we have to keep in mind the rather lengthy and well documented "influence" that Russia exerted over Ukraine. This includes the various corrupt gas deals, the influence of the FSB on internal politics, the various forms of pressure against the Ukrainian government every time it tried to do something Russia didn't like, and of course a war of aggression that has caused billions in damages, displaced 100s of thousands of people, and killed thousands more. Not to mention that Russia has brought the world to the brink of global war because it isn't getting its way with Ukraine as it once had. Compare this to Nuland handing out some cookies on the Maidan

Now, did the West try to influence Ukraine to be a less corrupt, more free society? Yes. Did this directly challenge Russia's control over Ukraine? Yes. So at best Russia can argue that the West used its influence to make Ukraine a better place to the detriment of Russia's own selfish interests. That is, basically, the best argument that Russia can come up with to justify all the death and destruction being forced upon Ukraine. If I were a Ukrainian I would not find that a favorable justification for Russian behavior.

Steve

[AttorneyAtWar]

Ewwwwwwww, I hate bugs 

 

See, even the Big Kahuna agrees with me!

 

Right, even something as small as a disagreeable expression, or calling them an "Evil Empire" could have restrained Putin even a tad.

 

We are on opposite ends of the political spectrum and I respect that but, honestly what should he have done to stop Russia from invading Ukraine?

 

There are a few criticisms that I absolutely understand and agree with to a degree, in terms of foreign policy like the Syrian debacle which was honestly just a lot of words (AKA the "red line"), although we did get an agreement with the Russians and Syria to get rid of there chemical weapons.

 

When I hear or see people saying that we have withdrawn from the world stage, I just can't wrap my head around a statement like that, I would love to hear some examples of this, otherwise it sounds like a Fox News talking point.

Edited June 5, 2015 by Raptorx7

[Battlefront.com]

The U.S. has no influence over the world stage anymore...right.

 

This goes back to a point I made in regards to Obama making an angry face when he was talking to Putin, maybe than Russia would have backed off. There are far more intelligent people than I who would argue vehemently that we have far to much influence.

It's the same argument that was made about Merkel's influence. Oh boy did she try to exert her special relationship with Putin. And how well did that work out?

The truth is that the Obama Admin doesn't have a foreign policy worth mentioning. This is a pretty factual based argument that can only be challenged by naive/uninformed people. However, unless the US forcefully and immediately resorted to SERIOUSLY threatening nuclear war against Russia, I don't think there's anything that would have stopped Putin one iota. And even then, I think Putin would have called the US' bluff.

The reason why we were able to predict Putin's behavior is that his government is supported by groups that have everything to lose by Ukraine becoming a strong and independent state. Why do you think that Russia has put itself into this position so thoroughly and deliberately? Because this is about the survival of Putin's regime and his backers. There is absolutely nothing the West, Obama or otherwise, can offer or threaten to change that dynamic. Therefore, Putin is acting the way he's acting because, from his point of view, he has no choice.

Could Obama have made less of a mess of his response to this crisis? You bet. But dissuade Putin from taking the actions he took and is still taking? Not without risking nuclear war. Nobody in the US would support such a bold position, therefore there's nothing that Obama could have done to influence Putin. To his credit, there's a lot Obama could have done, or not done, to make Putin's job easier that Obama correctly did/didn't do. Far more success in this regard than Syria/ISIS.

Steve

[MikeyD]

About that current "Administration" line (why in quotes and why capitalized?), lets recall Putin had pulled the exact same false flag un-invasion stunt in Georgia back when no less a figure than Darth Cheney was in charge of strutting and blustering around the world stage. Didn't intimidate Putin in the least. I can't recall what the Cheney administration's response was over Georgia. Did they have a response?

[AttorneyAtWar]

It's the same argument that was made about Merkel's influence. Oh boy did she try to exert her special relationship with Putin. And how well did that work out?

The truth is that the Obama Admin doesn't have a foreign policy worth mentioning. This is a pretty factual based argument that can only be challenged by naive/uninformed people. However, unless the US forcefully and immediately resort to SERIOUSLY threatening nuclear war against Russia, I don't think there's anything that would have stopped Putin one iota. And even then, I think Putin would have called the US' bluff.

