Separatist push/Ukraine shove back

[Holien]

8 minutes ago, IanL said:

Indeed +1

+200

As for those constantly attacking, please prove us wrong and give us the same level of reports as Haiduk from the alternative perspective, we would love to see that level of reporting.

[Ashez]

2 hours ago, Holien said:

please prove us wrong and give us the same level of reports as Haiduk from the alternative perspective, we would love to see that level of reporting.

Oh I do enjoy Haiduk's military reports too and never question them -I do not have separatist friends to verify his data.

[Kinophile]

11 hours ago, IMHO said:

It's all accurate and with proofs from UKR side - otherwise I'd been corrected by Haiduk or Kino philosophy. 

My absence of comment does not imply support or agreement  @IMHO

Dont use me as an implicit crutch. 

I'm just waiting for on topic, non partisanal contributions. 

Edited February 27, 2017 by kinophile

[Kinophile]

4 hours ago, Ashez said:

I think you should ask Haiduk to get you passage to Ukraine. Amazing how much you all know without ever being there.

Haiduk, btw: are you a member of right sector?

Trolling.

[Kinophile]

There are some very constructive Russian members - @ikalugin is Russian, I believe? I'd be fascinated with his take on recent events, although I get the impression he is of a more behind the scenes, organizational bent. 

Why are we stuck with the algorithms? 

I've asked so many damn times to stay on topic, I'm done being nice. 

A troll is a troll is a troll. 

 

[Battlefront.com]

8 hours ago, Ashez said:

I think you should ask Haiduk to get you passage to Ukraine. Amazing how much you all know without ever being there.

Haiduk, btw: are you a member of right sector?

Let's see... you challenge without providing counter information. You accuse others about who you think they are without disclosing who you are.  You insult instead of discuss.  There is a term for people like you... Troll.  Trolling, which is what Trolls do, is not permitted here.  So ask yourself if you wish to continue posting here or if you'd like to leave (one way or another).  It's a question only you can answer, so think about it.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Here's a very insightful article about how Russia fights wars with Ukraine (and to a lesser extent Syria) used as current examples.  It compares the Russian methodology with that of the West (in particular the US), pointing out the strengths of the Russian form and the weaknesses of the West's form:

https://warontherocks.com/2017/02/a-comparative-guide-to-russias-use-of-force-measure-twice-invade-once/

It's a well laid out analysis which I can't find any major faults with what is presented.  There's a lack of discussion about whether or not Putin's chosen form of "influence" is ultimately more successful at getting Russia what it wants, but that's OK with me.  Good subject for a follow up article

The article is quite positive about Russia's form of warfare and quite critical of the West's.  However, the core premise of the article requires admission of Russia's activities in Ukraine, Syria, Transnistria, Georgia, and other places.  Activities that some people deny happens.  Which presents a dilemma for some people

Steve

[IMHO]

7 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Here's a very insightful article about how Russia fights...

Steve, really thanks a lot - a truly interesting view. There's one thing I was always interested in but could never grasp - why Russia occupies such a disproportionate role in minds of US policymakers and in the public politics? I mean economy is six times smaller than US' and well on the way to loose its share of world GDP. With all due respect to the Russian military but they are far cry from US Armed Forces due to obvious economic reasons.

Like if one makes a comparison to China - bigger economy even now and will be seriously larger than US' in 10 years. Military force will be comparable if not more potent in 10-15 years. At least one conflict with a clear route into a full-blown military confrontation and no political compromise to it in sight (God forbids!). Some more points of contention will spring up as China military grows more confident. Assertive if not aggressive behaviour that cannot be avoided due to internal politics of China. Surely US takes some military steps but the danger is not quite articulated to the public. Interesting...

Edited February 27, 2017 by IMHO

[IMHO]

20 hours ago, Haiduk said:

...is just werbal and push-pull bickering

http://uapress.info/ru/news/show/161682 Press release of the Tartar Battalion "Feb,12 about 20:00, uniformed armed man seized the base of Crimean tartar battalion positioned at Chongar settlement of Kherson region. They used APC to smash the fence of the encampment..."

20 hours ago, Haiduk said:

One of tatars leader Isliamov want that battalion "Asker" (hm... less then hundred men) was recognized officially and officially armed. But MoD don't want to hear about any separate national units, so offer only to include "Asker" in 36th Marines brigade as company or battalion depending on how much people they will enlist.    

