Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Russia Masses Military Equipment Near Ukraine Borders: A Prologue to WWIII?


Grim Reaper 6

Recommended Posts

So, as the main event is coming soon, is everybody getting up to speed on Liddell Hart, Tukhachevsky and Guderian. It would also be useful, as I've mentioned in another post, to look at the deception plan for Gulf War I, as while the geography is totally different, the principles are the same. Actually, the main part of the deception/distraction plan is over having been completely succesfull as Ukrainian failure to support Mariupol in even the smallest way has shown, and the inability to support their forces in the Donbass. Those forces are left with two options, to remain where they are and be demolished bit by bit, or to withdraw, which is what their command wanted to do early on, but was refused at the political level, or, if they do try to withdraw now, are smashed by Russian airpower and armoured formations in manuever warfare. Looking through all the screams and shouts and propaganda, it may be worth reading what American defence analysts, the Pentagon primarily,  are saying is going on, and what they say is very different to what the politicians and media are saying, and in a different universe to many of the comments on forums and social media.

Btw, the Ukrainians made another attempt to get a helicopter into Mariupol yesterday, but it turned back. It is believed that they are not only trying to evacuate thier commanders, specifically the commander of Azov and the commader of the marine naval brigade, but also "Important foreign merceneries", I wonder if any of them have "stars", or at least an "eagle", or who knows, maybe a "pip and a crown"

Edited by Wepwawet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I´m told spiritually that some in NATO and Biden admin wanted this war in Ukraine. Can see several possible reasons but not sure.

Edited by VZ73
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, VZ73 said:

I´m told spiritually that some in NATO and Biden admin wanted this war in Ukraine. Can see some possible reasons but not sure.

01580994-5723-4879-9B09-ECC13E5E44F6.thumb.jpeg.34392643f19acd4717e3fd4d969df207.jpeg

  • Haha 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wepwawet said:

So, as the main event is coming soon, is everybody getting up to speed on Liddell Hart, Tukhachevsky and Guderian. It would also be useful, as I've mentioned in another post, to look at the deception plan for Gulf War I, as while the geography is totally different, the principles are the same. Actually, the main part of the deception/distraction plan is over having been completely succesfull as Ukrainian failure to support Mariupol in even the smallest way has shown, and the inability to support their forces in the Donbass. Those forces are left with two options, to remain where they are and be demolished bit by bit, or to withdraw, which is what their command wanted to do early on, but was refused at the political level, or, if they do try to withdraw now, are smashed by Russian airpower and armoured formations in manuever warfare. Looking through all the screams and shouts and propaganda, it may be worth reading what American defence analysts, the Pentagon primarily,  are saying is going on, and what they say is very different to what the politicians and media are saying, and in a different universe to many of the comments on forums and social media.

Btw, the Ukrainians made another attempt to get a helicopter into Mariupol yesterday, but it turned back. It is believed that they are not only trying to evacuate thier commanders, specifically the commander of Azov and the commader of the marine naval brigade, but also "Important foreign merceneries", I wonder if any of them have "stars", or at least an "eagle", or who knows, maybe a "pip and a crown"

So, are you saying you believe all Russian activities thus far have been a feint, that the real plan has still yet to take place, and will happen where Ukrainian forces are weakest?

Even if we look at the low end of the casualty figures, this is a very costly deception from Russia.  We would normally expect plans of this nature to be implemented quickly and decisively, with an aim to limiting friendly losses, but maybe Putin just doesn’t give a ****.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

01580994-5723-4879-9B09-ECC13E5E44F6.thumb.jpeg.34392643f19acd4717e3fd4d969df207.jpeg

Of course but this is unexplained-mysteries.com not ignorant-zombies.org :rolleyes:

Edited by VZ73
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Grey Area said:

So, are you saying you believe all Russian activities thus far have been a feint, that the real plan has still yet to take place, and will happen where Ukrainian forces are weakest?

Even if we look at the low end of the casualty figures, this is a very costly deception from Russia.  We would normally expect plans of this nature to be implemented quickly and decisively, with an aim to limiting friendly losses, but maybe Putin just doesn’t give a ****.

