Russian army under equipped?

[John Kettler]

On a perhaps cheerier note, in the sidebar for the above video I found this very 7 minute video on the VDV. I found it of particular interest because of footage of early drop tests for BMDs before brass hats including, I believe Leonid Brezhnev. They dropped it crewed! The happily unhurt men were swarmed over by the blown away dignitaries. The video has some phenomenal footage of BMD-2s doing all manner of things, often at quite a clip. The wee beastie can turn on a dime, too. I have discovered that it can do the same rising on its suspension trick the BMD-1 can d. I also discovered a rather disturbing psychological warfare capability in river crossings and such. When the BMD-2 is using its water jet propulsion, it sounds like loads of really annoyed bees! There were only three I saw doing this in one segment, and the sound was loud and most disconcerting.

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited August 12, 2016 by John Kettler

[Battlefront.com]

6 hours ago, hattori said:

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 agree.  There is a big difference between repeating a lie that you believe is true and repeating a lie that you know is a lie.  I have always had the impression that Vladimir believes what he says is true, even if to those outside of Russia it's pretty clearly a lie.  The fact that he is wrong doesn't make him a liar even if he should know better.  What it makes him is uniformed and naive, as I said a couple of posts ago.  And I mean this in the literal definitions, not as a slight on his person.  Good people can be uniformed and naive.

Quote

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.

Doesn't matter.  Wrong is wrong.  I criticize my country when it does wrong and through my criticism hope to see better behavior in the future.  Overall it works, because each generation of American leadership has been better than the one before in terms of egregious and counter productive acts against other nations.  Still a million miles away from the ideal way to work with the world, but still light years ahead of other countries.  Sadly, Vladimir (and most Russians) are more concerned with their own survival and not inclined to question things.  Which is why things in Russia continue to get worse rather than better.

Quote

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.

You missed the point.  America has a huge investment in blood, treasure, and political capital in Iraq.  Iraq was invaded by forces based in Syria.  America is now forced into helping Iraq repel those forces even though America wants out of the region.  WHY America got itself into this position is irrelevant when considering the question about whether America has interests in what happens in Syria.  Vladimir says it does not, but clearly ist does.

BTW, America didn't break Iraq.  It has been broken for a very long time and it will be broken for a long time to come.  The Iraqis have to want things to be better first, and there's very little sign of that.  Plus, if America has an obligation to fix Iraq then that's a very, very strong argument that it should invade Syria.  Because until Syria is pacified of ISIS and Assad there can be no peace in Iraq.

4 hours ago, HerrTom said:

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 think it was called for either.  But then again, I'm not the one with Vladimir's countrymen on my soil waging a war of aggression and lying about it every single day.  I have to cut Oleg some slack for his anger at people who are, at a minimum, repeating the lies of confirmed liars.  And Putin is, among other things, a confirmed liar of the first order.   Even Vladimir knows this to be true.

Quote

@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.

Let's try and steer clear of the current events going on right now.  We don't know very much and what we do know appears to be false information.  The "attack" seems to be a means for Putin to back out of Minsk and get EU sanctions lifted, not as a pretext for invading Ukraine.  As we've been discussing in this thread, a full out attack on Ukraine is almost certainly going to land Russia worse off in the end than in the beginning.  Therefore, I don't think Putin will do something that stupid.

Then again... I've said that at many points in this war, yet Putin has continued to chose the dumbest of options more often than I can count.

We'll know what's going on better this time next week at the latest.

Steve

[Oleg]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

There is a big difference between repeating a lie that you believe is true and repeating a lie that you know is a lie.  I have always had the impression that Vladimir believes what he says is true

Lets go back to the WW2 for a second. Did it matter for Allies, what german people had believed is true, when allied bombers bombed german cities? Did Allies bothered with "oh someone down there in that cities may just be naive and misinformed". No they did not. They bombed german cities because it does not matter what germans believed and what they said, it only mattered what they did and what they did not. And germans, every single one of them, regardless of if they actually believed what they was saying, was responsible with their action or absence of action (for ex. not revolting against Hitler) for Hitler being at power. 

And if you would say that putting similarities betwin Putin's Russia and Hitler's Germany is too much. I will say you wrong, cause its too much similar facts, starting from Putin's: "we must use military to defend russian speaking people in neighbor country". Hitler did exactly the same in 1938 "we must use military to defend german speaking people in neighbor country"

Edited August 12, 2016 by Oleg

[Kinophile]

Godwin's law didn't take very long. 

Please let's NOT go back to WW2. There's, literally, entire forums within this site for that era. 

Here's an out-there sub scenario -  Russo-Turkish rapprochement develops into an informal but effective alliance...

This manifests itself in Turkey refusing/delaying to allow NATO warships passage through the Bosporus unless on a highly defined/restrictive NATO mission (through supposed neutrality). This helps cover Russia's southern flank, allowing it's BSF to concentrate on land strikes and force support. There's still the over land,  continental flank but keeping the Black Sea clear is a big help. 

