paxromana Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 (edited) 27 minutes ago, Centurian52 said: 3. Going high isn't just about principle, it's where our strength comes from. I mean that literally, not in the vague feel-good sense in which the power of love somehow enables the heroes of a story to overcome impossible odds. Our strength (both military and economic) is literally derived from our alliances, our credibility, and the rules based international order. The United States has a massive network of alliances. You may notice that China and Russia, both of which are far more willing to go low, come up a little short on allies. 4. Going low doesn't actually work. This may be a bit difficult to grasp, particularly since we've been inundated with pessimists who think they're realists for so many years. But just because something is dirty or unethical doesn't make it effective. As one example, Russian assassinations on British soil were probably a factor in why the British have been so enthusiastic in providing support for Ukraine (the small amount of material they've provided has more to do with a lack of material to provide than with a lack of will to provide it). As another example, I have been reading about increasing use by the Russians of chemical weapons in Ukraine. These are outlawed in warfare under international law, so is about as clear a case of going low as you could imagine. But there are reasons why it was so much easier to outlaw the use of chemical weapons in warfare than it was to outlaw the use of, for example, cluster munitions. Chief among them is that cluster munitions are extremely effective, while chemical weapons aren't particularly effective. It was easy to outlaw chemical weapons because their cruelty is far out of proportion to their battlefield utility. They're better than nothing, but they're difficult to maintain and generally less effective than an equivalent amount of HE would have been. The fact that Russia has resorted to using chemical weapons is a sign of desperation, not a sign that these are actually effective weapons. So far I believe all of the recent Russian advances have been credited to artillery and local air superiority, not to their use of chemical weapons. Moral Combat: A History of World War II by Michael Burleigh An interesiting take on WW2 and why the (western) Allies won ... because their moral choices in prosecuting the war were far less immoral than those of the Axis powers. No, their choices weren't whiter than the driven snow, but they were generally more moral ... so, for example, German troops may have followed Hitlerian orders for brutality on the eastern front but they knew deep down that retribution was coming ... hence their much stiffer resistance in the east than in the west and why German troops desperately tried to surrender to the Western Allies rather than to the Russians. Edited May 15 by paxromana 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FancyCat Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/ukraine-russia-beginning-compound-advantages Quote 'Russia’s aim is not to achieve a grand breakthrough, but rather to convince Ukraine that it can keep up an inexorable advance, kilometre by kilometre, along the front.' writes @Jack_Watling in the latest #RUSICommentary. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony P. Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 31 minutes ago, Carolus said: Let's not dwell on it, though, and move on to better, more interesting topics. I understand how embarrassing a gaffe like yours can be and we don't have to draw this out for your sake. Truly worded in a genuine and generous way... or is this another embarrassing gaffe of mine? And half a dozen others who interpreted your post just the same way? Something something an alligator named Dorothy, something something killing Russians in Kansas. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carolus Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 28 minutes ago, Anthony P. said: Truly worded in a genuine and generous way... or is this another embarrassing gaffe of mine? And half a dozen others who interpreted your post just the same way? Something something an alligator named Dorothy, something something killing Russians in Kansas. Can you not let this go? No one except you talked about building concentration camps and destroying democracy in response to my post. You are free to disagree with the idea of preventing North Korean freighters with weapons from reaching Russia. To argue that Kennedy ushered in a new age of darkness when he blockaded Cuba in 1962 is more than a stretch. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 Can everybody just let it go? Honestly, it stopped being interesting many posts ago and not relevant soon there after. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 3 hours ago, FancyCat said: https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/ukraine-russia-beginning-compound-advantages Yup, sounds right and is perfectly in keeping with the discussions here. For sure Russia would be quite happy if this drew away resources from the Donbas and that, in turn, allowed for more advances there. However, I think it's pretty clear the primary objective is to exert more pressure and, as I theorized a few pages ago, they determined the established front wasn't the place to do it. I think of the new border incursion as the ground version of the daily drone/missile attacks. I doubt Russia is expecting anything specific from those attacks either. All part of the overall plan to wear down Ukraine's willingness to keep fighting. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 7 hours ago, Letter from Prague said: This is rumint at this point, buuuuut seems there is a connection to our proper topic of discussion. Deceiving take on things. This article goes into a bit more background about the assassin. Seems his politics shift with the winds. