Battlefront.com Posted May 31, 2022 Share Posted May 31, 2022 40 minutes ago, JonS said: True, but you could say the same about, say, the US in Vietnam, although that was a multi-year example of not improving ... *despite* the homeland being utterly secure. It was after the war that the US Army reformed and improved out of sight. During the war ... not so much. Same with Prussia in the Napoleanic era. As Rumsfeld said; you go with what you've got. It's in the quiet times that you change. Oh, for sure! And Russia basically went to war with something that was extremely dysfunctional to start with. The issue for isn't one of judgement, but of recognition of reality. I don't think Russia has a realistic ability to change its ways, therefore I don't expect them to be able to do so. Far too many people, including some of the top experts, are still thinking we haven't seen the whole show yet. We have, it sucks, and it's time to drop the curtain on it. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted May 31, 2022 Share Posted May 31, 2022 2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said: The intelligence was almost certainly massaged to fit a directive from Putin to invade, not the other way around. Perhaps. Even if it wasn't as firm as an explicit "directive", the desires of the Boss Man were pretty clear. The "mistaken intel" aspect is more an explanation of "why a full scale war". It wasn't meant to be a full scale war, but the level of force required to prosecute the "supporting a legitimate government" mission in a country the size of UKR had to be so large that when it didn't pan out as expected, RUS were already gonads-deep in a war they couldn't pull out of. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted May 31, 2022 Share Posted May 31, 2022 25 minutes ago, womble said: the level of force required to prosecute the "supporting a legitimate government" mission in a country the size of See: Iraq, 2003, for a recent example of how large occupying forces need to be, and what happens when they aren't that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted May 31, 2022 Share Posted May 31, 2022 4 minutes ago, womble said: Perhaps. Even if it wasn't as firm as an explicit "directive", the desires of the Boss Man were pretty clear. The "mistaken intel" aspect is more an explanation of "why a full scale war". It wasn't meant to be a full scale war, but the level of force required to prosecute the "supporting a legitimate government" mission in a country the size of UKR had to be so large that when it didn't pan out as expected, RUS were already gonads-deep in a war they couldn't pull out of. I think you're missing something. Russia had a number of options to destabilize and/or grab more terrain from Ukraine. It chose the "maximalist" option out of all of them. And that was to launch a full scale INVASION of Ukraine. The problem was he didn't want a full scale WAR. So Putin went shopping for a plan that could give him the results of a full scale invasion without the cost of a full scale war. The flawed intelligence assessment of Ukraine's ability to fight likely played a key role in support of that plan. And once the plan was chosen, it is likely nobody dared to question it. The point here is that Putin opted for a plan that had a full scale war as an inherent risk factor, yet did nothing to plan for it. This is similar to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The neocons in the Bush Admin wanted a quick, cheap war and so they cherry picked everything to get it. Unlike Russia's war, the initial phase went very well and all military objectives were achieved in record breaking ways for the Coalition. However, like Russia's war there was no Coalition plan for dealing with high levels of ongoing hostilities. To even think of such a circumstance would have thrown cold water on the entire concept for the war and, if honestly debated, might have scuttled it. In that sense, the war planning for Iraq was not all that different than Russia's planning for Ukraine. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted May 31, 2022 Share Posted May 31, 2022 3 hours ago, Bulletpoint said: All these supposed intercepted calls are always entertaining, but how do we know they are genuine? Apparently, this conversation was supplied by Radio Free Europe, which originated as counterpropaganda station during the cold war, funded by the CIA. And the intercept itself was supplied by the Ukrainian intelligence services. sort of a tangent to @LongLeftFlanksuggestion... if these guys suddenly both show up for the list in murky circumstances and not in Ukraine we may have an answer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted May 31, 2022 Share Posted May 31, 2022 11 minutes ago, JonS said: See: Iraq, 2003, for a recent example of how large occupying forces need to be, and what happens when they aren't that. You came SO close to ninjaing me We were thinking along the same lines, but different aspects. Yup, there's a lot to be learned about this war in front of us by looking at the 2003 Iraq invasion (and to an extent Afghanistan too). Sadly, more similarities between the two than there should be. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted May 31, 2022 Share Posted May 31, 2022 3 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said: I think you're missing something. Russia had a number of options to destabilize and/or grab more terrain from Ukraine. It chose the "maximalist" option out of all of them. And that was to launch a full scale INVASION of Ukraine. The problem was he didn't want a full scale WAR. So Putin went shopping for a plan that could give him the results of a full scale invasion without the cost of a full scale war. The flawed intelligence assessment of Ukraine's ability to fight likely played a key role in support of that plan. And once the plan was chosen, it is likely nobody dared to question it. Steve There was an article I read a little while back that suggested it was Putin's pet Ukrainian leaders (Yanukovych and his ilk) that had supplied the intel that made him think a coup would work. I think it is far over crediting those guys, but I don't doubt they contributed their little bit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calamine Waffles Posted May 31, 2022 Share Posted May 31, 2022 3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said: It would be great if these "gaffes" were part of a disinformation campaign. Certainly these things are very effective, including the one about defending Taiwan militarily. Keeps the autocrats guessing just like they like to keep us guessing. But given Biden's history of flubs when speaking off the cuff, I'm going to go with gaffes Steve I don't think they're gaffes. honestly. I think he really is saying what he means to say, but the way it works is like how an instruction from the Prime Minister eventually becomes just a suggestion to the ambassador in Yes, Prime Minister. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machor Posted May 31, 2022 Share Posted May 31, 2022 8 minutes ago, sburke said: There was an article I read a little while back that suggested it was Putin's pet Ukrainian leaders (Yanukovych and his ilk) that had supplied the intel that made him think a coup would work. I think it is far over crediting those guys, but I don't doubt they contributed their little bit. Ahmed Chalabi, anyone? From Wikipedia: "In the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Iraqi National Congress (INC), with the assistance of lobbying powerhouse BKSH & Associates, provided a major portion of the information on which U.S. Intelligence based its condemnation of the Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, including reports of weapons of mass destruction and alleged ties to al-Qaeda. Most, if not all, of this information has turned out to be false and Chalabi has been called a fabricator. Along with this, Chalabi also subsequently boasted, in an interview with the British Sunday Telegraph, about the impact that their alleged falsifications had on American policy. These factors led to a falling out between him and the U.S. government. Furthermore, Chalabi was found guilty in the Petra Bank scandal in Jordan. In January 2012, a French intelligence official stated that he believed Chalabi to be "acting on behalf of Iran"." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machor Posted May 31, 2022 Share Posted May 31, 2022 The news sburke linked to is now on BBC - it involves the looting tank Haiduk posted several pages back: Ukraine war: Refugee from Popasna spots looted possessions on Russian tank https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61643533 "A Ukrainian refugee in the UK says she recognises items apparently looted from her house sitting on top of a Russian tank in a recent photo. Alina Koreniuk says the box in the photo contains a new boiler she planned to install before the war started. She and her children left Ukraine on 8 April and are staying with a British couple in Nottinghamshire. The picture, taken in late May, shows the tank moving past bombed residential buildings in the town of Popasna." "Apart from the boiler, other items on the tank include a tablecloth from the family's summer house, new Disney bedsheets for her children and a red blanket, she says." "Last week the independent Russian news site Mediazona published a report suggesting that Russian troops had sent home 58 tonnes of looted goods from areas close to the Ukrainian borders with Russia and Belarus since the start of the invasion. The packages are said to contain items such as sneakers, canned food, TVs, car tyres and tents." 