Jump to content

Russian army under equipped?


Recommended Posts

Sublime,

Why is it you seem compelled to keep dredging up matters you know perfectly well Steve personally requested I not bring up? Isn't that a low blow, going after someone who's not permitted to defend himself? If you wish to discuss the issue you raised, you know exactly where to find me. I dispute your argument that Suvorov/Rezun is irrelevant today, though he almost certainly isn't the first call either US or British intelligence would make these days. I invite you, though,  to consider carefully the things he had to say in his 2014 EUROMAIDAN PRESS interview about the full extent of the mess Putin has gotten himself into in the Donbas. Suvorov/Rezun has insights nobody else has offered, including describing  Donbas associated blowback into Russia I don't recall seeing discussed before. Within broad limits, Russia of the past is Russia of today, and how it operates is intimately known by him. He was born in it, lived as an ordinary Russian citizen, then as an ordinary military officer, then as an intelligence insider with access to vast amounts of information few in Russia had, including forbidden material from the west. When he was brought into the GRU, he became part of the Nomenklatura, a privileged caste with access to housing, food, goods and services most Russians could but dream of. The major differences between Russia under Communism and Russia today is that Putin's not running a full-on dictatorship, outside information channels are far more open, and the corruption is now so blatant it simply can't be hidden, a feat much easier to achieve when everything except samizdat was under rigid Communist control.

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Sublime said:

@kraze oh yes Ive read Suvorov. Maybe you missed the part in my short post aboout having listened to his lectures and read stuff by him including his account of going into Czechoslovakia. He may have has valuable intel on the Soviets 30 or 40 years ago thats about it. 

He simply doesnt take official Soviet documents.  Oh and "takes stuff from Soviet State Media at the time".  Dude we.re talking the SU.s propaganda organ at the height of Stalins power. Those Pravda issues arent fit to be toilet paper. There are no official Soviet docunents saying "we re invading Germany next year" at all. The closest you can come was the Russian fantasy that any major invasion would immediately be stopped and large scale counterattacks needed to be launched.

But his theories on Stalins plan a la Germany are pure conjecture and suspect at best and he presents them as fact.

 

Ugh, official state propaganda is a very good source of said state's goals. You just have to read into it.

Quotes used in the book are all like "our soldiers must learn german", "everyone join paratroopers, we got a million of them", "we are going to help proletariat of the western europe" etc.

Of course none of it directly says "we are gonna invade Europe next week" but it's made blatantly obvious in every other way. After all why would you need a million paratroopers for a defensive war?

It's the same as russkie propaganda of today really. They talk about "Ukraine bad and not-russian-army-peaceful-miner good" but background videos are filled with slips showing russian troops, tanks and artillery attacking Ukraine (since they got no better material). Or how when Russia shot down Boeing at first their propaganda was outright boasting how they shot it down (before they realized what it is they thought it was a transport plane) using "captured" Buk (of which they boasted 3-4 hours prior to the shooting) and then quickly it was a 180 degree turn where every outlet was falling over each other trying to make up ridiculous excuses. Kind of like soviet propaganda pre and after 22 june 41

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As i said im not posting on it anymore

 

And john i actually didnt know you were banned from commenting on such things so no i dont feel it a low blow as i also recall the reason your banned from such discussions stemmed from good reason.  And really. Russia of the past is MOST DEFINITELY NOT RUSSIA OF TODAY

 

As far as the Donbass I dont really see a way Russia could successfully get any further in the Ukraine without a massive buildup lotsa casualties; long term insurgency with insurgents who.ll stand and fight probably more than the Iraqis.  Plus it.d be impossible as noted to continue lying at home though I dont doubt it.d continue.

If such a thing were to happen I could see Russia regress into even more of a police state to silence opponents to the Ukraine invasion. I dont think NATO would be overtly involved but a full on invasion would probably get a lot more than the mujahideen got in the 80s and probably some SoF and stealth aircraft strikes.

I liked Pzs comment about maybe they bought the US equipment on eBay or found it and theyre volunteer miners from Poland. It d just be too good a dig to miss and Id love it if some President actually said it.

Still Russia would have to invade and occupy Ukraine for a long long time. Look at how long it took in SU days. Itd be a lot harder and worse now.

Plus the Russian economy aint doing so great either.   And they.d probanly have to pull out of Syria I dont think the Russians could pull off the Russian equivalent to the US Iraq and Afghan wars same time. Especially since Ukr is a more formidable opponent to either country (Iraq 03 not 91)

All this leads me to thibk Putin will never invade Ukraine. However Putins made a lot of enemies and Im sure he knows if he.s deposed he.ll be killed soon.  So who knows if he feels a regime change is imminent maybe he.ll launch nukes at the US and start ww3. Itd certainly distract destroy a coup attempt and save his life. If he had to..