I don't understand how your words contradict to what I said - armed illegal groups that take no orders from official armed forces of Ukraine. About your term "checking civil transport"... Here are the weapons taken from people who do peaceful transport checking

Claymore mine MON50 - 6pcs, AGL AGS - 1 pc, RPG7V - 1pc, RPG grenades - 30pcs, RPG-17 - 38pcs, MG PK - 1pc, GP and VOG grenades for underbarrel GL - 112pcs, AKS-74 - 8pcs, SVD - 3pcs, M16 - 1pc, 5.45 ammo - 17277pcs, 7.62 ammo - 3360pcs. Pics:

Tartar battalion at its camp...

20 hours ago, Haiduk said:

Repeat more Basurin's fairy tales about "uncontrolled nazi battalions", which seized water filtering station yesterday. What "every guy with weapon"? Give a list here of these uncontrolled "armed men"!

Please do not attribute to me the words I've never said. As per the uncontrolled...

https://youtu.be/HeFFyxPeEkI Feb, 22 Former head of Azov battalion promises in Ukrainan Parliament "We - Ukrainian nationalists - unite our forces to stand up to an armed occupation from the East and financial dictatorship of the West. But, first of all, we unite to destroy the regime of today that's called Ukrainian only by mistake."

https://youtu.be/vRoGuPQlv4Y Feb, 19 A dangerous/aggressive - you choose - demonstration of Far-right "Pravy Sector" to stop coal trading with DNR/LNR.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/11734520/Ukrainian-forces-surround-nationalist-militia-following-deadly-attack-in-western-Ukraine.html - Armed fighting of 2015 between Right Sector and Ukrainian law enforcements, that time it was not about coal but about cigarette smuggling from EU (not my words - Ukrainian MP).

And in principle... I'm not trolling - I truly harbour not a glimmer of hope to change anyone's opinion on what happened back then. And I certainly do not want to slight the feelings of simple Ukrainians - they are clear and quite understandable. I just hope it may somehow show that front line fightings are just a part of more complex picture.

Edited February 27, 2017 by IMHO

[Erwin]

11 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Here's a very insightful article about how Russia fights wars with Ukraine (and to a lesser extent Syria) used as current examples.  It compares the Russian methodology with that of the West (in particular the US), pointing out the strengths of the Russian form and the weaknesses of the West's form:

https://warontherocks.com/2017/02/a-comparative-guide-to-russias-use-of-force-measure-twice-invade-once/

 

Very good article with some wonderful insights/observations like:

"Moscow favors an emergent strategy based on “fail fast and fail cheap” approaches."

"The Russian armed forces are actually small relative to the size of the country they have to defend..."

"The first goal of the Russian leadership is to make the combat zone its own sandbox, sharply reducing the options for peer adversaries to intervene via direct means.  America does this in its campaigns by attaining air superiority. Russia’s method is cheaper: area denial from the ground."

"Like Pavlovian conditioning, Russia barely has to move a few units around and watch a Western media fueled panic. Moscow has trained the West so well that if every Russian soldier were to depart Ukraine, or Syria, there would be immediate concern that it is only to invade elsewhere (perhaps a “land bridge to Kaliningrad”)."

"...most observers expect Russia to pursue maximalist outcomes with a large employment of force and to get stuck doing it.  Russia does quite the opposite, typically bidding the bare minimum required for coercive warfare, rather than jumping in chest deep."

Essentially the article proposes that Moscow's entire strategy is not about conquering, but about coercion.

Now you don't have to read it lol.

[IMHO]

19 hours ago, HerrTom said:

"The message of the attack on the Armed Forces of Ukraine public organization" Asker "is nothing but a fake, and the next attempt to discredit the Armed Forces of Ukraine", - the report says.

So it sounds like the official Ukrainian line is that they confiscated weapons and equipment, but no attack ever took place like you described.  But I may be wrong, my Russian is very poor, and definitely augmented by machine translation.

Your translation is quite correct. UAF does not want to call UAF's actions "an attack". Their version of events is given in the preceding two paragraphs:

"A unit operating in Kherson region and belonging to Southern command was entrenching their positions as per the order of its commander. During the process some representatives of an illegal armed formation bearing maximum amount of weapons [that's the wording in the text] arrived at the unit's combat positions. Representatives of the illegal armed formation were apprehended and disarmed."

