Ukraine Conflict - Beware lest in your anxiety to avoid war you obtain a master

[Gorth]

3 hours ago, Mamoulian War said:

Little bit more about their tactics from the same Twitter guy... I am speechless...

 

I think most of the world came to the conclusion at the beginning of last year, that the Russian army is not made up of soldiers, but mostly just "armed medieval peasants" (as always, there are no absolutes and I'm sure they have the odd special forces or other actually military trained units). Which means, they don't fight as a cohesive force, they don't support each other and if something can be raped, pillaged or plundered for personal benefit, it takes priority.

[xzar_monty]

12 hours ago, Mamoulian War said:

Also, there is one news, which I an little bit confused. Gerasimov has been announced as a new High Commandant of the SMO, and Surovikin has been appointed as his deputy. From what I have read, I do not understand, if it is some completely new position for Gerasimov's collection, or Surovikin was just demoted. I think it is the second option, as he was praised a lot by Wagnerites, and the timing of the announcement with the Soledar denial makes it suspicious. But as I said, I am not sure. Has anyone noticed this news as well?

Yes. I don't understand the meaning of it, either, but perhaps it's just a continuation of the game of musical chairs that Russia appears to be playing.

@Gorth: That was extremely well put! Personal gain above everything else. The really painful irony here is that if the Russian army worked like a proper army, then Ukraine would have had no chance, simply given the numbers involved. So we can be thankful for the "armed medieval peasants" -- and not be, obviously. Have a look at this (the unfortunate translation of cóck is used, instead of the more unambiguous rooster):

https://twitter.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/1613250290165157889?cxt=HHwWgsC48e2lteMsAAAA

Edited January 12, 2023 by xzar_monty

[pmp10]

Tank talks continue:
Germany won't move without US.
I wonder if that means they wouldn't provide any Leopards themselves or won't allow any Leopards to be provided.

[xzar_monty]

Germany is once again creating an absolutely marvelous reputation and legacy for itself. (Which nicely highlights how all of this takes place in a historical continuum, on all sides. If only Germany could let go of some things, and if only Russia could let go of its pathological idea of exceptionalism, etc.)

[Gromnir]

8 hours ago, Gorth said:

I think most of the world came to the conclusion at the beginning of last year, that the Russian army is not made up of soldiers, but mostly just "armed medieval peasants" (as always, there are no absolutes and I'm sure they have the odd special forces or other actually military trained units). Which means, they don't fight as a cohesive force, they don't support each other and if something can be raped, pillaged or plundered for personal benefit, it takes priority.

am gonna suggest is a bit more complicated. russia's kleptocracy inevitable results in practical troop strength being overestimated as divisions is rare anywhere near full strength from a western pov. also, putin put his undertrained and poorly equipped army in a less than ideal situation from the get go. nevertheless, in spite o' the monumental charlie fox which were the russian invasion o' ukraine, strategic goals were not outta reach until considerable time had elapsed, at which point morale o' troops predictable dropped and discipline eroded. should recall when this all started there were more than a few board pundits predicting ukraine wouldn't last a week, which is likely what russia was hoping to see. 

RAIDING AND INTERNATIONAL BRIGANDRY: RUSSIA’S STRATEGY FOR GREAT POWER COMPETITION

Raiding is an effective riposte to a strong but distracted opponent, and becomes popular when the technologies of the time create a rift between the political objectives sought and the means available to attain them. This makes traditional forms of warfare too costly, too risky, or unsuitable to the goals desired. Raiding proved prevalent before the modern nation-state system was formed in 1648 and subsequently exported by Europeans to the rest of the world. 

is an article from 2018. 

sure, the combined arms operations for russia has been laughable, and is no excuse for such failures, but the russians is capable o' professionalism and discipline on the battlefield as long as one recognizes that one is speaking o' professional raiders and brigands. gorth has western expectations for how soldiers is 'posed to behave on the battlefield and for good reason as there is a whole lotta historical success attributed to well trained and disciplined western armies. the russian military is not embracing the same western traditions.

in any event, is an interesting article especial given it were written before the ukraine invasion.

HA! Good Fun!

[Mamoulian War]

a little bit more about Soledar and Russian “tactics” from Soledar defender PoV: https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/articles/2023/01/11/7384434/

[xzar_monty]

1 hour ago, Gromnir said:

should recall when this all started there were more than a few board pundits predicting ukraine wouldn't last a week, which is likely what russia was hoping to see.

Who were these pundits? I'm very interested. Are they still here, perhaps taking part in the discussion?

