Jump to content

Russian army under equipped?


Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

You're right about that actually, but it wasn't a major problem although a important issue.

"Weight of numbers" ensured Russia would win against the unprepared Georgian forces no matter what, so none of the problems identified were significant issues in the end.  However, Russian leadership with imagination saw that the operation should have gone off a lot better than it did.  They "projected forward" to a larger conflict, one that was not so massively lopsided, and doubted the Russian military was structured to win. 

Quote

Logistics have improved, everything is more organized than it was in 2008. We can assume it is way better than before the reforms. In Syria, I've noticed great logistics being provided by the Russian military, lessons are probably being taken from that conflict. 

Absolutely.  But until Russia has waged a very large scale (by today's standards) mechanized war against a determined and capable enemy, as we American say... "don't count your chickens before they hatch".  I am very, very confident that Russian logistics are vastly better than they were in 2008, however the reforms in concept and action were primarily concerned with smaller actions such as Crimea.  In theory those improvements should scale up to larger actions, however history (especially Russian/Soviet history) shows that scaling up is easier to do on paper than in reality.  Therefore, I remain generally positive about Russia's capabilities for smaller actions, skeptical of larger ones.  Especially for a large action that results in major losses and drags out for weeks or more.

Still, I think Russia has a better chance of coming out ahead with a 100,000 invasion force of Ukraine in 2017 than it would the Baltics.  That is mostly because Ukraine is not NATO, therefore I put a heavy emphasis on losses affecting Russian performance more than I do the successes of the 2008 reforms.

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

A little humor....😎

I think the Abrams in CMBS is somewhat more godly than in reality. I also think the technical aspects of armored vehicles matters less in real wars than in war games. In an actual war between NATO and

Western tanks were designed to hold the Fulda. They're heavier, bigger and designed with ergonomics in mind. They were to hold out as long as they could, focusing on the anti-vehicle role. Disable as

Posted Images

@Peter Cairns your Iraq war comparison isn't ideal, for me - it was a very different type of operation (overseas expeditionary) and had heavy US support.  

Russia v.  Ukraine would use solely land based logistics (a far simpler deal,  with an existing operation already in place in the Donbass) and has no friendly heavyweight to fill in the gaps when their own logistics train develops an inevitable tangle. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

"Weight of numbers" ensured Russia would win against the unprepared Georgian forces no matter what, so none of the problems identified were significant issues in the end.  However, Russian leadership with imagination saw that the operation should have gone off a lot better than it did.  They "projected forward" to a larger conflict, one that was not so massively lopsided, and doubted the Russian military was structured to win. 

Quite true, however tactics also helped the Russian army. The Georgian army had a few flaws in their strategy.

16 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Absolutely.  But until Russia has waged a very large scale (by today's standards) mechanized war against a determined and capable enemy, as we American say... "don't count your chickens before they hatch".  I am very, very confident that Russian logistics are vastly better than they were in 2008, however the reforms in concept and action were primarily concerned with smaller actions such as Crimea.  In theory those improvements should scale up to larger actions, however history (especially Russian/Soviet history) shows that scaling up is easier to do on paper than in reality.  Therefore, I remain generally positive about Russia's capabilities for smaller actions, skeptical of larger ones.  Especially for a large action that results in major losses and drags out for weeks or more.

Still, I think Russia has a better chance of coming out ahead with a 100,000 invasion force of Ukraine in 2017 than it would the Baltics.  That is mostly because Ukraine is not NATO, therefore I put a heavy emphasis on losses affecting Russian performance more than I do the successes of the 2008 reforms.

I agree with you. Until a large scale war is waged we won't able to know for sure, however we can assume in most cases. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Quite true, however tactics also helped the Russian army. The Georgian army had a few flaws in their strategy.

I agree with you. Until a large scale war is waged we won't able to know for sure, however we can assume in most cases. 

And assumptions are the mother of all f-up's ;)

Edited by TJT
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, TJT said:

And assumptions are the mother of all f-up's ;)

Exactly :)  Russia assumed it would crush the Chechens very quickly.  Both times.  And both times this did not happen.  There were many assumptions made about the war in Georgia that turned out to be wrong.  More recently Russia assumed Ukraine would crumble after the invasion of Crimea so that it could get what it wanted.  This did not happen.  Russia then assumed direct military pressure in Donbas would force the Kiev government to give into its demands.  This did not happen either.

