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 April 04 2023 10:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: General Muradov has reportedly been dismissed after delays/defeats in the battle of Vuhledar. Bear in mind the ongoing battle involves regular Russian forces not conscripts or private miliary. Possible that he was cashiered because he told Shoigu that it's impossible to take Vuhledar without adequate air support and accurate artillery and so they should stop wasting soldiers' lives on an impossible task. I mean this is giving major Lincoln meeting Hooker after Chancellorsville vibes here.
General Rustam Muradov, a top Russian commander in Ukraine, has been dismissed in the wake of unsuccessful Russian assaults near the eastern Ukrainian town of Vuhledar, two Defense Ministry sources told The Moscow Times.
Russian attacks on the strategic coal-mining town in January and early February resulted in heavy losses of men and equipment. In one notorious incident, dozens of Russian tanks were reportedly destroyed after being ordered to advance in single-file because of a lack of demining equipment.
The removal of Muradov, a seasoned military commander with experience in Syria and the South Caucasus, offers a rare glimpse into the internal fallout from the Russian military’s failure to achieve any significant territorial gains in its monthslong offensive in eastern Ukraine’s Donbas region.
Rumors of Muradov’s dismissal have been circulating on pro-war Russian Telegram channels in recent days, but there has been no confirmation from officials.
Russia’s Defense Ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Moscow Times.
A source in Russia’s Eastern Military District and a source in the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, however, said that Muradov had been formally relieved of his command of the Eastern Military District. Both sources spoke anonymously as they were not authorized to publicly speak on the matter.
It is not known whether Muradov will be appointed to another military post, nor is it clear who will replace him.
One of the sources suggested that Muradov’s resignation was directly linked to the failures around Vuhledar.
At the height of the Vuhledar offensive in February, units commanded by Muradov lost 103 pieces of military equipment over three days, including 36 tanks, according to Dutch group Oryx, which uses open-source data to track Russia’s materiel losses.
At the same time, just 20 pieces of Ukrainian military equipment, including two tanks, were destroyed.
“Muradov had the Russian military repeatedly attacking in small mechanized formations through minefields, across open terrain. And they accomplished nothing in Vuhledar,” military analyst Michael Kofman told The Moscow Times.
Influential pro-war bloggers — and even soldiers serving under Muradov — have criticized his leadership and disrespect for soldiers’ lives.
Particularly high casualty rates were reported in the 55th Guards Naval Infantry Brigade and the 40th Naval Infantry Brigade near Vuhledar.
One surviving 55th Guards Naval Infantry Brigade marine told Russia’s 7x7 regional news website in February that losses were so severe that only eight men remained in one of the unit’s companies (at full strength, each company has about 100 men). “I wish I had been taken prisoner and never returned,” he was quoted by 7x7 as saying.
The Moscow Times’ source in the Eastern Military District linked Muradov’s removal to these high casualty levels.
“Muradov was suspended because he was a mad idiot who was able to… order soldiers to go to certain death. A lot of people complained about him,” the source said.
The reversals around Vuhledar were not the only recent military defeats suffered by troops under Muradov’s command, independent Russian media outlet iStories reported last week, citing a source in the General Staff.
The successful capture of Vuhledar would have allowed the Russian army to bypass a major fortified Ukrainian area near the city of Avdiivka, which could have, in turn, facilitated a broader Russian offensive in the Donbas.
Instead, Russia’s Armed Forces have remained bogged down in heavy fighting and appear unable to achieve any significant military breakthrough.
Fierce battles continue to rage in eastern Ukraine, particularly in the city of Bakhmut, over 100 kilometers to the northeast of Vuhledar.
Appointed as head of Russia’s Eastern Military District on Oct. 5, 2022, Muradov became one of President Vladimir Putin’s most senior commanders in Ukraine. He was previously deployed as a military adviser in Syria and spent over a year in charge of a Russian peacekeeping mission in the disputed South Caucasus region of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu made a rare trip to the frontlines in Ukraine last month to visit Muradov and some of the troops under his command.
If confirmed, the dismissal of Muradov would not be the first time Putin has dismissed commanders in Ukraine after just a few months in the job.
Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov replaced General Sergei Surovikin as the head of Russia’s force in Ukraine in January — just three months after Surovikin himself was appointed.
And Mikhail Teplinsky, the head of Russia’s paratroopers, was reportedly dismissed earlier this year after serving in that position for only six months.
But reshuffling top military commanders is unlikely to deliver any significant successes in Ukraine, according to analysts.
“There are core problems with force quality, and junior leadership, that cannot be easily resolved. It is not just a matter of changing tactics,” said Kofman.
“Looking at their limited offensive potential, I don’t think the Russian military can establish sufficient advantage on any front.”
I think this connects very well to this recent video essay about compliance. It addresses how the soldiers' varying psychology can impact offensive operations and subsequently the orders given. It explains that lazy fighting and false reporting can become incentivized and how that can culminate in human wave attacks.
Finland is officially part of NATO. Sweden is still a work in progress but apparently; Finland, Denmark, and the UK have signed mutual defense treaties with them. So if they are attacked NATO becomes involved by default. Supposedly.
On April 05 2023 01:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Finland is officially part of NATO. Sweden is still a work in progress but apparently; Finland, Denmark, and the UK have signed mutual defense treaties with them. So if they are attacked NATO becomes involved by default. Supposedly.
Sweden is (like Finland) also part of the EU mutual defence treaty. There was never actually any real risk of those countries being attacked. The UK got in the news for signing a defence treaty because thanks to Brexit they no longer had one.
It seems China is indirectly helping Ukraine (and it's been doing it for about a month now). Since March 2nd AliExpress is no longer selling drones or drone parts produced by DJI, Fimi i Hubsan to clients from Russia. When you're trying to open the product page from Russia it shows that the product doesn't exist. Also, for previously purchased drones the producers introduced a series of limitations (like limiting max altitude) and the drone control program "DJI Fly" was removed from Russian AppStore.
On April 05 2023 05:28 Gorsameth wrote: The UK got in the news for signing a defence treaty because thanks to Brexit they no longer had one.
NATO..? It's a defence treaty last I checked, which UK is still part of, despite Brexit. I mean it's in the name; "North Atlantic Treaty".
EU does have a "Common Security and Defence Policy", but it's not actually a defence treaty (on paper at least). It's more of a peace keeping role and conflict prevention. NATO is the organization used for territorial defence. They do have an agreement to be able to use NATO troops for EU missions tho.
On April 05 2023 05:28 Gorsameth wrote: The UK got in the news for signing a defence treaty because thanks to Brexit they no longer had one.
NATO..? It's a defence treaty last I checked, which UK is still part of, despite Brexit. I mean it's in the name; "North Atlantic Treaty".
EU does have a "Common Security and Defence Policy", but it's not actually a defence treaty (on paper at least). It's more of a peace keeping role and conflict prevention. NATO is the organization used for territorial defence. They do have an agreement to be able to use NATO troops for EU missions tho.
I mentioned how the EU mutual defence clause covers Sweden and how the UK is no longer part of the EU. Why would you think I was talking about NATO covering Sweden when they are not a part of NATO...
The UK covered Sweden before Brexit under the EU mutual defence clause, after Brexit the UK is no longer part of the EU mutual defence clause so in a show of PR they signed a mutual defence treaty with Sweden.
And yes the Mutual defence clause is part of the CSDP and is more lenient in its language then NATO's article 5, but it essentially comes down to the same thing.
(Article 42(7) of the Treaty on European Union). This clause provides that if a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States have an obligation to aid and assist it by all the means in their power
On April 05 2023 07:18 Gorsameth wrote: The UK covered Sweden before Brexit under the EU mutual defence clause, after Brexit the UK is no longer part of the EU mutual defence clause so in a show of PR they signed a mutual defence treaty with Sweden.
Let's just hope that in case of trouble this works out better for them than it did for Poland in 1939 where thanks to UK lack of commitment the war lasted 5 years instead of a few weeks...
On April 05 2023 07:18 Gorsameth wrote: The UK covered Sweden before Brexit under the EU mutual defence clause, after Brexit the UK is no longer part of the EU mutual defence clause so in a show of PR they signed a mutual defence treaty with Sweden.