Aa far as a Russian invasion in a vacuum as far as just invading Ukr I can see it but I think the Russian military would  take horrendous casualties initially then a steady amount until they pulled out. I mean there performance in any newspapers that arenr Russian has been less than stellar in Syria. And in the Ukraine Id say Russias war aims failed. They got the Ukraine thats it  that bridge theyre building costs an insane amount of money that they need and now they have a neighbor that dislikes them more and all their other neighbors are paranoid as all hell.

However I dont see the Russians invading or pulling out. I think the Donbass will become a sort of forever war for the near future and if I was Ukr Id let the russians occupy it while bemoaning the loss of our territory but not rlly trying to get it back. Its a big strain on the Russians. Yes if I was Ukr Id try some backdoor US deals to buy either old warsaw pact weapons NATO members dont want (mig29g?) And maybe some javelins stingers f5s and a10s witht the proviso the purely American weapons wont be used unless its on US approved targets in Donbass, or if Russia invades openly ( russian bttn tac group? Send in 12 a10ad with 16 f5e as escorts pummel them then fly away. Or better yet buy a buncg of old.mig 29s and su25s improve them and gift thwm to ukraine. But since the airforce is gutting its a10s if they dont keep using em and we ferried them to say polish ukr border and only hit targets within the UKR border that definitely were Russian and US approved... well the russians cant say the US blew up our troops in the ukr and the nxt day some ukr su25 squad gets credit.

 

As for the Ukr getting out of this theyre in a decent position. The Russians arent really able to imvade and take over the Ukraine. Maybe technically they have the capability but at what cost and why. The Ukr simply needs to build up its military root out the corruption and rebuild a broken society whilst beint very aware of Russian agit prop etc. Down the road whether to takethe Donbass back or not is a problem but if I were Ukrainian Id feel the Donbass populations loyalties are sorta suspect anyways and would be happy to have a largely static front while the military was rebuilt perhaps with some behind the scenes US b2 bomber strikes on very important targets or whatever.

Edited by Sublime
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Raptorx7 said:

Guys take this suvorov/ww2 discussion somewhere else, you are derailing what is a very interesting thread.

Yes, please take it elsewhere.  This is not the thread for it.

2 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

The usual Russia bashing is a must love reading it.

Russia bashing?  Where?  Oh... you mean discussing Russia as it really is in this world as opposed to the pure fantasy version that the Russian government has forced onto its people.  I can understand how this can make you uncomfortable, but it's not bashing.

We come to this point in any rational discussion of Russia.  The point in which the Russians involved in the discussion find themselves unable to accept what they read yet unable to refute it with fact. It comes down to claiming some sort of anti-intellectual, irrational attack on Russia and Russians which can not be argued with.  Which is nonsense, just as it is nonsense that Russia isn't waging an active war against the Ukrainian government with its military, economic, and political resources.

Getting back to the basic gist of things here...

1.  Attacking Ukraine comes with some up front and long term costs.  The more results Russia wishes to obtain,  the faster it wishes to get them, and the longer it wishes to retain them the larger the amount of resources it needs to put on the table up front and the more it needs to commit over time

2.  This comes at a time when Russia is comparatively economically weaker than it has been in more than a decade.  Militarily it is stronger, however it is uncertain to what degree when discussing involvement of forces beyond "tip of spear" types.  Politically Russia is weaker than it has been in any time since the end of the Cold War

3.  The chances of an attack, of any size, against Ukraine achieving goals for the Russian is extremely low given the recent history of Ukraine being both able and motivated to stand up to Russian aggression

The conclusion here is that expanding Russia's existing war against Ukraine comes with enormous risks to the Russian state with very little chance of a payoff of any sort.  Not to mention one proportional to the risks.

Russia has already started a war it can not win.  I do not think expanding on a losing strategy is likely to produce winning results.

None of what I said is Russia "bashing".  It is a simple statement of opinion based on tangible facts which I, and others, have already backed up with other discussion.  Because it is a logical position that is both rational and factual in nature, it can be challenged by someone who wishes to make a counter case. Dismissing these points as "bashing" isn't a counter case.  In fact, it strongly suggests that there is no counter case to be made.  Because if a Russian national with Russian nationalist views can't challenge these positions it indicates that the positions are fundamentally true.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sublime,