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted May 31, 2022 Share Posted May 31, 2022 3 hours ago, Bulletpoint said: Apparently, this conversation was supplied by Radio Free Europe, which originated as counterpropaganda station during the cold war, funded by the CIA. And the intercept itself was supplied by the Ukrainian intelligence services. Since Radio Free Europe is something I cite here quite frequently, I think the record needs to be straightened out. Radio Free Europe is, indeed, a US government funded news outlet that is designed to present the US (and generally the West's) viewpoint to the rest of the world. It did this as a means of countering propaganda mostly coming out of the Soviet Union. However, the philosophy of the organization has always been (to the best of my knowledge) that the best weapon is sunshine, not lies. In my time its reporting is conducted by honest journalists doing the same job in the same way as the world's best news sources. To prove this point, their honest reporting got them into quite a bit of trouble with the previous US President because some of the things they published were honest, but not flattering of him. As a result the organization became a flashpoint as part of the broader war on journalism, in this case by appointing political hacks to control messaging. It was quite a scandal in media circles at the time. Here's an article that should give you some reassurances that Radio Free Europe takes its job seriously. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/30/trump-loyalist-michael-pack-blasted-by-radio-free-europe-leaders-.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/after-departure-of-voice-of-america-editors-new-trump-appointed-overseer-fires-heads-of-four-sister-organizations/2020/06/18/db8822ca-b166-11ea-8f56-63f38c990077_story.html And the aftermath that was cleaned up by the incoming Biden Admin: https://www.npr.org/2021/01/22/959848852/usagm-chief-fires-trump-allies-over-radio-free-europe-and-other-networks Again, I'm posting this to establish the credibility of a source that I personally use quite frequently and cite here fairly regularly. They do amazing work all over the world and they are a valuable resource for understanding parts of the world that MSM often times doesn't pay much attention to. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poesel Posted May 31, 2022 Share Posted May 31, 2022 4 hours ago, G.I. Joe said: I keep hoping Germany will reverse course on nuclear power as a result of recent events, which would help with climate change as well as keeping Russia strategically isolated. Maybe too much to hope for, but we'll have to see... No, won't happen. Two reasons: one, there is no political will. Except for the extreme right (10% votes) no party actively supports nuclear power. Two, it is not economically feasible. The companies that run the 3 reactors declined an extension. It is just too expensive compared to alternatives. Building new plants takes decades and would be too late anyway. 2 hours ago, danfrodo said: I am posting this because imagine a world where countries like Russia (and Saudi Arabia, et al) no longer have the incredible economic power that comes w fossil fuels. Yeah, that's not a bad world. Saudi-Arabia is investing heavily into solar power and the creation of hydrogen. They know that the time for oil is running out. But they have a lot of space with a lot of sunshine, a lot of money and the infrastructure to ship stuff from their ports all over the world. And the world need a lot of hydrogen for steel making and for powering heavy vehicles. Russia has no such option. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted May 31, 2022 Share Posted May 31, 2022 14 minutes ago, poesel said: Russia has no such option. Russia produces fertilizer... of many varieties. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted May 31, 2022 Share Posted May 31, 2022 These went from announcement to sending shells down range in about thirty six hours. Hopefully HIMARS will do the same thing very soon. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted May 31, 2022 Share Posted May 31, 2022 Just to show the kinds of interesting things that Radio Free Europe adds to our understanding of this war in unique ways: Someone created a false Bulgarian "battalion" that supposedly is fighting in Ukraine, but is total fiction. RFE/RL's Bulgarian team did the research that uncovered the scaam (doesn't seem they were looking for money, maybe just thrills?)https://www.rferl.org/a/bulgaria-battalion-fighting-ukraine-social-media/31877207.html Good on the ground view of Bakhmut as it is now. Forgot to mention RFE/RL's photographers and videographers consistently produce some of the best images from the war:https://www.rferl.org/a/eastern-ukraine-fighting-intensifies-bakhmut/31874817.html A camera out of a BDM recovered by a member of the 24th Mech shows that the camera had been stolen from somewhere around the Hostomel area and wound up in the Popasna bulge:https://www.rferl.org/a/stolen-camera-russian-soldiers-ukraine/31877023.html Longer article on Russian neo-Nazis fighting in Ukraine against... er... Nazis?https://www.rferl.org/a/russian-neo-nazis-fighting-ukraine/31871760.html Lots of stuff on Moldova, from their own reporters, when other agencies were trying to find it on the map I'll stop now before someone accuses me of getting a commission from RFE/RL For those of you looking for articles that touch upon parts of this war that are either under documented or could use another angle, this is a good place to go. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billbindc Posted May 31, 2022 Share Posted May 31, 2022 "Russia isn't magic" is my new mantra. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted May 31, 2022 Share Posted May 31, 2022 Just now, billbindc said: "Russia isn't magic" is my new mantra. I read that ten seconds ago too, I think You just answered my question about whether or not you are the same Bill... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huba Posted May 31, 2022 Share Posted May 31, 2022 24 minutes ago, dan/california said: These went from announcement to sending shells down range in about thirty six hours. Hopefully HIMARS will do the same thing very soon. Wait, there's more! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted May 31, 2022 Share Posted May 31, 2022 (edited) Sykes... i mean yikes. I had to look the guy up. Eew, I wish i hadn't. Edited May 31, 2022 by MikeyD 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kinophile Posted May 31, 2022 Share Posted May 31, 2022 On 5/30/2022 at 11:30 AM, sross112 said: Ignore 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kinophile Posted May 31, 2022 Share Posted May 31, 2022 (edited) https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/31/opinion/biden-ukraine-strategy.html Speaking of Biden...Biden speaks.* *via his staff, speech writer, advisors, friends and political allies, of course... Edited May 31, 2022 by Kinophile 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted May 31, 2022 Share Posted May 31, 2022 21 minutes ago, billbindc said: "Russia isn't magic" is my new mantra. lol that sounds like signature territory! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted June 1, 2022 Share Posted June 1, 2022 Here is the full sequence with Mr. Minesweeper: 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.I. Joe Posted June 1, 2022 Share Posted June 1, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, poesel said: No, won't happen. Two reasons: one, there is no political will. Except for the extreme right (10% votes) no party actively supports nuclear power. Two, it is not economically feasible. The companies that run the 3 reactors declined an extension. It is just too expensive compared to alternatives. Building new plants takes decades and would be too late anyway. Saudi-Arabia is investing heavily into solar power and the creation of hydrogen. They know that the time for oil is running out. But they have a lot of space with a lot of sunshine, a lot of money and the infrastructure to ship stuff from their ports all over the world. And the world need a lot of hydrogen for steel making and for powering heavy vehicles. Russia has no such option. That was what I was most curious about - whether there had been any abrupt shift in popular opinion or political will on the subject since February. And definitely a good point about the economics, they rival safety concerns as one of the two biggest issues next-gen nuclear technologies are going to have to overcome if they're going to play a major role in decarbonization. I will say for the record that I am all for renewables, but they have their own hurdles. Some will work well in some places and not elsewhere - solar is a great option for Saudi Arabia or Arizona, here on the BC coast not so much... We're lucky enough here to be able to rely almost exclusively on hydroelectric power, which is great in that it doesn't produce emissions or raise the same kinds of safety concerns as nuclear, but there are still drawbacks - habitat loss and disruption to local communities are real concerns and there's a lot of opposition to new dams. Edited June 1, 2022 by G.I. Joe Retroactive edit to fix a badly chosen phrasing that was pointed out in a reply. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted June 1, 2022 Share Posted June 1, 2022 32 minutes ago, Kinophile said: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/31/opinion/biden-ukraine-strategy.html Speaking of Biden...Biden speaks.* *via his staff, speech writer, advisors, friends and political allies, of course... Says about 95% of the right things. I would have liked to see something more specific about better SAMS, but I am being picky. And let's face it, I think anything short of selling Ukraine cruise missiles as they cross the Polish/Ukrainian border, in the air, for a dollar each is a half measure. I mean they have the right to blow up specified coordinates of their own country, don't they? 2 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.