NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On September 14 2022 14:53 StasisField wrote: Nothing indicates this is the way Putin wanted this conflict to go. Russia's strategy in the first couple months indicates they intended a speedy resolve, hence why Russia did incredibly risky moves like dropping paratroopers at an airport right outside Kiev. This war has cost Russia politically, militarily, and economically. They have been set back decades while NATO has expanded and strengthened. Their oil production is down as Europe is finding other alternatives. Businesses outside of Russia have pulled out. Thousands upon thousands of Russians are dead and thousands more are injured. Turning Ukraine into rubble doesn't advance Russia's political goals. If this is Putin's master plan, then Putin is a fucking moron. A prolonged conflict does not help anyone. This war is objectively a failure for Russia and the only "victory" Russia has on the table at this point is an imperialist land grab and they are now losing that land. This is going so poorly that people are speculating about whether or not Putin has a Swan Lake moment on the horizon.
You are 100% correct the war has cost Russia politically, militarily and economically (more so than I first appreciated) and the outside world (except China and North Korea) have broken ties with the country because of the campaign.
My principle source of information regarding the history and conflict is John J. Mearsheimer, professor at the University of Chicago. He insists 'NATO is not yet whole heartedly involved in the war, if they were, Ukraine would be protected by the NATO Nuclear Umbrella, but America does not have interest in a diplomatic solution to the war and thus America and its allies are leading Ukraine down the primrose path, to even greater destruction.'
He was correct in this talk from 2015;
And I believe he is correct in this talk from this year; The causes and consequences of the Ukraine war A lecture by John J. Mearsheimer (found on youtube, disabled on external sites).
I am not an expert in this area at all and agree Russia has behaved like a bully.
Ukraine is ineligible for NATO membership for as long as there are territorial disputes. This was made entirely clear to everyone. The idea that Ukraine was going to join NATO against Russian interests is a fantasy, the Russian occupations of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine made them ineligible and even had they been eligible NATO would be unlikely to invite them in. You only invite in countries that you’re prepared to die for, and also countries that you’re thinking probably won’t need you to die for them.
There are a series of prerequisites for Ukraine joining that must be met.
The territorial disputes with Russia must be clearly resolved. It looks like this may happen sometime in 2023 with a full restoration of Ukraine’s borders.
Ukraine must look like the kind of place Russia wouldn’t want to start a war with (if Russia starts a war with NATO everyone dies so you don’t want anywhere too attractive to Russia in NATO). Ukraine is looking increasingly unattractive to Russia.
Ukraine must look like it’s military adds value to the deterrence of the alliance. A formal treaty represents an obligation to defend someone in response to their obligation to defend you. There are winners and losers here. Take somewhere small like Greece. If it were attacked without NATO the US could still choose to defend it if it wanted, but it wouldn’t have to. NATO forces the entire might of the US military to defend the Greeks, whether they want to or not. What the US gets in return is a promise that NATO will force the Greeks to defend the US. This is not a fair trade, one promise is worth significantly more than the other. For Ukraine to be worth having in NATO there needs to be some reason to think the Ukrainian army might actually be able to take Russia on.
In short there was absolutely zero chance of Ukraine joining NATO unless Russia invaded them and lost. Have you considered the possibility that Putin might be pushing for NATO expansion to Ukraine? They were happily saying they would go without it before the war but he rejected their assurances, rejected any diplomatic efforts, and seems to be wholly committed to ensuring that they are NATO eligible.
This appears to contradict everything else you said. Maybe you meant Zelensky when you said Putin.
In what way? After the Crimea annexation there was basically no way Ukraine could join NATO and Ukraine was certainly never going to invade Russia to get it back.
This war has done more to enable Ukraine's possible inclusion into NATO then anything else. If it ends up happening, eventually, it will be because of what Putin did. aka launch a completely failed invasion that would serve as the catalyst for Ukraine to recover its disputed territories.
On September 14 2022 17:50 Manit0u wrote: I don't think sending Leopards to Ukraine would be much help. They don't really have the infrastructure for that, not to mention training and support.