Not so much a feint, that would apply more to naval maneuvers off the coast of Odessa. The main group of Ukrainian forces are those in the Donbass, and they cannot be fully engaged until such time that they cannot be supported, either by reinforcement or counter attack. The Russians moved to block, which is not exactly the same are surround, the main areas from which the Donbass group could be supported, and that is Kiev, Chernigov, Sumy, Kharkov and Nikolaev. The mere presence of Russian forces at those cities pins down the Ukrainian units there. They are effectively paralized, for if they move out to try to support the Donbass group they will leave a city exposed to being taken, and, as they have no air cover, will expose themselves to being destroyed from the air, as happened to German forces after D-Day when they had lost control of the skies over the battlefield. As not a single serious counter offensive has been launched by Ukrainian forces, only localized counter attacks, and not a single move made to relieve Mariupol or to reinforce the main Donbass group, this tactic by the Russians has fully succeeded. Unfortunately, because the media had decided on day one that they knew exactly what the Russian plans where, ie to take Kiev and other cities by day 3 or 4, as this clearly did not happen, voila, Russian "defeat". This may convince many members of the public who do not know better, but it is utterly risible to those who do know better, and any who actually think that Russia has been defeated are going to get a very nasty surprise.

A number of times I have referenced the military operations in Ukraine during 1943, and while weapons change, the terrain does not, and what was the right way then to conduct operations is still the right way. Of course the circumstances are not exactly the same, for instance in 1943 the Germans were holding Crimea and it had to be recaptured later, also today's battlefield stops north at Kiev whereas in 1943 the entire front stretched to the Baltic. However, due to the terrain, forests and hills in the east and north, then the Dneiper river bisecting the battlefield, and open steppe in the center and south, it is the east that needs to be dealt with first. A grand "cavalry charge" into the steppes achieves nothing unless you can engage and destroy your enemy there, and the Ukrainians know this and essentially central Ukraine is devoid of major formations.

It's only when you can block reinforcements and take vital positions, such as Izyum, which has now occured, though still with fighting to it's south, that you can engage in what most people will think of as a "blitzkrieg", though we did have that in the first days, specifically to put Russian forces on the doorstep of Kiev, and to drive to Kherson.

I'm not going into casualty figures as they are notoriously difficult to assess when fighting is ongoing, and what one side says about the other sides losses should not be taken as factual. The only time you could give a figure for enemy dead is if you controlled the battlefield after the fighting and could count the bodies, though that is more applicable to battles before WWI when fighting took place in one place, and at the end of the day one side won and the other runs off leaving their dead behind them to be counted. However, there is no indication that the Russians are loosing men at the same rate as the Red Army in 1943, which the Ukrainian figures show. The Russians have admitted to just over 1,300 dead, which will of course be lower than reality, but to times that by a factor of more than ten is deep in the realms of propaganda. As with most of what is happening, time will tell.

 

Edit to address this specific part of your post:

Quote

and will happen where Ukrainian forces are weakest?

No, where they are the strongest. The Ukrainians have the majority of their best brigades in the Donbass, and they have spent 8 years preparing three lines of defence. This is not a continuous line of WWI style trenches, but "hedgehogs", places that can be more easily defended, and can give supporting fire to the next "hedgehog" and so on along the line. Then there are some specific towns that are now fortresses, such as Konstantinovka, Kramatorsk and Slavyansk, which will be difficult to take. So the "easy" part, stopping the Ukrainian forces in the Donbass from being reinforced, or supported in any form, needed to be done first. Another part of the distraction campaign was to actually attack these forces head on from out of Donetsk and Lugansk, not in the expectation of defeating them, though the LPR has made significant progress, but to hold them down. If they had made a move, and they still might, to extricate themselves and withdraw from the Donbass, it's very difficult to do so in combat, and they are being pressed very hard to give them no opportunity to make a clean break. Though even if they tried to, they will be hit from the air as soon as they move out of their defensive positions.

