Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-24

[emanymton]

I was reading a decent analysis in Chinese from Lu Gang, who heads a national Central Asia research body here which ended on the same point when interviewer was asking him if the US was going to be the big winner as the swivel-eyed commentary here often has it.
His current position (think interview was a couple of days ago) is first attack has clearly failed as no major cities fallen but he expects a second round in April and thinks at best there might be compromise deal come May. As has been said on here IIRC, the state of play in the field sets the parameters for what can be demanded round the peace talks table and he doesn't think Russia's put itself in a position to enforce too strong demands.

ä¿ä¹è°å¤åæ¹ææè¾¾æ妥åï¼ä¸å®¶ï¼åå³äºæåºå½¢å¿åå±

ä¿ä¹è°å¤åæ¹ææè¾¾æ妥åï¼ä¸å®¶ï¼åå³äºæåºå½¢å¿åå±,å约,æ夫ç½å¤«,ä¹åå°,ä¿ç½æ¯,åºè¾

www.163.com

Was interesting to read a sensible take from someone with the ear of central government here.

I take it there is no chance of an English translation showing up anywhere some point soon?

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm not really looking into that sort of detail in regards that sort of urban warfare, because I'm not convinced that will be what a battle for Kyiv actually looks like, given that the 'politics' of the situation may change if Russia breaches the outer defences and neutralises any major Ukrainian forces in the area. And if it does still come down to that sort of battle, I dont really anticipate having near-realtime access to the detail of any fighting conducted on a street by street, building by building basis.

the thing is and i thought you'd have understood this already, the urban warfare environment is one in which you might think everyone's been killed but they won't have been. there will be battles underground, battles for rooms, for floors, for buildings. armour isn't so useful in urban warfare as cities are a great agglomeration of defiles or mountain passes and tanks lumber and are out of their preferred environment. this is the war of small units, where large groups are not so useful. you could read with profit norman davies' 'rising '44' about warsaw too. there won't be real-time access, but the situation would imo favour the ukrainians because although the russians have the big guns they don't seem to have the tactical nous which urban warfare demands, where small groups of soldiers can make a huge difference, and where giving autonomy to sergeants and corporals is vital to victory. looking at the past few weeks it would be a brave man indeed who felt that the ukrainians wouldn't repulse or wear down the russians in a battle for kyiv. they seem to me to be a faster learning and more creative organisation than the russian army at present, and the russian experience in grozny happened a long, long time ago now. gerasimov might have fought there but none of the current contractors will have, or any that did will be toward the end of their service and not at the squad or platoon level.

you don't need to know precise detail about every thing to have an idea this won't end well, either for the defenders or attackers.

 

[elbows]

This Col. Douglas Macgregor may have somethings right, but Jesus, he's a bit of an oddball.

For sure there is a Putin propagandist aspect to the stuff he is coming out with at the moment. To the extent I dont even really want to describe the sort of thing he is saying. OK maybe I will give one example, he seems to be fond of saying that Russias operations have been going slowly because Putin wanted to minimise civilian casualties. And this is not a good moment to be trying to make that sort of claim, given what we have been seeing in some other cities recently. However if I try to find anything worthy of extracting and studying in isolation in such claims, I suppose the closest I could get would be in relation to our wondering about why the 'shock and awe' aspect of mass death from above was largely missing from the opening stage of the war. But again, now that some cities have been taking a pummelling, he resorts to blaming the Ukrainian side for that, and we end up in territory where its going to be hard to acknowledge any nuggets of truth in such sentiments from disgusting emotive propaganda.

I suppose I'll take a look at his views on other conflicts. Mostly because I dont mind making use of contrarian propagandists to discover interesting little details that may not be mentioned elsewhere because they are very inconvenient truths, even when their broader message and stance is well dodgy.

 

[Cid]

I take it there is no chance of an English translation showing up anywhere some point soon?

Google does a reasonable job of machine translate from Chinese.