If I were a Russian, I would not make assumptions about what its military force can achieve.

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Exactly :)  Russia assumed it would crush the Chechens very quickly.  Both times.  And both times this did not happen. 

Actually it was assumed that in the first time, in the second time it was known very well that it wasn't going to be easy. And as we see, Russia has came out victorious in the end of things in Chechnya. Militarily and politically.

8 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

There were many assumptions made about the war in Georgia that turned out to be wrong.

It was assumed Georgia would be crushed, and the end result was they were crushed. 

8 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

More recently Russia assumed Ukraine would crumble after the invasion of Crimea so that it could get what it wanted.

I don't think anyone in the Russian government assumed that. If we get into the geopolitical view of taking Crimea, there are other obvious reasons.

9 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Russia then assumed direct military pressure in Donbas would force the Kiev government to give into its demands

Direct military pressure? Is that why the Russian government has been denying any presence in Donbas? Think of what happened in Donbas, as more of keeping the only thing that isn't anti-Russian in Ukraine alive. I'm sure you know about this thing called "geopolitics." Ukraine as you know was the birthplace of Russians(Kievan-Rus). So imagine your influence in this country in which you have been together with since the beginning is ripped away from you, and in geopolitical terms, is lost to someone else. (EU influence) If you've noticed, events in Ukraine where pro-Russian unrest has been happening are in majority Russian speaking regions. I don't think Putin would think supporting a Donbas proxy would make Kiev give into its demands. That makes no sense what so ever.

11 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

If I were a Russian, I would not make assumptions about what its military force can achieve.

Well what else can I do Steve? Should I ask my government to pour in units into Ukraine so I can see the truth? Assumptions are made from what is on paper, and proven capabilities. I don't think there is any other way for us to be able to discuss "what if" wars without assumptions. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

New BBC article on Russia's military capabilities:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37045730

Interesting to see discussion of tactics in mainstream news:

"The Russians have also shown a sophisticated ability to use drones, often in pairs; one to draw fire and the other to provide the targeting data for artillery or rocket forces who can instantly respond."

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Machor said:

New BBC article on Russia's military capabilities:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37045730

 

"In some areas, their skills and equipment are far more advanced than in comparable Nato armies. "

 

In what exactly? EW? I can tell you for sure - we know exactly coordinates of every EW russian unit. And we did not destroyed it yet with 2S7 Pion or Tochka-U only because of "Minsk agreements". Russian EW astonish europe only because europe has forbidden Ukraine to destroy it when they put ennormouse pressure on Ukraine to force us sign "Minsk agreements".

Its almost like europe afraid Ukraine can win, so they artificially restricting it. Its not so wild thought as it may appear at first. If you think this. Europe has been accustomed with Russia being "regional director". But if Ukraine will beat Russia - Russia will loose its status of "regional director". So the whole world will change for Europe. It will be new unknown world, and everyone is afraid of unknown things.

 

Quote

In some incidents, sizeable Ukrainian forces have been nearly wiped out in a matter of minutes.

They talking about Ilovaisk. It worked only because no one expected Russia will move in its regular army to save it's puppets. After this there was not any incidents where "sizeable Ukrainian forces have been nearly wiped out in a matter of minutes"

Edited by Oleg
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Oleg said:

 

"In some areas, their skills and equipment are far more advanced than in comparable Nato armies. "

 

In what exactly? EW? I can tell you for sure - we know exactly coordinates of every EW russian unit. And we did not destroyed it yet with 2S7 Pion or Tochka-U only because of "Minsk agreements". Russian EW astonish europe only because europe has forbidden Ukraine to destroy it when they put ennormouse pressure on Ukraine to force us sign "Minsk agreements".

Its almost like europe afraid Ukraine can win, so they artificially restricting it. Its not so wild thought as it may appear at first. If you think this. Europe has been accustomed with Russia being "regional director". But if Ukraine will beat Russia - Russia will loose its status of "regional director". So the whole world will change for Europe. It will be new unknown world, and everyone is afraid of unknown things.

 

 

Oh come on man, you had the chance to destroy an EW unit, yet you didn't do so until the minsk agreements happened? And EW units do not stay in one location, they have multiple points they operate from to avoid being targeted, even in peace time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Actually it was assumed that in the first time, in the second time it was known very well that it wasn't going to be easy. And as we see, Russia has came out victorious in the end of things in Chechnya. Militarily and politically.