 

Edited August 12, 2016 by kinophile

[VladimirTarasov]

12 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Transnistria

Abkhazia

South Osettia

Nagorno Karabakh

Frozen conflicts: If you think those conflicts are Russian made, then you have no clue about the history of them. Ossettians and Abkhazians can tell you about why they fought Georgia. You'll notice ethnic hatred between these countries, Russia is just acting out of interest to protect and complete its goals in the region. There is nothing frozen about South Osettia, Abkhazia. Nagorno Karabakh is obviously a feud between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and Russia the peace keeper of this region. Transnistria's conflict was a total mess, going into that one will be a long discussion.

12 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

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.

The only "evidence" I've seen for this... Wait there is no evidence that Russia shipped in busloads of people... I've seen Vice try to touch up on it, the most they've got was "they didn't show us their passports" this is a complete joke. Donbas region has always been "pro-Russian" I'm telling you I've been there and have family living in Kirovsky district in Donetsk. People are UNHAPPY of what happened in Kiev, the ATO didn't help the support for Kiev's government either. But you keep on going on as if Kiev was justified because the evil pro-Russian government was corrupt! Belarus should also revolt against Lukashenko for being a corrupt pro-Russian dictator by your standards, and it won't be breaking international law. Because the people decide! yet when in Crimea, people decided to join the Russian Federation, they are wrong. This is very double standard.

12 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

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.

Cossacks of the region did join the cause, and Chechens arrived after some time as well. You're correct. But this is only a small detail of this conflict, in Syria rebels are getting manpower from Turks, Saudis, ect, ect. And the US and allies supports these groups with advanced weaponry, against the "tyrant" Assad. So it is only natural for Russians and close ethnicities to go into support rebels in Donbas.

13 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

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.

Ukrainians and Russians are still brothers, no matter how much conflict separates us. 

13 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

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?

Steve, Russia and Ukraine benefitted from each other, Ukraine was apart of Russia essentially until the USSR, we together built very important infrastructure in their regions, that benefitted both of us. I don't see any differences between Russians and Ukrainians, I am of Ukrainian descent, but I identify myself as Russian. Is Ukraine doing better than Russia without us now? No. Were they going to do better with the Russian deal? Yes. 

The protests however, I'd support the protests in Kiev, if they didnt start off with rocks being smashed into the Berkut forces' helmets. Everyone has the right to protest, I'd volunteer with the government to help in any way to make sure nothing happens to the protest, but this protest started off very violent, you know that as well. 

13 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

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.

Quote

Syria is definitely a civil war, there are Syrians on both sides fighting each other. The Syrian government has had corruption, how ever Assad has not done anything murderous on his own will. There are plenty of Syrians, who are sided with the government that you can speak too. The Syrian government indeed has committed crimes, accidentally or non-accidentally. But the countless "moderate" groups are not far off, and in some cases have committed far worse crimes. In Aleppo, the rebels launched a counter-offensive, together with Al-Nusra and Al-qaeda groups. These groups are terrorists, yet the US still supports them. And please do not act like Assad made ISIS... That is totally incorrect. It is very obvious what caused ISIS to form. But that's a topic for another forum. 

13 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

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.

Thousands of Americans died in Iraq may they rest in peace, but I'm more capable of researching the problems that the US and its allies caused to Iraq with its wars there. Saddam was not a good guy, obviously. But the US and its coalition's campaign there has decimated civilians... More so than Russia did to Chechnya in the first and second Chechen wars. And the war in Iraq, and this new thing called Arab spring is what caused ISIS to form. Not what Assad has done, Assad is simply another leader (be it bad or good) in the arab countries facing a Libya style scenario. But of course Assad is no angel, he has done wrong things, and this is why there are quite a few Syrians fighting against him, even if they are in terrorist groups.

13 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

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.

Why did Ukrainians murder their own peoples!  Why did Ukrainians cause panic and havoc in the country? Russia is just securing its goals, and protecting Russians and Ukrainians in its sphere of influence. It is impossible to think that in a developed nation, say like the UK, a violent riot over throws the government and installs one forcefully just because they left the EU. I understand Russia is not as innocent as it makes itself out to be in this conflict, but I also don't understand how you are able to support what happened in Kiev, and all the little details that played into it. For God's sake senator Mccain was together with the far right group "Svoboda" supporting the riots. Obviously this shows other countries not only Russia was meddling in Ukraine. These same far right groups, destroy statues of Lenin, Soviet heroes, and so on. There is countless of videos showing these same far right groups causing havoc against veterans of world war 2! It is a shame! It would bring rage into me, if these groups were to shame my grandfather who fought in the Ukrainian front against Fascists. 

By the way if you'd like me to stop this discussion please go ahead and tell me, it is your forum. I'm just discussing, even if it is off topic, I mean no harm. 

[VladimirTarasov]

5 hours ago, Oleg said:

Lets go back to the WW2 for a second. Did it matter for Allies, what german people had believed is true, when allied bombers bombed german cities? Did Allies bothered with "oh someone down there in that cities may just be naive and misinformed". No they did not. They bombed german cities because it does not matter what germans believed and what they said, it only mattered what they did and what they did not. And germans, every single one of them, regardless of if they actually believed what they was saying, was responsible with their action or absence of action (for ex. not revolting against Hitler) for Hitler being at power. 