 

[Rimbaud]

Although I'm allowing myself more room to consider Russian failures, my basic problem with the sort of analysis that features in that twitter thread hasnt really changed. We arent being given any sort of proper indication about the size, capabilities and location of Ukrainian troops. Russia getting bogged down in certain ways, generalised descriptions about the perils of urban warfare, and vague claims about willingness to fight in Kyiv still does not properly compensate for that. Without that sort of detail it is very hard for me to see such analysis of Russias prospects in regards Kyiv as anything other than a contribution to the continuation of a very clear propaganda narrative that has been pretty consistent since the early days of this war. Propaganda often works best when there is a healthy dose of truth in it, or when people can find reason to think it plausible. The failure of Russia to achieve its central goal within a few weeks has significantly helped the credibility of this sort of analysis, but I reckon I will fuck up if I now start taking it at face value rather than paying attention to the details that are consistently omitted.

Well, we aren't going to get that information - it would be foolish of the Ukrainian army to make it easy for Russia to accurately assess their defensive capabilities. So we won't know until the war is over, if ever.

Which means, from the outside, all of us observers can only make educated guesses at what is going on based on the available info. Which is OK - at the end of the day, we don't have to make decisions based on this, if we wrong, then time will prove us to be so.

Based on what we do know - Russian continued failure to take Mariupol after besieging it for over 2 weeks now, their logistic and military failures in the North, the strategic importance of Kyiv and large increase in military aid over the last 3 weeks which has surely helped bolster Kyiv's defenses, the geography of Kyiv, and the willingness of Ukrainians to fight (relative to the Russian soldiers), I think such educated guesses are not unreasonable.

 

[JimW]

I take it there is no chance of an English translation showing up anywhere some point soon?

I doubt it, don't think they aim to have an international influence. It's a solid looking take but wouldn't say it contains anything strikingly unique; as I said, from my POV it was interesting to see a "connected" Chinese take that was sober and not for propaganda agenda purposes. A lot of mainstream news outlets are leading with stuff like US biolabs and all that twaddle.

 

[elbows]

the thing is and i thought you'd have understood this already, the urban warfare environment is one in which you might think everyone's been killed but they won't have been.

My stance is simply that Im not going to agonise over such possibilities when they arent the only possible scenario that actually comes to pass in Kyiv. eg if a side capitulates and/or the political district is rapidly stormed then we dont necessarily get urban warfare across the whole city.

It would be a bad idea for me to draw too many parallels between this invasion and the invasion of Iraq. The will to fight and many other details are not the same. But I cannot forget that we were invited to dwell on the horrors that could feature in the urban battle for Baghdad, and in the end there was a different sort of battle with very different timescales and an abrupt ending to that stage of war.

 

[Pickman's model]

For sure there is a Putin propagandist aspect to the stuff he is coming out with at the moment. To the extent I dont even really want to describe the sort of thing he is saying. OK maybe I will give one example, he seems to be fond of saying that Russias operations have been going slowly because Putin wanted to minimise civilian casualties. And this is not a good moment to be trying to make that sort of claim, given what we have been seeing in some other cities recently. However if I try to find anything worthy of extracting and studying in isolation in such claims, I suppose the closest I could get would be in relation to our wondering about why the 'shock and awe' aspect of mass death from above was largely missing from the opening stage of the war. But again, now that some cities have been taking a pummelling, he resorts to blaming the Ukrainian side for that, and we end up in territory where its going to be hard to acknowledge any nuggets of truth in such sentiments from disgusting emotive propaganda.

I suppose I'll take a look at his views on other conflicts. Mostly because I dont mind making use of contrarian propagandists to discover interesting little details that may not be mentioned elsewhere because they are very inconvenient truths, even when their broader message and stance is well dodgy.

i think that the reason there wasn't the air operation we expected was due to three major factors - 1) the intelligence suggesting - or the reports suggesting - any opposition would be negligible; 2) hoping to capture cities intact; 3) deficiencies in the operating power of the russian air force, things like issues with weapons, poor training, etc. i don't know that i expected something like the 2003 shock and awe against baghdad but i certainly expected something of the sort of the 1991 air war against iraq.