UAF press release does not state where exactly those were disarmed but attack on the camp is confirmed by multiple sources. The attack is not a full blown military operation with artillery barrages, CAS and stuff but I don't know what word to use to accurately describe an army battalion using an APC to force entry into the camp of a well armed adversary. There're some reports of one KIA and one WIA but they are not universally confirmed so take them as they are. All sources are Ukrainian, and identity of the commander of the battalion in the video where he excuses for... ummm... apprehension and disarmament of illegal armed formation is not questioned.

Edited February 27, 2017 by IMHO

[Battlefront.com]

4 hours ago, IMHO said:

Steve, really thanks a lot - a truly interesting view. There's one thing I was always interested in but could never grasp - why Russia occupies such a disproportionate role in minds of US policymakers and in the public politics?

Because they are directly responsible for a disproportionate amount of problems in Europe.  And since Europe is the United State's most important trading partner and traditional military ally, it concerns the US greatly.  To understand that you have to look back at how US mindest changed between WW1 and WW2, then see how it evolved after WW2.  Basically, the United States came to the conclusion that it could not ignore a conflict in Europe because it would have to get involved if things got out of hand.  Sadly, the genocide in ex-Yugoslavia showed that even that needed US leadership to address.  US mindset is "better to be involved earlier than later".

The United States is a big supporter of the European Union because it believes that this is the best way to have economic and military stability in Europe without massive US involvement.  Contrary to the opinion of many, the United States is inherently isolationist (as we can now once again see with Trump) and would rather not be responsible for Europe's defense.  We can see the evidence of this in the US' massive European force downsizing over the past 20 years.  Something that has only been reversed because of Russia's recent activities and threats of force.  So now the US is reluctantly building up its forces in Europe.

Therefore, to the extent Russia is undermining and threatening Europe is the extent that the United States feels it has to be involved.  Since Putin has embarked on a massive, widespread, multi-dimensional attempt to break up the EU and cause as much internal strife as possible... the US correctly understands that Russia is the biggest threat to Europe and therefore to its long standing interests.

Russians don't understand this mostly because they refuse to understand how aggressive and deliberately undermining their government is towards Europe.

Quote

I mean economy is six times smaller than US' and well on the way to loose its share of world GDP. With all due respect to the Russian military but they are far cry from US Armed Forces due to obvious economic reasons.

Which is exactly why Russia is attacking (and that is the correct term for it) the West in ways that are inherently non-military or aren't traditionally responded to with military force.  Disinformation, funding radical political parties, corrupting politicians, etc. are far more effective tools for Russia than Armata tanks.  Which is exactly why many of us think that the Armata program is a stupid waste of Russian resources.

Quote

Like if one makes a comparison to China - bigger economy even now and will be seriously larger than US' in 10 years. Military force will be comparable if not more potent in 10-15 years. At least one conflict with a clear route into a full-blown military confrontation and no political compromise to it in sight (God forbids!). Some more points of contention will spring up as China military grows more confident. Assertive if not aggressive behaviour that cannot be avoided due to internal politics of China. Surely US takes some military steps but the danger is not quite articulated to the public. Interesting...

China can not start a war with the United States and live to tell about it.  Why?  Again, non-military reasons.  China's entire economy depends on trade with the US and Europe and the pacification of the Chinese population requires internal economic stability.  China's oligarchs are dependent upon that revenue and the security that comes from employed "peasants".  Plus, the oligarch's investments are largely in the West as well.  While China is definitely a long term threat to the United States, it is going about things much smarter than Russia and that is making it even more difficult for the United States to effectively combat it's expansion of power.

It is hoped that before China gets to a point where it could theoretically successfully wage a war against the US that it will be enlightened enough to not want to.  The key is to make sure that China's ability to expand it's military capacity is slower than the evolution of Chinese foreign policy.  I think there are many historical reasons to suspect this is what will likely happen.  There is no such hope with Russia under Putin.

Of the two concerns, the US quite rightly thinks of Russia as the bigger short term threat to its national interests.  China is definitely not the top priority now.

Steve

[IMHO]

@Battlefront.com,

Thanks for such an elaborate answer. I'd even say sometimes one may not say how true the words could be, unfortunately...

[Haiduk]

23 hours ago, Ashez said:

 

Edited February 27, 2017 by Haiduk

[Haiduk]

Sorry for previous post - forum engine bug. 

@IMHO no any casualties in this inсident. If this happened, our media would have raised cry to the sky.

Absolutely minor incident have caused a flame on two pages %) Such stories from DNR/LNR, where one groups disarmed and shot others can tell dozens, but how this relates to clashes on frontline ? 