And if you would say that putting similarities betwin Putin's Russia and Hitler's Germany is too much. I will say you wrong, cause its too much similar facts, starting from Putin's: "we must use military to defend russian speaking people in neighbor country". Hitler did exactly the same in 1938 "we must use military to defend german speaking people in neighbor country"

Oleg.... Stop shaming our history by comparing Russia to Nazi Germany, was it not our grandfathers who fought against Fascists together? I'd expect better from a Ukrainian. 

[Lethaface]

Just now, VladimirTarasov said:

This is very double standard.

Vladimir I think you are right that 'The West' does often apply double standards, mainly when it comes to Arabs/Muslims and Russians. This is unfortunately not very surprising when one knows of the concept of 'cognitive dissonance'. Because most people in the West are highly convinced how good the West is, anything or anyone that is different or thinks different of us, must be clearly very wrong. We argue and reason from a believe of superiority, because we think we know better and also know what's better for others and are more qualified to know than they are themselves. I personally have become to loathe this aspect of my society, maybe to a point where I'm sometimes a bit too cynical for my own good.

Anyway, the same goes for Russians and Arabs. A significant part of Arabs think that the CIA/USA are behind virtually every wrongdoing in the world and especially in the Middle East, while many Russians claim that Americans are actually behind the war in the Ukraine (etc etc). 

I myself have also been a victim of cognitive dissonance, for example when it comes to the racist tradition we have in Holland around 'Black Peet', the servants of 'Sinterklaas' (the 'forefather' of Santa). Because I have enjoyed the Sinterklaas festivities as a kid and I never connected it with racism, I thought of it as a rather innocent tradition. Being quite the anti-racist it was difficult to see the racist aspect of the festivities I innocently enjoyed as a child.

In my opinion it is also cognitive dissonance the way how you explain the military aggressive conduct of your country away as 'justified'. That doesn't mean I think you should stop discussing. I actually think you are contributing to the discussion in no small matter because you are willing to argument your point of view and stay polite, which is the basis for any interesting discussions. Steve is (in my opinion) a trained critical thinker with a lot of knowledge about military (history) who is well informed and has thought about and discussed subjects like the Ukraine and Syria a lot. It's not shameful to come to new insights and or paradigm shifts from discussions with Steve and the other well informed posters on this forum! ;-)   Of course no one is perfect, so we all might be wrong about certain aspects of our believes of reality.

What I'd be interested to hear from you is what you think of this whole situation when you imagine you were a Ukrainian citizen from Kiev. Would you accept your neighbor doing a hostile takeover of a room in your house you have neglected to care for? Even if it used to be his house before, I'd bet you still wouldn't accept him coming into your house uninvited. Most people in the neighborhood will also frown upon that neighbor, even if they themselves in the past have broken others people houses.

This is in my opinion the current situation regarding Ukraine. Russia has been caught redhanded inside Ukraine's house while it is trying to hold up a mask and telling everyone "I'm not actually here". What should the EU and USA do? Pretend that nothing happened? They might have been coveting usage of the house themselves, but that is irrelevant now.

Returning to the military aspect: the current events regarding the build up of forces show that large scale surprise is not possible. I would therefore argue that any large scale offensive, from either parties, is factually an offensive against a well prepared and competent opponent. Russia's supremacy in certain areas like Air, EW and artillery won't mean as much when encountering a well prepared defense. Russia's abilities are no secret so Ukraine has had quite some time to plan ahead for such an event.

I'd think that even a limited offensive in the Donbass will cause Russia a lot of casualties and further international sanctioning that it is in fact political suicide for Putin to do so. On the military aspect they could very well achieve a victory, but at what cost? I'd imagine that a limited Russian offensive in the Donbass would be subject to very heavy Ukrainian shelling which has potential for heavy casualties among the attackers, especially in areas were the offensive doesn't achieve a breakthrough directly.

So basically I agree with Steve's views on the subject, which he has well argued imo.

Edited August 12, 2016 by Lethaface

[Peter Cairns]

Two interesting BBC stories;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37049313

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37058751

It takes something major to cause a split between two such close allies, like maybe the wisdom of widening an already un-winnable war!

and of course the story of responding of "Incursions" with a convenient 40k force, well we've never heard that one before have we!!!!!

Late summer in the Caucasus is a good time to move as by Autumn with Winter to follow is a hard time to take back ground.

Just saying.

[VladimirTarasov]

54 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

Vladimir I think you are right that 'The West' does often apply double standards

Everyone can do double standards, however there are many things that is ignored in this conflict, and pressed upon Russia. 

56 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

I actually think you are contributing to the discussion in no small matter because you are willing to argument your point of view and stay polite

Politics aside I'm sure anyone can get along, politeness is great for discussions.

58 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

What I'd be interested to hear from you is what you think of this whole situation when you imagine you were a Ukrainian citizen from Kiev.

I would be on the side with my government, I wouldn't dare protest violently against my government just because it ignored the EU dream... That is not right, and it ruined the country for people who didn't get a say. 

1 hour ago, Lethaface said:

Would you accept your neighbor doing a hostile takeover of a room in your house you have neglected to care for? Even if it used to be his house before, I'd bet you still wouldn't accept him coming into your house uninvited.

