Ukraine Conflict - "Only the dead have seen the end of war."

[kanisatha]

41 minutes ago, pmp10 said:

There was even a claim by one analyst that Ukraine could have won the war if only it mobilized in December.
But the reality is that despite military aid in the billions some of their soldiers are still serving near the front without rifles.
I don't see how they could effectively arm mobilized force back then. 

As for provoking Russia - it's never that simple as mobilization carries a major responsibility for escalating conflicts in the eyes of international community.
The narrative that Ukraine somehow forced Putin to invade is doing rounds even now.
It would be so much better received if this could have been sold as a preemptive attack. 

Yes this is something I too have wondered about. Zelenskiy even kept rejecting US and Western intel about Russia's invasion plans almost to the very end. And so I wondered if this was also affecting Ukraine's military preparations, because to me it was crazy that Ukraine did not mobilize its reserves until two days after the war began. And then, when it became clear mobilizing reserves as cohesive combat units was no longer realistic, Zelenskiy issues his order for all fighting age males to sign up for military duty.

[Mamoulian War]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

https://news.yahoo.com/russias-victory-day-may-9-190200441.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

Tomorrow is a big day for Russia, May 9 and Victory Day

Their is a view that Putin will officially declare " war " on Ukraine due to the numerous problems with the overall Russian military strategy

So predictions? Will Putin announce changes to Putins War and troop deployment

For me it doesnt really matter what he announces, either way the invasion will continue one way or another until Russia retreats or they are defeated militarily 

My education in warfare politics is as good as monty's but I allow my guess to be written here, so you can then point and laugh at me how wrong I was

So I think on may 9th, Putin's Victory condition would be Annexation of Kherson Oblast, and probably Donbas as well, and as soon as these areas will be the Russian land now, he will be scarmongering even more with their nuclear doctrine, trying to bully countries into stopping the military help to Ukraine. And grand mobilization might be the part of this strategy as well.

4 hours ago, xzar_monty said:

I listened to a lecture by a former intelligence officer on where Russia and Ukraine have succeeded and failed so far. While the failures of Russia are fairly evident ("nearly everything"), this officer pointed out an interesting Ukrainian failure. Zelenskyi & co failed to strengthen their military positions and prepare adequately before the war started, because they wanted to avoid provoking Russians. But as the officer pointed out, "not provoking Russians is impossible, so this was a big failure from Ukraine. If all else fails, Russia will simply fabricate a cause for war." As people interested in military history will remember, the Winter War did indeed start from a Russian fabrication, an event called the Shelling of Mainila. So I would agree that Ukraine was naive in this regard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelling_of_Mainila

Also, on a different topic, it was interesting to read on how various countries have come to Ukraine's aid. Inside the EU, it was particularly interesting to see some numbers concerning countries furthest away from the war. For example, Portugal has assisted Ukraine ten times more (per capita) than Spain has. I have no idea as to why this may be, but the difference is interesting. Both of them have given less than peanuts per capita compared to countries like Estonia, and while this difference is easy to explain, the difference between Portugal and Spain is not, especially if you know as little about those countries' internal politics as I do. (From among the countries mentioned in the list I saw, Spain was one of the worst helpers.)

The biggest strategic mistake of Ukraine, was not having any military presence at the "border" with Crimea, which is natural bottleneck. Few missiles and artillery shells that way would probably save a lot of southern Ukraine from occupation

[kanisatha]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

So predictions? Will Putin announce changes to Putins War and troop deployment

I would be surprised if he goes ahead with two of the most widely talked-about predictions: officially declaring war on Ukraine, and ordering a general mobilization involving drafting all military-age males. These actions would make it very hard for him to continue to deny that he started this unprovoked war and that the war is not going well for Russia.

My expectations are that Putin will call for a societal mobilization ... for Russia's civilian society to rise up in support of the country, which is to say him and his regime, in the face of those horrible and evil nazi states in the West, led by the imperialist Americans, trying to destroy Russia. And then he may also declare the annexation of Donetsk and Luhansk, and then claim that Russia is merely fighting to eject Ukrainian nazis from Russian soil.

[kanisatha]

Just now, Mamoulian War said:

The biggest strategic mistake of Ukraine, was not having any military presence at the "border" with Crimea, which is natural bottleneck. Few missiles and artillery shells that way would probably save a lot of southern Ukraine from occupation

100% correct.