_______

Today after shelling from tank and artillery a headframe of Butivka mine (UKR fortified position between Spartak and VOP Almaz) completely collapsed. There are no observers on it, only cameras. But now spotting capability of Butivka defenders will reduced.

Headframe several days ago...

... and now

 

[IMHO]

An interview with a mayor of Krasnogorovka township of about 10'000 people in Ukrainian controlled part of Donbass. The mayor - a retired officer - was mobilized into service and after one year sent by Administration of the Ukrainian President over 600km to rule the town. The reason a mayor could not have been selected from among the locals - save simply elected by them - is the whole populace is considered "disloyal".

The text is very telling because the guy seems to be a regular layman - not a hot-head far right - he's honestly trying to improve the life of the town. Yet it gives away the level of xenophobia and distrust to ALL the population of the Eastern Ukraine whether they live in DNR/LNR or under Ukrainian control. One may ask why such an interview appears in Ukrainian press in the first place. And the answer is the ideas that the guy is giving are now quite mainstream in Ukrainian society so the editors honestly saw nothing "special" about the text. Here are the quotes to illustrate but the text is quite long and covers many other interesting topics - the guys personal story, life in the frontline town etc. I guess Google Translate can help...

https://m.online.ua/news/762933/

"When I came to town I was met by a Deputy Mayor for Social Service. I fired her after some time by the way. For separatist thinking... But she welcomed me back then - she knew locals as she had worked here before. She was helping me for about three months, helped to hire people - I needed someone who knew land parcels and worked here before, other people like him..."

"We have here pro-Ukraine people as well. We do. But for the whole town I know may be 50 who are for Ukraine. Out of ten thousands..."

"We need to reform them [locals]. Our security services are not functioning well. Here [in Donbass] we need to make people love Ukraine by force."

"Headmaster of one of my schools said they're being bombarded because of our [Ukrainian] soldiers. I made her write an official statement that she does not think so. She wrote but I read it and didn't find anywhere in the text that she hates Zakharchenko [Head of DNR] and he's responsible for the war. So I made her rewrite it and in twenty minutes she brought back "Long live Ukraine!". Then to amend her transgressions I made march around with the Ukrainian flag. She's a separatist, you know. With convictions. So her frayed nerves could not stand it - she quit in the end" [comment: the only jobs in the frontline small towns zone are state-paid job so the women probably quit to literal starvation]

"They feel offended as I call them all separatists. I'm saying - am I wrong? I was not the one who went to [DNR independence] referendum - you went! Did you have a bad living before the referendum? You earned more than I did at Sumy [his hometown]. A haircut at Sumy costed 100 grivnahs, yours - 300, so you had money to pay for it. And the houses you own are much more expensive than I have at Sumy"

"Here [at Donbass] we have an unnaturally high percentage of retarded population. Just have a look at statistics - how many great writers, artists, actors were born at Donetsk? Very few and if you look at percents most of such people come from Western Ukraine [... he states the numbers by region]. Eastern Ukraine is a neutral zone between two states where outcasts and criminals were sent. And you cannot change their genes, genes define many things so now we have this gene pool here. It should be removed, watered down. It's cruel but we have to look at the things realistically"

"Q - What should be done with the people who attended [DNR independence] referendum? A - They should be uncovered and put to prison. Through courts but for that we need to make the laws impartial. Then put them to trial, all of them. Some should get prison time, some - suspended sentence, but they should remember this in centuries."

The answers were certainly selected to illustrate what he thinks about the populace he was sent to rule. But from the rest of the text he's really trying to make the life of a frontline city easier so the guy is no monster. But it's horrible how often the mindset is now across the line of everyday nationalism or even racism.

Edited February 28, 2017 by IMHO

[Kinophile]

Can you please stop banging the political drum? This is a military, tactical discussion thread.

Christ. 

You're kinda, sorta more subtle than most, and you're smart enough to back off when challenged, then go from a different angle.

But it's still the same trolling for reaction, corruption of the thread and denigration of Ukrainian motives, methods and society.  The lack of any comment on Russian/Separatist behaviour and actions is utterly revealing. 

If you so badly need to comment on all things Ukrainian then go start a fresh thread. It's free and you can post to your heart's content without me cluttering it up with my own pro-UKR bias. 