Of course I wouldn't accept it, but we're talking about Ukraine, where there are ethnic Russians in places like Crimea, and Donbas that did not get a say when their government was thrown out. Just like most people in Crimea, I'd vote to leave the nation which was taken away from me without my choice. 

1 hour ago, Lethaface said:

Most people in the neighborhood will also frown upon that neighbor, even if they themselves in the past have broken others people houses.

Of course they will. What I'm trying to say friend is, there is many evidence that point out EU and US support of the revolts in Kiev. I'm speaking strictly geopolitically; Russia lost its whole interests, and influence in the country. So Russia acted defensively, breaking international of course I understand that part, but it is supported by Russians and Ukrainians who are close to Russia, the same way toppling the government in Kiev was supported by Ukrainians. Imagine this, you are happy with the government you are currently living under same as a large percentage of people. But another percentage of people violently over throw your leader without your say in the event. This is more than enough for Russians to revolt against such actions, and vote to leave to their original country. 

1 hour ago, Lethaface said:

Returning to the military aspect: the current events regarding the build up of forces show that large scale surprise is not possible. I would therefore argue that any large scale offensive, from either parties, is factually an offensive against a well prepared and competent opponent. Russia's supremacy in certain areas like Air, EW and artillery won't mean as much when encountering a well prepared defense. Russia's abilities are no secret so Ukraine has had quite some time to plan ahead for such an event.

We can draw from events in Ukraine that happened that show how important artillery is, I forgot where it was exactly, but a Ukrainian battalion was destroyed from artillery strikes within minutes, MLRS strike killed them. But anyways we can't argue without a scenario, with specifics down to the defense structure. Generally, we can assume a Russian unit on average will be better than a Ukrainian unit. And I can provide lists of units that can be deployed to Ukraine, down to the equipment they have if you or anyone likes. And

1 hour ago, Lethaface said:

I'd think that even a limited offensive in the Donbass will cause Russia a lot of casualties and further international sanctioning that it is in fact political suicide for Putin to do so.

Sanctions won't allow Russia to go into Ukraine you're correct. Unless Ukraine does something like what they did in Crimea just recently, with the saboteurs they sent in. And the recent threats that they made about taking back Crimea. This doesn't look too good, and if Ukraine somehow messes up and causes a Russian reaction, I think it is very possible for a limited offensive. And I'm quite angry that two Russian servicemen have been killed by this incident.

[kraze]

I guess Ukraine took some lessons from that goddamn warmongering Poland clearly outnumbering Germany 10 to 1 sending in saboteurs to attack those peaceful Germans back in '39, how dare they? I got proof right here:

 

See it?

 

3 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Frozen conflicts: If you think those conflicts are Russian made, then you have no clue about the history of them. Ossettians and Abkhazians can tell you about why they fought Georgia. You'll notice ethnic hatred between these countries, Russia is just acting out of interest to protect and complete its goals in the region. There is nothing frozen about South Osettia, Abkhazia. Nagorno Karabakh is obviously a feud between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and Russia the peace keeper of this region. Transnistria's conflict was a total mess, going into that one will be a long discussion.

Yes it's just a pure coincidence that there's this peaceful country, then when a conflict breaks out russian peacekeepers are suddenly there. At the exact same time the conflict begins. Every time for the past 25 years.

Of course none of those are russian made. I mean why would anyone even think that? Geez!

Edited August 12, 2016 by kraze

[VladimirTarasov]

2 minutes ago, kraze said:

Yes it's just a pure coincidence that there's this peaceful country, then when a conflict breaks out russian peacekeepers are suddenly there. At the exact same time the conflict begins. Every time for the past 25 years.

Of course none of those are russian made. I mean why would anyone even think that? Geez!

That's not a valid argument considering the fact that the nations who are presumably "Russia's conflicts" have fought each other strictly for their own gains and not for Russia's. It is very silly to even say that, it's as if we are blamed for all of our neighbor's problems, that we come in to settle. Nagorno Karabakh for example, Armenians and Azeris slaughtered each other... Who settled the war? Russia. Ethnic wars of Georgians, Abkhazians, and South Osettians. Who settled it? Russia. Just because Russia is stabilizing wars, be it for political gains, or what say you, Russia has brought stability to the region. These conflicts reach back to hundreds of years... There is ethnic hate in the Caucus. But I'm sure you wouldn't know much about those conflicts. You're assuming because Russian peacekeepers are deployed, Russia started the conflict. How about Yugoslaviya? NATO peace keepers were deployed did NATO start the conflict? That is a laughable accusation...

[kraze]

But how about this, I know it's insane right, but WHAT IF Russia begins the conflict to push its agenda onto a given country, then when it gets what it needs it "stabilizes" the conflict. But keeps its "peacekeepers", who for some reason are there exactly at the same moment the conflict begins and whom nobody ever invited, right there just in case a certain country suddenly will do something too independent.

(All while every single russian TV channel spews pure hatred against a country Russia is "keeping the peace" in)

No it can't be!

Edited August 12, 2016 by kraze

[Battlefront.com]

9 hours ago, Oleg said:

Lets go back to the WW2 for a second. Did it matter for Allies, what german people had believed is true, when allied bombers bombed german cities?