[Gromnir]

the degree o' gaslighting which took place in this thread is one reason we avoid. posts from immediate before and after the invasion is all too often reimagined or ignored and the lack o' self-awareness by a few is genuine stunning even to a guy who has been posting on these boards for decades. 

not gonna indulge at this time.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[xzar_monty]

Ok, fair enough. I suppose I could dig some names up by going through the archived threads (if they still exist), but I am not that interested.

[Zoraptor]

The main source for things like Kiev falling inside a week was... well, that old chestnut "unnamed US official" and his close cousin "western intelligence officials" (including, apparently, Mark Milley). And why do I get the feeling the forum software is going to hate a line with parentheses and quote marks in it? Let's see shall we? um, handles it fine apparently, well done there and sorry for ever doubting you.

Classic Gromnir though, throwing out accusations without naming names. Funnily enough (not really), he's also using one of the absolute classic gaslighting techniques there.

Edited January 12, 2023 by Zoraptor

[Gromnir]

@xzar_monty

see what we mean? guy indulges in blatant strawman and somehow sees as a valid critique.  the post we didn't make attacking a poster for quoting milley? rich.

*shrug*

that said, zor does have a few chuckle-worthy posts from mid february 22 which is dismissive o' the threat o' an imminent russian invasion. not hard to find those links either, eh? 'course he has shown difficulty managing search functions in the past. 

*eye roll*

thanks to zor for once again proving a point for us.

HA! Good Fun!

[Malcador]

  

14 hours ago, Gorth said:

I think most of the world came to the conclusion at the beginning of last year, that the Russian army is not made up of soldiers, but mostly just "armed medieval peasants" (as always, there are no absolutes and I'm sure they have the odd special forces or other actually military trained units). Which means, they don't fight as a cohesive force, they don't support each other and if something can be raped, pillaged or plundered for personal benefit, it takes priority.

Would be an inaccurate one, really.  Considering most of the reports on their tactics aren't going to be from unbiased people and even combat footage is just a mere slice.   But hey at least you didn't call them Mongols.

7 hours ago, xzar_monty said:

Yes. I don't understand the meaning of it, either, but perhaps it's just a continuation of the game of musical chairs that Russia appears to be playing.

@Gorth: That was extremely well put! Personal gain above everything else. The really painful irony here is that if the Russian army worked like a proper army, then Ukraine would have had no chance, simply given the numbers involved. So we can be thankful for the "armed medieval peasants" -- and not be, obviously. Have a look at this (the unfortunate translation of cóck is used, instead of the more unambiguous rooster):

Not too sure of that, 200k wasn't enough to tackle Ukraine. 

[Chilloutman]

how much troops US needed for Desert Storm?

[Gfted1]

8 minutes ago, Chilloutman said:

how much troops US needed for Desert Storm?

6 Things to Know About Operation Desert Storm | Military.com

About 697,000 U.S. troops took part in the war; 299 lost their lives.

[Chilloutman]

soo around 700K, looks like Russia really didn't read history books than

[Malcador]

36 minutes ago, Chilloutman said:

how much troops US needed for Desert Storm?

Operation Iraqi Freedom (such a lame name) had about 400k troops as well.

 

[Mamoulian War]

3 hours ago, Malcador said:

  

...  But hey at least you didn't call them Mongols.

Well, it would be very very inaccurate statement though, as everyone knows, that Mongol Hordes were able to win their battles

[ShadySands]

I know I didn't think that 1, Russia would actually invade and 2, they wouldn't secure victory in a few weeks. Never been so happy to be wrong though or maybe that goes to them not using nukes, which I thought they might do once they became a laughingstock.

[Zoraptor]

8 hours ago, Gromnir said:

that said, zor does have a few chuckle-worthy posts from mid february 22 which is dismissive o' the threat o' an imminent russian invasion. not hard to find those links either, eh? 'course he has shown difficulty managing search functions in the past.

Shrug. Not the only one who got that wrong. Only way not to be wrong occasionally is not to have an opinion on something. Guess you get to dine out on actually being right about something, for once. But then, also specifically not what you were talking about so nice goal post shift, as always. Can you find a post where I said Ukraine would lose in days? No, because my position was the complete reverse- and specifically that they'd likely need the entire invasion force to take Kiev alone. I don't doubt you've looked though, hence the goal post shift above.

If you're going to claim that more than a few board pundits said something better be able to name names if challenged, otherwise that's gaslighting- to whit, repeating something as obviously true and so obvious no evidence is needed. Which is, of course, exactly what you accuse others of doing. But then, self awareness has never been your strong point. Russia will be bankrupt in 6 months in 2014 --> you just bringing it up for scholarly discussion, when it didn't happen. Can't get more of a reimagined position than that, eh.