Same could be said about PzH2000/M109/Krab/CAESAR, yet here we are. If the war drags on, UA would need this infrastructure anyway, because stocks of Soviet-era weapons over the world which could be aquired for UA are starting to run low (Europe have already given most of what they could, other countries with huge stocks of Soviet/Russian weaponry (Algeria/India/Azerbaijan etc.) won't be giving stuff either because they don't want to worsen relations with Russia while it remains their main weapons supplier, or they need these weaponry for their security concerns (or waging war on others themselves). UA is already almost entirely reliant on western aid in terms of artillery, since they are running out of both Soviet era artillery pieces and shells. Forces, that conducted counteroffensive were, from photo/video evidence, mostly made up of western-supplied vehicles (MRAPs, M113s, YPRs, HMMWVs, Polish T-72s, M777s and NATO SPGs, M270s and HIMARSs, even a lot of trucks were not Ukrainian ones). So the demand is definetly there.
I agree. The logistics argument made sense when the threat of ukraine falling was much more imminent, but they are in a position to build up those logistics and infrastructure now. And russia still has the material advantage, if ukraine doesn't manage to force them to make concession, russia can try and continue to grind down ukraine in a war of attrition which ukraine can only win on the material side if they have very decisive western support.
Though there is still the issue that having various different western tanks would put an unnecessary straing on ukraines logistics and infrastructure, so the support has to be substantial enough in volume, and the US might be the only one to be able to provide that without diminishing their combat readiness in in a significant way. Though the logistically they are the worst option I think, sending a large amount of tanks to ukraine from the US must be a massive undertaking that will take a long time. A program where the US continuously ships tanks to the UK / EU where ukrainian troops then can get training and move on to ukraine with their new equipment might be a good idea. Constant/controlled streams are usually the best thing for logistics and it would allow to continuously grow ukraines capabilities and their required infrastructure / training alongside with it. With mud season coming up and winter afterwards, they might get the perfect chance for that over the next months.
In terms of logistics Leo2 would be the most sensible choice. Operated all over Europe, thousands built, still in production, spare parts available, training could be offered by multiple nations.
Con: Needs a thumbs up from Scholz.
No because of the caveat of 'without diminishing their combat readiness in in a significant way'. The US has the massive stockpiles of tanks to support this, for europe you would need a bunch of countries band together and be convinced to give up part of their stock. Germany has around 260 Leopard2 in total, the dutch have like 450. after that you have greece with 183 and I am not sure they are very willing to hand out any given their ongoing concerns with turkey. After that you get a bunch of low 100s / lower than 100. Its not just germany that has to give a thumbs up, you have to go around all of europe and beg for them. Finland has around a hundred, but also probably not too keen on sending them away. And then you also end up with a bunch of different variants, which in some cases does not make much of a difference, in others it does. A bunch of the numbers for how many leopards different EU nations have also need a big * because when you continue reading, you realise some countries converted a lot of their older models for different uses. Meanwhile, unless my google skills are failing, the US alone has almost twice the number of Abrahams right now than the total number of leopards 2 produced (A little less than 6.000 vs 3.600 build in total. According to google, 2.600 of those almost 6000 Abrahams are currently in storage, aka could be made ready and shipped over without any concern for your active fighting strength). As I noted a few pages back, in late july, there was an interciew which has been translated on twitter, the original link is at the top of the tweet chain. Of course, situations could have changed since then, but there the statement is that 1-2 leopard battalions would do more harm than good. Afaik, ukraine does not use the term battalions, and has been in a bit of a precarious position when it comes to tank numbers, so instead of looking at their units, I chose to look at the US. What I found is a US company batallions of 3-4 companies with 3 to 4 platoons. 1 tank platoon is 5 to 4 tanks, meaning when we are talking about a battalion we are in the range of 36-80 tanks, and my guess is that this statement was geared more towards the higher end, so lets call it 60. 2 batallions would therefore mean ukraine would want significantly more than 120 leopard2 for it to be worth it.
I think leopard2 only makes more on sense in theory when assuming ideal conditions where all european operators are willing to give up some of their tanks, or the largest operators are willing to give up a significant number of their tanks.
On September 14 2022 20:39 Sent. wrote: Not sure if the issue was resolved already but I remember disagreements between Poland and Germany about potential (allegedly promised) replacements for the Soviet tanks given to Ukraine earlier. Maybe the German government is in the process of clearing things up and making sure they can send operational tanks. Some time ago there was a problem with some other country sending Ukraine outdated stuff, and giving Ukraine broken Leopards would be a PR disaster.