You missed my point.  Vladimir is saying things that are untrue, for sure.  Being in support of those untrue positions is not good for the world, for sure.  It's not even good for the Russian people!  However, this does not mean he is "lying".  For him to be a liar he has to know what he says is untrue.  I believe he really does believe what he says, therefore he is not a liar even if he appears to have the intellectual capacity to know that he is repeating lies.

3 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Oleg.... Stop shaming our history by comparing Russia to Nazi Germany, was it not our grandfathers who fought against Fascists together? I'd expect better from a Ukrainian. 

Your grandfathers did fight against Fascism, but they also fought for a murderous, expansionist empire building regime which (by some measures) created more misery than Nazi Germany and only a slightly smaller pile of bodies.   One thing Putin is honest about is his love of the Soviet Union and his obvious attempts to recreate it.  The system of government that Putin has imposed on the Russian people is, not surprisingly, reflecting these goals.  In fact, Putin's form of autocracy is more closely designed after the Nazi model than the Soviet one, but when one really looks at the details there isn't much difference between far right and far left autocracies.  In the end the masses are denied basic freedoms so that a few people can maintain their positions of power/wealth.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Argh... I got sucked into this again   I've gone through my original thought by thought response and cut it back to stuff that is more relevant to the military aspects of this thread.

4 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Frozen conflicts: If you think those conflicts are Russian made, then you have no clue about the history of them.

Oh, I have more than a clue.  In fact, once again I am demonstrating that I know more about your country's history and current policies than you do.  These problems you are total ignorant of were part of a very clever and very deliberate long term strategy started by Imperial Russia, raised to an art form by Soviet Russia, and now continued on by Russian Federation.  It is, in a nutshell, a "divide and conquer" strategy to control internal and external populations, politics, and economics to Moscow's advantage.  It works pretty well, therefore it's not surprising that both Yeltsin and Putin have continued the practices.

Read that Foreign Policy article I linked to before trying to challenge me any further.  You are out of your depth here and you need to at least read something that wasn't put forward by the Russian state.

Quote

The only "evidence" I've seen for this... Wait there is no evidence that Russia shipped in busloads of people... I've seen Vice try to touch up on it, the most they've got was "they didn't show us their passports" this is a complete joke.

Again, you are ignorant of the facts.  Russian busloads of "tourists" were so bad that Ukraine closed the border to buses at one point.  The documentation of Russian nationals beating and, a few times, killing pro-Ukrainians is pretty thorough.  I spent at least 1/2 of my day every day watching these events unfold.  I know what I am talking about, you once again show that you do not.

I'll take this time to remind you, and everyone else here, that we had already had this component in our Black Sea backstory several years before it happened.  Why?  Because this is what Russia does to create a Frozen Conflict.  Therefore, when the Russian nationalists started showing up and beating up Ukrainian nationalists it was not a surprise.  It was expected because that's a part of Russia's long standing "playbook".  For those who are unaware of Russia's past, as Vladimir clearly is, it's understandable that he didn't notice this when it was happening and denies it happened after the fact.

Quote

Donbas region has always been "pro-Russian" I'm telling you I've been there and have family living in Kirovsky district in Donetsk. People are UNHAPPY of what happened in Kiev, the ATO didn't help the support for Kiev's government either. But you keep on going on as if Kiev was justified because the evil pro-Russian government was corrupt!

I am well aware of this.  But if Russia had not sent Girkin in with his men and arms, then flooded Donbas with foreign fighters (i.e. Russian citizens) armed with Russian weapons and ammunition, there would be no civil war.  Civil discontent?  Absolutely, but not war.

Quote

Cossacks of the region did join the cause, and Chechens arrived after some time as well. You're correct. But this is only a small detail of this conflict,

No, it is a central point.  They were organized, trained, paid for, equipped, and led by the Russian government.  They were backed up by Russian military formations and still are.  This was a military invasion of Donbas, from the start right through to today.  No Russia, no war.  It is as simple as that.

Quote

Syria is definitely a civil war, there are Syrians on both sides fighting each other. The Syrian government has had corruption, how ever Assad has not done anything murderous on his own will.

Seriously, you need to read something not in Russian before you talk about Syria.  It is a civil war, which was started when peaceful protests against a corrupt and repressive regime were put down with murderous force.  The war has lasted as long as it has because Russia and Iran have kept Assad supplied and backed by outside military forces (especially Iran).

Quote

Why did Ukrainians murder their own peoples!  Why did Ukrainians cause panic and havoc in the country?

They didn't.  Russia is the only one responsible for the panic and the war.  Nobody else.

Quote

By the way if you'd like me to stop this discussion please go ahead and tell me, it is your forum. I'm just discussing, even if it is off topic, I mean no harm. 

I know you mean no harm, but what you don't understand is that by not educating yourself about what is really going on in this war you are helping perpetuate it.   You need to question your sources of information because they are mostly untrue.  Somewhere in your head I sense you know this.  But I understand the fear you have about questioning things too much.  I have the luxury of not having to live with the consequences, therefore I am sympathetic towards your position.

Steve

[Peter Cairns]

Vadimir, 

 

Steve is right you should listen to him as your countries future is at stake and if people like you don't turn it around it will be a bleak one.