I utterly fail to see how you can possibly claim ignorance of the highly restrictive ROEs I operate under. Why? Because I have said them over and over again, for years now, to the same handful of people, all known to you. You yourself were directly involved in a thread in which you were quite unpleasant to me and they jumped all over me, and you may recall that around before that there were such vicious attacks against me over the hot topics which set some people off that a gentleman whose initials are typically found attached to a doctor's name was banned, as was, I believe, a second person, and a high profile member of the Forums was strictly warned, under pain of instant banning,  against ever again attacking me, something he has ignored repeatedly, so far with zero consequences other than a a few public reprimands  and warnings by several old time Forum members who dared to call him out. The same holds true of the other two. Steve made his request to me in early 2013, and not once have I said a thing on the Forums on those restricted ROE topics even in reply, as opposed to starting threads. They are the ones who keep talking about that stuff, not me. This is despite having been so heavily attacked in one thread that even after I explained the havoc they were causing to my TBI recovery (lost 4 months of agonizing progress), my sleep screwed up further and my guts turned into pretzels, they still came after me like rabid dogs. Further, that was after I'd already told them they were subjecting me to terrible stress and that I was under doctor's orders to avoid stress! And not only did the Moderator let them attack me on myriad occasions, in total abrogation of his responsibilities and, I believe, of common courtesy and human decency, but did it so blatantly that it was publicly remarked upon by old hands here. Indeed, the conclusion reached was that since BFC did nothing to stop the attacks, it was BFC's de facto policy!  Further, I would argue that this Mod put a target on my back and declared open season on me when in that CMA Spetsnaz thread which morphed into a discussion of Russian HELs he not only let people eat me alive for pages on end but then, when I cried out for relief, for enforcement of the rules against a long list of violations, he justified the attacks because he didn't like the things I'd written about then and especially before. Certain people have been baiting me for years on the very topics Steve asked me not to post about! Because nothing has been done to punish these serial flagrant offenders, I have been subjected to terrible insults, vilification, abuse and worse for years. My health has been deliberately damaged (they kept on after I directly told them they were harming it), and I've been subjected to stress so severe it repeatedly forced me to bed, paralyzed my painfully regained ability to play CM and far exceeded levels necessary to cause stroke or heart attack.  And ever have I had to guard my tongue, lest I slip and provide an excuse to ban me! In closing this part of my response, I would note that baiting is one of the prohibited behaviors on the Forums.

Moving on, I feel we are on pretty much the same page regarding Putin's Ukraine situation. We have already seen how the Russian government responded to the problem caused by sending the dead from its Ukrainian adventure back home. Though relatively few compared to what we're talking about, or to Afghanistan, it's my understanding Russia stopped sending them back and started burying them in Ukraine instead. I consider that to be highly significant. I concur that it would be logical to expect a real information clampdown to keep the lid on the losses, too, but that's a lot harder to do now than back when Russia was in Afghanistan. These days, information travels like wildfire, and as Ukrainian OSINT has shown, the seemingly most banal of Russian online activities can wreck things like the MH 17 coverup and cause an international brouhaha. In the Donbass, Putin essentially inadvertently dove onto the Tar-Baby and can't easily get himself unstuck. If he does, he might get stuck with something else by his cronies and opponents at home. While I hate the very idea of the Air force retiring the A-10s, were that to happen, it would be wrong and environmentally irresponsible to just scrap them. Important to be green, right? As the NCA, Putin would've certainly been briefed on his ultimate demise from the nuclear winter certain to result from a strategic nuclear exchange. While he might decide to nuke someplace, I can't imagine he would do anything but hit Ukraine with a low yield nuclear weapon. Were he to do such a thing, I'd expect it wouldn't be a city. But if he nukes Ukraine, much of the the fallout blows back to Russia! He could, of course, use FOAB to get small nuke level results, but that means exposing a highly vulnerable huge radar target Tu-95 or lower RCS Tu-160 to the panoply of Ukrainian aerial and ground ADS, as well as anyone helping.

Regards,

John Kettler
 

Edited by John Kettler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another reason Putin would fear all out war with Ukraine is the political consequences of a loss. Russia could be stripped of it's non de jure territories by UN mandate or NATO demand. This could include:

-Crimea to Ukraine

-Abkhazia to Georgia

-South Ossetia to Georgia

-Southern part of Kurils to Japan

-Transnistria to Moldova

-Northeast Manchuria to China (if they even want it anymore)

-limits on military, etc.

Something like this would be an utter humiliation and would break the myth of a strong Russia. If Putin is only interested in popularity in Russia as a strongman than this could be devastating to his reputation (lead to more internal strife). That's why an invasion is too much of a risk for Putin's rule.

Edited by JUAN DEAG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JUAN DEAG said:

(If the invasion of Ukraine is a disaster).

Yes I took that into account when responding to your post.

How would NATO or the UN get Russia to hand over "its" territory after a loss in Ukraine?