From what I read the deal there was a bit of a shit show from all sides with both parties operating under different assumptions but never checking if they are on the same page and not formulating their expectations. Poland expected a timely replacement while germany assumed its clear that that would not be possible. I also read somewhere that poland expected the most modern variant that is not even in use by the bundeswehr yet or something like that. And then germany tried to patch things up by digging up a laughable amount of leopards2 that also had some problems with them, which obviously was not acceptable for poland. The last thing I heard was that poland did not want to wait for the long delivery time on german tanks and instead went to the US. But I also recall poland being dissatisfied with an offer of abrahams tanks, but I don't know what came out of that.
EDIT: If I recall correctly, someone from poland mentioned in this thread that their defence ministry is among the most incompetent parts of the government. Given that the same can be said for the german defence ministry, I can totally see my vague recollection of the events above be correct. Nice to see that at least some EU nations really harmonize with each other and their parts of government are well in tune with another...
On September 14 2022 21:27 Artesimo wrote: But I also recall poland being dissatisfied with an offer of abrahams tanks, but I don't know what came out of that.
EDIT: If I recall correctly, someone from poland mentioned in this thread that their defence ministry is among the most incompetent parts of the government. Given that the same can be said for the german defence ministry, I can totally see my vague recollection of the events above be correct. Nice to see that at least some EU nations really harmonize with each other and their parts of government are well in tune with another...
Our government being incompetent is one thing. Abrams tanks would be a good deal for us to replace our T-72s but there are problems with them too (biggest issue I think is that they're using gas turbines and are guzzling fuel at an incredible rate). Poland wanted to replace their tanks with Leopard 2s but for those you have to wait years for the order to be delivered (they're not producing them at high enough rate).
I think there's also some joint development effort between Poland and South Korea utilizing their K2 chassis.
On September 14 2022 21:27 Artesimo wrote: But I also recall poland being dissatisfied with an offer of abrahams tanks, but I don't know what came out of that.
EDIT: If I recall correctly, someone from poland mentioned in this thread that their defence ministry is among the most incompetent parts of the government. Given that the same can be said for the german defence ministry, I can totally see my vague recollection of the events above be correct. Nice to see that at least some EU nations really harmonize with each other and their parts of government are well in tune with another...
Our government being incompetent is one thing. Abrams tanks would be a good deal for us to replace our T-72s but there are problems with them too (biggest issue I think is that they're using gas turbines and are guzzling fuel at an incredible rate). Poland wanted to replace their tanks with Leopard 2s but for those you have to wait years for the order to be delivered (they're not producing them at high enough rate).
I think there's also some joint development effort between Poland and South Korea utilizing their K2 chassis.
Sorry I did not mean to insinuate incompetency because they wanted abrahams/there were some issues as well. That part was aimed at the fact that it looks like in the germany - poland deal, there was stuff that obviously should have been in writing and explicitly been talked about, yet neither party thought to do so. Its like 2 people negotiating the sale of something and never talk about price and delivery date so they only realise afterwards that there can be no deal.
On September 14 2022 16:20 Liquid`Drone wrote: The notion that a) axiomB is a PBU and that b) he copy pasted this from anywhere seems entirely fictional and something you made up. (He made his first post in 2016, has spent a large majority of his posting time lurking, has a few posts per year, and has never posted anything remotely worthy of being moderated.) You can engage his post on its merits or choose to ignore it, but throwing out random insulting assertions isn't likely to 'actually convince anyone' either. For the record I almost entirely disagree with his post, but there's nothing wrong with him posting it.
Mea culpa.
Don't think I've ever seen a 6-year account have 30 posts on it.
As always, I'm not advocating for removal, but I still hold that it's a waste of time trying to post like that. Axiom, if you're going to engage a 4k post thread, at least read some of it first. There's very little point in hoping that topics such as "why did the conflict start", "what are reliable sources ("legacy media"), "which capabilities does RU have", etc. have not been covered yet. TL has an excellent search function, so you can peruse the discussion by keywords with ease. And then you can engage some of the current positions with arguments of your own. Instead, you assumed it's a tabula rasa out here.
As for copypasta, well, these are standard Russian talking points:
- NATO's to blame for Russia invading Ukraine. - Putin is a master strategist. - John Mearsheimer was right.