You talk about sphere of influence with regards to Ukraine but does the US regard Canada or Mexico in that way... true we have the Donald daily doing his best to look like his disney name sake, but the US has good relations with it's neighbours because it doesn't treat them like client states not because it does.

Putin is pursuing an age Old Russian tactic going back to the Tzars that has never served it's interests. Just look East to see how by working with the system and the international community rather than fighting it China has not just caught up with Russia but in almost every way surpassed it.

Under Mao china suffered ever bit as badly as Russia under Stalin but in the last forty years it as strode forward while Russia has gone backwards.

Actions like Crimea aren't a sign of strength and progress they are a symptom of weakness and decline. Regimes like Assad's or the Shah's that need to turn their arms on their own people are going down a blind alley and these endeavours rarely succeed. There are ones like Tibet where the size difference makes it practicable but even these can be a running sore for decades. worse still they like in the former Yugoslavia or turkey can go on for generations.

Having fought a long referendum campaign and lost I am still convinced that a friendly neighbour and ally is inevitably better that a rebellious provence and enemy.

That's why what Obama has tried to do with Cuba is the only way forward, being it back into the fold rather than isolating it because once the doors are open and people see both sides, hey will make their own choices and sooner or  later those who want to maintain the barriers on both sides will be gently nudged away ro change to fit the new realities.

Russia might hold the Donbass for decades but it can't afford to modernise it to compete with Chinese and India steel or Australian, Colombian and Canadian call or american shale gas. Meanwhile the Ukraine without a pro Russian rust belt, because that is what the Donbass will be in a few decades without billions (that Russia doesn't have) spent on it, will turn to the West, it like Turkey will take years to reform but like it, it will join the EU in time and at that point if it hasn't changed it's ways Russia will be  a much reduced power.

Within a decade China will not need to by Russian Jet Engines, India will buy Western or Chinese jets not Russian ones and without these Russian will struggle to keep up militarily. In the civil sphere Russia just can't compete with the west and the gap is widening. 

The future is clear to anyone that reads beyond propaganda or who can count...Openness, freedom and democracy or inevitable continued decline.

The choice is yours!

and like me Steve only whats best for Russia... and it ain't Putin!

 

[Battlefront.com]

15 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

 

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.

That's pretty accurate.  Though you forgot #5:

5.  Everything is the West's and NATO's fault because they represent all that is bad in the world.  People should not be convinced that their lives could be better because that makes them take action and that causes chaos.

15 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

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.

Sadly, Russian nationalism is stronger than Russian intelligence.  Which I find quite sad because until it reverses there can be no improvement.  All I can do is hope that when Putin's regime falls, which it will (even if through natural end of life death), that whatever replaces it is better.  Eventually.

2 hours ago, Lethaface said:

Returning to the military aspect: the current events regarding the build up of forces show that large scale surprise is not possible. I would therefore argue that any large scale offensive, from either parties, is factually an offensive against a well prepared and competent opponent. Russia's supremacy in certain areas like Air, EW and artillery won't mean as much when encountering a well prepared defense. Russia's abilities are no secret so Ukraine has had quite some time to plan ahead for such an event.

Correct.  And the earlier comments about knowing where Russia's EW and C2 stuff is has to be taken into consideration as well.  Thanks to triangulation methods, communication intercepts, UAVs, loyal Ukrainians still in Donbas, and no doubt intel handed to them by the West... these precious assets are identified.  Ukraine has routinely handed the coordinates over to OSCE and OSCE has been routinely denied access.  They are far enough back from the front that Ukraine can not strike them without causing a big political problem (i.e. Minsk violations).

In a full on war these assets would be vulnerable to attack.  Russia doesn't have endless quantities of these things and so every one lost will be more and more difficult to replace.  Again, if Russia has the ability to conduct a quick war then it's not much of an issue.  However, a larger scale war would produce an erosion effect on Russia's capabilities. 

2 hours ago, Lethaface said:

I'd think that even a limited offensive in the Donbass will cause Russia a lot of casualties and further international sanctioning that it is in fact political suicide for Putin to do so. On the military aspect they could very well achieve a victory, but at what cost?

This is the primary point.  There is also the question of the costs of failure to secure an outright victory even if the up-front military costs are fairly small.  Meaning, even if Russia achieved a decisive military victory over Ukraine, with light losses, what then?  Is Russia going to militarily occupy and administer the territory it seized forever?  If it gives it back to Ukraine, what assurances does it have that Ukraine won't undo Russia's imposed peace terms at some point in the future?

The fundamental problem with Russia's position is that it isn't workable long term.  Just because violence and manipulation have kept Ukraine a part of Russia's sphere for hundreds of years doesn't mean that it can continue for hundreds more.  The fact is that Ukraine has been moving towards more independence for the last 100 years.  Russia has successfully delayed this movement for periods of time, but ultimately Ukraine will decide its fate and not Russia.

2 hours ago, Lethaface said:

I'd imagine that a limited Russian offensive in the Donbass would be subject to very heavy Ukrainian shelling which has potential for heavy casualties among the attackers, especially in areas were the offensive doesn't achieve a breakthrough directly.