I do not know the details about Russia's expectations for the Second Chechen War, but I am very confident it thought it would be over much sooner and decisively.  In the end Putin flipped Kadyrov and that, more than anything else combined, is why Russia regained theoretical control over Chechnya.  In reality Kadyrov controls Chechnya and, apparently, can even assassinate Russian politicians and not be held accountable to it.  Which means, in real terms, Russia did not reclaim Chechnya either militarily or politically.  Bribery did.

1 hour ago, VladimirTarasov said:

It was assumed Georgia would be crushed, and the end result was they were crushed. 

No, it was assumed Georgia would be crushed without embarrassing losses and causing the general staff to be very concerned about Russia's ability to fight effectively.  Those assumptions were so wrong that Russia implemented very large and costly reforms.

1 hour ago, VladimirTarasov said:

I don't think anyone in the Russian government assumed that. If we get into the geopolitical view of taking Crimea, there are other obvious reasons.

For sure Russia expected Ukraine to "give in" to Russian political pressure after the seizure of Crimea.  There's not a single doubt in my mind.

1 hour ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Direct military pressure? Is that why the Russian government has been denying any presence in Donbas? Think of what happened in Donbas, as more of keeping the only thing that isn't anti-Russian in Ukraine alive. I'm sure you know about this thing called "geopolitics." Ukraine as you know was the birthplace of Russians(Kievan-Rus). So imagine your influence in this country in which you have been together with since the beginning is ripped away from you, and in geopolitical terms, is lost to someone else. (EU influence) If you've noticed, events in Ukraine where pro-Russian unrest has been happening are in majority Russian speaking regions. I don't think Putin would think supporting a Donbas proxy would make Kiev give into its demands. That makes no sense what so ever.

It makes sense to someone who knows what he is talking about.  Sadly, you continue to show your ignorance and naivete.  Russia has a long history of creating "frozen conflicts" in order to control the domestic politics of a weaker neighboring state.  In the case of Donbas, however, Russia had hoped it would cause a catastrophic collapse of the "coup" government and crush the spirit of the Ukrainian people.  It did not.  In fact, it had the opposite effect.

You really should read more analysis of what is going on in Donbas.  Especially ones not officially approved of by the Russian government.  You will see unanimous consent that Russia launched the war in Donbas as a means of controlling Ukraine's politics.  There isn't a single credible group I know of which thinks the Donbas is a "civil war".

The Russian media's portrayal of Russian speaking Ukrainians as being pro-Russia has been debunked many times already.  Especially by Russian speaking Ukrainians :D

1 hour ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Well what else can I do Steve? Should I ask my government to pour in units into Ukraine so I can see the truth? Assumptions are made from what is on paper, and proven capabilities. I don't think there is any other way for us to be able to discuss "what if" wars without assumptions. 

Of course we have to rely upon assumptions for "what if" scenarios.  However, the more the assumptions are based on fact and historical record the more likely the assumptions will be correct.  My assumptions are a 100,000 Russian force would have significant problems with a large scale offensive operation against Ukraine.  I've made a factual and well reasoned case for this.  In terms of logistics in particular, I have also made a case that Russia's logistics are unlikely prepared for a large scale war against a credible, prepared defender.  You can assume otherwise if you wish.

Many of the greatest military defeats in history were the result of an attacker who assumed victory would be quick and decisive.  Here are bunch that come to mind:

1.  Israeli invasion of Lebanon 2006

2.  Coalition invasion of Iraq 2003

3.  Iraq invasion of Iran 1980

4.  Russian invasion of Afghanistan 1979

5.  Every war waged against Israel by Arab nations

6.  Third Reich in more ways than I can count, but in particular the invasion of the Soviet Union 1941.  Though it was almost the Soviets who assumed too much

The list is, of course, MUCH longer than this.  These are just a few off the top of my head.  In each case the attacker ASSUMED that it had what it needed to win a quick, decisive war against an enemy force.  In all situations the attacker was proven wrong and victory did not happen.  Or at least not the way it wanted (this Iran-Iraq War and 2003 OIF fit into that category).

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Sadly, you continue to show your ignorance and naivete.