The reason why we were able to predict Putin's behavior is that his government is supported by groups that have everything to lose by Ukraine becoming a strong and independent state. Why do you think that Russia has put itself into this position so thoroughly and deliberately? Because this is about the survival of Putin's regime and his backers. There is absolutely nothing the West, Obama or otherwise, can offer or threaten to change that dynamic. Therefore, Putin is acting the way he's acting because, from his point of view, he has no choice.

Steve

 

I agree pretty much with everything you said there, but I do have a question.

 

When you say Obama doesn't have a foreign policy, we are talking about something akin to an "Obama doctrine", right, like an overall strategy for the way we appear or act on things going on in the world? I agree that there is definitely no over-arching strategy and that is a valid criticism.

Edited June 5, 2015 by Raptorx7

[sburke]

To be somewhat fair to Obama, from a US strategic perspective, the main concern is China.  China has the financial resources, a  strategic imperative that is pushing it into conflict with most of it's neighbors that from a geo political perspective has much more importance to the US. 

 

Let's face it.  Despite Putin's chest pounding and statements of being an awesome military power, in the end he is much more akin to Taqiq Aziz.  Lots of bluster, lots of BS, but in the end Russia is heading towards third rate power status simply because despite the bluster, it just doesn't have the resources to be in the first rate power game.  The MOD can make all their claims it wants about it's new uber tank, a new cosmodrome, a resurgent Navy, air force and strategic nuclear force, but as the bottom falls out financially the house of cards is gonna collapse.

 

Can you imagine Germany trying to do and say all that.  We'd all chuckle and move onto another thread (with maybe a twinge of nervousness if it included all the other nonsense Russia is doing with hyper nationalism, suppression of a free press, targeting of "undesirable social elements etc) about the penetration characteristics of weapon x versus modular buildings for the simple reason everyone knows it is beyond their reach.  How we can even remotely entertain that somehow Russia should be taken seriously with similar financial resources, but a far more corrupt regime is just silly.

 

As to Syria, there is no appetite in the US for another mideast intervention.  Obama is constrained by the fiasco of Bush foreign policy that got us suckered into the longest war in US history.  That he is still struggling to deal with this mess isn't really that surprising.  That he isn't doing a good job of dealing with it , well that he owns, but the foreign policy shift required to effectively deal with the mid east has eluded the US for a century (assuming it is even possible).

 

Time is on the West and Ukraine's side.  We have the resources to respond to any level threat if needed and Russia's ability to sustain this conflict is not limitless.  Yes it sucks that in the meantime Ukraine suffers at the depredations of a despotic, corrupt neighbor.  Eventually though it will end, Ukraine will have control of their future and Russia will have to face the consequences internally of their shortsighted view.  And then they will come crying to the west for resources to shore up their crumbling economy and odds are we will probably get involved to simply try to avoid the humanitarian/environmental crisis that will unfold - repeat of the 1990s.  Except odds are by then China will be owning a significant portion of Siberia.

 

So back to the OP -

 

According to Poroschenko, the Ukr is mopping up after repelling the separatist offensive (even the OSCE agrees it was a separatist offensive.)

 

Meanhwile this is the DPR statement

The Donetsk rebel leader spoke of huge losses in the Ukrainian army.

Alexander Zakharchenko, leader of the self-styled "Donetsk People's Republic", said the Maryinka fighting had left about 400 Ukrainian troops dead and up to 1,000 wounded.

"This was a counter-attack. If we had attacked, we would have captured Maryinka," he said on Friday.

Quoted by Russia's RIA Novosti news agency, he said 15 rebel fighters had been killed and 30 wounded.

 

I'd like to place my vote that Zakharchenko be awarded the first of the new annual Tariq Aziz awards for amazing public statements.

 

edit- My apologies to Tariq- that would be the Muhhammad Saeed All Sahhaf award.

Edited June 5, 2015 by sburke

[Apocal]

Would all this be happening if our current "Administration" had not decided to withdraw U.S. influence from the world stage?

 

What makes you think it wouldn't? The Russians slapped our ally in the mouth in 2008 and keeping Ukraine in their sphere and out of NATO has been one of their key foreign policy objectives for the last fifteen years or so. At least. They've been pretty clear that it's something they're willing to nuke people over and we're not, world influence or not.

[BTR]

I come to Russian military forums, it's a circle-jerk of bouncing similar opinions on a one side loop. I come to US oriented forums like this one, and it is exactly the same circle-jerk of high an mighty opinionated posting, just the other way around. Such a shame mp.net has died. It felt like the only place where two camps would actually meet and have a discussion. 