So basically I agree with Steve's views on the subject, which he has well argued imo.

Thanks

Steve

[kraze]

12 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

I agree.  There is a big difference between repeating a lie that you believe is true and repeating a lie that you know is a lie.  I have always had the impression that Vladimir believes what he says is true, even if to those outside of Russia it's pretty clearly a lie.  The fact that he is wrong doesn't make him a liar even if he should know better.  What it makes him is uniformed and naive, as I said a couple of posts ago.  And I mean this in the literal definitions, not as a slight on his person.  Good people can be uniformed and naive.

But how long will it take for truly good, honest people to admit they were wrong after facing unquestionable proof all the time? Certainly not 2 and a half years.

When russian side's proof from accounts of "eye-witnesses" ranges from questionable to outright ridiculous (crucified boy, su-25 shooting down Boeing at 10km height spotted by a dude on the ground, a crying cow obeying russian language etc - I mean holy crap) or even total slips down to Putin himself saying that Crimea invasion was all russian military right from the start and Girkin says it was russians who invaded Donbas under his command.

All the while the other side offers actual videos of russian troops, russian tech, russian armor, russian artillery shooting up Donbas, shows russian active duty soldiers, captains, majors and even a damn GENERAL near Debaltsevo - much of which is either from russian soldiers themselves boasting on social networks about invading Ukraine or straight from slips of russian propaganda because there are so many russian troops infesting the area, even a scripted video made with several takes can't hide the damn fact.

How? How can a truly honest, self-conscious person still refuse to believe, especially on a CM Black Sea forum, that T-72B3 is a T-72B3 for 2 years? How can a person who is not lying claim that Russia never invaded Ukraine when on March 1st of 2014 Russian government voted to invade Ukraine with 90 out of 90 votes FOR the invasion?

This is way way too optimistic even for a person, who is not on the receiving side of the russian "brotherly love"

Edited August 12, 2016 by kraze

[Peter Cairns]

And so it continues...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37062036

 

Peter.

[Battlefront.com]

14 minutes ago, kraze said:

When russian side's proof from accounts of "eye-witnesses" ranges from questionable to outright ridiculous (crucified boy, su-25 shooting down Boeing at 10km height spotted by a dude on the ground, a crying cow obeying russian language etc - I mean holy crap) or even total slips down to Putin himself saying that Crimea invasion was all russian military right from the start and Girkin says it was russians who invaded Donbas under his command.

This is where you get into a tough gray area.  Denial is the brain's ability to protect itself from harm.  It is a powerful force that is biologically able to override the logic portions of the brain "for its own good".  Most Russians, from what I can tell, have a sense that their government is overall harmful and dishonest.  Those who are exposed enough to the outside world have more of a sense of this than those who do not.  For those who SHOULD know what the truth is, because of exposure and engagement by others, denial kicks in even harder.  In a sense it is true that the more informed Russians are liars, as Oleg contends.  However, they lying to themselves.

14 minutes ago, kraze said:

All the while the other side offers actual videos of russian troops, russian tech, russian armor, russian artillery shooting up Donbas, shows russian active duty soldiers, captains, majors and even a damn GENERAL near Debaltsevo - much of which is either from russian soldiers themselves boasting on social networks about invading Ukraine or straight from slips of russian propaganda because there are so many russian troops infesting the area, even a scripted video made with several takes can't hide the damn fact.

First, let's keep in mind that this stuff is only covered in non-Russian mainstream media.  Which means the average Russian never sees any of this.  Second, the Russian government's education system is based on the Soviet system.  Russians are not raised to value critical thinking (I'm reading a good book about this very topic now, as a matter of fact).  Raising citizens to think means raising citizens to question.  Autocratic regimes do not like being asked questions, not to mention having to answer them.  Third, the Ukraine war is deeply embedded in hundreds of years of established behavior patterns of the Russian state (be it Czarist, Soviet, or Russian).  It makes many of the things Westerns find "wrong" more difficult to identify since they are "normal" from the Russian perspective.  Fourth, Russian state propaganda has far more experience with manipulating people than the people have in understanding the manipulation.  Fifth, the brief period of challenge to the Soviet/Russian system of control came at the same time as the chaos of the collapse of the Soviet Union.  Unfortunately this has allowed skillful Russian state propaganda to equate increasing freedom with increasing chaos. 

I could go on for a bit, but the main point here is that we have to be considerate of circumstances.  I am also an optimist.  I believe the more we hold factually flawed points of views accountable the more chance we have of changing minds.  Unfortunately, when Russians find out how bad things really are they tend to leave Russia or sink into cynicism, not work hard to try and change things for the better.  Some day this will hopefully change.  Maybe not.  However, if we (in the West) don't do our part to try then it won't happen.  Calling Vladimir names or yelling at him or banning him for repeating the endless drivel that comes out of the Kremlin is not productive.  In fact, I am sure that is exactly what Putin wants us to do.

Steve

 

[Lethaface]

3 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

I would be on the side with my government, I wouldn't dare protest violently against my government just because it ignored the EU dream... That is not right, and it ruined the country for people who didn't get a say.