 

[elbows]

Based on what we do know - Russian continued failure to take Mariupol after besieging it for over 2 weeks now, their logistic and military failures in the North, the strategic importance of Kyiv and large increase in military aid over the last 3 weeks which has surely helped bolster Kyiv's defenses, the geography of Kyiv, and the willingness of Ukrainians to fight (relative to the Russian soldiers), I think such educated guesses are not unreasonable.

They arent unreasonable but I always have an eye on how sustainable they are. Impressions could change quite quickly if Russian forces actually manage to cross an important river, just to give one obvious example.

 

[Pickman's model]

My stance is simply that Im not going to agonise over such possibilities when they arent the only possible scenario that actually comes to pass in Kyiv. eg if a side capitulates and/or the political district is rapidly stormed then we dont necessarily get urban warfare across the whole city.

It would be a bad idea for me to draw too many parallels between this invasion and the invasion of Iraq. The will to fight and many other details are not the same. But I cannot forget that we were invited to dwell on the horrors that could feature in the urban battle for Baghdad, and in the end there was a different sort of battle with very different timescales and an abrupt ending to that stage of war.

i'm not agonising over this at all to be frank. i don't think the ukrainians are going to capitulate and it's (to me) obvious that the ukrainians will have made some basic preparations for an assault on the city like moving vz. i'm not drawing parallels with the invasion of iraq because the invasion of iraq (the major operations phase) is to me a textbook operation, something to emulate, while the russian invasion is very much not something to copy - it's a how not to.

the regime of saddam hussein had been subject to sanctions for many years, the iraqi army had no stomach for the fight. the ukrainians have been fighting a small war for years, their morale is high, their weaponry modern. a closer parallel for me would be if saddam hussein had invaded saudi arabia in 2003.

 

[Dogsauce]

The Youtube video I posted a bit upthread addresses some of this, and illustrates some of what you're saying - there is definitely a bias towards triumphal footage of Russian vehicles being destroyed, and Ukrainian "wins", but very little from the other point of view.

I can see why, propaganda-wise, Ukraine may well not want to show equivalent footage of battles where they come off worse, and my guess is that Russia's more centralised media machine simply isn't good enough to get within-one-day footage of their version of events all over Twitter/Youtube in the same way as Ukraine's more embedded/grassroots media seem to be doing.

Mark Cappy, in that video, mentions an incident in which Russians captured a large number of Javelin anti-tank missiles, and have been using them against the Ukrainian army, for example - something which doesn't seem to have appeared on the general social media radar.

The Russian footage of military wins I have seen has been very produced and come through official channels, looking quite suspect. However there is quite a lot of posting of destroyed and captured Ukrainian kit from DNR sources, I guess they may not be banned from having mobile phones like the mainstream Russian army and will be on local phone networks. They also appear to be making some progress in the south. The Ukraine weapons tracker Twitter account curates stuff from both sides so a bit of it there.

I have seen footage of the captured javelins, I think they were taken from a transport truck rather than direct from troops, a fair sized haul, but some speculation that they didn’t have the command units with them. I’ve also seen pictures of ‘captured’ stuff that were basically used-up munitions, empty and scorched launcher tubes, sometimes angled to try and hide the ‘dirty’ end.

There’s also quite a lot of repetition of footage, somewhere up in the north there is a long convoy of a couple of dozen destroyed Russian vehicles, and every couple of days someone will do a drive-by and post footage, and people get excited like it’s a new victory (but others quickly debunk). There’s a site recording losses for both sides and they’re quite meticulous about checking what has been destroyed and ensuring it’s not been reported previously. There’s also equipment being captured, then recaptured back again, which confuses things for those keeping track.

 

[emanymton]

I have seen footage of the captured javelins, I think they were taken from a transport truck rather than direct from troops, a fair sized haul, but some speculation that they didn’t have the command units with them.