If this were February, posting these would be understandable.
"Vladimir Putin's chief envoy on Ukraine told the Russian leader as the war began that he had struck a provisional deal with Kyiv that would satisfy Russia's demand that Ukraine stay out of NATO, but Putin rejected it and pressed ahead with his military campaign, according to three people close to the Russian leadership."
Can we finally put the NATO excuse to rest?
@Artesimo
Assuming incompetence on our government's side is not insulting. It's practically a given. ;-)
So, it looks like the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia isn't subsiding. Does anyone who has been paying attention to this region know how to interpret this statement by the Armenian PM?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan announced today that Azerbaijan has occupied 10 square kilometers of territory as a result of its latest attack on Armenia’s sovereign territory.
During the Q&A session today in the Parliament, the PM said that during the 2021 May incursion the Azerbaijani side has occupied 40 square kilometers of territory of Armenia.
“I have taken a responsibility on myself to go to heavy decisions for the sake of peace. But heavy decisions do not mean decisions opposing Armenia’s state interests. We must go to that decisions to guarantee Armenia’s security, lasting stability and peace. We can’t write a “peace treaty” under the headlines today, sign it, as a result of which a new war will start 6 years later. We want to sign a document as a result of which a lot of people will criticize us, a lot of people will insult us, a lot of people will call us “traitors”, people even may decide to remove us from power. We will be satisfied and grateful if as a result of it the Republic of Armenia with 29,800 square km territory receives lasting peace and security. The decision which will ensure this, I say very clearly, I will sign. I am not interested in what will happen to me, I am interested in what will happen to Armenia”, he said. Source
My questions are: - Does this mean Armenia is signaling its willingness to give up Nagorno-Karabakh? - Would this kind of language been likely from the Armenian side before the Ukraine war of this year?
On September 15 2022 00:07 Ghanburighan wrote: So, it looks like the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia isn't subsiding. Does anyone who has been paying attention to this region know how to interpret this statement by the Armenian PM?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan announced today that Azerbaijan has occupied 10 square kilometers of territory as a result of its latest attack on Armenia’s sovereign territory.
During the Q&A session today in the Parliament, the PM said that during the 2021 May incursion the Azerbaijani side has occupied 40 square kilometers of territory of Armenia.
“I have taken a responsibility on myself to go to heavy decisions for the sake of peace. But heavy decisions do not mean decisions opposing Armenia’s state interests. We must go to that decisions to guarantee Armenia’s security, lasting stability and peace. We can’t write a “peace treaty” under the headlines today, sign it, as a result of which a new war will start 6 years later. We want to sign a document as a result of which a lot of people will criticize us, a lot of people will insult us, a lot of people will call us “traitors”, people even may decide to remove us from power. We will be satisfied and grateful if as a result of it the Republic of Armenia with 29,800 square km territory receives lasting peace and security. The decision which will ensure this, I say very clearly, I will sign. I am not interested in what will happen to me, I am interested in what will happen to Armenia”, he said. Source
My questions are: - Does this mean Armenia is signaling its willingness to give up Nagorno-Karabakh? - Would this kind of language been likely from the Armenian side before the Ukraine war of this year?
Whatever the case Russia HAS to respond as Armenia has triggered Article 4 of the CSTO Alliance, meaning they need immediate military assistance. The only question is how they will respond and if it will affect the current operations going on in Ukraine.
On September 15 2022 00:07 Ghanburighan wrote: So, it looks like the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia isn't subsiding. Does anyone who has been paying attention to this region know how to interpret this statement by the Armenian PM?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan announced today that Azerbaijan has occupied 10 square kilometers of territory as a result of its latest attack on Armenia’s sovereign territory.
During the Q&A session today in the Parliament, the PM said that during the 2021 May incursion the Azerbaijani side has occupied 40 square kilometers of territory of Armenia.