I'd probably be among the crowd that didn't side with my government and have experienced protests (against certain (international) policies of my government) without violent intentions turn nasty. Testosteron did play a key part in the nastiness, for both the protesters and riot-police. 

Anyway in so far as how and why the Ukrainian protests became so violent, there are like always two sides of the story. Of course every dominant international player with interests in Ukraine had some part in the events that led to the protests. Geopolitics as usual. In the end Janoekovytsj fled the country. Do you think he fled because the majority of the population wanted him to stay, wanted him to leave or is there another explanation?

Now it doesn't often happen that state leaders flee (forced or willfully) to another country because of (violent) protests. In Ukraine it however did. Do you think that result came forth more because of the bulk of the Ukrainian people were fed up with corruption and unwanted (Russian) influence in domestic affairs, western propaganda and clandestine operations influencing the bulk of the Ukrainian people to depose Janoekovytsj or do you have another explanation?

Regarding Crimea: I can believe that a large part of the ethnic Russian population in Crimea wants/wanted to be part of Russia. However, legally Crimea was a part of Ukraine. More importantly, any referenda held after a military occupation is by all means a farce, at least in my appreciation of democracy. What would be your opinion of the legality of an election when Ukraine would manage to militarily reoccupy Crimea without firing a shot and organize a referendum, of which the outcome features a significant majority for 'rejoin Ukraine' over 'remain in Russian Federation'?

Edited August 12, 2016 by Lethaface

[Lethaface]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Thanks

Steve

Credit where credit is due.  We don't always agree but it's threads like these that make me visit these forums even when I'm not able to play CM. I enjoy an intelligent discussion and have a (un)healthy appetite for history, military and geopolitics, like many here do. I can imagine and do appreciate the effort and energy going into maintaining, facilitating and moderating discussions like this.

 

Edited August 12, 2016 by Lethaface

[hattori]

@kraze In all fairness though, how many Americans believed the line about WMDs in Iraq, and for how long?  How many believed that Iraq sponsored al-qaeda, and that also made the 2003 attack legal?  I wouldn't be too quick to rush to judgement on others for believing their government's propaganda.

[VladimirTarasov]

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Read that Foreign Policy article I linked to before trying to challenge me any further.  You are out of your depth here and you need to at least read something that wasn't put forward by the Russian state.

Quote

I read it and there are many faults to the article. But Steve, I'm getting fatigued from discussing this, and obviously we are still at opposites of each other on Ukraine. This won't change IMO, because I've seen enough to believe what I believe in. I read Ukrainian, English, Russian reports on conflicts, like Syria and Ukraine. I have connections to Ukraine, family wise, I've been to Donbas I haven't been to the direct war zone,but I've seen enough to make me believe that the government of Ukraine, is not the right choice for Russians in Ukraine. Anyways, you disagree so do other people so instead of wasting the discussion on politics, we should probably go back to military discussions, where the discussion doesn't get offensive to me being a Russian.

I'm thinking about listing the units that could be deployed to Ukraine, with their equipments and all those other details, using open sources of course no opsec breaking on my end even though at times I feel like it  (joking of course) however we should all agree to a realistic scenario which I can base it off. So I'm open to your suggestions. 

1 hour ago, Lethaface said:

Do you think he fled because the majority of the population wanted him to stay, wanted him to leave or is there another explanation?

Donbas region definitely wanted him to stay, but Kiev didn't. He made small mistakes which doomed him in, and made people believe in the EU cause in Kiev. Basically he nailed his own coffin with that one mistake he made. Of course, the western sponsored media helped this massively, also Poroshenko and many other groups helped fuel the flame.

1 hour ago, Lethaface said:

Regarding Crimea: I can believe that a large part of the ethnic Russian population in Crimea wants/wanted to be part of Russia. However, legally Crimea was a part of Ukraine.

Yes legally Crimea was Ukrainian, I've been saying what Russia did in Crimea was illegal in international law. But if the people in Crimea was for it, I'm for it. 

1 hour ago, Lethaface said:

What would be your opinion of the legality of an election when Ukraine would manage to militarily reoccupy Crimea without firing a shot and organize a referendum, of which the outcome features a significant majority for 'rejoin Ukraine' over 'remain in Russian Federation'?

I will have no choice but to respect the choice of the people. And I'd be against the Russian government, if they didn't support the will of the people. It isn't right to go against the will of the people, even if it is breaking "laws" 

Edited August 12, 2016 by VladimirTarasov

[Lethaface]

13 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

I will have no choice but to respect the choice of the people. And I'd be against the Russian government, if they didn't support the will of the people. It isn't right to go against the will of the people, even if it is breaking "laws" 

And if China takes over Vladivostok area with 'yellow man', organizes elections that show 'the will of the people' is to join China you would agree if annexes the region?

Sorry if my questions sound aggressive, but I try to understand your position.

[VladimirTarasov]

3 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

And if China takes over Vladivostok area with 'yellow man', organizes elections that show 'the will of the people' is to join China you would agree if annexes the region?

Sorry if my questions sound aggressive, but I try to understand your position.

Vladivostok, is majority Russian... I don't see a viable portion of Chinese people in Vladivostok with any claim to it. So the will of the people wont be to join China. Where as Crimea, is a totally different case compared to what you just said.