[Mamoulian War]

8 minutes ago, kanisatha said:

Yes this is something I too have wondered about. Zelenskiy even kept rejecting US and Western intel about Russia's invasion plans almost to the very end. And so I wondered if this was also affecting Ukraine's military preparations, because to me it was crazy that Ukraine did not mobilize its reserves until two days after the war began. And then, when it became clear mobilizing reserves as cohesive combat units was no longer realistic, Zelenskiy issues his order for all fighting age males to sign up for military duty.

From what I have heard/read from some security experts here, denying it to the latest time possible was their tactics, and they were slowly preparing for the attack around Kyiv and Donbas. But as I said above, they underestimated the possibility of the invasion through Crimea.

[kanisatha]

Battle for Kharkiv seems to be over:

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/05/putins-problem-russia-is-blowing-up-bridges-to-stop-ukraines-counterattack/

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/07/world/europe/russia-ukraine-kharkiv-victory-day.html

[xzar_monty]

9 minutes ago, Mamoulian War said:

And grand mobilization might be the part of this strategy as well.

But surely this can't be a quick solution. It's going to take quite some time for this to have an effect, should he choose to take this route.

I actually don't know about this stuff, but I'm fairly sure mobilization doesn't work fast -- it'll be a matter of months. @Zoraptor can probably shed some light on this.

[BruceVC]

7 minutes ago, kanisatha said:

Battle for Kharkiv seems to be over:

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/05/putins-problem-russia-is-blowing-up-bridges-to-stop-ukraines-counterattack/

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/07/world/europe/russia-ukraine-kharkiv-victory-day.html

Wow, what a good  read that 1945 link

Particularly interesting what it means for the Ruskies military campaign and the blowing up of bridges and also the high numbers of casualties amongst their special forces 

I wonder how this happened? Was it due to hand to hand fighting  with Ukrainian soldiers or artillery or something else ? 

[xzar_monty]

Regarding the "mysterious fires" around Russia: it would be great to get some statistics on the amount of fires in Russia in, say, the past ten years. It's a huge country, so there are bound to be plenty even at the best of times. We are now living in times where probably most of these fires get reported internationally, but as long as they are a) not in military or other strategically important locations and b) not particularly close to Ukraine, I'm inclined to think it's business as usual -- unless statistics show that the number of fires has gone drastically up.

I am reminded of the tragedy of the married woman who genuinely slipped and hit her head on the cupboard, getting a black eye in the process. I mean, nobody believed her.

[Mamoulian War]

49 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

But surely this can't be a quick solution. It's going to take quite some time for this to have an effect, should he choose to take this route.

I actually don't know about this stuff, but I'm fairly sure mobilization doesn't work fast -- it'll be a matter of months. @Zoraptor can probably shed some light on this.

Yes mobilization takes months, but nothing will prevent Putin to announce it, as a part of the "glorious fight against the nazis in Europe". It would be probably just for propaganda reasons. Especially if it is true, that during the last week of April, Ukraine destroyed 50% of Russian military vehicles theoretically needed to render Russian invasion incapable of further attacks. That is a statement of one of our security experts, not mine. But unfortunately, I am not able to find the link to the article atm.

[rjshae]

1 hour ago, Mamoulian War said:

The biggest strategic mistake of Ukraine, was not having any military presence at the "border" with Crimea, which is natural bottleneck. Few missiles and artillery shells that way would probably save a lot of southern Ukraine from occupation

The problem there is the Russian naval presence, which could allow them to land anywhere along the coast and bypass the bottleneck. Against a blitz-style attack, a defense in depth is more appropriate. The Ukrainians couldn't guard every inch of their border, so they needed to prioritize. Clearly, defending Kyiv was critical at the start of the conflict, whereas they could afford to give up ground in the southeast.

[Zoraptor]

Russia has very little actual capacity for an amphibious assault. They landed troops during this war, but not many, 1-2000 at Berdyansk being the largest. In a situation where the Ukrainians had a lot of troops around Perikop etc you also have reserve troops and troops guarding your flanks and those 1-2000 are going to have a hard time of it. The bigger problem is that you can't just wave your hands and put, say, 10000 soldiers above Crimea. They have to come from somewhere else. Do you want them around Kiev or Kharkov instead?