“I have taken a responsibility on myself to go to heavy decisions for the sake of peace. But heavy decisions do not mean decisions opposing Armenia’s state interests. We must go to that decisions to guarantee Armenia’s security, lasting stability and peace. We can’t write a “peace treaty” under the headlines today, sign it, as a result of which a new war will start 6 years later. We want to sign a document as a result of which a lot of people will criticize us, a lot of people will insult us, a lot of people will call us “traitors”, people even may decide to remove us from power. We will be satisfied and grateful if as a result of it the Republic of Armenia with 29,800 square km territory receives lasting peace and security. The decision which will ensure this, I say very clearly, I will sign. I am not interested in what will happen to me, I am interested in what will happen to Armenia”, he said. Source
My questions are: - Does this mean Armenia is signaling its willingness to give up Nagorno-Karabakh? - Would this kind of language been likely from the Armenian side before the Ukraine war of this year?
Besides Karabakh (Armenia, while unofficially supporting it, doesm't even recognize it an independence state, much less their own territory) the other thing Azerbaijan wants a lot is a land corridor to Nakhichevan' region (the piece of Azerbaijan between Armenia, Iran and little part of Turkish border). I think this is the reason why he puts emphasis on the size of Armenia, that giving away small piece of land (aforementioned corridor) would be small sacrifice to ensure piece. Pashinyan also applied formal request of assistance to CSTO, but I doubt it'll do a lot, since Russia is occupied in Ukraine, and Kazakhstan/Belarus won't go to war for Armenia's sake, especially without Russia.
Edit: Azerbaijan bans Tik Tok in the country because of the conflict with Armenia (site of the AZ Security Service, interesting is that this statement is not available in RU/ENG versions of the site, so you'll have to translate via Google) https://www.dtx.gov.az/az/news/1715.html
Edit2: Seems that Pashinyan is talking about Karabakh though, here is another statement "Today we are ready to recognize the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. But we must understand within what borders does Azerbaijan want to recognize the territorial integrity of Armenia? If Azerbaijan calls the occupied territories its own and demands to recognize its territorial integrity within these borders, then we do not recognize the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, because these are our territories. If they leave our sovereign territories, then we are ready to recognize the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, if not, no," he said, speaking in parliament at the government hour. https://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/15750463?utm_source=google.com&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=google.com&utm_referrer=google.com
Also, after Balakleya defeat many Russian cities started to either reduce or completely cancel the City Day festivities, reportedly transferring money reserved for that to the needs of the army. Implied that this happened because of the public outcry for the Moscow City Day on 10.09, when large-scale party events were held during AFRF retreat from Kharkov region.
On September 15 2022 00:07 Ghanburighan wrote: So, it looks like the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia isn't subsiding. Does anyone who has been paying attention to this region know how to interpret this statement by the Armenian PM?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan announced today that Azerbaijan has occupied 10 square kilometers of territory as a result of its latest attack on Armenia’s sovereign territory.
During the Q&A session today in the Parliament, the PM said that during the 2021 May incursion the Azerbaijani side has occupied 40 square kilometers of territory of Armenia.
“I have taken a responsibility on myself to go to heavy decisions for the sake of peace. But heavy decisions do not mean decisions opposing Armenia’s state interests. We must go to that decisions to guarantee Armenia’s security, lasting stability and peace. We can’t write a “peace treaty” under the headlines today, sign it, as a result of which a new war will start 6 years later. We want to sign a document as a result of which a lot of people will criticize us, a lot of people will insult us, a lot of people will call us “traitors”, people even may decide to remove us from power. We will be satisfied and grateful if as a result of it the Republic of Armenia with 29,800 square km territory receives lasting peace and security. The decision which will ensure this, I say very clearly, I will sign. I am not interested in what will happen to me, I am interested in what will happen to Armenia”, he said. Source
My questions are: - Does this mean Armenia is signaling its willingness to give up Nagorno-Karabakh? - Would this kind of language been likely from the Armenian side before the Ukraine war of this year?
Whatever the case Russia HAS to respond as Armenia has triggered Article 4 of the CSTO Alliance, meaning they need immediate military assistance. The only question is how they will respond and if it will affect the current operations going on in Ukraine.
So the Warshaw pact 2.0 is basically dead then. Because there is little point for a mutual defence treaty if no one don't come to your mutual defence.
Yet another casualty of the failure of the Russian military.
"Vladimir Putin's chief envoy on Ukraine told the Russian leader as the war began that he had struck a provisional deal with Kyiv that would satisfy Russia's demand that Ukraine stay out of NATO, but Putin rejected it and pressed ahead with his military campaign, according to three people close to the Russian leadership."
Can we finally put the NATO excuse to rest?