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/05/15/suspect-in-robert-fico-assassination-bid-poet-anti-violence/ More info from his previous incarnation as a pro-Russian zealot: https://www.euronews.com/2024/05/15/what-is-known-about-suspect-allegedly-involved-in-shooting-of-robert-fico Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 8 hours ago, Eddy said: Striking Russia with US weapons is a decision for Ukraine, says Antony Blinken (msn.com) Not sure whether this has been posted or not. This is excellent news. I'm not surprised as the UK and US have carefully coordinated policy since before this war started. It is not impossible for them to diverge from each other, but it is more likely they will stay on the same page. The UK and France and even Estonia made some strong statements first to stir things up, then the US. If that was how it was planned, it makes sense. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 20 hours ago, cesmonkey said: Update from Konstantin Mashovets: https://t.me/zvizdecmanhustu/1865 Seems the Russian incursion has already lost its momentum and now is into a grinding phase which will probably last for a week or two minimum. I hope all the people that were freaking out (pro-Ukrainian) or celebrating it (anti-Ukrainian/pro-Russian) got what they wanted to out of the first few days of the offensive, because it looks like that's all they are going to get. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 11 hours ago, Tenses said: It doesn't really matter, if politics played the role. It will and already is used politically in a worst possible, disgusting way. What is even worse, the most radical part of the ruling party is already proposing measures, which might mean oppresing opposition even more in light variant and civil war in heavy variant. Russia and its Useful Idiots are rarely the evil scheme plotting mastermind. But at the same time Russia definitly is the great opportunist, which can take out ridiculous amounts of value for its propaganda from random events like this one. The above is true, but it is also true that the less you have to make up from whole cloth the more effective it is. 24 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said: Deceiving take on things. This article goes into a bit more background about the assassin. Seems his politics shift with the winds. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/05/15/suspect-in-robert-fico-assassination-bid-poet-anti-violence/ More info from his previous incarnation as a pro-Russian zealot: https://www.euronews.com/2024/05/15/what-is-known-about-suspect-allegedly-involved-in-shooting-of-robert-fico Steve So the good news is that he was mostly just a guy that randomly went crazy as he got old. The bad news is that assassinations in what used to be the Hapsburg Empire have a rather poor track record for setting off powder kegs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omae2 Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 1 hour ago, dan/california said: The above is true, but it is also true that the less you have to make up from whole cloth the more effective it is. So the good news is that he was mostly just a guy that randomly went crazy as he got old. The bad news is that assassinations in what used to be the Hapsburg Empire have a rather poor track record for setting off powder kegs. This attempt be of no real consequence globally. I don't mean to insult anybody but both Slovakia and Fico is sort of insignificant. There will be a lot of **** wrestling in the Slovakian parliament and a blame tsunami, but that guy is just a resident crazy. He represent nothing. The worst thing that can happen is that Fico will be unable to go back to work and the next guy join up with the pro-russian Orban EU leader to slow down decision making. If someone would blow my dear Viktor head off that would make difference but we don't have either a crazy enough person for that or enough weapon in the country so that crazy person could obtain one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letter from Prague Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 I mean Slovakia was already on their way to Orban-style dictatorship (which technically has elections but due to media and justice control they are a sham), this will just speed things along. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zinz Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-mobilization-ukraine-stealth-recruiting/32948631.html Russian mobilization. Mostly through financial incentives and peer pressure 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maciej Zwolinski Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 23 hours ago, Anthony P. said: So... do the exact thing Russia created a giant conspiracy theory about what the US/EU/globalists/perfidious West supposedly did in Ukraine, in order to justify the 2014 and 2022 invasions? How about "no"? I am sorry, I fail to see the point entirely. Why should the West worry about doing something in Georgia in 2024 which to some extent resembles a Russian conspiracy in 2022 in the Ukraine? What is the problem with doing something which resembles Russian past conspiracy theories? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Capt Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 (edited) 7 hours ago, Battlefront.com said: Seems the Russian incursion has already lost its momentum and now is into a grinding phase which will probably last for a week or two minimum. I hope all the people that were freaking out (pro-Ukrainian) or celebrating it (anti-Ukrainian/pro-Russian) got what they wanted to out of the first few days of the offensive, because it looks like that's all they are going to get. Steve This one is still bizarre to my eyes. Not the objectives or plan - opening up a new “front” has a lot of pluses from the Russian side, not the least of which getting the West all flustered. It was how Russia appears to have tried this. If the reports of this attack being done largely by dismounted infantry are in fact accurate then something is going on. Either this was an RA tactic based on battlefield realities, or the RA does not have enough mech left to make a proper go of it…or a combination of both. I mean conducting an operational advance with dismounted infantry is something from WW1. I think there was this sort of action during the Iran-Iraq war but again, this is not normal. I for one am really interested in how this all went down as it may provide some clues as to the health of the RA. Edited May 16 by The_Capt 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letter from Prague Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 2 hours ago, The_Capt said: This one is still bizarre to my eyes. Not the objectives or plan - opening up a new “front” has a lot of pluses from the Russian side, not the least of which getting the West all flustered. It was how Russia appears to have tried this. If the reports of this attack being done largely by dismounted infantry are in fact accurate then something is going on. Either this was an RA tactic based on battlefield realities, or the RA does not have enough mech left to make a proper go of it…or a combination of both. I mean conducting an operational advance with dismounted infantry is something from WW1. I think there was this sort of action during the Iran-Iraq war but again, this is not normal. I for one am really interested in how this all went down as it may provide some clues as to the health of the RA. I thought Ukraine attacked with dismounted infantry as well - except then we call it "infiltration" and "fog eating snow". What is the difference in how Russia does it and how Ukraine does it? There's probably some nuance I'm missing. I think in that nuance we might see some answers? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongLeftFlank Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Capt Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 7 minutes ago, Letter from Prague said: I thought Ukraine attacked with dismounted infantry as well - except then we call it "infiltration" and "fog eating snow". What is the difference in how Russia does it and how Ukraine does it? There's probably some nuance I'm missing. I think in that nuance we might see some answers? Mass. The UA had been using small dispersed forces in its tactical bitings last summer. The RA has been using small Cbt teams as short sharp stabs. (and paying for it). From what we can see this was a large dismounted wave with some mech elements. Numbers of 50k have been thrown around. The aim was not infiltration-to-erode, it was to take and hold ground with what looks like unit sized dismounted troops. That is a different kettle of dead Russians. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongLeftFlank Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 "Ayy, then those eedyots would have to find someplace else to fight..." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony P. Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 2 hours ago, Maciej Zwolinski said: I am sorry, I fail to see the point entirely. Why should the West worry about doing something in Georgia in 2024 which to some extent resembles a Russian conspiracy in 2022 in the Ukraine? What is the problem with doing something which resembles Russian past conspiracy theories? A, it's completely morally reprehensible. Georgia is a sovereign, democratic state. And a war with Russia would be very costly to the Georgian nation. Go to Ukraine and enlist to fight against the Russians yourself before you start talking of conjuring to push Georgia into war like a pawn. B, the common consensus of the civilised Western world is that we are against Russia precisely because we treasure the independence of sovereign nations to live in peace. C, Russian conspiracy theories invariably centre around the notion that the free Western world is evil and aggressive. Most people would require little further explanation as to why it is then wrong to do "something which resembles Russian... conspiracy theories". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Capt Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 (edited) 1 hour ago, Anthony P. said: A, it's completely morally reprehensible. Georgia is a sovereign, democratic state. And a war with Russia would be very costly to the Georgian nation. Go to Ukraine and enlist to fight against the Russians yourself before you start talking of conjuring to push Georgia into war like a pawn. B, the common consensus of the civilised Western world is that we are against Russia precisely because we treasure the independence of sovereign nations to live in peace. C, Russian conspiracy theories invariably centre around the notion that the free Western world is evil and aggressive. Most people would require little further explanation as to why it is then wrong to do "something which resembles Russian... conspiracy theories". Even though Steve gave this line a warning shot, I think we need to try and really put some punctuation points on the idea because it does directly relate to this war. Beyond these points here, opening up another strategic front in this war, which is essentially widening it into multiple proxy conflicts, comes with extreme risks. First problem is that it is indeed a major escalation on Russia's doorstep. This would be akin to Russia sparking a proxy war between the US and Mexico...that is how World Wars start. This may very well cross a nuclear or WMD