Edited by Raptorx7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JK really i do not want to argue with you. I thibk your tbis have legitemately unbalanced you and you.re mad. I apologize for being insulting but i mean it and im sorry that if im correct it happened. Your problems lie with the fact hat you nwver gave real sources or cite highly questionable and often proven liars. You.ll say according to black ops sources i cant quote. So yiu.re orifiy making the argument everyone dhould just believe me instead of Suvorov. Somethin I never said. When in the past every bizarre theory you.ve had (nazi nuke vbieds, us invisibility cloaks in the 80s, ufos with underslung panther turrets, etc) has always been not cited or you claimed forum ryles or the secret world.of black ops sources prevwnt a reply and we should simply believe YOU. Seriously dude its hypocritical and again just drop it or pm me. Better yet u cud ignore me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Raptorx7 said:

Yes I took that into account when responding to your post.

How would NATO or the UN get Russia to hand over "its" territory after a loss in Ukraine?

Similar to Iraq in 1991. Iraq had violated international law several times (genocide of Kurds and invasion of Iran). The international community didn't care. But the straw that broke the camels back was the occupation of Kuwait, which led to a UN mandate and an international armed response.

Russia, like Saddam's Iraq, is a repeat offender. If Russia blatantly violates Ukraine's territorial integrity for a third time, the international community is going to respond. A Russia bogged down in a war of attrition in Ukraine might have to succumb to the demands of the international community (or have multinational troops patrolling Moscow streets).

It's an extreme scenario for Russia, but Putin wouldn't want to take a risk like that.

Edited by JUAN DEAG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Raptorx7 said:

Yes I took that into account when responding to your post.

How would NATO or the UN get Russia to hand over "its" territory after a loss in Ukraine?

It couldn't or wouldn't do so on its own.  However, look what happened to the Soviet Union when it imploded.  Moscow lost the ability to keep territory by force, or even threat, and those territories largely broke away, applied for UN recognition, received it, and (theoretically) forever left Russia's direct control.  This could happen elsewhere within the remaining Russian territory given certain events happening in a certain order within certain parameters.

The most obvious place to look is the sections of Georgia that Russia currently occupies.  Georgia is not going to attack Russian forces in those areas, but it is possible that under some circumstances the Russian military would be forced to withdraw or even disband.  There are several plausible scenarios in which this could happen.  At that point Georgia could, in theory, retake one or more of the territories.

Transnistria is highly vulnerable.  Armenia is another one that would likely encourage Russian forces to leave and could likely make it happen if Russia were too weak to retaliate in time.

The short of it is that Russia has made a lot of enemies.  It holds chunks of territory in many of the enemies that are on its borders.  If the central government collapses it is probable that more than one will simultaneously attempt to gain an advantage against Russian interests.  This is how it happened when the Soviet Union collapsed, so there's history to suggest it will happen again.  Having said that, like the break up of the Soviet Union under most circumstances Russia will be able to thwart SOME of these moves.  The worse the situation is within Russia, the fewer and less thoroughly it will be able to do so.

The worst case for Russia is a combo of...

1.  Full blown civil unrest/civil war within European Russia.

2.  Kadyrov (and others in the Caucuses) going independent.

Kadyrov is always one step away from creating an independent dictatorship for himself.  The only reason he doesn't is because of money coming from Moscow and a reasonably compliant Kremlin overseer.  If either change, Kadyrov will likely strike out on his own.  Attacking Ukraine is likely to produce one or both of these conditions.

4 minutes ago, Sublime said:

JK really i do not want to argue with you....Better yet u cud ignore me.

It takes two to tango, so how about you both ignore each other and stop polluting this thread before I have to give one or the other of you a temporary ban?

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

The worst case for Russia is a combo of...

1.  Full blown civil unrest/civil war within European Russia.

2.  Kadyrov (and others in the Caucuses) going independent.

Kadyrov is always one step away from creating an independent dictatorship for himself.  The only reason he doesn't is because of money coming from Moscow and a reasonably compliant Kremlin overseer.  If either change, Kadyrov will likely strike out on his own.  Attacking Ukraine is likely to produce one or both of these conditions.

I find the prospect of Kadyrov going independent highly unlikely. Kadyrov was put in power of Chechneya in the first place as nothing more than a puppet. A more plausible scenario is: if civil unrest ignites throughout the Russian Federation then the more nationalistic Chechens will want to overthrow Kadyrov because he will do only what Putin tells him to do and will likely be the enemy for any separatists. You know, since he kind of betrayed his separatist brothers for some extra Rubles.

Edited by JUAN DEAG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve,

me and you share complete opposite views. You justify your view with your "facts" and I justify mine with my "facts". Because of some people's beliefs on the forum, they directly call the president of my nation a dictator, where as us the people of Russia do not. So yeah in my perspective there is a lot of Russia bashing going on.