@Artesimo
Assuming incompetence on our government's side is not insulting. It's practically a given. ;-)
An exclusive article that claims to have six sources that will beyond a shadow of a doubt put all talk of the Ukraine-NATO connection as a possible reason for the start of hostilities to rest? I'll read that. I'll just bullet point as I read:
- At the start of the article both sides deny the title of the article ever happed. Well ok, I'm sure the sources will back up the text. - Kozak, the main protagonist of the story didn't even acknowledge the reporter or comment. - First three sources 'requested anonymity to share sensitive internal information', absolutely no information about the first two sources, not even vague backstories. Just that they have the same story and are 'close to Russian leadership'. Third source was told by people that were told by other people. Yeah ok, I'm sure the other three sources have something. - 'Reuters was unable to verify independently' the premise of this article with Ukrainian leadership - Forth unnamed source involved in post-war negotiations, apparently says pre-war negotiations broke down in March???? Maybe its worded in a weird way. -Fifth unnamed source is apparently part of, or close to a part of the political structure of either the LNR or DNR (the same guys that constantly mention they have no idea about the inner workings of the political elite in Moscow and are left in the dark about decisions). Well he says Kozak is missing, while the previous paragraph states that he is fine and working within the Russian government doing the same job he did before. -Sixth source isn't even mentioned
Well, this has 100% convinced me there is nothing to see here. Stone wall proof, no need to mention anything about NATO being any kind reason for anything in Ukraine. I mean, who is this reporter that will surely get a Pulitzer prize for this exclusive? He or she must be so proud! Wait... no one put their name to this? Just 'Editing by Daniel Flynn'? But reporters are almost always credited on Reuters, especially for such an exclusive like this! Its the biggest article on the front page. Not like no one wanted to be associated with this piece and have to post an embarrassing redaction in a week or two. Absolutely not. No way.
EDIT: And weren't the Minsk II agreements cited heavily as the main reason by the Russian government to go into Ukraine 'to protect the people in Donbass'? I think NATO membership was mentioned but wasn't at the forefront
AFRF struck a dam of the Karachun water reservoir, flooding Ingulets river https://t.me/milinfolive/90499 https://t.me/milinfolive/90501 I guess, to wash down AFU pontoon bridges, since AFU were mostly attacking across the river in Kherson area.
There is also a video of Prigozhin recruiting convicts to join Wagner. https://t.me/milinfolive/90493 Some points from his speech: 1) Half of year of service in Wagner makes person free of charges. 2) While serving in Wagner, desertion, alcohol, drugs, looting and any kind of sex relations (voluntary or not) are strictly forbidden. 3) For desertion you'll be shot on sight. 4) The only kind that Wagner won't accept are drug addicts and rapists. Everyone else is allowed. 5) Age from 22 to 50 are allowed, if younger - need an agreement from relatives, if older - need to pass some strength and endurance tests, since service is physically demanding. 6) First time convicts saw combat in Wagner were in July near Uglegoskaya Power Plant, where they engaged AFU in close combat (he literally said "with knives"). 7) Wagner has their own tanks, MLRS and planes. 8) No desertion, no retreat, no surrender. First thing they teach, that if you are about to be POW, you should have two grenades - one for the enemy and one for yourself. 9) Ammunition spending per day for Wagner is more that two times higher than by Red Army in Stalingrad.
On September 15 2022 01:44 Ardias wrote: AFRF struck a dam of the Karachun water reservoir, flooding Ingulets river https://t.me/milinfolive/90499 I guess, to wash down AFU pontoon bridges, since AFU were mostly attacking across the river in Kherson area.
There is also a video of Prigozhin recruiting convicts to join Wagner. https://t.me/milinfolive/90493 Some points from his speech: 1) Half of year of service in Wagner makes person free of charges. 2) While serving in Wagner, desertion, alcohol, drugs, looting and any kind of sex relations (voluntary or not) are strictly forbidden. 3) For desertion you'll be shot on sight. 4) The only kind that Wagner won't accept are drug addicts and rapists. Everyone else is allowed. 5) Age from 22 to 50 are allowed, if younger - need an agreement from relatives, if older - need to pass some strength and endurance tests, since service is physically demanding. 6) First time convicts saw combat in Wagner were in July near Uglegoskaya Power Plant, where they engaged AFU in close combat (he literally said "with knives"). 7) Wagner has their own tanks, MLRS and planes. 8) No desertion, no retreat, no surrender. First thing they teach, that if you are about to be POW, you should have two grenades - one for the enemy and one for yourself. 9) Ammunition spending per day for Wagner is more that two times higher than by Red Army in Stalingrad.
