Nord Stream has been suspended indefinitely

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: xpert11

No offense intended, but you are starting to sound like Mr. Know-it-all No-pants again.

No offence taken. I am happy to roll with the punches. Also, I am comfortable in my own skin. I won't take that matter any further.

If Putin was so isolated from reality and intent on doing damage in Ukraine, he would have sent in plenty of support forces by now. He hasn't.

That argument is contradictory, for Putin's disconnect from reality is behind or contributed to how Russia escalated their presence in Ukraine.

Your explanation of Russian morale is straight out of Mr. Know-it-all No-pants' mouth. We do not know how the Russian military treats their soldiers. That description was the propaganda used during the Cold War... and while it may have contained an element of truth under communism, I doubt it does so presently.

An inconsistent stance. First, you correctly pointed out how the common school of thought grossly overrated the Russian Armed force's capabilities. But denying the existence of the issues ignored or not previously understood concerning the Russian military's structural flaws is akin to a doctor who neglects how their patient is bleeding to death.

As for Ukraine... there are two POWs being held right now who hail from Alabama: Alex Drueke and Andy Huynh. They are presently being held as enemy combatants by Russian forces.

I will keep Alex and Andy in my thoughts.

And now you want me to believe that Ukrainian forces are well-trained and happy?

No, I explored the possibility of the Ukrainian Army starting at a low point. Hard-won battlefield lessons, including the use of equipment, are incorporated into the training of current and future soldiers. Effectively it's about the journey and not the destination.

How effective the spread of equipment is among Ukrainian units is another matter. Otherwise, I will leave my thoughts on that and other issues to rest.

If there were issues with the Crimean referendums, why does Ukraine not clearly and openly prove that they were illegitimate? Ukraine certainly has the means to do so, especially with the backing of most of the nations on the planet including the USA. The loser in a narrative typically has a much harder time proving their case because they are going against the winner... that happened as expected in the 2020 elections. But it hasn't happened in Crimea even after 8 years. Why?

I take issue with some of the other arguments you made in this thread. But I think that point is the crux of what occurred in Ukraine this year. I would ask different questions concerning why Ukraine failed to undertake measures to retake Crimea and the eight-year gap between Russia's first moves into Ukraine and current events. Yet none of that detracts from your viewpoint.

a reply to: TheRedneck

nor did they attack in such a manner.

Actually, they did.

The attempt to seize Hostomel Airfield was a coup-de-main strike, that, had it been successful, would have served as a destination for a force that would have then moved on Kyiv and decapitated the Ukrainian government.

That type of action was successful in Czechoslovakia in 1968. This time, it didn't work.

As to "not enough force" used, what happened is that the Russian state believed their own propaganda that average Ukrainians would welcome the Russian forces with open arms. When that didn't happen, the Russians found themselves in a conventional war with insufficient ground forces to force a swift decision.

Cheers

a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

watching the exercises eg operation orbital and exercise endeavour 2020, it seemed obvious the UK and US where training the Ukrainian army to expect and defend against a lightning strike to decapitate Kiev rather outright boots on the ground invasion capturing the whole country..



feathering in the training partners like the US/UK/France and looking at their own invasion and counter invasion training eg the various joint warrior exercises.. its easy to see the huge impact the training has had in preparing Ukraine, see that its hard not to conclude there is no hope in containing this conflict to Ukraine..

and looking at it now the west is a gearing itself up to train volunteers armies.. Britain started training 2,000 in Ukraine in 2014 and now looking at turning around basic training for a min 10,000 troops every 100 days in Britain.. the evolution is stunning.. not just for Ukraine but also for the West in terms of self defence and even offering such skills to those like Taiwan..

factoring all the other countries are pitching in with basic training, the real through put of men and materials back to Ukraine looks to be huge..



though it does all have that pre great war feel to it all..

a reply to: xpert11

That argument is contradictory, for Putin's disconnect from reality is behind or contributed to how Russia escalated their presence in Ukraine.

I really haven't seen much escalation by Russia since the invasion. I have seen a change in tactics as was pointed out on the previous page. Their initial actions seemed to indicate they were attempting to confiscate data, and now they seem to be protecting the areas they are in.

But the contradictory statement makes an assumption that Putin is "disconnected from reality." I still haven't seen any evidence of that. His statements have been consistent and clearly stated. He invaded Ukraine, yes, but that in itself is not an indication of a disconnect from reality, especially when his intent is yet to be determined.

First, you correctly pointed out how the common school of thought grossly overrated the Russian Armed force's capabilities. But denying the existence of the issues ignored or not previously understood concerning the Russian military's structural flaws is akin to a doctor who neglects how their patient is bleeding to death.