It is as if you ignore the violent riots in Kiev, which caused the deaths of dozens of policemen, and innocent people. You cannot deny that everything in Ukraine, happened because of the over throw of the democratically elected president. This is a joke, you ignore total critical points in the start of the conflict. Tell me please, how can Russia not be justified to grab Crimea with the support of the people when the people of Crimea (majority Russian) didnt get a say on what happened in Kiev? Tell me please, did the Donbas people get a say? 

You've been watching the Ukrainian event since the start, have you missed the destruction the ATO has brought to Donbas regardless if the DPR/LPR is "Totally Russian federation supported"? 

Believe me when I say, that the only reason I'm writing this is because you mentioned it, the only reason I am not going in total discussion on the forum is because it gets very personal, and I'd hate to make a topic go off topic, as well as cause friction on a forum. I enjoy arguing and discussing military topics with you, and other people on the forum. But it always leads to politics, and the justification for it, is that "it happened" 

I get that this is an American forum, and I come off ignorant to most Americans on this forum, for sharing a totally opposite view. How ever, it comes off offensive to someone who is Russian. I hope you can see why I said there's Russia bashing going on. I'm not trying to call anyone out. 

Hypothetical Ukraine war:

You make good points about the costs and damage it could bring to Russia, I will admit that you've brought some good information, that I've looked over. How ever, operating in the DPR/LPR and very near vicinity will be possible for Russia going by claims that 9,000-12,000 Russian troops operated in Donbas it is more than possible for Russia to full on go active, and enjoy major successes and not face an insurgency in this region leaving full conventional fighting which Russia is more capable of than Ukraine. But this is totally hypothetical, politics would not allow such a conflict. Pressure given to Russia already is more than enough IMO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JUAN DEAG said:

I find the prospect of Kadyrov going independent highly unlikely. Kadyrov was put in power of Chechneya in the first place as nothing more than a puppet. A more plausible scenario is: if civil unrest ignites throughout the Russian Federation then the more nationalistic Chechens will want to overthrow Kadyrov because he will do only what Putin tells him to do and will likely be the enemy for any separatists. You know, since he kind of betrayed his separatist brothers for some extra Rubles.

No, Kadyrov (the elder) was made a better offer by Putin than what he was getting under the formally independent Chechnya.  But he struck a hard bargain and his son continues to benefit from it.  Kadyrov largely operates without interference from Russia as a result.  He even has a private military force that is by some estimates 20,000 strong. They are personally loyal to Kadyrov, not Putin.  The FSB *HATES* Kadyrov because they can't touch him.  Even with Kadyrov likely being behind the killing of Nemtsov he's untouchable.  Last year Kadyrov even threatened to shoot Russian security forces if they entered Chechnya without written permission (this was after a running gun battle that went into Chechnya).

Make no mistake about it... Kadyrov and Putin play the public game of whose in charge.  The reality is very different.  As soon as Putin tries to change the arrangement Kadyrov will bolt provided he thinks his chances are worth the risks.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Steve,

me and you share complete opposite views. You justify your view with your "facts" and I justify mine with my "facts". Because of some people's beliefs on the forum, they directly call the president of my nation a dictator, where as us the people of Russia do not. So yeah in my perspective there is a lot of Russia bashing going on.

That's untrue.  When someone presents a logical argument, supported by specific claims of fact, then that is a position.  "Bashing" is name calling and taking up arguments which are not supportable.  The fact that you do not like the position doesn't make it bashing.

Examples:

Statement of fact ->  Putin is a dictator. Putin is the head of state where there is no meaningful freedom of press, assembly, or political opposition.  When he was last "elected" there were major demonstrations alledging fraud, for which the opposition was beaten and arrested with every decreasing freedoms of expression, assembly, and political independence.  The rule of law, internationally and domestically, is not respected.  Organizations dedicated to causes of Human Rights are not allowed to operate freely within Russia and are often physically abused. 

Bashing ->  Russians are nothing but a bunch of low esteem bullies with tiny reproductive organs.

The first approach allows us to have a debate, the latter is pointless to engage.

 

2 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

It is as if you ignore the violent riots in Kiev, which caused the deaths of dozens of policemen, and innocent people.

No, I do not ignore it.  First, it is totally irrelevant to this discussion. Second, I'm not the guy who believed the sources of information that said there was no Russian forces in Donbas despite all the evidence to the contrary.  If you could believe such a huge and obvious lie for so long, why do you think you are not believing other obvious and huge lies told by the exact same people?

When a source deliberately lies you should question it more.  Maidan was the result of decades of Russian meddling in Ukrainian affairs.  Donbas is an extension of that meddling.  One that has caused 1000 deaths for every 1 policeman that was killed in Maidan.

2 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

You cannot deny that everything in Ukraine, happened because of the over throw of the democratically elected president. This is a joke, you ignore total critical points in the start of the conflict.