It's going to be a grind to take back the remaining land for Ukraine, but there seems to be an excess of soviet equipment left behind by the Russians when they retreated. If Ukraine can take a few days to consolidate the equipment, they've probably got more useful tanks from this offensive that soldiers are already trained/familiar with than they could get in a month or so from outside Ukraine. Western tanks are a mid-term solution, not something they can use in this offensive.
On September 15 2022 00:07 Ghanburighan wrote: So, it looks like the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia isn't subsiding. Does anyone who has been paying attention to this region know how to interpret this statement by the Armenian PM?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan announced today that Azerbaijan has occupied 10 square kilometers of territory as a result of its latest attack on Armenia’s sovereign territory.
During the Q&A session today in the Parliament, the PM said that during the 2021 May incursion the Azerbaijani side has occupied 40 square kilometers of territory of Armenia.
“I have taken a responsibility on myself to go to heavy decisions for the sake of peace. But heavy decisions do not mean decisions opposing Armenia’s state interests. We must go to that decisions to guarantee Armenia’s security, lasting stability and peace. We can’t write a “peace treaty” under the headlines today, sign it, as a result of which a new war will start 6 years later. We want to sign a document as a result of which a lot of people will criticize us, a lot of people will insult us, a lot of people will call us “traitors”, people even may decide to remove us from power. We will be satisfied and grateful if as a result of it the Republic of Armenia with 29,800 square km territory receives lasting peace and security. The decision which will ensure this, I say very clearly, I will sign. I am not interested in what will happen to me, I am interested in what will happen to Armenia”, he said. Source
My questions are: - Does this mean Armenia is signaling its willingness to give up Nagorno-Karabakh? - Would this kind of language been likely from the Armenian side before the Ukraine war of this year?
Whatever the case Russia HAS to respond as Armenia has triggered Article 4 of the CSTO Alliance, meaning they need immediate military assistance. The only question is how they will respond and if it will affect the current operations going on in Ukraine.
Well it appears the CSTO alliance is dead in the water. Russia will not send any military support, only observers. Azerbaijani military is now in Armenian proper. Even after reports of a Russian column composed of FSB personnel was attacked.
With Georgia questioning going to war with Russia its hard to see how they would get troops into the country, and from the military situation it is hard to see what Russian military aid would to to change things. If you thought drone warfare was ruinous in Russia its so far beyond that in this war between Armenia and Azerbaijan. This battlespace is where the BA-2 got its reputation before the war and Armenia has always spent far less than Azerbaijan on military spending.
You know me I'm the guy who thinks Putin was much more afraid of Ukraine joining the EU than Ukraine joining NATO. Ukraine was receiving a lot of benefits of NATO membership pre-war and now the pentagon is all but apart of the command structure for the war. The fact is that its 2022 and the idea of a pre-empive invasion to prevent an alliance from invading you is disgustingly out of date. No one was going to invade a nuclear state or declare war on a nuclear state. If Putin just kept he status quo Ukraine would never have joined NATO Finland and sweden would have never joined NATO.
The idea that Invading Ukraine stopped them from joining NATO is not a valid argument from any angle. Even if you accept that NATO wanted to move into Ukraine it was still not a reason to invade beacuse it wouldn't change anything militarily for Russia. The EU was never going to bend over as backward it would have had to to get Ukraine into the union when Russia was a much better partner and was the partner that they had already making their economy buzz. NATO was never going to invade Russia or Declare war on Russia when that would have led directly to nukes ending the world.
Just what do people think NATO was going to do to Russia?
On September 15 2022 03:19 Sermokala wrote: With Georgia questioning going to war with Russia its hard to see how they would get troops into the country, and from the military situation it is hard to see what Russian military aid would to to change things. If you thought drone warfare was ruinous in Russia its so far beyond that in this war between Armenia and Azerbaijan. This battlespace is where the BA-2 got its reputation before the war and Armenia has always spent far less than Azerbaijan on military spending.