Let's just hope that in case of trouble this works out better for them than it did for Poland in 1939 where thanks to UK lack of commitment the war lasted 5 years instead of a few weeks...
Wait, you think the UK did the wrong thing by throwing itself on the Nazi blade in the name of Polish sovereignty?
On April 05 2023 07:18 Gorsameth wrote: The UK covered Sweden before Brexit under the EU mutual defence clause, after Brexit the UK is no longer part of the EU mutual defence clause so in a show of PR they signed a mutual defence treaty with Sweden.
Let's just hope that in case of trouble this works out better for them than it did for Poland in 1939 where thanks to UK lack of commitment the war lasted 5 years instead of a few weeks...
I don't think you can write that paragraph without a lot more evidence to back up this rather preposterous claim...
He's probably talking about the phoney war. The part of the war when the German army was in Poland and the allies did very little on the western front.
Yes, he is refering to Phoney War. In Poland many people believe that if UK and France acted more decisively in the begining of WWII the Soviet Union wouldn't invade Poland and Garmany would have been contained and defeated early.
It should be mentioned that both UK and France were hesitant to trigger another great war. They tried to prevent it using diplomacy over military retaliation. A number of historians agree that this inaction allowed Germany to go on a rampage, because a quick invasion would've likely crippled the German military. Then again, the mindset shift towards diplomacy and democracy and away from intervention is what has, so far, prevented another great war since WW2. It's easy to say a sleepy mindset caused WW2, but it has also prevented a nuclear war. But I guess that's a difficult argument. We can't know how things would've unfolded in a timeline that didn't happen.
On April 05 2023 19:47 Magic Powers wrote: Then again, the mindset shift towards diplomacy and democracy and away from intervention is what has, so far, prevented another great war since WW2. It's easy to say a sleepy mindset caused WW2, but it has also prevented a nuclear war. But I guess that's a difficult argument. We can't know how things would've unfolded in a timeline that didn't happen.
I think you may be overestimating diplomacy and democracy and underestimating the nuclear deterrent as causes for the lack of great wars since WW2.
On April 05 2023 19:47 Magic Powers wrote: Then again, the mindset shift towards diplomacy and democracy and away from intervention is what has, so far, prevented another great war since WW2. It's easy to say a sleepy mindset caused WW2, but it has also prevented a nuclear war. But I guess that's a difficult argument. We can't know how things would've unfolded in a timeline that didn't happen.
I think you may be overestimating diplomacy and democracy and underestimating the nuclear deterrent as causes for the lack of great wars since WW2.
I'm not underestimating nuclear deterrent, but it would have much less of an impact without diplomacy and democracy. Mutual agreement and understanding is essential for peace times, regardless of what the military situation dictates. Russia is a nuclear power that has attacked its own neighbors a number of times. The US is also a nuclear power that has done no such thing.
On April 05 2023 19:47 Magic Powers wrote: Then again, the mindset shift towards diplomacy and democracy and away from intervention is what has, so far, prevented another great war since WW2. It's easy to say a sleepy mindset caused WW2, but it has also prevented a nuclear war. But I guess that's a difficult argument. We can't know how things would've unfolded in a timeline that didn't happen.
I think you may be overestimating diplomacy and democracy and underestimating the nuclear deterrent as causes for the lack of great wars since WW2.
I'm not underestimating nuclear deterrent, but it would have much less of an impact without diplomacy and democracy. Mutual agreement and understanding is essential for peace times, regardless of what the military situation dictates. Russia is a nuclear power that has attacked its own neighbors a number of times. The US is also a nuclear power that has done no such thing.
They haven't directly invaded their neighbours, no.
But they have invaded or attacked, among others:
Afghanistan Iraq Syria Yemen Libya Haiti Yugoslavia Panama Nicaragua Cambodia Vietnam Chile Laos Congo Ghana Indonesia Brazil Ecuador Cuba Iran
Most of those countries multiple times even.
I'm not sure the US is the country to point to when trying to argue in favour of diplomacy over military force.
EPT