That would make sense wouldn't it? Ship them separately so if one shipment is captured they are useless.

 

[elbows]

This Col. Douglas Macgregor may have somethings right, but Jesus, he's a bit of an oddball.

Yeah I've since quickly abandoned attempts to extract any useful nuggets from his stance due to his long history which makes it easy to fairly characterise him as a racist crackpot.

This is exactly the sort of reason why I hadnt even previous bothered looking for 'alternative' sources of information to try to plug some of the largest gaps in our knowledge about this war in practice. Its exhausting and depressing and I'm not into turd polishing. I find myself still wanting to find nuggets of truth to extract, but its not good for my blood pressure to attempt this during a war when people are dying.

 

[zahir]

It looks like there's some good news about the Mariupol theatre bombing.





eta:

 

[cupid_stunt]

Dangerous to talk about morality when it comes to state actors and what it is you think they should do. Some kind of messy, dirty compromise is probably the best chance of a way out of this, very possibly one mediated by a leader of a country that knows a thing or two about starting wars of acquisition. But if ending the killing is the priority, moral purity can't come into it.

I was only posting in respect of the supply of weapons, which had been promised from before the invasion, and no doubt helped to form what the Ukraine government's response would be, to then turn again at this stage and say, 'fuck it, no more weapons' would IMO be immoral.

 

[Pickman's model]

They arent unreasonable but I always have an eye on how sustainable they are. Impressions could change quite quickly if Russian forces actually manage to cross an important river, just to give one obvious example.

and here's a great problem for the russians, namely that kyiv is apparently surrounded by water - not just rivers but bogs and marshes. Ukraine war: Kyiv terrain will slow Russian troops, say Ukraine generals so it won't be crossing one important river but crossing rivers, securing those crossings, coping with waterlogged terrain, and upping their logistical game which hasn't coped very well with any challenges thus far

 

[JimW]

One thing that Chinese bloke notes the morale visit by three EU pms, Polish, Latvian and someone else IIRC, and they'd come by train to his surprise, as that meant no encirclement of Kyiv worth the name.

 

[existentialist]

and here's a great problem for the russians, namely that kyiv is apparently surrounded by water - not just rivers but bogs and marshes. Ukraine war: Kyiv terrain will slow Russian troops, say Ukraine generals so it won't be crossing one important river but crossing rivers, securing those crossings, coping with waterlogged terrain, and upping their logistical game which hasn't coped very well with any challenges thus far

History is littered with examples of armies forgetting that the other dudes with guns aren't the only things they're fighting - they're also fighting weather, terrain, logistics...and the locals.

I think Russia forgot some of those lessons of history this time around, just as Hitler did when he decided to have a pop at Russia.

 

[cupid_stunt]

One thing that Chinese bloke notes the morale visit by three EU pms, Polish, Latvian and someone else IIRC, and they'd come by train to his surprise, as that meant no encirclement of Kyiv worth the name.

I was very impressed with those leaders going to Kyiv, very impressed indeed.

 

[gosub]

It looks like there's some good news about the Mariupol theatre bombing.





eta:

And they rescued the mayor yesterday as well

 

[SpackleFrog]

No chance. Russia can keep this going for a few months at most, and perhaps only weeks. Vietnam and Afghanistan (twice) involved superpowers with the resources to sustain a war indefinitely. That's not the case here.

I hope you're right. But how does Russia exit the situation? At least without regime change in Russia.

 

[elbows]

One thing that Chinese bloke notes the morale visit by three EU pms, Polish, Latvian and someone else IIRC, and they'd come by train to his surprise, as that meant no encirclement of Kyiv worth the name.

Yeah there havent been any serious claims that Russian forces have encircled Kyiv, only that they think this is what Russia wants to achieve next. Well there was the time the mayor of Kyiv claimed encirclement, but that was in response to a question about why people could not be evacuated and he quickly retracted it. And then claimed it was misinformation that he even said it in the first place, even though he had clearly said it on the record to journalists.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Possible.