I don't ignore it.  Never have, never will.  Yanukovych had an opportunity to appease the people upset about his criminal rule of the country, he declined.  This led to Maidan and his eventual fleeing to Russia to avoid having to answer to his crimes.  The conflict was always about Russia controlling Ukraine's politics, so it still is.

2 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Tell me please, how can Russia not be justified to grab Crimea with the support of the people when the people of Crimea (majority Russian) didnt get a say on what happened in Kiev? Tell me please, did the Donbas people get a say? 

The Crimean people had no say in what happened in Crimea either.  The Donbas people are not getting a say in what is going on either.  The common factor?  Russian military forces backed by Russian political goals are prevented people from having their say.  Not Ukraine, not the West, not anybody else.  Russia and only Russia.

2 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

You've been watching the Ukrainian event since the start, have you missed the destruction the ATO has brought to Donbas regardless if the DPR/LPR is "Totally Russian federation supported"? 

Russia slaughtered several hundred thousand civilians in Chechnya and nearly wiped Grozny off the map in order to keep it part of Russia.  Do you really want to argue the morals of keeping territorial integrity?

As it is, the situations aren't comparable anyway.  The Chechens rose up all on their own and had little support from anybody else.  They were not controlled by anybody else.  The war against Ukraine has always been organized, resourced, and executed by Russia, which is a foreign power.  The people of the Donbas did NOT rise up against Ukraine, neither did the people of Crimea.  What would Russia do if the United States tried to take St. Petersburg?  How about the formerly German territory of Kalliningrad?  Would Russia say "oh well, I suppose the will of the people has spoken!  We will do nothing!"?  Hardly :)  Russia might even launch a nuclear war that kills most of the planet to defend its soil.

Don't try to take the moral high ground here... you won't win it.

2 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Believe me when I say, that the only reason I'm writing this is because you mentioned it, the only reason I am not going in total discussion on the forum is because it gets very personal, and I'd hate to make a topic go off topic, as well as cause friction on a forum. I enjoy arguing and discussing military topics with you, and other people on the forum. But it always leads to politics, and the justification for it, is that "it happened" 

You chose to go this route.  We have been having a very factual based conversation about Russia's ability to wage a larger war against Ukraine than it currently is.  Instead of debating the points you disagree with you have once again tried to change the discussion to the usual "Russia bashing".  As I said, this is almost always where these conversations go with Russians because they seem to be unwilling to have discussions which conclude that Russia isn't the greatest nation on Earth.

2 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

I get that this is an American forum, and I come off ignorant to most Americans on this forum, for sharing a totally opposite view. How ever, it comes off offensive to someone who is Russian. I hope you can see why I said there's Russia bashing going on. I'm not trying to call anyone out. 

No, there is no Russia bashing going on.  If there was I'd have a problem with that because bashing is anti-intellectual and that is not what this forum is here for.

2 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Hypothetical Ukraine war:

You make good points about the costs and damage it could bring to Russia, I will admit that you've brought some good information, that I've looked over. How ever, operating in the DPR/LPR and very near vicinity will be possible for Russia going by claims that 9,000-12,000 Russian troops operated in Donbas it is more than possible for Russia to full on go active, and enjoy major successes and not face an insurgency in this region leaving full conventional fighting which Russia is more capable of than Ukraine. But this is totally hypothetical, politics would not allow such a conflict. Pressure given to Russia already is more than enough IMO. 

I'll answer this later as I must go now.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

No, Kadyrov (the elder) was made a better offer by Putin than what he was getting under the formally independent Chechnya.  But he struck a hard bargain and his son continues to benefit from it.  Kadyrov largely operates without interference from Russia as a result.  He even has a private military force that is by some estimates 20,000 strong. They are personally loyal to Kadyrov, not Putin.  The FSB *HATES* Kadyrov because they can't touch him.  Even with Kadyrov likely being behind the killing of Nemtsov he's untouchable.  Last year Kadyrov even threatened to shoot Russian security forces if they entered Chechnya without written permission (this was after a running gun battle that went into Chechnya).

Make no mistake about it... Kadyrov and Putin play the public game of whose in charge.  The reality is very different.  As soon as Putin tries to change the arrangement Kadyrov will bolt provided he thinks his chances are worth the risks.

Steve

My bad. I didn't know the situation was quite like this. I just thought by the way that Kadyrov spoke and continues to speak through the lens of Putin's world view that he is just a puppet. In reality, it was more complex than I thought it was.:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So,  basically,  the weight of opinion is that

1) Russia could launch limited local offensives in the Donbass region with reasonable chances of military succes but heavy  diplomatic costs.

2) Anything larger or more nationwide carries large risks of backfiring militarily (within the Ukraine) and politically (within Russia). 

Russia could do a lot of nasty short term damage, but not enough to knock the Ukraine out. 