You know me I'm the guy who thinks Putin was much more afraid of Ukraine joining the EU than Ukraine joining NATO. Ukraine was receiving a lot of benefits of NATO membership pre-war and now the pentagon is all but apart of the command structure for the war. The fact is that its 2022 and the idea of a pre-empive invasion to prevent an alliance from invading you is disgustingly out of date. No one was going to invade a nuclear state or declare war on a nuclear state. If Putin just kept he status quo Ukraine would never have joined NATO Finland and sweden would have never joined NATO.
The idea that Invading Ukraine stopped them from joining NATO is not a valid argument from any angle. Even if you accept that NATO wanted to move into Ukraine it was still not a reason to invade beacuse it wouldn't change anything militarily for Russia. The EU was never going to bend over as backward it would have had to to get Ukraine into the union when Russia was a much better partner and was the partner that they had already making their economy buzz. NATO was never going to invade Russia or Declare war on Russia when that would have led directly to nukes ending the world.
Just what do people think NATO was going to do to Russia?
Ukraine joining NATO is a problem for Russia if Russia wanted to annex Ukraine at some point in the future. Their only option is to invade before they join, because they can't do it after.
It all makes a lot more sense if you approach it from the angle of Putin wanting to reform as much of the USSR as he can.
On September 15 2022 03:19 Sermokala wrote: With Georgia questioning going to war with Russia its hard to see how they would get troops into the country, and from the military situation it is hard to see what Russian military aid would to to change things. If you thought drone warfare was ruinous in Russia its so far beyond that in this war between Armenia and Azerbaijan. This battlespace is where the BA-2 got its reputation before the war and Armenia has always spent far less than Azerbaijan on military spending.
I think the later phase of the war in ukraine has demonstrated how overstated the effectiveness of drones was for peer to peer conflicts. They had great impact when russia was still not really using their anti air measures. Same goes for the armenia - azerbaijan war. A large part of their success can be attributed to armenia using their AA poorly, or using out of date systems, while the few capable systems they had got targeted early. [www.csis.org]
They still have a place in peer to peer conflicts, but you can clearly see how success stories of bayraktar have plummeted as soon as russia started to get their shit together and use their air defence. They still managed to get some amazing operations done, but those have been the exception for quite a while now. Russian anti air can target and engage with these drones and outranges them by a fair bit. Success stories of bayraktar after russian anti air has been deployed include such exploits as to check russian radar positons and see if there are things between the radar and the target, like a tall building. Bayraktar can still work there despite deployed radar and AA, because it can hide in the 'shadow' of the building on the radar.
Drones are still a game changer when it comes to recon / providing intelligence though, they still have a combat role. But in a peer to peer conflict, it is much harder to shape the battlefield into a condition where the offensive use of drones is very effective in. We saw such shaping of the battlefield in the armenia - azerbaijan war, and the reverse of it now in the war in ukraine. We might get to see the return of bayraktar given ukraines efforts to target russian radar, but until then they will remain effective only in very specific situations.
Russia didn't want war. Russia wanted to continue their political influence over Ukraine. Then Ukraine's (Russian friendly/more ambivalent) government was forcibly and illegally overthrown with US support (not the US's first rodeo).
Since then we've seen a tug of war between the west and Russia over who will have political dominance in Ukraine with Ukrainians getting their lives and lands decimated in the process.
The invasion certainly seemed to me to be an attempt to undo the consequences of the US backed overthrow with Russia inducing a rapid and more direct illegal overthrow of Ukraine's government. When that failed, it seems Putin's plan has been to make Ukrainians more miserable than they were under Yanukovich so they pine for life before the US supported illegal overthrowing of the government.
As it stands Ukraine is wholly dependent on foreign aid to pay even its basic bills (like their social security program which was on its last legs before any of this), thousands of Ukrainians have been killed, and billions of dollars of infrastructure has been/will be destroyed.
Ukraine is either going to end up a vassal of the west (feeding profits for companies like JP Morgan, that Zelenskyy's government wants charged with war crimes) because of unavoidable dependence on them for decades or more subservient to Russian interests than they were under Yanukovich. What I think is least likely is that Ukrainians end up less subservient to foreign interests than they were before 2014. They've been made into mercenaries fighting to ensure their own subjugation win or lose.
EPT
