Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-24

[two sheds]

Is Euromaidanpress seen as reliable?

Frontline report: Ukraine ignites Russian strategic bases, flames span from Crimea to Urals - Euromaidan Press

In a sweeping assault igniting Russian military infrastructure across a 1,500-kilometer arc, Ukrainian forces struck strategic targets from occupied Crimea to the Urals, beginning with a devastating attack on Feodosia's port.

euromaidanpress.com

 

[TopCat]

Is Euromaidanpress seen as reliable?

Frontline report: Ukraine ignites Russian strategic bases, flames span from Crimea to Urals - Euromaidan Press

In a sweeping assault igniting Russian military infrastructure across a 1,500-kilometer arc, Ukrainian forces struck strategic targets from occupied Crimea to the Urals, beginning with a devastating attack on Feodosia's port.

euromaidanpress.com

Well it suggests Ukraine are doing well, are on the offensive and are having a lot of success.

 

[two sheds]

In isolated areas, yes.

 

[editor]

I went to the Imperial War Museum and though that this piece about the start of WW2 sounded familiar:

 

[Pickman's model]

Happy old poland

 

[Chz]

From the ISW:

"The Russian military appears to be increasingly recruiting older Russian volunteers in order to sustain ongoing crypto-mobilization efforts. Russian opposition outlet Verstka reported on October 9 that a source in an unspecified Russian Airborne (VDV) unit operating in the Kherson direction stated that 40 percent of the unit's contract recruits and mobilized personnel are over 50 years old and that over 75 percent of new personnel are over 50 years old."

Sounds desperate on the surface of it, but there's practicality involved.

The VDV sees itself as an elite unit, and whatever one may think about that claim, VDV units do consistently perform better than regular army units. Consequently the VDV has been worked hard and primarily deployed into situations where Ukraine was launching offensives, as well as having taken significant losses during operations like the attempted capture of Hostomel Airport.

As a result the VDV must have lost a significant number of its pre-invasion personnel, and due to various mistakes (using up training battalion personnel to delay mobilization was really, really, really dumb) made by Russia as well as how many regular army units are treated there's not really that much feedstock available for replenishment from current serving personnel.

VDV brass may have decided that beggars can't be choosers, and that when given the choice of older, experienced former VDV personnel and whatever they could induct from the regular army experience and known personalities (in an army like the Russian one you can't trust most personnel files; talking up problem soldiers in order to promote them into someone else's problem is a time-honored tradition) would be worth the loss of physical fitness.

 

[teuchter]

What's crypto-mobilisation?

 

[Chz]

What's crypto-mobilisation?

Russia's "We're mobilising people, no doubt, but we're not officially mobilising people because that would panic everyone".

 

[Artaxerxes]

From the ISW:

"The Russian military appears to be increasingly recruiting older Russian volunteers in order to sustain ongoing crypto-mobilization efforts. Russian opposition outlet Verstka reported on October 9 that a source in an unspecified Russian Airborne (VDV) unit operating in the Kherson direction stated that 40 percent of the unit's contract recruits and mobilized personnel are over 50 years old and that over 75 percent of new personnel are over 50 years old."

Sounds desperate on the surface of it, but there's practicality involved.

The VDV sees itself as an elite unit, and whatever one may think about that claim, VDV units do consistently perform better than regular army units. Consequently the VDV has been worked hard and primarily deployed into situations where Ukraine was launching offensives, as well as having taken significant losses during operations like the attempted capture of Hostomel Airport.

As a result the VDV must have lost a significant number of its pre-invasion personnel, and due to various mistakes (using up training battalion personnel to delay mobilization was really, really, really dumb) made by Russia as well as how many regular army units are treated there's not really that much feedstock available for replenishment from current serving personnel.

VDV brass may have decided that beggars can't be choosers, and that when given the choice of older, experienced former VDV personnel and whatever they could induct from the regular army experience and known personalities (in an army like the Russian one you can't trust most personnel files; talking up problem soldiers in order to promote them into someone else's problem is a time-honored tradition) would be worth the loss of physical fitness.

 

[ska invita]

I went to the Imperial War Museum and though that this piece about the start of WW2 sounded familiar:

View attachment 446263

Yes war is all too familiar, it never ends, and close to home our country never stops starting them, taking part in them and funding them, so I'll give you that. But Putin is not Hitler and modern inter-imperial competition is not the same as 1938. The differences are important, and have been discussed at length here (and routinely ignored).
Our resident war criminal likes your post because the one conclusion drawn from trying to squash other wars into the mould of WW2 is an attempt to make all conflicts seem Just and Justifiable...reaching for Just War Theory to excuse all crimes and paint all alternatives as Appeasement.

If you truly believe the situations are comparable the conclusion to draw is advocating for total war against Russia, with NATO troops getting involved, conscription, war communism, and the resulting rounding up of dissidents into prison and internment camps etc

 

[sleaterkinney]

Yes war is all too familiar, it never ends, and close to home our country never stops starting them, taking part in them and funding them, so I'll give you that. But Putin is not Hitler and modern inter-imperial competition is not the same as 1938. The differences are important, and have been discussed at length here (and routinely ignored).
Our resident war criminal likes your post because the one conclusion drawn from trying to squash other wars into the mould of WW2 is an attempt to make all conflicts seem Just and Justifiable...reaching for Just War Theory to excuse all crimes and paint all alternatives as Appeasement.