[Stagler]

I come to Russian military forums, it's a circle-jerk of bouncing similar opinions on a one side loop. I come to US oriented forums like this one, and it is exactly the same circle-jerk of high an mighty opinionated posting, just the other way around. Such a shame mp.net has died. It felt like the only place where two camps would actually meet and have a discussion. 

 

Well said BTR. Also I do miss mp.net

Edited June 5, 2015 by Stagler

[polterklotz]

Did someone say Germany?
Here's a source from one of the largest "submainstreams". I am a little afraid it may go against the feelings of some of my fellow American citizens, so I'll make no big effort to translate it here unless people want me to. If your German is good enough to sit through this, you also won't be offended by some passive aggressive whining. Like I explained in one of my previous posts - you'll already know it is central to German discussion culture.

 

Это, главным образом, для "российского и украинской стороны":
Вы должны пойти на канал wwwKenFMde, и поиск самого длинного видео. Это относительно новая. Это хорошо описывает вид большого и важного меньшинства в Германии.
Я был бы рад, если вы посмотрите на видео с друзьями вместе. Лучший пишет кто-то субтитры.

[Nidan1]

About that current "Administration" line (why in quotes and why capitalized?), lets recall Putin had pulled the exact same false flag un-invasion stunt in Georgia back when no less a figure than Darth Cheney was in charge of strutting and blustering around the world stage. Didn't intimidate Putin in the least. I can't recall what the Cheney administration's response was over Georgia. Did they have a response?

Capitalized for some emphasis only.

 

Going back to 2008 does't shed any constructive light on the discussion at hand.There are similarities, but not relevant here.

 

Obviously you do not have warm feelings for the Bush Administration or Dick Cheney in particular based on your comments. That is OK you are entitled to support whomever you wish. 

 

However I don't remember that Administration being proud of "leading from behind".

What makes you think it wouldn't? The Russians slapped our ally in the mouth in 2008 and keeping Ukraine in their sphere and out of NATO has been one of their key foreign policy objectives for the last fifteen years or so. At least. They've been pretty clear that it's something they're willing to nuke people over and we're not, world influence or not.

U.S. concentration on the Middle East and the war on terror in general, has given Putin some impetus to think that he can do what he wants to former Soviet Republics, because NATO and the U.S. specifically are too busy fighting jihadists and are too overwhelmed to counter his aggression with real military solutions. As far as being willing to nuke people at the drop of a hat, this to me sounds like a lot of hot air and empty threats. There would be no future for Russia to seriously damage countries with economies that are the only thing propping the Russian one up at the moment.

 

We are on opposite ends of the political spectrum and I respect that but, honestly what should he have done to stop Russia from invading Ukraine?

 

There are a few criticisms that I absolutely understand and agree with to a degree, in terms of foreign policy like the Syrian debacle which was honestly just a lot of words (AKA the "red line"), although we did get an agreement with the Russians and Syria to get rid of there chemical weapons.

 

When I hear or see people saying that we have withdrawn from the world stage, I just can't wrap my head around a statement like that, I would love to hear some examples of this, otherwise it sounds like a Fox News talking point.

I think you misunderstood my first statement. I was agreeing with you, but perhaps I worded it poorly.

 

Well, it seems Assad is ridding himself of his chemical weapons by using them.

 

Withdrawing all of our military units from Iraq, after announcing it ahead of time before the stabilization of the countryside could take hold.

Announcing when U.S. troops would be out of Afghanistan.

Encouraging Libyan rebels to overthrow Ghaddafi, and then doing nothing to stop the slaughter that followed.

Refusing to send arms to the Kurds

Refusing to send arms to the Ukraine

 

Perhaps the mere perception that America has withdrawn from its position as the world's only superpower, is enough to permit the chaos that is happening throughout the world to blossom. While you are right to believe that America has not given up its influence in the world lately, we still do come to the rescue when natural disasters strike around the world, our political and military influence has certainly waned recently. You say it could be a Fox News talking point, trouble is no one else is watching the other cable news stations to hear the counter arguments.

[Battlefront.com]

When you say Obama doesn't have a foreign policy, we are talking about something akin to an "Obama doctrine", right, like an overall strategy for the way we appear or act on things going on in the world? I agree that there is definitely no over-arching strategy and that is a valid criticism.