3) Russia will probably not attack first. 

I would add a possibility that Russia COULD attack first (locally within the Donbass), after a heavy propaganda build up as a way for Putin to bolster his popularity just before or during the upcoming elections (compromised as they are, he still needs the veneer of public approval). That is, a foreign war to boost home popularity - a basic manoeuvre/mistake by every authoritarian leader ever. 

Edited by kinophile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, kinophile said:

So,  basically,  the weight of opinion is that

1) Russia could launch limited local offensives in the Donbass region with reasonable chances of success. 

2) Anything larger or more nationwide carries large risks of backfiring militarily (within the Ukraine) and politically (within Russia). 

Russia could do a lot of nasty short term damage, but not enough to knock the Ukraine out. 

3) Russia will probably not attack first. 

I would add a possibility that Russia COULD attack first (locally within the Donbass), after a heavy propaganda build up as a way for Putin to bolster his popularity just before or during the upcoming elections (compromised as they are, he still needs the veneer of public approval). That is, a foreign war to boost home popularity - a basic manoeuvre/mistake by every authoritarian leader ever. 

I would question most of this.  You first have to figure what is objective and what is cost.  Yes Russia could attack locally and likely make some successes from a strictly "can they make some gains in land" view.  Sure, but is that of any value at all to Russia considering it hardens attitudes in the west and will result in even harsher sanctions? I would not consider that success at all.  That just digs the hole deeper.

I see no value at all to Russia of launching any attacks whatsoever and no goal they could obtain that would make it truly worth it to Russia in either the short or long term.

Strategically speaking what does Russia really need most?

Stabilize the economy

Diversify the economy and establish new industries to reduce the dependence on oil

Get sanctions removed as they are hitting some long term aspects of Russia's economy for example the ability to develop new oil fields

Politically, economically and militarily, there really is nothing to gain in Ukraine at this point.  It is hurting Russia internationally and economically.  There is really nothing they can do to make the relationship with Ukraine any better.  Essentially they are throwing good money after bad now.  There is no argument I have heard that gives Russia one iota of reason to escalate the conflict and tons of reasons to try and look for an exit strategy.  If I were Putin I would make a national address on television and yell "hey look over there!" point somewhere off camera and while everyone was looking I'd pull everything out of the Donbass and tell Russian media, you breath a word of this and it is off to the Gulag or worse,  I'd then push for an end to sanctions and start trying to get foreign investment back and when the economy got even the slightest puff of wind I'd extol Russians for their patriotism and how they had survived the worst the West could throw at them blah blah blah and call it a win.

I'd also cut back most defense spending in favor of investments in the economy.  Russia's military is already tough enough to handle any potential threats it really faces. Then again that is all a rational approach.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yah but that's through a Western lens,  of aiming to  develop the country for all. 

Putin's MO has been to entrench his supporters politically and financially to lock in his power base. Based on how they've plundered the country and drastically reduced its potential growth and development I doubt "the good of al"  is truly his objective. 

Of something that increases his control over Russian society versus something that increases the public wealth and wellbeing (but does not increase/or reduces his control) he will and always has preferred to choose the former. 

A war has increased his popularity every time he's launched one. And he's always launched one close to election time. There's another one coming, it's inevitable. Weather it's the Ukraine is unknown. But local military success is all he needs. He can then back off,  ready to escalate against any counter attack and reap even more domestic popularity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/4/2016 at 7:09 PM, JUAN DEAG said:

My bad. I didn't know the situation was quite like this. I just thought by the way that Kadyrov spoke and continues to speak through the lens of Putin's world view that he is just a puppet. In reality, it was more complex than I thought it was.:)

Don't feel bad.. that is the way both of them want it to appear to the outside world.  It's a very mutually beneficial relationship, but it's more of equals than it appears.  For sure Putin wields more power than Kadyrov, however it's the sort of power that is not easily used.  Kadyrov is also as shrewd as they come, which means he'll gladly keep up his end of the game as long as Putin keeps up his end.  As soon as either one tries to change things there will be war in Chechnya again.  Russia being unable to flood Chechnya with money is the big one.

I did a quick search and found this article that might be of interest.  Written only a few weeks ago in fact:

http://www.vox.com/2016/7/11/12148922/vladimir-putin-ramzan-kadyrov-chechnya

The reason this is relevant to our discussion is stability in the Caucuses is what Putin is risking by going to war with Ukraine.  I'm not just talking about the hypothetical war we've been talking about, but the present day one.  Kadyrov has been gaining strength because Putin is weaker than he was in 2014.

On 8/4/2016 at 7:54 PM, kinophile said:

So,  basically,  the weight of opinion is that

1) Russia could launch limited local offensives in the Donbass region with reasonable chances of military succes but heavy  diplomatic costs.