If you truly believe the situations are comparable the conclusion to draw is advocating for total war against Russia, with NATO troops getting involved, conscription, war communism, and the resulting rounding up of dissidents into prison and internment camps etc

He didn't stop with Crimea or the Donbas, why would he stop with Ukraine?. At what point would you oppose him?

 

[ska invita]

He didn't stop with Crimea or the Donbas, why would he stop with Ukraine?. At what point would you oppose him?

One thing I've learned from this thread is endless conversation don't actually get you anywhere. A thousand pages on this thread, I reckon we've both read most of them. And yet the same conversation points go round and round. Is there actually any point? Is anyone changing their opinion or learning anything?

It's like people who fall into conspiracy/far right thinking, is it actually possible to talk anyone around from that? I'm not sure it is. Although it's clearly possible to coax someone into that position, though that's usually based on appealing to simpler prejudices rather than more complex thinking.

I guess I've not been good enough at explaining my view. Anyway right now I can't be bothered to repeat myself again to answer, I've said it so many times

 

[Pickman's model]

He didn't stop with Crimea or the Donbas, why would he stop with Ukraine?. At what point would you oppose him?

Oh ffs this has been answered about two dozen times by me alone. Do you honestly think that the Russian armed forces will be able to fight another major war for some years to come - they've lost so many skilled personnel, so much materiel,squandered so much money and lost so many senior ncos never mind majors, colonels and generals that it's inconceivable. By contrast the nato forces have kept their powder dry. While nato forces may as yet be undersupplied for high intensity combat atm they're yet in a better position than the russians in that they're intact and resupply will take less time than the russians building an army again.

 

[andysays]

He didn't stop with Crimea or the Donbas, why would he stop with Ukraine?. At what point would you oppose him?

The conventional answer to this question would be "when a country which your country has a treaty obligation to defend is invaded".

As referred to in editor's post above, Britain and France opposed Hitler when Germany invaded Poland, because they had a treaty obligation to defend Poland.

Ukraine is not a member of NATO, so NATO countries do not have a treaty obligation to defend Ukraine against Russian invasion.

 

[The39thStep]

Oh ffs this has been answered about two dozen times by me alone. Do you honestly think that the Russian armed forces will be able to fight another major war for some years to come - they've lost so many skilled personnel, so much materiel,squandered so much money and lost so many senior ncos never mind majors, colonels and generals that it's inconceivable. By contrast the nato forces have kept their powder dry. While nato forces may as yet be undersupplied for high intensity combat atm they're yet in a better position than the russians in that they're intact and resupply will take less time than the russians building an army again.

I always thought that the 'let's arm the Ukrainians so we can wear Russia down' line was quite popular in certain quarters.

 

[maomao]

Oh ffs this has been answered about two dozen times by me alone. Do you honestly think that the Russian armed forces will be able to fight another major war for some years to come - they've lost so many skilled personnel, so much materiel,squandered so much money and lost so many senior ncos never mind majors, colonels and generals that it's inconceivable. By contrast the nato forces have kept their powder dry. While nato forces may as yet be undersupplied for high intensity combat atm they're yet in a better position than the russians in that they're intact and resupply will take less time than the russians building an army again.

They've lost their peace time military leadership and gained experienced battle-hardened troops and a war economy. I think Putin would be unlikely to go for Poland or a Baltic 'cause they're Nato but he'd have a go at Moldova or a Stan or two.

 

[TopCat]

I think Putin would be unlikely to go for Poland or a Baltic 'cause they're Nato but he'd have a go at Moldova or a Stan or two.

This would come at considerable cost. For what gain?

 

[maomao]

This would come at considerable cost. For what gain?

Ukraine doesn't make sense on a cost-gain basis really. You don't think Putin's an empire-builder?

 

[sleaterkinney]

One thing I've learned from this thread is endless conversation don't actually get you anywhere. A thousand pages on this thread, I reckon we've both read most of them. And yet the same conversation points go round and round. Is there actually any point? Is anyone changing their opinion or learning anything?

It's like people who fall into conspiracy/far right thinking, is it actually possible to talk anyone around from that? I'm not sure it is. Although it's clearly possible to coax someone into that position, though that's usually based on appealing to simpler prejudices rather than more complex thinking.

I guess I've not been good enough at explaining my view. Anyway right now I can't be bothered to repeat myself again to answer, I've said it so many times

It's complex thinking now?.

And a bit of passive aggressiveness to finish it off.

 

[Pickman's model]

They've lost their peace time military leadership and gained experienced battle-hardened troops and a war economy. I think Putin would be unlikely to go for Poland or a Baltic 'cause they're Nato but he'd have a go at Moldova or a Stan or two.