Edited February 28, 2017 by kinophile

[IMHO]

2 hours ago, kinophile said:

denigration of Ukrainian motives, methods and society

1. Petro Poroshenko gave the mayor's card to the guy. I just translated his words so if he denigrates Ukraine may be he should be court-martialled?
2. I shortened his title to "mayor" but officially he's an acting serviceman and the "Head of Military-Civil Administration" of a town 30km from Donetsk. You can see his uniform and service or unit insignia on the photo (but not the rank ). Basically he commands a chunk of rearward area in immediate vicinity to the front line. I believe it is important to know what these people think. Since he received the appointment from the President in person my guess is he's senior enough in rank.
3. You assume that I somehow try to imply every Ukrainian has the same mindset. In no way I do so but this thinking spreads by the day and that's really really alarming 

PS All the facts given in this reply are taken from the interview

Edited February 28, 2017 by IMHO

[Kinophile]

It's not the truthfulness that I'm calling out .

It's the irrelevance and the ulterior objective of drawing a distracting reaction. As you well know. 

Stay on topic, please. It's not that hard. 

Edited February 28, 2017 by kinophile

[Battlefront.com]

IMHO, you seem to not understand how things work here, or you don't care to behave accordingly.  Let me put this into terms that you might finally understand.  If you are here to talk politics, then stop posting.  This is not the place for it, especially because you have a very specific agenda to push and that itself creates problems.  Because people like me are tempted to drop kick your biased views without much difficulty.  And yes, that includes your last post.  Which, if you aren't careful, will literally be your last post.  Please be smart and stop pushing your luck.  You will lose.

For everybody, here's a recap of how I view the injection of politics into discussions on Battlefront Forums (not just CMBS related):

"War is politics through other means" and that means any discussion of war involves politics to some extent.  If one goes onto a WW2 forum, here or elsewhere, there's plenty of politics discussed.  The often asked questions about how Nazi Germany could have lost the war it started so totally is complex and much of the reasons have very little to do with military activities, though they are often entwined.  Whether people understand this or not, it is the truth.  The discussions sometimes get quite heated, but usually not outside of people's tolerance levels for a good debate.  My experience here is that they tend to go off the rails when someone enters the discussion with a point of view which is extreme and unbalanced.  One neo-Nazi can destroy an otherwise interesting discussion.  One Russian forcefully, and selectively, pushing the notion that the invasion of France wasn't important sidetracks things into unproductivity.  One American claiming the French lost in 1940 because genetically they couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag armed with a stale baguette doesn't help either   Etc. etc.  Highly biased views tend to disrupt otherwise productive discussions.  The more biased, the more disruptive.  Especially when the primary beliefs of the bias is extremely questionable.

People tend to see discussions about Russia's current war against Ukraine as somehow different.  That somehow there can be a discussion about the war with absolutely no discussion about the politics surrounding the war itself.  That's just not possible.  However, what is possible is to keep the discussion focused on the military aspects of the war (especially in a topic about the battles being fought!) and limit how much it spills into politics.  There's no hard and fast rules about that, but there are some general rules of thumb:

The less the discussion has to do with warfare, the more likely it is inappropriate for this Forum.  The less respectful a point of view is of established facts, the more likely it is inappropriate for this Forum.  The more one engages in dishonest debate to push a point, the more likely it inappropriate for this Forum.

It's a pretty simple.  Talking about Russia's motivations for invading Ukraine in the first place, in a strategic context of this specific war, is generally acceptable.  Discussing how Russia has waged war against other neighbors, or it's own people (Chechnya is but one example), is generally acceptable provided it is in the context of this specific war.  Talking about how Ukrainian state corruption is impacting the war being fought against Russia is acceptable as long as it is tied to the impact on the battlefield.  How Europe and the US is approaching the war, politically, is OK if it is kept in context with how it is/could play out on the ground.  Etc. etc.

As many of you know, I have a very low tolerance for what has now been dubbed "selective reality", "alternative facts", "fake news", and "conspiracy theories".  The more someone's posts rely upon these techniques of persuasion, the more likely I am going to issue warnings.  The more someone is being aggressive and disrespectful towards others, the more likely I am going to issue warnings.  And warnings do result in bans if they are not paid attention to.

Hopefully that makes things a little more clear for those who are a bit slow to understand how things work here.

Steve

[IMHO]

@Battlefront.com, don't be tempted  Anyway I guess any post of mine may be the last one now 

So do I understand correctly that what's within limits is when politics affects battlefield situation, orders or strategy? Like "talking about how Ukrainian state corruption is impacting the war being fought against Russia is acceptable as long as it is tied to the impact on the battlefield"? So if there's a logic then I can still post? Is it limited to corruption only or local sentiments, economic and business (local or not) etc. will do? Interviews with Ukrainian commanders may be?

