Reminds me of a passage from Marx about how the "liberal" party of UK, whatever it was called at the time, just represents the aristocrats and their fellow rich friends that benefit from economic liberalisation and getting rid of the rest of aristocratic privileges, and they'll never deliver on their "ideals" of freedom and equality and the rest of it; that it's all talk and you'll never see actions no matter their majority in parliament ... it will always be close but "shucks, can't do it". — boethius

Reminds me of a NYT opinion piece I saw the other day.

Here's some analysis of the fog of war situation from someone who's actually been in a war.



He also comments on the use of conscripts situation and that they seem useless to him as front line soldiers.

It definitely could be a "send the cannon fodder situation" but from what I can tell we're not talking about a lot of conscripts.

For me, the buildup is over a year and conscripts will simply be integrated into the war games and training, so it makes sense to me that they'd just be deployed like everyone else, especially in a chaotic 1 week to plan situation (again, that has many cons, but means Ukraine has no time to deploy their own conscripts).

I think it's really difficult to evaluate what risk Putin saw in the current situation happening, and maybe none, but it seems clear to me that both Putin and Russian generals would want to avoid a Ukrainian sizable conscript deployment along the West of the Dnieper and Belarus border, with all the bridges wired to blow. Even if Russia then takes the East side it's not really a victory as that would be exactly Ukraine's strategy.

In any case, to understand decisions you have to know what risks they were intended to mitigate. There can be a lot of negative consequences for a decision, but if it mitigated worse risks then it may still be the best one, and certainly rational.

It's possible Russia is somehow losing, but it's also possible they are happy the West thinks they are losing so that Ukraine keeps on fighting so they can destroy more of their military capacity (the stated 'de-militarization" objective which Putin told the Finnish president was currently 'happening'). Of course, the negative is Russia is certainly experiencing losses, but without knowing how many and some idea of the acceptable loss level, it's basically impossible to evaluate the Kremlin's view of things and what motivates decision making.

My first comment on this thread was mainly asking for insight into how Russian's perceive things, to balance out the inundation of what Westerners think.



This video is pretty good for that purpose.

you suck

inundation — boethius

I think the only people who are being inundated are people who watch cable news all day long. Get rid of your TV.

For those confused about the current mainstream maps getting more and more ambiguous, such as replacing Russia "territory" with arrows, there's 2 reasons for this.

There's a good faith reason that journalists simply don't know the situation on the ground. At the start of the war there were journalists a bit everywhere and almost everything was documented on social media.

It's sort of the reverse of pre-telegraph times where the start of a war was the most confusing and word travels on foot and can be inaccurate and rumors spread on purpose by enemy spies and so on, and the reality becomes clearer only over time. And also "journalists" didn't necessarily exist at all.

However, there's also a bad faith reason of "map propaganda" in that if one wants to make the argument Russia has completely stalled ... one simply need not update the map for a few days to give that impression. Likewise, a pro-Russian source may do the opposite and so paint as much of the map Russian as can be possibly argued. So, whereas both pro-Ukraine and pro-Russian maps of the war started out largely agreeing, I have noticed they can now be really far apart (not just between different partisans but also even between the same partisans maps can now be very different).

There is one mapper that not only seems genuinely making an effort to be as objective as possible, but even makes videos explaining sources and confidence level of different reports as well as tactical implications and what's been reported about different battles.



It's so far the most insight into what's actually happening on the ground I have found so far, and where things are very unclear (basically still internet rumors with no confirmation) it at least gives insight into the tactical stakes in different battles and fronts (such as if the rumor is true what that may mean etc.).

The following video also gives a lot of context: — boethius

I'll look this up. But do note that this was before the current war. What is totally obvious, coming from so many various observers is that Russia armed forces have performed very poorly. This has been really something similar as to the first Chechen War. And I think the political leadership and the highest military command is responsible for this. This is now undeniable. Yet now the war is moving on to the next phase. And this is important to understand.

it's of course up for debate how well it has worked and extremely difficult to evaluate based almost solely on information Ukraine side chooses to public. — boethius

I have to correct you here a bit.

The information isn't based on just what the Ukrainian side chooses to publicize. A lot of actors do have genuine reasons to get a realistic picture of the war. For example Finnish commentators don't have an incentive to go with the most favourable Ukrainian view and they truly have an incentive to get the most truthful picture of Russian warfighting abilities.. Do note that that the US and other Western intelligence did choose to make public their intel, which was proven right. As I said earlier, the objectives how Russia would attack and where it would attack was proved correct. The satellite imagery does tell a lot. And do note that actually the US intel itself has gone against Ukrainian information warfare with for instance noting that Belarussian forces have not engaged in Ukraine (which the Ukrainians earlier were briefly saying).