 

He's not naive. He's not misinformed. In fact he knows the truth, but he is lying on purpose, cause he know truth will end up regime he is serving. Yes, for intelligent human who is thinking about future its seems unlogical, why someone is willing to act in such way, lies sooner or later always reveals itself and they only delaying their end and making it more painful. But here comes "mysterious Russian soul", which can be described as "what after us we could not care less". By delaying the end of regime, he is serving, he continues the time at which he can grab his part of the pie, cause he knows when this regime falls and it will come law and order to Russia - he will be miserable and unwanted. Look at today's "leaders" of "DNR/LNR", when there was law and order on their lands - they was just some unskilled workers like carwashers. But when "russian world" came they become powerful men getting best food best woman best house. That is what Putin's regime built on. On scam stupid people who know they will not be able to achieve anything in their live in civilized world.

So you are just wasting time trying to convince him he is wrong. Cause he already know he is, and always knew it.

Its like drug dealer. He knows he is doing wrong thing, and knows its only matter of time until police get him. But he does not know how to live other way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Oleg I hate to say it, but that is an awfully arrogant attitude.  If he is Russian, clearly he is going to see things through a Russian lens, and have a different viewpoint.  If one of you were ripping on Canada, it would be very hard for me to be able to objectively criticize my country, and would likely just make me dig my heels in to justify myself, and my country, without really realizing it.  I would actually guess the truth is somewhere more in the middle of all these opinions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hattori said:

It would be very hard for me to be able to objectively criticize my country

Because Canada is great and civilized country, not lying to anyone, not annexing anyone territories. There is nothing you can objectively criticize Canada for.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I do not know the details about Russia's expectations for the Second Chechen War, but I am very confident it thought it would be over much sooner and decisively.  In the end Putin flipped Kadyrov and that, more than anything else combined, is why Russia regained theoretical control over Chechnya.  In reality Kadyrov controls Chechnya and, apparently, can even assassinate Russian politicians and not be held accountable to it.  Which means, in real terms, Russia did not reclaim Chechnya either militarily or politically.  Bribery did.

Kadyrov flipped or not there are obvious military achievements in the second Chechen campaign which led to the outcome. In fact, the second Chechen war started because someone invaded Dagestan. 

45 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

No, it was assumed Georgia would be crushed without embarrassing losses and causing the general staff to be very concerned about Russia's ability to fight effectively.  Those assumptions were so wrong that Russia implemented very large and costly reforms.

Of course we'd assumed a more smoother victory, considering 6 aircraft were lost in 5 days (this being the worst thing that happened in the campaign) other than that things played out good. The Georgian war showed Russia that old Soviet stuff needed to go, the Russian military has to be modernized, I mean let's be honest the Russian military was very junky in equipment until recently, and there are still some things that need to be improved. With the embarrassing issues it pointed out, it also showed the Russian military wasn't the 90s army it was. From the 58th army in total 19,000 troops went into Georgian proper, and fought against 17,000 Georgian troops, so it also showed Russia wasn't totally relying on numbers, well of course it could have deployed more troops from the 58th army if needed. 

53 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

It makes sense to someone who knows what he is talking about.  Sadly, you continue to show your ignorance and naivete.  Russia has a long history of creating "frozen conflicts" in order to control the domestic politics of a weaker neighboring state.  In the case of Donbas, however, Russia had hoped it would cause a catastrophic collapse of the "coup" government and crush the spirit of the Ukrainian people.  It did not.  In fact, it had the opposite effect.

What other frozen conflicts are we talking about? There is support in the people of DPR/LPR or else it wouldn't exist anymore, there are many factors that play into the support, for it. I personally wished that the DPR/LPR could have returned to Ukraine, but once the ATO kicked off and brutality of that operation happened, I lost my last bit of hope for the new government of Ukraine. I understand Russia has supported this proxy to stay intact, be it for geopolitical reasons or what say you, but to ethnic Russians and Ukrainians of Donbas, it is very justified.

There are wrongs with Russia supporting the proxy, but there are also wrongs with what happened in Kiev. I mean am I interpreting events wrong? That a very bloody riot kicked out a elected government, and installed a government without any say of the rest of the country, has pro-EU backing and anti-Russia written all over it. Russia is totally not an angel, but I'm getting quite sick of the Ukraine Godly hero versus evil Russia notions.

Russia has broken international law(Crimea, supporting Donbas regions), but is justified amongst Russians and Ukrainians who are close to Russia. The revolts in Kiev broke international law, but is justified amongst its supporters. It is as if there is an argument against everything, but Russia is the only one being grilled on. No one noticed the riots, when they were beating police ,killing them, molotovs and the such, yet they were cursing the police for returning fire. Both of these are wrong, that the people had to in this day and age, beat and kill police, and that the police had to open fire. But if you look into it, there are morals that justify one side more than the other. But your argument appears to be a narrow view, directly looking at bad things of Russia, without looking at what caused events like the annexation of Crimea, and the Donbas uprising. It is a very localized view IMO.