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

When you quoted the Wikipedia article you somehow cut of before this:

The dissolution of the Soviet Union brought up a question of headquarters relocation to Novorossiysk. In September 1994 Novorossiysk Naval area was reestablished, three years later it was officially reorganised into Novorossiysk Naval Base.[62] To ensure its modernisation and development the government initiated special federal programme 'On Black Sea Navy Fleet Base at the Territory of Russian Federation in 2005—2020'. The Federal Special Construction Agency conducted the construction of new facilities, including a breakwater to protect the inner harbour from storms (West side 850 m long/1450 East). It can stand estimated wave load of 5 m and earthquakes up to M 9. The naval base is equipped with 5 berths (including floating dock) capable to receive up to 100 vessels from 1500 to 30,000 DWT. The submarine base shelters all 7 diesel-powered submarines of Russian Black Sea Navy.

Don't you think thats a very important part of the article ? 

I even showed you a picture of the base. Here is another:

image.png.8ef703277619192e663ec63846ea2972.png

Yet apparently I'm the one who is factually incorrect. :no:

 

I think where you have gone wrong are the dates, Crimea was annexed in 2014.

At Novorossiysk the only thing operational there in 2014 were naval administration offices.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Not so much a feint, that would apply more to naval maneuvers off the coast of Odessa. The main group of Ukrainian forces are those in the Donbass, and they cannot be fully engaged until such time that they cannot be supported, either by reinforcement or counter attack. The Russians moved to block, which is not exactly the same are surround, the main areas from which the Donbass group could be supported, and that is Kiev, Chernigov, Sumy, Kharkov and Nikolaev. The mere presence of Russian forces at those cities pins down the Ukrainian units there. They are effectively paralized, for if they move out to try to support the Donbass group they will leave a city exposed to being taken, and, as they have no air cover, will expose themselves to being destroyed from the air, as happened to German forces after D-Day when they had lost control of the skies over the battlefield. As not a single serious counter offensive has been launched by Ukrainian forces, only localized counter attacks, and not a single move made to relieve Mariupol or to reinforce the main Donbass group, this tactic by the Russians has fully succeeded. Unfortunately, because the media had decided on day one that they knew exactly what the Russian plans where, ie to take Kiev and other cities by day 3 or 4, as this clearly did not happen, voila, Russian "defeat". This may convince many members of the public who do not know better, but it is utterly risible to those who do know better, and any who actually think that Russia has been defeated are going to get a very nasty surprise.

A number of times I have referenced the military operations in Ukraine during 1943, and while weapons change, the terrain does not, and what was the right way then to conduct operations is still the right way. Of course the circumstances are not exactly the same, for instance in 1943 the Germans were holding Crimea and it had to be recaptured later, also today's battlefield stops north at Kiev whereas in 1943 the entire front stretched to the Baltic. However, due to the terrain, forests and hills in the east and north, then the Dneiper river bisecting the battlefield, and open steppe in the center and south, it is the east that needs to be dealt with first. A grand "cavalry charge" into the steppes achieves nothing unless you can engage and destroy your enemy there, and the Ukrainians know this and essentially central Ukraine is devoid of major formations.

It's only when you can block reinforcements and take vital positions, such as Izyum, which has now occured, though still with fighting to it's south, that you can engage in what most people will think of as a "blitzkrieg", though we did have that in the first days, specifically to put Russian forces on the doorstep of Kiev, and to drive to Kherson.

I'm not going into casualty figures as they are notoriously difficult to assess when fighting is ongoing, and what one side says about the other sides losses should not be taken as factual. The only time you could give a figure for enemy dead is if you controlled the battlefield after the fighting and could count the bodies, though that is more applicable to battles before WWI when fighting took place in one place, and at the end of the day one side won and the other runs off leaving their dead behind them to be counted. However, there is no indication that the Russians are loosing men at the same rate as the Red Army in 1943, which the Ukrainian figures show. The Russians have admitted to just over 1,300 dead, which will of course be lower than reality, but to times that by a factor of more than ten is deep in the realms of propaganda. As with most of what is happening, time will tell.