 

I meant there is no over-arching strategy. The admin reluctantly lurches from crisis to crisis. Though, with that said, I think there is more policy consistent going on in the background than people are privy to in SOME areas. In particular China. Which, as sburke pointed out, is the real long term problem for he US. Russia will either go the way of North Korea or (hopefully) will have a change in power that at least gets it back to where it was in the early 2000s.

Meanhwile this is the DPR statement

The Donetsk rebel leader spoke of huge losses in the Ukrainian army.

Alexander Zakharchenko, leader of the self-styled "Donetsk People's Republic", said the Maryinka fighting had left about 400 Ukrainian troops dead and up to 1,000 wounded.

"This was a counter-attack. If we had attacked, we would have captured Maryinka," he said on Friday.

Quoted by Russia's RIA Novosti news agency, he said 15 rebel fighters had been killed and 30 wounded.

 

I'd like to place my vote that Zakharchenko be awarded the first of the new annual Tariq Aziz awards for amazing public statements.

Oh you are kidding!! Did he really say that? Oh by golly he did! And to add to the hilarity of it, he also excused his defeat by saying they were only conducting a counter offensive. Haha!! Only counter attack in history to have been launched ahead of action by the enemy and into the enemy's positions. Oh man, the guy might be a small minded thug, but at least he has an obvious sense of humor

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33022807

Gee, even Streklov (Girkin) said it was a "gross failure":

http://podrobnosti.ua/2038788-girkin-schitaet-polnym-provalom-dnr-shturm-marinki.html

From various sources it looks like the battle for Maryinka went something like this.

After months of little probing and artillery attacks, a force of about 2-3 battalions, supported by artillery, attacked Ukrainian positions. The OSCE documented the move of troops, BMPs, BRRs, tanks, and other equipment that is forbidden from being in the area. Calls to DPR leadership were not answered or were blown off. This force then launched an offensive without provocation.

Artillery fire was very intensive and consisted of medium and heavy mortars, artillery, and Grad fire. Some of the artillery was firing from residential neighborhoods in Donetsk (residents filmed this). Ukrainians did not have artillery in place of this magnitude at the start since they were abiding by the Minsk 2 accords. Fairly quickly they realized that this was not a routine ceasefire violation but part of a significant ground attack.

Almost immediately the most forward Ukrainian positions were abandoned as they were exposed and not more than "picket lines" anyway. This prompted the Russian media to report statements by DPR forces that they weren't in violation of Minsk 2 because Ukraine as abandoning its positions (IIRC "giving them away" was the language used). Russian media, of course, was on hand because they always are when there's an "unplanned counter attack"

The attack force then ran into Ukraine's main line of resistance and fighting quickly got intense. Ukraine formally notified OSCE that it had no choice but to pull some self propelled artillery (not sure if more than that) from storage because it had to respond to the attack. The artillery moved to prepared positions and began firing at the attacking force. Russian media was flooded with reports of a glorious victory for the Novorussian forces and humiliating defeat for Ukraine.

Here's where there aren't many details. The attack was fairly quickly broken up after losing significant equipment and personnel. The majority of the force retreated and left small pockets of resistance behind, either deliberately to cover the retreat or simply by accident as often happens in such situations. Either way, it took Ukraine most of the rest of the day to clear them out and completely secure Maryinka as it had been earlier in the day. The separatist forces were completely ejected.

Separatist/Russian forces appears to be a force called "5th BTG of the DPR". Various reports put the total size of the force at between 1000 and 1500. It appears to have consisted of a foot infantry group, mech infantry group, and tank group backed by artillery of various types. High side estimates are 40 tanks, 80 APCs, and 30 pieces of artillery were involved. They have admitted to 15 dead, but that most were civilians. Ukraine estimates 40 dead and 120 wounded.

It seems on the Ukrainian side the majority of defense fell upon the 2nd Battalion of 28th Mech Brigade. Total loss figures are somewhere around 5 dead, about 50 wounded (in need of hospitalization), and perhaps 5 MIA. It is unclear what Ukraine had for vehicles, but tanks were apparently present.

Reading between some of the lines, it appears that Vostok provided some of the infantry for this attack. Girkin hinted at this, though he specifically said that Khodakovsky (Vostok's leader) had nothing to do with the battle. It's been rumored that once again Russia used fighters it doesn't approve of as cannon fodder. SBU says it has evidence that at least two of the dead were Russian citizens, at least one of them from South Ossetia (which is where much of Vostok's members came from).