In Syria, the US and its allies, support rebels which the government calls terrorists. In your view Assad is a tyrant and it is justified arming the rebels against such a murderous regime, correct? Syria has no connection to America what so ever and the US is justified for that. Now let's look at Ukraine, a country where Russians and Ukrainians originate from, lived together since the beginning of its history, arguably the same people, but when similar events in Ukraine happens, and Russia justifies its support in a by far less bloody way than conflicts in Libya, and Syria. Russia is sanctioned, and people have to suffer. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, hattori said:

@Oleg I hate to say it, but that is an awfully arrogant attitude.  If he is Russian, clearly he is going to see things through a Russian lens, and have a different viewpoint.  If one of you were ripping on Canada, it would be very hard for me to be able to objectively criticize my country, and would likely just make me dig my heels in to justify myself, and my country, without really realizing it.  I would actually guess the truth is somewhere more in the middle of all these opinions.

I appreciate your view, and indeed the truth is in the middle of all these opinions.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Oleg said:

He's not naive. He's not misinformed.

"Denial" is a very powerful force to deal with.  Especially when the state has deliberately made sure that the public is misinformed.

1 hour ago, Oleg said:

So you are just wasting time trying to convince him he is wrong. Cause he already know he is, and always knew it.

I did get him to admit that Russian forces have been operating in Donbas and that the counter offensive of August/Sept 2014 involved regular Russian forces.  Sadly, he still tends to believe the same people that told him what he now knows to be outright lies.

1 hour ago, hattori said:

@Oleg I hate to say it, but that is an awfully arrogant attitude.  If he is Russian, clearly he is going to see things through a Russian lens, and have a different viewpoint.  If one of you were ripping on Canada, it would be very hard for me to be able to objectively criticize my country, and would likely just make me dig my heels in to justify myself, and my country, without really realizing it.  I would actually guess the truth is somewhere more in the middle of all these opinions.

This is also awfully arrogant.  Sometimes the best and loudest critics of a country's policies are people who are citizens of the country.  I could bore you to tears with criticism about my own country (USA), not because I hate my country or have been duped by a foreign power to believe lies, but because I'm very engaged in what goes on.  So the notion that a citizen of a country can not think critically about his own country is false. 

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Kadyrov flipped or not there are obvious military achievements in the second Chechen campaign which led to the outcome. In fact, the second Chechen war started because someone invaded Dagestan. 

Again, this conversation got started about "assumptions".  I very much doubt that Russia assumed it started the second Chechen War with the idea that it was not going to be able to complete it without bribing Kadyrov or having to be satisfied with a parallel dictatorship which takes Russian taxpayer's money and yet doesn't feel it has to listen to Moscow.

So again, Russia went into the Second Chechen War with some bad assumptions that it would be militarily and politically successful.  It failed in both regards.  The outcome is not important, the path to it is what we're talking about.

46 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Of course we'd assumed a more smoother victory, considering 6 aircraft were lost in 5 days (this being the worst thing that happened in the campaign) other than that things played out good. The Georgian war showed Russia that old Soviet stuff needed to go, the Russian military has to be modernized, I mean let's be honest the Russian military was very junky in equipment until recently, and there are still some things that need to be improved. With the embarrassing issues it pointed out, it also showed the Russian military wasn't the 90s army it was. From the 58th army in total 19,000 troops went into Georgian proper, and fought against 17,000 Georgian troops, so it also showed Russia wasn't totally relying on numbers, well of course it could have deployed more troops from the 58th army if needed. 

Again, we're talking about assumptions.  The assumption made by Russia was that it could crush Georgia without embarrassing problems.  That assumption was obviously wrong.  The outcome, which was a total victory for Russia, is not the issue here.

46 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

What other frozen conflicts are we talking about?