What should be noted, and is nearly not mentioned, is the Ukrainian side. Although they have made counterattacks, these have been small. And naturally they too have had serious losses. What is really lacking is that Ukraine would make larger counterattacks and surround larger Russian units and hence use as Finland did in Winter War the famous motti-tactics. Basically what has been reported is that some Battalion Tactical Groups have been stopped and have sustained losses. Here is the crucial issue as sooner or later Ukraine has to fight the war of attrition.


Notice that the map hasn't changed much for days. So at least the Ukrainian defense isn't collapsing yet.

What is worrisome is that many commentators are discussing the "escalate-to-de-escalate" option that Putin has. Some of it can of course be to stoke more Putin-fear, but seems that in many places people are thinking if Putin would use then the nuclear card to solve an imppasse, if it comes to that.

I'll look this up. But do note that this was before the current war. — ssu

That's why it gives really context of what Russia's strategic doctrine may have been before going into the war.

The analysis is not biased by trying to interpret current events as it was done before.

A lot of actors do have genuine reasons to get a realistic picture of the war. — ssu

I don't say otherwise, but most material just so happens to be published by Ukraine as basically the foundation of their strategy is the social media battle, to get international support, to get weapons and sanction pressure on Russia, so publishing material to support the narrative that they are winning, or inflicting serious unsustainable losses on the Russians, is critical for that.

Even observers tying to be unbiased may not have any unbiased sources. Sure, you're free to believe Western intelligence sources are just unbiased truth tellers if you want.

What is really lacking is that Ukraine would make larger counterattacks and surround larger Russian units and hence use as Finland did in Winter War the famous motti-tactics. — ssu

Motti-tactics were specific to the Finnish Boreal Forest North of lake Lagoda, where the Russians were constrained to narrow roads to move any heavy equipment or supplies through the forest; Finns could use their advantage of ski and other winter forest tactics to cutup and destroy these columns (including excellent mortar teams trained precisely due to the near vertical terminal descent of mortars perfect for hitting targets between tall trees). It should also be noted that the Soviet Union was still wary of and positioned for a war with the Nazi's and Stalin purged some 90% of the officers. So these weren't Russia's best troops and officers sent into said forest / death trap.

However, south of lake Lagoda there is more of an open plane of farmland that the Finns must defend a more traditional line against armor and artillery, but there's a big bottle neck between the lake and the gulf of Finland where a small force can hold hold a line against a larger force due to the constrained space making flanking maneuvers impossible and the entire region will be impassible mud for armor and artillery come spring--hence "the Winter War".

The situation was very different.

Notice that the map hasn't changed much for days. — ssu

This is the basic pattern of the war, as forward operating bases need to be built, and defenses to protect them, to supply forces for the next step (otherwise armor just runs out of fuel as we saw in the first days of the war). Russia has a unit dedicated to building tactical pipelines for example, which apparently has been stealing tractors from farmers for digging and landscaping for this project.

The other reason there's a pause is that Kiev has been nearly encircled, which means the affect of this will be tested diplomatically and also strategy rethought considering this strategic objective being achieved (consolidate, move forces around, decide and plan the next military operations). For example, Russia may decide Kiev is encircled "enough" and so dig in where they are now to focus on other objectives, or decide to storm the capital, or decide to fully encircle the capital.

Lastly, there may not be a pause at all, but rather the next critical step is not taking more territory but something more subtle when looking at a map of the entire country.

Or maybe there's a pause as things are falling apart, and casualties and losses are unsustainable.

It's very difficult to tell, but a few days pause, even if literally nothing much was happening, may indicate a setback or may indicate Russia is simply preparing it's next major offensives and moving things into position.

All the anti-tank weapons are definitely clearly dangerous, but what we don't know is if Russia has developed effective counter tactics. Russia has had experience with a lot of anti-Tank weapons in Syria and developed counter tactics in that context, but the environment was very different and they weren't NATO's best in stock. We really have almost no insight into what Russian generals are thinking of these weapon systems (except obviously they'd rather them not be there; so, if they simply inflict unsustainable losses without any counter-tactic, then Russia will likely dig in where they are now; but if they, at least feel, they can deal with them somehow, then we may see major offensives demonstrating that confidence--I honestly don't know what the situation is with the ATGM's, except both sides are trying to learn and adapt, and they clearly haven't stopped Russian getting to wherever they are now).