14 hours ago, Elerond said:

"Agreements on the establishment of a deep and comprehensive free trade area between the EU and Ukraine contain obligations that need to be fulfilled. We discussed this issue with President [Viktor] Yanukovych today. Our positions were clearly defined... One country cannot at the same time be a member of a customs union and be in a deep common free-trade area with the European Union. This is not possible," Barroso said.

However, he noted that there are "some pragmatic ways to address this issue."

"And we have to respect the position of Ukraine," Barroso said, adding that Kyiv and Brussels have a common goal of political association and economic integration.

EDIT:

Also Association Agreement that was blocked was not the mentioned "deep common free-trade area"  but agreement to increase co-operation between EU and Ukraine and within 10 years form agreement about free(r) trade area between EU and Ukraine. So Ukraine could have signed it and be member of customs union with Russia. 

Sigh. I didn't bother with the 'full quote' because I know what the compromise offered turned out to be.

The 'compromise' the EU wanted was... Russia could still donate the 20bn (iirc) they were offering to bail out Ukraine. No RBK membership, but they could still provide the sweetener. Now imagine what it would have been labelled had the Russians suggested a 'compromise' where the EU and IMF still provided their aid package and took on Ukraine's debt, but not the association agreement. I'd have heard the squeals of outrage here, and most of the population of Brussels would need hearing aids.

The edit part is extraordinarily sophist though, I'm afraid. If it were my opinion then sure, legit argument and I probably wouldn't even have that opinion in the first place without the quote- but critically, relevance is not based on my opinion of it, is it, since I didn't make the quote?

No kidding, actual membership was not on the table in 2013. Barroso thought it was relevant enough to bring up though, that is absolute fact, as is that he explicitly frames it as one or the other. So, you're essentially telling the EC President that he was being irrelevant on something regarding the EU, not me.

6 hours ago, pmp10 said:

But the reality is that despite military aid in the billions some of their soldiers are still serving near the front without rifles.

I know Wali said that recently, but I'm very skeptical that actually is happening on any scale.

It supposedly happened with the soviets in WW2, but actual evidence of it happening is very scarce.

5 hours ago, kanisatha said:

Zelenskiy even kept rejecting US and Western intel about Russia's invasion plans almost to the very end.

Or he accepted the intelligence but showed skepticism publicly. Indeed, most of his comments on it were more along the lines that it "~wasn't helpful~" having outsiders shouting the odds when they were still negotiating, rather than that it wasn't real.

5 hours ago, xzar_monty said:

I actually don't know about this stuff, but I'm fairly sure mobilization doesn't work fast -- it'll be a matter of months.

You can move the people around fairly easily, but it's hard to organise. I don't think there will be anything like a 'full' mobilisation though, that's a million people, if they feel they need 100-150k more troops they'd try for inducements or prorogue the current conscripts while adding the next class; and that level of 'mobilisation' is handled regularly. The only difference would be they'd need new weapons rather than picking up those left by the last group of conscripts.

[Gorth]

9 hours ago, xzar_monty said:

I am reminded of the tragedy of the married woman who genuinely slipped and hit her head on the cupboard, getting a black eye in the process. I mean, nobody believed her.

Off topic, but I couldn't help but laugh. 25 years ago, my mum slipped down the front door stairs, as they were covered in ice. She was blue, yellow and black all over, really bruised. Being a good husband, my dad of course drove her to the hospital to have her checked out. You know, nothing broken etc. Well... when they got back home my poor bruised mum was laughing and my dad was fuming... "Next time you need to go to the hospital, you do it yourself!". Apparently everyone and their dog at the hospital had been convinced my dad was a wife beater and he was the one who had beaten her up with a crowbar or something and treated him accordingly. O...M...G... did he hear for that a long time after

 

(as for the truthfulness of it, i was there at the stairs when my mum fell, it really did look bad, so I can understand why he took her to the hospital)

 

[Malcador]

Hm, wonder if this will be a rare moment that CNN et al. will cover the Victory Day parade

[BruceVC]

2 hours ago, Malcador said:

Hm, wonder if this will be a rare moment that CNN et al. will cover the Victory Day parade

Why? Malc I thought you were opposed to fake news and propaganda? What have the Russians got to celebrate ?

Yes it will be covered, despite the shutting down of all independent Russian media houses CNN and other international news channels do still broadcast within Russia so we will get to see the theater of well disciplined Russian troops and well maintained tanks and other military hardware on parade with everything looking good as usual....nothing like the reality of the Russian army but we will  get to see it 

 

[Elerond]

9 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

Sigh. I didn't bother with the 'full quote' because I know what the compromise offered turned out to be.