Transnistria

Abkhazia

South Osettia

Nagorno Karabakh

Those are the most infamous ones.  There are others.  Here's a short Wiki article on it and a much deeper analysis from one of the best journals on foreign policy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frozen_conflict#In_post-Soviet_territories

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/13/putins-frozen-conflicts/

46 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

There is support in the people of DPR/LPR or else it wouldn't exist anymore, there are many factors that play into the support, for it. I personally wished that the DPR/LPR could have returned to Ukraine, but once the ATO kicked off and brutality of that operation happened, I lost my last bit of hope for the new government of Ukraine. I understand Russia has supported this proxy to stay intact, be it for geopolitical reasons or what say you, but to ethnic Russians and Ukrainians of Donbas, it is very justified.

I've been over this with you many times.  The only reason this turned into an armed conflict is because Russia couldn't get the sort of social unrest it wanted with the busloads of "tourists" that beat up pro-Ukrainian demonstrations.  Girkin and his men entered from Russia with Russian government support and started the armed "uprising".  After that thousands of Russian nationals, in particular Chechens and Cossacks, flooded into Ukraine with Russia's direct support.  Weapons, tanks, anti-aircraft weapons, etc. came with them.

This was never a civil war.  It was always a war of aggression by your country in your name against people who used to think of Russians as brothers.  All the destruction and death in Ukraine, including the roughly 2000 dead Russian citizens, is on Putin's hands... not those who were Maidan.

Local collaborators are found in every armed conflict.  The very small percentage of the Donbas population that has actively fought against Ukraine is no exception.

46 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

There are wrongs with Russia supporting the proxy, but there are also wrongs with what happened in Kiev. I mean am I interpreting events wrong? That a very bloody riot kicked out a elected government, and installed a government without any say of the rest of the country, has pro-EU backing and anti-Russia written all over it. Russia is totally not an angel, but I'm getting quite sick of the Ukraine Godly hero versus evil Russia notions.

So, what would you do if Ukraine tried to control what happened in Russia?  What would you do if they bought your government and extracted Russian resources and labor for Ukraine's sole benefit?  Would you think that was OK or would you protest?  And if your protests were cracked down on by armed police who killed 100 protestors, would you think your government was justified or would you want it changed?

You don't get it.  The Yanukovych regime was corrupt and authoritarian.  Ukrainians have a right to decide for themselves if this is acceptable or not.  Russia should not have a say in it.  Therefore, under no circumstances is Russia's stealing of territory and laying waste a whole region, displacing millions and killing thousands, justified.

46 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Russia has broken international law(Crimea, supporting Donbas regions), but is justified amongst Russians and Ukrainians who are close to Russia. The revolts in Kiev broke international law, but is justified amongst its supporters.

Protestors did not break international law.  I'm not even sure how much of Ukrainian law they broken until the very end when Yanukovych surrendered to Russian demands for bloodshed to end the protests.

46 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

It is as if there is an argument against everything, but Russia is the only one being grilled on.

Since Russia is waging war on Ukraine, not the other way around, why should anybody else be blamed?

46 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

No one noticed the riots, when they were beating police ,killing them, molotovs and the such, yet they were cursing the police for returning fire. Both of these are wrong, that the people had to in this day and age, beat and kill police, and that the police had to open fire. But if you look into it, there are morals that justify one side more than the other. But your argument appears to be a narrow view, directly looking at bad things of Russia, without looking at what caused events like the annexation of Crimea, and the Donbas uprising. It is a very localized view IMO.

I watched the events of Maidan very closely.  After all, I was writing a "fictional" story about Russian using protests as an excuse to invade Ukraine and take Crimea and cause war in the east.  It's just that Putin moved things along faster than we could complete the game.

46 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

In Syria, the US and its allies, support rebels which the government calls terrorists. In your view Assad is a tyrant and it is justified arming the rebels against such a murderous regime, correct?

Assad is a dictator and he has murdered hundreds of thousands of civilians, given ISIS a reason to exist, and shows no concern for the suffering he is causing.  So yes, you have that right.

46 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Syria has no connection to America what so ever and the US is justified for that.

Other than the fact that ISIS is operating in Iraq, a country that thousands of Americans died to liberate and rebuild (no matter how ineffectively)?  Other than the world political crisis it has caused?  Other than the instability and stress it has caused America's long term allies in Europe?  Other than it keeps the ISIS recruiting drive going and spreading terror around the world?  Other than American being looked to by the world as it's "policeman"?  Other than that, you're right... the US has no interest in Syria becoming peaceful.

46 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Now let's look at Ukraine, a country where Russians and Ukrainians originate from, lived together since the beginning of its history, arguably the same people, but when similar events in Ukraine happens, and Russia justifies its support in a by far less bloody way than conflicts in Libya, and Syria. Russia is sanctioned, and people have to suffer. 