threshold, and we would be starting it. In fact if we were going to go down this route it would make more sense to do it on multiple fronts - the Caucuses and the Stans. Start leveraging the East-West divides. This of course is setting in motion events which could lead to a hard-fast collapse of Russia - which a few people out there still are not getting as a bad thing. Second problem is resources. FFS, we can barely support one proxy war. How do you think we are going to do trying top keep 2 or more going? If we somehow talked Georgia into going rogue they may wind up looking at the 1992 Kurds longingly when it comes to western support. Third is that it will definitely make Putin's job a lot easier...and frankly the Russians would be correct in doing so. If my nation was suddenly being attacked on multiple fronts by a foreign power, no matter what we may have done to trigger it, survival instinct is going to kick in. This would no longer be a far fetched conspiracy, the West would be trying to destroy Russia - one cannot have a soft wide-scale proxy assault. Finally, if we are actually willing to go this direction...why not stop f#cking around and just commit Western forces to Ukraine? We are courting WW3 anyway, commit and hope we can drive Russia out (if we can) without sparking an Apocalypse. A bunch of proxies are a half-measure when compared to risk. I keep coming back to this. None of this is the western strategy here. We want containment and a slow burnout. We want a soft long fatal trajectory for Russia with a lot of potential for offramps along the way. We want to prove that the Western Rules Based Order works, not blow it up. Ukraine is important, but it is not that important. "So what is that important Cap'n?" Well good question and one we really need to have an answer for, before we drag ourselves further into a WW1 situation...but now with nukes. Edited May 16 by The_Capt 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danfrodo Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 10 hours ago, Battlefront.com said: Seems the Russian incursion has already lost its momentum and now is into a grinding phase which will probably last for a week or two minimum. I hope all the people that were freaking out (pro-Ukrainian) or celebrating it (anti-Ukrainian/pro-Russian) got what they wanted to out of the first few days of the offensive, because it looks like that's all they are going to get. Steve I am still filing the Kharkiv offensive under the label "try something, anything" and this sounded good to Putin. RU losing a LOT of men to drive a short distance across the border. But how much of UKR forces did they actually displace to do it? We aren't seeing some big push somewhere else by RU, at least yet. Seems RU had to mass quite a bit of their own from other areas to put this force together. So, overall, it is starting to look like another grinding slaughter that just hopes to wear down UKR via human sacrifice of one's own populace. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimbosbread Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 3 hours ago, The_Capt said: If the reports of this attack being done largely by dismounted infantry are in fact accurate then something is going on. Either this was an RA tactic based on battlefield realities, or the RA does not have enough mech left to make a proper go of it…or a combination of both. I mean conducting an operational advance with dismounted infantry is something from WW1. To be fair, many Germans marched to Moscow and back on foot due to lack of vehicles, and as we know the front within 10km is considered dangerous for vehicles. If there are no minefields and sparse defenders, it’s not a bad choice necessarily. I do wonder how re-supply will work if they push more than a few km on a broad front. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisl Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 2 hours ago, The_Capt said: Mass. The UA had been using small dispersed forces in its tactical bitings last summer. The RA has been using small Cbt teams as short sharp stabs. (and paying for it). From what we can see this was a large dismounted wave with some mech elements. Numbers of 50k have been thrown around. The aim was not infiltration-to-erode, it was to take and hold ground with what looks like unit sized dismounted troops. That is a different kettle of dead Russians. But isn't that where this has been headed for the past year? Nothing big can move without getting made and then unmade. Small groups of infantry have been effective, or at least hard to target and hit. There are at least two elements to mass: mass and density. The low density has been demonstrated to at least be somewhat effective. Is this attack with mass also at low density, or is it at a high enough density that's going to be relatively straightforward to hit as each element is spotted and turn into a walking meat grinder? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 1 hour ago, The_Capt said: Second problem is resources. FFS, we can barely support one proxy war. How do you think we are going to do trying top keep 2 or more going? If we somehow talked Georgia into going rogue they may wind up looking at the 1992 Kurds longingly when it comes to western support. A not insignificant part of the problem is that we are rampming up production at about one quarter the rate we ought to be. In addition to actually restricting our options, it makes us looks unserious, which encourages Putin to stay the course. 1 hour ago, The_Capt said: We want a soft long fatal trajectory for Russia with a lot of potential for offramps along the way. All of the off ramps seem to involve a state funeral for a certain someone, and that event has yet to be scheduled. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.