Fixed it — Isaac

Exclusive: Secret CIA training program in Ukraine helped Kyiv prepare for Russian invasion

At least some of the fierce resistance by Ukrainian forces has its roots in a now shuttered covert CIA training program run from Ukraine’s eastern frontlines.
As part of the Ukraine-based training program, CIA paramilitaries taught their Ukrainian counterparts sniper techniques; how to operate U.S.-supplied Javelin anti-tank missiles and other equipment; how to evade digital tracking the Russians used to pinpoint the location of Ukrainian troops, which had left them vulnerable to attacks by artillery; how to use covert communications tools; and how to remain undetected in the war zone while also drawing out Russian and insurgent forces from their positions, among other skills, according to former officials.
After Russia’s 2014 incursion, the U.S. military also helped run a long-standing, publicly acknowledged training program for Ukrainian troops in the country’s western region, far from the frontlines. That program also included instruction in how to use Javelin anti-tank missiles and sniper training.

If Putin doesn't start talking soon, then we might as well admit it: Putin just started bombing the $#!† out of another country and handed over a bunch of not-quite-genuine demands, with the world watching. :D

The West: "We really care about Ukraine :hearts: :heart: :flower: "

Also the West: "Give us all your money forever lol. Hope yall stay alive so you can pay it":

"Ukraine’s total external government debt amounts to $54 billion. The country is set to pay $7.3 billion in debt repayments this year alone. More than half is due to private lenders like banks and hedge funds, while most of the rest is owed to multilateral institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the European Investment Bank. The current fall in the value of Ukrainian hryvnia against the US dollar will only exacerbate the debt burden, as foreign debts are owed in dollars, heaping extra pressure on the government to find the funds to repay its loans at a time of foreign invasion and extreme economic disruption.

Since the invasion, Ukrainian dollar-denominated bonds, which were issued as part of its 2015 debt restructuring, have been trading at around 25 cents on the dollar. This reflects the high risk of default, but also means that if Ukraine continues to make its debt payments, Western banks and hedge funds could make profits of 300 percent.

The response of multilateral institutions has been to give even more loans to Ukraine. Since the war started, the IMF has given a £1.4 billion emergency loan, while the World Bank has provided a $723 million financial package that includes $589 million in loans. These new loans are being piled on top of Ukraine’s already unsustainable debts."

https://jacobinmag.com/2022/03/ukraine-foreign-debt-cancellation-imf-global-finance

Meanwhile, markets expecting Russia to default on its debts any day now:

Russia will default on its debt for the first time since 1998 if it tries to make interest payments on its dollar bonds in roubles on Wednesday, rating agency Fitch has said.

Investors are awaiting $117mn in coupon payments on two Russian bonds, the first such payments since western countries responded to Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine with unprecedented financial sanctions. The deadline marks a crucial test of Moscow’s willingness and ability to continue servicing its external debt.

On March 5, Putin said creditors in “unfriendly” countries that have imposed sanctions should be paid in roubles rather than foreign currency. But such a “forced redenomination” of coupon payments would indicate “that a default or a default-like process has begun”, Fitch said. The company would further downgrade Russia’s credit rating to “restricted default” if the payment is not made in dollars within the 30-day grace period that follows Wednesday’s deadline.

https://www.ft.com/content/2c0d7a8b-a48b-4287-ac3a-376603347ba3

Тем временем рынки ожидают дефолта России по своим долгам со дня на день: — StreetlightX

I fixed it for you

The Russians are such cowards. They can’t actually win on the battlefield so they bomb hospitals and residential buildings and theaters full of children from behind their lines. This is what Putin thinks constitutes ‘winning’.