A Romanian friend told me years ago that Romanian is one of the most commonly spoken languages at Microsoft, because there are so many Romanian techies who work there.

Romania has a strong tech sector with lots of people who are highly skilled.

I think there's also a lot of them around in the techsphere. I talk to techies at Lexis-Nexis and other database providers fairly regularly and I've always ended up dealing the most with Romanians.

 

[Raheem]

I hope you're right. But how does Russia exit the situation? At least without regime change in Russia.

I don't exactly know. The most obvious way is a peace deal, but I think Russia will not make concrete gains and it will be hard to sell as having been all worthwhile.

Alternatively, Russia could try to extend the territory of the "Republics" and say that was what it was all about. But the problem is it would be absorbing an antagonistic population.

Whatever happens though, I think there's a deadline somewhere up ahead where Russia will just have to withdraw its troops if there's been no other resolution.

 

[andysays]

I was only posting in respect of the supply of weapons, which had been promised from before the invasion, and no doubt helped to form what the Ukraine government's response would be, to then turn again at this stage and say, 'fuck it, no more weapons' would IMO be immoral.

Now I've read this bit I apologise for my earlier misunderstanding of what you were saying.

(Still think simply dismissing stuff as bonkers is a bit off though...)

 

[The39thStep]

Sky News

A British man who travelled to Ukraine to join the military fight against Russia's invasion says he left the warzone amid fears he was facing a "suicide mission".

Ben Spann told Sky News he did not tell his wife or 16-year-old son that he was going to Ukraine to take up arms, despite the fact he has never served in the military and has no ties to the war-torn country.

Mr Spann, who runs an anti-knife crime charity having previously been involved in growing cannabis, told Sky News he wanted to help defend Ukraine because he believed "it was the right thing to do" but admits it was "an absolute nightmare".

His anti knife crime charity press release

Ben, 35, says he wants to work with sports, youth facilities and schools in Warwickshire, Coventry and further field to pass his and others' first-hand experiences of life in prison and how they "regret the stupid decisions we made in our younger days".

 

[kebabking]

Having been involved in one or two, this looks like an excellent opportunity for the Russians to 'pop smoke and declare victory'.

1. Realise it's an absolute gangfuck that you aren't going to improve.

2. Claim you've achieved your war aims.

3. Leave as quickly as possible.

4. The advantage Putin has is that without international news media, social media etc... The Russian population aren't (broadly) going to know any different.

 

[Kaka Tim]

One thing that's occurred to me is that post war - even if Russia goes back to its pre war borders - it may now have to deal with a very unhappy population in Crimea who might not be so keen on being part of the Russia cos 1. sanctions. 2. they've seen first hand what the Russians have done to there Friends, neighbours and family members in Ukraine.

 

[cupid_stunt]

Now I've read this bit I apologise for my earlier misunderstanding of what you were saying.

Fair enough, but I am confused by this...

(Still think simply dismissing stuff as bonkers is a bit off though...)

What do you mean 'dismissing stuff'? I have only described your suggestion that I was 'conflating people and the governments' as bonkers, because I used the terms "the Ukrainians" and "we" in a post about the request for, and supply of weapons, in that context is was clear I was referring to governments, being the only parties involved.

 

[Kaka Tim]

Having been involved in one or two, this looks like an excellent opportunity for the Russians to 'pop smoke and declare victory'.

1. Realise it's an absolute gangfuck that you aren't going to improve.

2. Claim you've achieved your war aims.

3. Leave as quickly as possible.

4. The advantage Putin has is that without international news media, social media etc... The Russian population aren't (broadly) going to know any different.

Yeah - youd think that its pretty obvious. But Putins most recent burst of threats, raging paranoia and swivel eyed fascism doesn't suggest someone who is capable of cool calculation. Everything we know about him - not least his decision to embark on this disastrous war in the first place - suggest he will continue to double down until Ukraine is ground to (radioactive?) dust. Again it comes back to how far he goes before his own side gently reign him in/retire him to a villa on the black sea/shoot him in the head.