If you think he'll go for Moldova you think he'll win in Ukraine. And that's a big ask, he'd face what the soviets faced in Ukraine after ww2 only with insurgent forces having much more support. Would Moldova count as a major war? Or Kazakhstan, etc?

 

[eoin_k]

Nice pivot.

 

[maomao]

If you think he'll go for Moldova you think he'll win in Ukraine.

I didn't say he will, I said he would. It was an answer to an 'if' premise the same as yours.

 

[Pickman's model]

I didn't say he will, I said he would. It was an answer to an 'if' premise the same as yours.

There is no if in my post. The war could end tomorrow and Russia keep what it's got and it would be years before they could fight a major war. No ifs. No buts. Their massive loss of manpower and materiel prohibits it.

 

[The39thStep]

Ukraine doesn't make sense on a cost-gain basis really. You don't think Putin's an empire-builder?

Worth considering that it has been estimated that ( according to an article in the Kyiv Independent) :

63 percent of Ukrainian reported coal mines are under Russian control as of July 2022.

This trend continues across other key sectors: Russia controls 27 percent of Ukraine's iron ore deposits, 50 percent of its manganese ore deposits, 100 percent of its strontium supplies, and roughly 20 percent of precious metal deposits.

According to SecDev estimates, the total worth of all Ukrainian mineral wealth now under Russian control is around $12 trillion. (

 

[maomao]

There is no if in my post.

There doesn't have to be. The 'would' in the post you're replying to makes it clear we're in the conditional.

I think it would have to be a certain sort of victory (most of Southern Ukraine, Nato backing off) for him to have a go at Moldova but it's clear from what the Russians have been doing in Transnistria that they'd like to. The bit of your argument that I don't agree with is that Ukraine has worn out the Russian military. I think they've expanded their military and burnt a lot of bridges with the rest of the world. Overall I'm in favour of peace but it's going to be a dangerous and volatile peace.

 

[Pickman's model]

There doesn't have to be. The 'would' in the post you're replying to makes it clear we're in the conditional.

I think it would have to be a certain sort of victory (most of Southern Ukraine, Nato backing off) for him to have a go at Moldova but it's clear from what the Russians have been doing in Transnistria that they'd like to. The bit of your argument that I don't agree with is that Ukraine has worn out the Russian military. I think they've expanded their military and burnt a lot of bridges with the rest of the world. Overall I'm in favour of peace but it's going to be a dangerous and volatile peace.

Much of what you say I agree with. But where I differ is on eg the experienced personnel. Sure, they've been in combat. But they'll have seen the shortcomings in the Russian military, eg medical evacuation. The use of obsolete weaponry. Would they be up for another crack? I doubt it.

 

[maomao]

Much of what you say I agree with. But where I differ is on eg the experienced personnel. Sure, they've been in combat. But they'll have seen the shortcomings in the Russian military, eg medical evacuation. The use of obsolete weaponry. Would they be up for another crack? I doubt it.

Hopefully we won't find out.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Worth considering that it has been estimated that ( according to an article in the Kyiv Independent) :

So is Putin Hans Gruber and all this rubbish the credulous swallowed about getting rid of Nazis, plus the rapes, child abductions and murders a smokescreen for him to pull of a $12tn robbery?

 

[Artaxerxes]

September Was Deadly Month for Russian Troops in Ukraine, U.S. Says

More than 600,000 Russian troops have been killed or wounded since the war began in 2022.

www.nytimes.com

September was the bloodiest month of the war for Russian forces in Ukraine, U.S. officials said, with the costly offensive in the east bringing the number of Russia’s dead and wounded to more than 600,000 troops since the war started.

U.S. officials attribute the high number of Russian casualties to what they describe as a grinding war of attrition, with each side trying to exhaust the other by inflicting maximum losses, hoping to break the enemy’s capacity and will to continue. Russian troops have made steady but incremental gains in recent months in the Donbas region in eastern Ukraine, U.S. officials said.

It is a style of warfare that Russians have likened to being put into a meat grinder, with commanding officers seemingly willing to send many thousands of infantry soldiers to die.

Just absolutely horrific numbers of dead for one mans vanity.

 

[teuchter]

We have some people arguing that the priority should be to find a "negotiated" end to the conflict asap even if that means territory being handed to Russia.

And then comes the question, well, but if this is conceded then doesn't this reward Putin's actions and encourage him to try again somewhere else.

And the answer to that is that Russia's military has been so ground down that they just aren't able to embark on any new invasions.

The implication of that answer is that the military resistance by Ukraine (with a certain amount of support from elsewhere) has ultimately been somewhat successful. It hasn't prevented territory being taken but it has inflicted sufficient damage to prevent things going much further.

But doesn't that then justify not negotiating for peace at too early a stage? Because if that had been done two years ago, perhaps Russia's military would not yet have been sufficiently weakened, and the arguments against worrying that they would try again would not apply.

This seems to be where some of the pacifist type positions don't really hold together. The arguments for negotiating for peace are made in the luxury of a situation that has only come about as a result of not doing so earlier.