I don't happen to believe that. That's the standard media propaganda line. Meanwhile:

UN court orders Russia to halt invasion of Ukraine
The International Court of Justice orders Russia to halt its invasion and says it is ‘profoundly concerned’ by Moscow’s use of force in Ukraine.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/16/un-court-orders-russia-to-cease-military-operations-in-ukraine

MARCH 18, 2003
The ICJ today expressed its deep dismay that a small number of states are poised to launch an outright illegal invasion of Iraq, which amounts to a war of aggression.

https://www.icj.org/icj-deplores-moves-toward-a-war-of-aggression-on-iraq/

They are consistent, I will give them that

All the anti-tank weapons are definitely clearly dangerous, but what we don't know is if Russia has developed effective counter tactics. Russia has had experience with a lot of anti-Tank weapons in Syria and developed counter tactics in that context, but the environment was very different and they weren't NATO's best in stock. We really have almost no insight into what Russian generals are thinking of these weapon systems (except obviously they'd rather them not be there; so, if they simply inflict unsustainable losses without any counter-tactic, then Russia will likely dig in where they are now; but if they, at least feel, they can deal with them somehow, then we may see major offensives demonstrating that confidence--I honestly don't know what the situation is with the ATGM's, except both sides are trying to learn and adapt, and they clearly haven't stopped Russian getting to wherever they are now). — boethius

I expected that modern technology would have proven cumbersome tanks and even expensive airplanes obsoleted by this war. Movements of large machines can be tracked by satellites making them easy targets for attacks from the distance by small groups of scattered defenders armed with portable and shoulder fired rockets. I would not be surprised if the Russian army already lost 10,000 or more soldiers, and many more to come.

Motti-tactics were specific to the Finnish Boreal Forest North of lake Lagoda, where the Russians were constrained to narrow roads to move any heavy equipment or supplies through the forest; Finns could use their advantage of ski and other winter forest tactics to cutup and destroy these columns (including excellent mortar teams trained precisely due to the near vertical terminal descent of mortars perfect for hitting targets between tall trees). — boethius

Well, The Germans did pocket whole armies when they attacked in 1941, so encirclement of enemy forces can be done basically anywhere. In Kiev 1941 there was one of those huge pockets resulting in over half a million Soviet soldiers being captured.

Yet such encirclements need conventional formations. The initiative, if small and slow, still seems to be with the Russians.

I am not actually sure what is going on in Ukraine. I believe nothing that comes out of the media anymore and am even more certain that the politicians are utterly corrupt. So what is the truth of it? I have no idea. The only way I could know is if I personally knew someone in Ukraine and someone in the Russian army. I might not get the full truth, but certainly more reliable than anything available to me now.

Is there a war going on? Maybe. Although I have seen numerous videos to suggest that it isn't. The specific videos I have seen "from the ground" are too blurry to confirm who is fighting who, or from too far away to make any sense of what can be seen. Yes, a tank was blown up, but from where and by who is not clear. Also, much of the footage looks very familiar to some war movies I have seen, too familiar. I have seen an interview with soldiers in which the soldiers did not know how to hold their guns, or how to insert a clip into the machine gun. Seriously bad actors. Also one showing a parking lot full of body bags, counting the dead, in which the body bags are still moving from the inside as the people in them get comfortable for the footage, one guy actually unzips the bag from the inside and wiggles around a bit and then rezips it up.

So what am I seeing, really? I have no idea, but any trust I had in media has long since died, so I will likely never know.

. So what is the truth of it? I have no idea — Book273

So why don't you shut up about it?

You mean unlike everyone else that picks a side and clings to it without actually knowing anything?

What if we all shut up about it? THAT would be great!

By your own account, you don't know anything about it. So how would you know what I know about it?

Either you are ignorant or you are not. Which is it?

You are correct. I do not know what you know about it. Which part of the Ukraine are you in? or which part of the Russian forces are you with?

I am not in Ukraine.

So you are Russian?

How far, in actual distance, are you from the fighting? I am on the other side of the world, and I know, reliably, as much as I should while on the other side of the world: Nothing.

I have looked at the latest pictures available via media. I see blown up buildings. Empty blown up buildings. No bodies. No blood spatter. Very clean sites, all things considered. Sure there is smoke in the air from the blast, but no one is fleeing. No one is crying and bleeding. In truth, there isn't anyone to see at all. Just a picture of destruction and smoke, but nothing to suggest it was from a bomb other than the write up that says it was.

I have never seen a clean fight. There is always collateral mess, always. But not in these pictures. Curious.

French. Nobody's perfect... Where are from?

Are you near the battle front or getting your information from media?

French Canadian. Yep, nobody is perfect.

I'm getting my info from the media.

I guess you trust your media. I don't trust mine anymore, nor my government, which is why I have the position I have. If I see it in front of me, if I can question it without censure, and if I trust the source implicitly, then I know something. Other than that, it is a sales pitch, only I don't know what they are selling.