No, I simply conceded the possibility that some mismanagement may have existed in the Russian military decades ago. That would actually be expected under communist rule. However, Russia has been a capitalist country for quite some time now, and is under different leadership; such an assumption is no longer valid without evidence.

Also, I will point out that during WWI and WWII, Russia proved to have an exceptional military force even under communism. Communism tends to reduce the individual's desire to defend their country, as they have no personal stake in that country. Capitalism allows the individual to at least have a legitimate hope of having a personal stake in their country and tends to improve patriotism and military morale overall.

I will keep Alex and Andy in my thoughts.

Thank you.

Their capture was expected; they chose to involve themselves in the conflict of their own free will, so I cannot blame Russia for that. However, I do expect... demand would be a better word, actually... that they are now treated humanely as prisoners of war and returned if/when this conflict is over. Should that not happen, I will be calling for American involvement directly toward Russia... not for invading Ukraine, but for their actions after the invasion.

I made that clear to RussianTroll when he was posting.

I explored the possibility of the Ukrainian Army starting at a low point. Hard-won battlefield lessons, including the use of equipment, are incorporated into the training of current and future soldiers. Effectively it's about the journey and not the destination.

I cannot dispute that familiarity with the weapons systems should increase with use, and I would actually expect that to happen. However, given the complexity of many of our weapons systems, it can take much longer to fully realize the capabilities and most effective uses of those systems based on trial and error than one could achieve in a training setting.

There is little time for official training during a war setting. Soldiers are more interested in not getting all dead than they are trying new methods.

I take issue with some of the other arguments you made in this thread. But I think that point is the crux of what occurred in Ukraine this year. I would ask different questions concerning why Ukraine failed to undertake measures to retake Crimea and the eight-year gap between Russia's first moves into Ukraine and current events. Yet none of that detracts from your viewpoint.

Fair enough; if we agreed with each other, it wouldn't be much of a debate, would it?

I do thank you for the concession on that point.

TheRedneck

a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

The attempt to seize Hostomel Airfield was a coup-de-main strike, that, had it been successful, would have served as a destination for a force that would have then moved on Kyiv and decapitated the Ukrainian government.

It also culminated in the destruction of the Hostomel Airfield, which proved to be an issue for Ukrainian forces as well. If the intent was to disable as much of any Ukrainian response as possible (which would be consistent with the Russian's later modus operandi of taking out military installations), it proved to be quite the success. The Russians managed to get Ukraine to destroy their own potential operations base.

Again, your analysis is based on an assumption that Russia intended to take Kyiv. I am not convinced that assumption is correct.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I don't expect anyone to be 'convinced' of my assertions.

They are, however, based upon a sound understanding of military affairs, particularly those within Europe, to include doctrine of the Russian military forces, and their past actions when attempting to topple another government.

I expect, within a decade at most, more information about the attempt to seize to Hostomel airfield to become available. Russia's airborne forces have taken a hard hit in this invasion, and among elite military forces, they are not ones to remain quiet if they feel like got the shaft as a result of bad decision making from higher ups.

At that point, we'll have a clearer understanding of what the mission of those troops was.

Cheers

a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

They lost, from what i understand, one helicopter (shot down) and that uber-jumbo carrier (which was sort of a white elephant anyway). Not unacceptable if the mission is important enough.

I keep coming back to, what would be the purpose of taking Kyiv? Doing so would place Russia in the direct center of a host of angry NATO countries. It would be impossible to hold on to it for any length of time, especially with such a small force. There would be NATO weapons on every border around Ukraine within hours, and Putin has already publicly admitted he cannot hope to win in that kind of situation. That's been his continual complaint about NATO cooperation with (and eventual acceptance of) Ukraine... he does not want NATO weapons on the Russian border, just like we didn't want Russian weapons in Cuba.

As long as Russia remains primarily concentrated in eastern Ukraine, they have an exit back home. I think Putin may have underestimated the global response to his incursion, but that's about as far as I can go.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Hi TheRedneck,

Not sure where you saw that estimate of Russian losses at Hostomel.

www.oryxspioenkop.com... -- check out the list at the end. Photos of the airfield as well. Evidence that much more than a single helicopter was lost. That site, btw, has become well known for tracking equipment losses in the Ukraine war (see: www.oryxspioenkop.com... )

Purpose of taking Kyiv would be to publicly display the government there had been decapitated. Why did the Russians seize Prague in 1968? Same reasoning.

Cheers

a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

Not sure where you saw that estimate of Russian losses at Hostomel.

Wherever it was, it was apparently incorrect. I stand corrected.

That does make me reconsider my statements. Quite the cost for destroying an airfield.

TheRedneck