PS I believe can hardly be accused of impoliteness and I don't have an agenda - views are not an agenda. I post verbatim translations and I don't post "fake news". I stick to Ukrainian sources, attach proofs and they are all verifiable.

Edited February 28, 2017 by IMHO

[Kinophile]

@Haiduk I've read the current UKR tactics described as 'novel', but I'd call them. 'incremental'. 

I'm curious, has the western training begun to affect tactics? Has it started to stimulate different, more flexible tactics? The units involved in the last 2 months of skirmishing - did they go through the full western training programs in UKR? 

To be clear, UKR seem to have been very flexible and adaptive since the Russian invasion. I'm just curious as to how effective and useful the NATO training has been, after 2-3 years of it. 

 

[Battlefront.com]

26 minutes ago, IMHO said:

@Battlefront.com, don't be tempted  Anyway I guess any post of mine may be the last one now 

So do I understand correctly that what's within limits is when politics affects battlefield situation, orders or strategy? Like "talking about how Ukrainian state corruption is impacting the war being fought against Russia is acceptable as long as it is tied to the impact on the battlefield"? So if there's a logic then I can still post? Is it limited to corruption only or local sentiments, economic and business (local or not) etc. will do? Interviews with Ukrainian commanders may be?

It should be something relevant.  If you are trying to make a point that the Ukrainian forces are still under-armed, and that corruption is part of it, then yes... quoting a Ukrainian commander is quite good thing to do.  But to try and build a case that Ukraine is corrupt and disguising it as a discussion about battlefield readiness/performance, then that's not acceptable.  And yes, generally it's pretty easy to spot someone trying to do the latter.

26 minutes ago, IMHO said:

PS I believe can hardly be accused of impoliteness and I don't have an agenda - views are not an agenda. I post verbatim translations and I don't post "fake news". I stick to Ukrainian sources, attach proofs and they are all verifiable.

Views which are routinely presented to support a specific position which itself is questionable is an "agenda".  For example, Russia is fighting a war with Ukraine.  That is a fact.  It is OK to present opinions and views which show that the reasons Russia is waging war on Ukraine is acceptable.  Wars are never simple and without their contradictions.  However, a deliberate attempt to mitigate the reasons Russia is fighting this war ("blaming the victim") out of context is pushing a political agenda.

For the first 2 years of this Forum we have had to put up with pro-Russians denying that Russia was even involved in the conflict, not to mention having Federal Armed Forces actively fighting inside of Ukraine.  It was exhausting to battle the disinformation campaign, but we did and we won.  I do not want to return to that.  Likewise, we have fought against the notion that the whole war is the fault of Nulland handing out some cookies on Maidan.  Similar with Ukraine is a bunch of Nazis, Kosovo is the same as Crimea, NATO is threatening Russia, etc.  It's all nonsense and all a distraction from talking about the military aspects of Russia's war on Ukraine.  We're finally getting to the point where pro-Russians can actually start talking about the war that is actually being fought rather than the fantasy alternative reality they claimed existed for so long.  I will not allow us to slide backwards.

Steve

[Rinaldi]

43 minutes ago, kinophile said:

I'm curious, has the western training begun to affect tactics? Has it started to stimulate different, more flexible tactics? The units involved in the last 2 months of skirmishing - did they go through the full western training programs in UKR? 

To be clear, UKR seem to have been very flexible and adaptive since the Russian invasion. I'm just curious as to how effective and useful the NATO training has been, after 2-3 years of it. 

 

I wonder as well. I'd love to see the practical effects of stuff like UNIFER in action, but I suspect many of the men on the frontlines have become flexible and adaptable via harsh lessons and material aid; lethal and non-lethal.

I wonder if its smarter to cadre out the newly trained NATO men to try and disseminate information, or ship them whole to the front. I personally lean towards cadreing men out to units already on the line, but it can be tough for a young buck with clearly superior training but no practical experience to convince a frontiviki that he knows how to go about things.

One of those moments where administrative decisions could have very real battlefield impacts.

Edited February 28, 2017 by Rinaldi

[cool breeze]

I thought the interview quotes were quite insightful and very relevant to the military situation. I've always thought that why the wars are fought is one of the most important details.

Edited February 28, 2017 by cool breeze