Diplomatic and economic costs, yes.  These, in turn, could produce longer term problems for internal Russian politics.  There was at least (probably) one major challenge to Putin's leadership since this crisis started because a portion of the oligarchs were displeased with having to take a hit for what they viewed as a reckless and money losing venture in Ukraine.  Putin won that challenge, though it's unclear if he had to make concessions or how serious a threat remains to his rule.

Quote

2) Anything larger or more nationwide carries large risks of backfiring militarily (within the Ukraine) and politically (within Russia). 

Russia could do a lot of nasty short term damage, but not enough to knock the Ukraine out. 

Correct.

Quote

3) Russia will probably not attack first. 

That is my belief.  Anything beyond a short, moderate sized counter offensive against an overt Ukrainian assault to take back Donbas would likely put Russian state suicide in motion.  I have a fairly low regard for Putin's skills as of late, but I don't think he's suicidal.

Putin had an opportunity to invade and take a big chunk of Ukraine in Spring 2014, yet he didn't despite making all the overt preparations to do so.  I said back then, and I still see it this way now, that Putin "blinked".  He assessed the risks and decided he had to tread more carefully.  Risks for Russia have increased since then.

Quote

I would add a possibility that Russia COULD attack first (locally within the Donbass), after a heavy propaganda build up as a way for Putin to bolster his popularity just before or during the upcoming elections (compromised as they are, he still needs the veneer of public approval). That is, a foreign war to boost home popularity - a basic manoeuvre/mistake by every authoritarian leader ever. 

This is what he had hoped would have happened already.  It didn't work.  There was never popular support for a war in Ukraine, not even when Russian propaganda was in hyper lying mode about what was really going on in Ukraine and the situation was in free fall.  By now it seems most Russians have figured out the threat Ukraine's change of power supposedly poses to Russians was overblown.  The smarter, more informed ones suspect that it was a farce.  It would be very difficult to build up a propaganda campaign now without some sort of major REAL incident in Ukraine giving him cause to do so.  Stories about crucified babies and Polish snipers won't cut it this time.

Again, it comes down to risk and reward.  Risking regime existence to get a little short term nationalism boost is not worth it.  Especially when the chances of regime decline is near certain and permanent vs. the prospects of the boost uncertain and temporary.

On 8/4/2016 at 8:40 PM, sburke said:

Strategically speaking what does Russia really need most?

Stabilize the economy

Diversify the economy and establish new industries to reduce the dependence on oil

Get sanctions removed as they are hitting some long term aspects of Russia's economy for example the ability to develop new oil fields

Politically, economically and militarily, there really is nothing to gain in Ukraine at this point.


Yes.  Putin is trying to figure a way to get OUT of Ukraine, not coming up with new ways to deepen the hole he's dug for himself and Russia.  The West, and even Ukraine, offered Putin several chances to get out of this with very little damage.  Unwisely he didn't go for any of them.  Now he's stuck.  Both the West and Ukraine would offer Russia a way out *IF* Putin made a real attempt to do so *AND* there was a belief that Putin would follow through on his side.  Putin has absolutely zero credibility with anybody meaningful, therefore the last part is a big problem that isn't easily overcome. 

Regarding Putin's credibility.  The only thing you can count on Putin doing is the thing he says he is not going to do.  Therefore, if Putin says he will withdraw his forces under X condition, it can be pretty much certain that under X condition Putin will not withdraw his forces.  What he does instead of what he promised is harder to predict.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Returning to where I left off earlier today...

7 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Hypothetical Ukraine war:

You make good points about the costs and damage it could bring to Russia, I will admit that you've brought some good information, that I've looked over. How ever, operating in the DPR/LPR and very near vicinity will be possible for Russia going by claims that 9,000-12,000 Russian troops operated in Donbas it is more than possible for Russia to full on go active, and enjoy major successes and not face an insurgency in this region leaving full conventional fighting which Russia is more capable of than Ukraine. But this is totally hypothetical, politics would not allow such a conflict. Pressure given to Russia already is more than enough IMO. 

Yes, as I've been saying for many pages now this is the only viable military option for Russia, though I think it is only viable if Ukraine overtly attacks first.  Russia could effectively arrest another large scale Ukrainian attack with far fewer forces than the other scenarios require.  The risks of a disaster would also be reduced, however so too would the potential for gain.

Russia is unlikely to get more concessions from Ukraine or the West even if militarily successful.  In fact, the opposite is probably more likely.  Ukraine would be even more hostile to Russia, the West would be more supportive of Ukraine than before, and Russia would still be stuck with all the costs of keeping the Donbas separated from Ukraine but not joined with Russia.

So what is there to be gained from such an action?  I can only see possible short term gains, nothing long term.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...