So why is Russia murdering Ukrainians and occupying their land every single day?  Because Ukraine doesn't want to be dominated by Russia and Russia isn't happy about it.  It doesn't matter how bloody or not bloody it is.  Russia is responsible for the war in Ukraine and therefore when assigning blame one should look to the only nation that is causing this war to happen.

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know whether any of you saw this, but little over an hour ago BBC News reported the Ukrainian military forces had been put on high alert by President Poroshenko and that tensions between Ukraine and Russia were running high. The US is trying to talk down both sides. If things go pear-shaped, we may find ourselves learning altogether too much about Russian military combat operations against Ukraine! Putative cause is the Russia claimed discovery of Ukrainian sabotage ops in Crimea, which Ukraine calls "nonsense."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37049313

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oleg said he was "lying on purpose", and that the only reason he was defending Russia is because basically so he can "grab his part of the pie" and that he will be "miserable and unwanted" if the regime falls.

I think a comment like that about a poster is totally out of line.  Some Russians are going to have a totally different viewpoint on things because of the society they came up in.  It doesn't make them a "liar".  I fail to see how it is helpful to the conversation, and am surprised I was the one to say something, not a mod.  While I disagree with a lot of Vlad's points, I also appreciate hearing a pro-Russian viewpoint.  It is not unlike listening a staunchly pro American from the south.

I do not approve of Russia's actions in the least,  but I can't exactly claim innocence considering how much America (and Canada as their tight allies) have meddled in other countries affairs, and doled out our own regime change when the local ruler didn't suit our needs.  It has worked out relatively well for us, but we are not innocent.

I also wouldn't frame Iraq as the country "thousands of Americans died to liberate and rebuild".  First, promotion of democracy is NOT the reason America invaded Iraq, that's ridiculous -- if that were the case, why aren't they invading every non democratic country that has dictators that abuse their subjects.  Second, America completely broke it, they better rebuild it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, hattori said:

I also appreciate hearing a pro-Russian viewpoint

There is no pro-Russian or pro-Ukrainian. There is only truth, facts. And calling truth and facts to be pro-someone is hilarious.

Edited by Oleg
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Oleg said:

There is no pro-Russian or pro-Ukrainian. There is only truth, facts. And calling truth and facts to be pro-someone is hilarious.

The absolute truth is featured daily on TV shows, fair & balanced, sanctioned by the Gods ;-)

In reality not everyone's truth gets updated as fast as others, while some have viruses infecting their version of the truth. May it be from a lack of intelligence, critical thinking, education, upbringing or abundance of propaganda exposure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am loath to get involved in this, but I agree with hattori here that Vladimir doesn't deserve such a hateful response.  I don't always agree with what he says, but he always has interesting things to say, especially when debating with the prescient Steve! He's completely right that the truth perhaps lies somewhere in the middle.  But that's also off topic...

@John, that is interesting news indeed.  Regardless of what the Russian media is saying, an attack on Crimea is Ukrainian suicide both politically and militarily.  We know from Manstein's recount that the terrain in Crimea is absolute hell to attack, and it's just a further escalation of the conflict that no one wants.  Steve may be right that the Russian army may have trouble in full-scale offensive operations in Ukraine, but there is no doubt in my mind that the Russian forces in place can defend what they have.  My bet is on one of two things: an exercise, or the much less likely preparation to put pressure on the DNR/LNR.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I guess from my end it gets old because at the end of the day when discussing this with people in Russia:

1. All Russia's military problems are fixed.

2. Everything is going according to plan.

3. The last time the previous two statements were incorrect does not apply here for reasons.

4. Russia is a net positive actor in the international community despite being increasingly a pariah.

Occasionally you'll make some progress, someone will own up to portions of what actually happened in the Ukraine, but it all snaps right back to the State is never wrong, Putin is swell, there's no problems etc, etc, etc.

It's frankly boring and often dishonest.  And it's why negative perceptions of Russia have such legs, there's rarely a positive but honest perspective, I mean maybe it is a net positive that parts of Ukraine is occupied and Syrian hospitals are cluster bombed.  But there's never that discussion of a real and multi-faceted event that we can debate, it's simply this silly perfect mock up of a world that doesn't exist outside of the knock off Jeremy Clarkson breathlessly telling us how THIS Russian weapon is superior and will save all, or another supremely silly RT presenter describing Texas being on the verge of total and absolute revolt.