I guess you trust your media. I don't trust mine anymore, nor my government, which is why I have the position I have. — Book273

Why then speak about it? What is the point of going around flaunting your ignorance about a topic?

I could go to a reddit thread on, say, marple syrup and say that I know absolutely nothing about marple syrup, never even tasted it, nor do I trust it one bit, because I wasn't there when they drew it from the marple tree, was I? And you guys who think you know something about marple syrup are soooo fucking naïve.

That'd be fun. :/

Well, The Germans did pocket whole armies when they attacked in 1941, so encirclement of enemy forces can be done basically anywhere. — ssu

Yes, but the Germans pocketed soviet armies using armor. Motti tactics are about encircling columns without armor, which was possible if the Soviets are stuck in long columns on roads through the forest and were also not prepared for Finnish winter.

And, as I've explained, the armor component to armor is somewhat secondary to the mobility part. If you simply can't get to the front without a tracked vehicle in a reasonable amount of time, then you can't reinforce a breakthrough to cut through enemy lines to encircle them.

In addition to just the speed problem, there's simply a limit to how much ammunition you can carry on foot, so even you do get to the front you maybe out of ammunition pretty quick, especially anything heavier than bullets (but they can go pretty fast too).

would not be surprised if the Russian army already lost 10,000 or more soldiers, and many more to come. — magritte

It maybe true Russia has suffered 10 000 losses or more. And in terms of casualties I would agree that's a reasonable figure. However, depends a lot on how casualties are defined; after a war it's usually killed and seriously wounded, but during a war the smallest of injuries can get infected and make you non-combat effective, even if you're back to basically 100% after a week in an infirmary.

These small injuries don't really matter in a conflict like Afghanistan (to US troops) as attacks are relatively infrequent, "low-intensity conflict" (compared to what's happening in Ukraine) and so they just go back to base and heal up and any given time there's some sick and wounded soldiers, but the don't accumulate.

However, in a high intensity conflict with shelling and explosions all over the place, people can get cut, concussed, fractured limbs or ribs, infected or just get sick due to stress and exhaustion, or simply reach their physical and psychological limits.

So, we'd need to know the statistics on these casualties, to decide if 10 000 is a big number or not.

And that's also the basic problem with all the negative reporting on the Russian military situation, it's really sparse data that doesn't give much statistical insight. The "Task and Purpose" video has a really good contrast (by someone a lot more qualified than me on these tactical issues) of a totally incompetent armor response to an ambush and a pretty competent response. It's entirely possible the incompetent response was because the tanks weren't even driven by a tank crew but just logistics people to get them to the front and it was believed the area was cleared (obviously a mistake).

However, ambushed don't take territory and unless they stop logistics completely, don't really change anything fundamentally. German U-boats sank plenty of merchant ships resupplying UK, but obviously enough got through for UK to hold out. In supplying some location where resupply can be targeted it's a question of if those losses are worth it for whatever strategic location is being supplied.

I expected that modern technology would have proven cumbersome tanks and even expensive airplanes obsoleted by this war. Movements of large machines can be tracked by satellites making them easy targets for attacks from the distance by small groups of scattered defenders armed with portable and shoulder fired rockets. — magritte

The problem is that everything has a counter. If you don't have tanks ... enemy use weapons and tactics that highly effective against an enemy without tanks, if you do have tanks they'll employ weapons and tactics to try to take out your tanks. Of course, you'll then try to deal with their anti-tank weapons and tactics and they'll try to deal with those.

Air power is definitely the tanks biggest weakness, and drones extremely effective air power for this purpose, so facing this threat counters will be developed, and then counters to those counters and so on.

So, to evaluate anything we need some statistical information of how much a given tank is able to accomplish before being destroyed, how many anti-tank drone missions can be done before the drone is destroyed (or drone command center targeted with cruise missiles), and so on. What we'd want to know is the Russian tank's survivability generally speaking in front line combat and against ambushes as well as the survivability of the crew.

We basically don't have any statistical information at all.

All we know is that Russia can take and hold territory in Ukraine pretty effectively, and regularly advances key positions, but we don't really know what the cost is to Ukraine or Russia. Are Russians regularly tactically retreating to inflict heavy losses ... or are Ukrainians methodologically tactically retreating to inflict heavy unsustainable losses.

We definitely don't know, my main purpose is to simply point out that Western media claims are totally unsubstantiated and can represent Russia winning as easily as Ukraine somehow winning.