Nutshell synopsis... a poorly executed attack was met by a well executed defense which then turned into a counter attack against a routed enemy.

Steve

[Nidan1]

I come to Russian military forums, it's a circle-jerk of bouncing similar opinions on a one side loop. I come to US oriented forums like this one, and it is exactly the same circle-jerk of high an mighty opinionated posting, just the other way around. Such a shame mp.net has died. It felt like the only place where two camps would actually meet and have a discussion. 

Seems to me there are a lot of disagreeing opinions in this thread. This discussion IMO has not been one sided at all.

[Nidan1]

Did someone say Germany?

Here's a source from one of the largest "submainstreams". I am a little afraid it may go against the feelings of some of my fellow American citizens, so I'll make no big effort to translate it here unless people want me to. If your German is good enough to sit through this, you also won't be offended by some passive aggressive whining. Like I explained in one of my previous posts - you'll already know it is central to German discussion culture.

 

Это, главным образом, для "российского и украинской стороны":

Вы должны пойти на канал wwwKenFMde, и поиск самого длинного видео. Это относительно новая. Это хорошо описывает вид большого и важного меньшинства в Германии.

Я был бы рад, если вы посмотрите на видео с друзьями вместе. Лучший пишет кто-то субтитры.

This is German? Or did you forget to attach a link?

Edited June 5, 2015 by Nidan1

[Battlefront.com]

I come to Russian military forums, it's a circle-jerk of bouncing similar opinions on a one side loop. I come to US oriented forums like this one, and it is exactly the same circle-jerk of high an mighty opinionated posting, just the other way around. Such a shame mp.net has died. It felt like the only place where two camps would actually meet and have a discussion.

If the positions here are so "high and mighty", then they should be easy to refute.

Sorry, sometimes in this world things can be boiled down to right and wrong. What Russia is doing to Ukraine is wrong. Plain and simple. Which is why there's not been a single argument made that even tries to justify Russia's actions that hasn't fallen apart very quickly.

Steve

[sburke]

What actions Steve?  Russia is not involved, don't you understand that yet?

[Battlefront.com]

Did someone say Germany?

Here's a source from one of the largest "submainstreams"

You forgot a link, I think

Steve

Seems to me there are a lot of disagreeing opinions in this thread. This discussion IMO has not been one sided at all.

Definition of "one sided" = "Russia looks bad".

One of the big differences I've seen in argumentation is Americans (and Westerners) in general have no problem, at all, of admitting that their countries are imperfect and at times very selfish. However, it's not relevant since Russia is acting on its own for its own reasons.

Steve

[polterklotz]

[sburke]

Lots of bluster, lots of BS, but in the end Russia is heading towards third rate power status simply because despite the bluster, it just doesn't have the resources to be in the first rate power game.  The MOD can make all their claims it wants about it's new uber tank, a new cosmodrome, a resurgent Navy, air force and strategic nuclear force, but as the bottom falls out financially the house of cards is gonna collapse.

 

Can you imagine Germany trying to do and say all that. [...]

[/sburke]

 

 

Russia is already 3rd rate at best. The second global superpower is the public opinion.

 

 

 That is EXACTLY what happened. Now either we understand Russia's true nature and predictable behavior fairly well, or we got all the outcomes correct but for all the wrong reasons. Given the demonstrated depth of knowledge that I, and others, have expressed about the events surrounding this war... I think it is totally implausible to conclude that we got the outcome right but the reasons for it totally wrong.
 

I would say improbable - not implausible. History likes to have its way with things. It is still impressive though.

Edited June 5, 2015 by polterklotz

[polterklotz]

This is German? Or did you forget to attach a link?

 

Nope I did not. It is in the Russian text. You need to use the wet part of the brain though

[Fade2Gray]

About that current "Administration" line (why in quotes and why capitalized?), lets recall Putin had pulled the exact same false flag un-invasion stunt in Georgia back when no less a figure than Darth Cheney was in charge of strutting and blustering around the world stage. Didn't intimidate Putin in the least. I can't recall what the Cheney administration's response was over Georgia. Did they have a response?

 

They assisted Georgian troops that were in Iraq in getting back home with a quickness.  Other than that, nothing that I can recall.