It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
click link for article
Russian military officers are reportedly inflating the number of troops they have amid the ongoing invasion of Ukraine, the Ukrainian Intelligence Directorate (GUR) claimed on Saturday.
The claim specifically cited an incident in three motorized infantry brigades experiencing shortages.
According to the GUR, the units were reported by the commanders as being fully staffed before the invasion had begun. But once the invasion started, it soon became apparent that the units were actually just around 55% staffed.
Two battalion commanders were arrested by individuals, believed by the GUR to be operatives of Russia's Federal Security Services (FSB), shortly after this inconsistency was established.
The idea that officers would inflate the number of troops under their command isn't unprecedented.
A recent example is what happened in Afghanistan. At one point, following the nearly two-decade-long US military presence in the country, the Afghan army was believed to have been built up considerably to the point of being an effective military force – at the very least, it was widely assumed that it would be effective enough to stop a Taliban takeover following the US withdrawal.
However, not only did the Taliban take over Afghanistan once the US left, they did so incredibly quickly. seizing the country in a matter of days.
A number of reasons were thought to be behind this, such as widespread corruption which meant that the reality on the ground was vastly different from the numbers on paper.
originally posted by: xpert11
a reply to: Xcathdra
IMO, it is more of a question of keeping the defenders resupplied and reinforced with replacements for battlefield causalities. Also, the Russians levelling city blocks provide rubble that acts as concealment for the defenders, or holes in buildings act as access points for lightly equipped forces.
Nor do the Russians have the number of troops or NCOs for urban warfare. So the Russians might face guerilla networks operating in the ground conditions they created.
originally posted by: F2d5thCavv2
ISW reports that Mariupol has been occupied by the Russians with the exceptions of some areas of resistance such as the steel works.
Cheers
originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: xpert11
Zelenskyy has stated numerous times that trading land for peace is a non option and that includes land in the east as well as Crimea. I understand such bravado is needed when you are leading an Army in a war but I get the impression his soldiers share that thought process and Mariupol is a prime example.
originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Imhere
Mariupol and Crimea are Ukrainian territory illegally occupied by Russia. Call them what you will but Russia is going to be defeated and Putin will lose power. No country (important ones anyways) will recognize Russia's territorial grabs, including Ukraine.
Before you put up bunting for Russia you may want to get caught up on the state of Russian forces.
originally posted by: xpert11
a reply to: Imhere
Are you suggesting that Russia will employ weapons of mass destruction in Ukraine? Russian military forces don't have the leadership, logistical capabilities and training, among other issues, to conquer Ukraine.
originally posted by: Imhere
But how’s the east looking? And in the future?
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: Imhere
But how’s the east looking? And in the future?
The Soviet conquest in Afghanistan killed 10% of the population and took 1/3 of the country and they weren't using the junk equipment that Russia is now since most of the junk being used now was brand new then. And then what happened? Oh, right, hasta la pasta Soviets.
Russia cannot win a guerilla war or sustain an occupation when the West is feeding the Ukrainians force-leveling equipment designed to destroy modern equipment and they're using it against 1980's tech.
originally posted by: Imhere
Didn’t we hear this in 2014, etc? when Crimea happened or whatever.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: Imhere
Didn’t we hear this in 2014, etc? when Crimea happened or whatever.
We started giving them equipment after Crimea, they have been training for 8 years and it is now revealing itself in the wreckage of Russian armor littering the areas they pulled out from. This is also now a full scale military invasion and nearly every able bodied person is a potential guerilla. The Soviets couldn't sustain the Afghan invasion and they were a much superior military to what Russia now is in relation.
Both countries, Ukraine and Afghanistan, are roughly the same size in regards population and landmass, the exception being the Ukrainians are getting even better equipment and more funding my a large margin.
As a reminder
As such take everything as a possibility and NOT as absolute truth.
The very first casualty in a war is the truth and all warfare is based on deception
originally posted by: xpert11
a reply to: Imhere
Russia is entrenched in Ukraine, but that isn't the same as having the capabilities to conduct and sustain manoeuvre warfare. Beyond limited counterattacks, the Ukrainians aren't in a position to destroy the invading forces. Moreover, the chances of Putin employing weapons of mass destruction increase in the event of a Western Front style deadlock.
On another note, Ukraine won't request additional military, economic and humanitarian aid from Australia until after that country's federal election.
originally posted by: Imhere
WE juSt sTArTed giving them what?
Now we’re comparing campaigns with Afghanistan.