And now the forum software hates parentheses and quotes again. How will I cope when half the volume of my posts are ellipses?

[Gromnir]

37 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

Shrug. Not the only one who got that wrong... But then, also specifically not what you were talking about so nice goal post shift, as always.

actually, exact what we were talking 'bout, but as usual, your reading comprehension, sucks. 

 

9 hours ago, Gromnir said:

the degree o' gaslighting which took place in this thread is one reason we avoid. posts from immediate before and after the invasion is all too often reimagined or ignored and the lack o' self-awareness by a few is genuine stunning even to a guy who has been posting on these boards for decades. 

so yeah, we were including the laughable dismissals o' the very real as it turns out threat posed by russians before the invasion. we did not mention you in the bit 'bout predicting less than a week capitulations, so narcissism much on that, eh? but yeah, lots o' people got stuff wrong, which is why we said in the politics thread before this one splintered that it were silly and misguided to pontificate given the fog o' war.

is more than a few examples o' boardie fails 'bout ukraine, and most such stuff is info many people got wrong. 

btw, takes all o' ten minutes to search february 24 to sees multiple people on this board predicting a quick resolution to the conflict, but zor is satisfied with low effort and a misrepresentation in addition to the aforementioned reading fail again proving our point to @xzar_montythat getting into it with the gas lighters and deflectors just ain't worth it. 

keep proving us correct. never gets old.

HA! Good Fun!

 

Edited January 12, 2023 by Gromnir

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

2 hours ago, ShadySands said:

I know I didn't think that 1, Russia would actually invade and 2, they wouldn't secure victory in a few weeks. Never been so happy to be wrong though or maybe that goes to them not using nukes, which I thought they might do once they became a laughingstock.

I was much the same, I suppose I overestimated both Russia's political savvy and their military competence. While Russia could still end up winning the conflict (at a massive cost that could be potentially crippling), the outcome I'd bet on is that this war is to Russia what the Vietnam War is to the US.

[Malcador]

2 hours ago, Mamoulian War said:

Well, it would be very very inaccurate statement though, as everyone knows, that Mongol Hordes were able to win their battles

I guess, although if they're such trash they can't be that bad to have not been trounced yet.  Is funny watching commentary on Soledar, some mappers say the Russians have 80% of the town, others saying Ukraine's retaken half of it.  Is rather interesting both have decided to grind each other up over it.

2 hours ago, ShadySands said:

I know I didn't think that 1, Russia would actually invade and 2, they wouldn't secure victory in a few weeks. Never been so happy to be wrong though or maybe that goes to them not using nukes, which I thought they might do once they became a laughingstock.

I didn't think they would invade as they'd fail due to the US having money and weapons to burn (well not their stores of Abrams and Bradleys anyway).

[Gromnir]

11 hours ago, Gromnir said:

nevertheless, in spite o' the monumental charlie fox which were the russian invasion o' ukraine, strategic goals were not outta reach until considerable time had elapsed

somehow this part got missed. were a whole lotta fog o' war in january and february, so being wrong were hardly a shock and being right were more a matter o' making a lucky guess.

being dismissive o' the potential threat? now that were a silly level o' stoopid. 

regardless, were some doozies in the ukraine thread and reviewing february 23+ is worth chuckles as people with a clear absence o' meaningful info were making all kinda observations and predictions.

HA! Good Fun!

[Zoraptor]

Sheesh, that's basically the old 'do your own research' canard and staple of losing positions in internet discussions since fricking usenet. If you're going to claim something back it up with specifics, if you can't it's gaslighting, to whit: repeating something as so obviously true it needs no evidence.

Make sure to include Mark Milley and the US intelligence apparatus as doozies and chuckleworthy though, their expertise is far greater than anyone's on this boards. Only way not to get things wrong is not to have an opinion, or lack the courage to state one.

39 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

actually, exact what we were talking 'bout, but as usual, your reading comprehension, sucks.

Haha lol. To remind you, since it's been all of 12 hours:

11 hours ago, Gromnir said:

should recall when this all started there were more than a few board pundits predicting ukraine wouldn't last a week, which is likely what russia was hoping to see.

Goalposts shifted to something far safer when you were asked to name names- and not, if you've already forgotten that too, by me. Classic Gromnir. So, did you indulge in a bit of classic re-imagining over the 2014 bankruptcy, or not?

Don't blame me, you brought up gaslighting and reimagining posts.

[Malcador]

Imagine re-reading any thread on this forum.