Which again just keeps the conversation to generally negative, with a wide spectrum ranging from the somewhat realistic, to the wildest "Putin literally is Hitler!" insanity on the Russian-skeptic front, to a narrow state approved set of talking points that insists there are still no Russian Soldiers in the Ukraine, and we've always been at war with Eastasia in the Russian corner.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Kadyrov flipped or not there are obvious military achievements in the second Chechen campaign which led to the outcome. In fact, the second Chechen war started because someone invaded Dagestan. 

Of course we'd assumed a more smoother victory, considering 6 aircraft were lost in 5 days (this being the worst thing that happened in the campaign) other than that things played out good. The Georgian war showed Russia that old Soviet stuff needed to go, the Russian military has to be modernized, I mean let's be honest the Russian military was very junky in equipment until recently, and there are still some things that need to be improved. With the embarrassing issues it pointed out, it also showed the Russian military wasn't the 90s army it was. From the 58th army in total 19,000 troops went into Georgian proper, and fought against 17,000 Georgian troops, so it also showed Russia wasn't totally relying on numbers, well of course it could have deployed more troops from the 58th army if needed. 

What other frozen conflicts are we talking about? There is support in the people of DPR/LPR or else it wouldn't exist anymore, there are many factors that play into the support, for it. I personally wished that the DPR/LPR could have returned to Ukraine, but once the ATO kicked off and brutality of that operation happened, I lost my last bit of hope for the new government of Ukraine. I understand Russia has supported this proxy to stay intact, be it for geopolitical reasons or what say you, but to ethnic Russians and Ukrainians of Donbas, it is very justified.

There are wrongs with Russia supporting the proxy, but there are also wrongs with what happened in Kiev. I mean am I interpreting events wrong? That a very bloody riot kicked out a elected government, and installed a government without any say of the rest of the country, has pro-EU backing and anti-Russia written all over it. Russia is totally not an angel, but I'm getting quite sick of the Ukraine Godly hero versus evil Russia notions.

Russia has broken international law(Crimea, supporting Donbas regions), but is justified amongst Russians and Ukrainians who are close to Russia. The revolts in Kiev broke international law, but is justified amongst its supporters. It is as if there is an argument against everything, but Russia is the only one being grilled on. No one noticed the riots, when they were beating police ,killing them, molotovs and the such, yet they were cursing the police for returning fire. Both of these are wrong, that the people had to in this day and age, beat and kill police, and that the police had to open fire. But if you look into it, there are morals that justify one side more than the other. But your argument appears to be a narrow view, directly looking at bad things of Russia, without looking at what caused events like the annexation of Crimea, and the Donbas uprising. It is a very localized view IMO.

In Syria, the US and its allies, support rebels which the government calls terrorists. In your view Assad is a tyrant and it is justified arming the rebels against such a murderous regime, correct? Syria has no connection to America what so ever and the US is justified for that. Now let's look at Ukraine, a country where Russians and Ukrainians originate from, lived together since the beginning of its history, arguably the same people, but when similar events in Ukraine happens, and Russia justifies its support in a by far less bloody way than conflicts in Libya, and Syria. Russia is sanctioned, and people have to suffer. 

 

Ah now. This is a rabbit hole of comparisons. 

We shoukd really refocus back into military capabilities,  not political he said-she said said....

And comparing you with a drug dealer don't help either...  

Edited by kinophile
Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this video of Putin speaking to a group of what I believe to be journalists at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, 2016. Whether what he says is wholly true or not, I believe it speaks volumes as to how Putin and his senior officers perceive the strategic situation, which in turn reflects down to our discussion. In a nutshell, he's claiming that the BMD in Romania, on AEGIS ships and going into Poland is nothing less than a fully integrated system intended not to defeat a nonexistent Iranian threat, but is designed to neuter the Russian strategic nuclear forces and also use other missiles to attack Russia. Being familiar with a whole series of snapshots over time of Russian perceptions of its military plight, I find what he says to be entirely consonant with them. Further, it is very much in keeping with what Russia had to say regarding the military potentials of NASP (National Aerospace Plane), a program with which I was intimately involved at the highest clearance for it. He really starts getting into it starting at ~4:00. In my former career, the kinds of things that he's saying fall under the rubric of declaratory policy.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...