The 'compromise' the EU wanted was... Russia could still donate the 20bn (iirc) they were offering to bail out Ukraine. No RBK membership, but they could still provide the sweetener. Now imagine what it would have been labelled had the Russians suggested a 'compromise' where the EU and IMF still provided their aid package and took on Ukraine's debt, but not the association agreement. I'd have heard the squeals of outrage here, and most of the population of Brussels would need hearing aids.

The edit part is extraordinarily sophist though, I'm afraid. If it were my opinion then sure, legit argument and I probably wouldn't even have that opinion in the first place without the quote- but critically, relevance is not based on my opinion of it, is it, since I didn't make the quote?

No kidding, actual membership was not on the table in 2013. Barroso thought it was relevant enough to bring up though, that is absolute fact, as is that he explicitly frames it as one or the other. So, you're essentially telling the EC President that he was being irrelevant on something regarding the EU, not me.

2013 even seeking membership was not in table, only free trade area like EU has with Turkey

He also says that EU is willing to look compromise that works for Ukraine. Where Russia blocked Ukraine trade to Russia until Ukraine rejected association agreement, which is clearly signal that Russia had no problems with Ukraine making agreements with EU and EU being uncompromising jerks. 

[BruceVC]

So I watched Putins Victory Day speech and the parade  and it was everything I expected 

The parade was a vainglorious, false  and grotesque display of  Russian military efficiency and well disciplined Russian troops

But the speech was classic Putin propaganda 101. It had everything you knew would be in it. Nazis, nukes, NATO wanting to invade Russia through Ukraine, defense of motherland and of course unconvincing comparisons that the invasion of Ukraine is the same as the threat faced towards the USSR in WW2. But he didnt mention the word war and it doesnt seem to be any additional mobilization? 

The one thing I did like about it was Putin recognized that the families of killed Russian soldiers would be compensated and wounded soldiers would be looked after. That does matter because you would expect any country to respect its soldiers killed in any war 

[Lexx]

That parade was pretty boring.

[xzar_monty]

Was it really a no-show from Gerasimov? If so, that's something. Shoigu was there, for sure.

Also, flyovers cancelled "due to weather conditions". Definitely not due to weather conditions, as far as I can tell, but why, then?

Edited May 9, 2022 by xzar_monty

[BruceVC]

41 minutes ago, Lexx said:

That parade was pretty boring.

I agree, their was no doomsday plane 

[Sarex]

I really liked the hologram Putin. Russian hologram game is on point.

[Zoraptor]

1 hour ago, xzar_monty said:

Was it really a no-show from Gerasimov? If so, that's something. Shoigu was there, for sure.

Does Gerasimov usually attend? The only one I can find he was definitely at was in 2019. Certainly 2021 seems to have only had Shoigu and Salyukov.

(I'd normally be more sure, but for some reason Gerasimov seems to be getting flagged as in dozens of articles he isn't actually in)

3 hours ago, Elerond said:

2013 even seeking membership was not in table, only free trade area like EU has with Turkey

"We are embarked on a long journey, helping Ukraine to become, as others, what we call now, 'new member states'." -- Herman van Rompuy, 29 November, 2013.

So yeah, seeking membership was absolutely on the table.

[Malcador]

7 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Why? Malc I thought you were opposed to fake news and propaganda? What have the Russians got to celebrate ?

Yes it will be covered, despite the shutting down of all independent Russian media houses CNN and other international news channels do still broadcast within Russia so we will get to see the theater of well disciplined Russian troops and well maintained tanks and other military hardware on parade with everything looking good as usual....nothing like the reality of the Russian army but we will  get to see it 

 

All that pontificating and you still watched it? I have watched them before due to just being bored on YouTube, have watched Bastille Day celebrations too.

And nothing happened, big surprise.

[BruceVC]

50 minutes ago, Malcador said:

All that pontificating and you still watched it? I have watched them before due to just being bored on YouTube, have watched Bastille Day celebrations too.

And nothing happened, big surprise.

Yes, obviously I watched it. Putins War is one of my interests at the moment

You cant comment on something like a speech if you dont watch it But I was surprised you were suggesting that CNN may not  broadcast it? All mainstream international  news channels broadcast the speech.

[Malcador]

No, was suggesting they would cover it, hence being a 'rare' occurrence.