 

Edit to address this specific part of your post:

No, where they are the strongest. The Ukrainians have the majority of their best brigades in the Donbass, and they have spent 8 years preparing three lines of defence. This is not a continuous line of WWI style trenches, but "hedgehogs", places that can be more easily defended, and can give supporting fire to the next "hedgehog" and so on along the line. Then there are some specific towns that are now fortresses, such as Konstantinovka, Kramatorsk and Slavyansk, which will be difficult to take. So the "easy" part, stopping the Ukrainian forces in the Donbass from being reinforced, or supported in any form, needed to be done first. Another part of the distraction campaign was to actually attack these forces head on from out of Donetsk and Lugansk, not in the expectation of defeating them, though the LPR has made significant progress, but to hold them down. If they had made a move, and they still might, to extricate themselves and withdraw from the Donbass, it's very difficult to do so in combat, and they are being pressed very hard to give them no opportunity to make a clean break. Though even if they tried to, they will be hit from the air as soon as they move out of their defensive positions.

Well you mentioned the deception at the start of the gulf war so I assumed you were alluding to some big Russian deception, but the only real deception so far from Russia has been how shockingly bad their performance has been.

I haven’t come across any truly reliable sources to make any solid tactical assessments, but if Russian forces want to pin down Donbas and cut them off from reinforcements, they leave themselves incredibly exposed across a significant front.  Not to mention the logistics of redirecting forces from the north, It is only Russia’s artillery advantage that has kept them in the game.  I don’t think this current Russian offensive is disciplined enough to be truly effective.  But time will tell.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Grey Area said:

Well you mentioned the deception at the start of the gulf war so I assumed you were alluding to some big Russian deception, but the only real deception so far from Russia has been how shockingly bad their performance has been.

I haven’t come across any truly reliable sources to make any solid tactical assessments, but if Russian forces want to pin down Donbas and cut them off from reinforcements, they leave themselves incredibly exposed across a significant front.  Not to mention the logistics of redirecting forces from the north, It is only Russia’s artillery advantage that has kept them in the game.  I don’t think this current Russian offensive is disciplined enough to be truly effective.  But time will tell.

If the Russian performance has been "shockingly bad", can you show why you think this is so. I'll point out that advancing too far and too fast by some reccon units at the start, thus leaving their logistics tail vulnerable to ambush, is just a part of warfare in it's early stages when units can get a bit hyper before learning the hard way and calming down. It's not "shockingly bad" unless it was widespread and continuous, which it is not and there have been no videos of destroyed Russian columns for a few weeks now, only isolated vehicles and small groups of vehicles, and that's what happens in war, no side in immune to casualties.

You say that the Russians will leave themselves "incredibly exposed across a significant front", but the entire focus of their efforts in the north and northeast has been to tie down the Ukrainian army specifically so they cannot disrupt the coming assault on their forces in the Donbass. As for the Russians logistics, just now far is Kharkov from Russia? or Donetsk and Lugansk? how far is Kherson?, not far, in fact the logistics for them far from being difficult, is easy, particularly as they don't have to worry about attack from the air. And this lack of Ukrainian air power is extrememly vital, and a factor usually totally ignored by those thinking that Ukraine has any chance of winning. It's modern warfare, how can airpower, or lack of it, not be so totally vital.

Can you show why, in your opinion, Russia has only been kept in the game due to their artillery, when they are in fact outnumbered by Ukraine in the field in men, tanks and artillery, and both sides use almost exactly the same type of artillery.

It what respect are the Russians indisciplined, bar over reaching by some reccon at the start. If they where not doing what they should be doing we would be reading about substansive Ukrainian counter offensives, but apart from local counter attacks, nothing, not a thing. The "counter-offensive" that was supposed to have been coming from Nikolaev was not much more than a reccon, and smashed very badly, as even the commander of their 59th Brigade has admitted, and the overflowing hospitals in Nikolaev testify.

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, VZ73 said:

Of course but this is unexplained-mysteries.com not ignorant-zombies.org :rolleyes:

True, but if you try really hard you might still find someone who’ll believe you’re getting special spiritually channelled information that any monkey with one working eye can see for themselves. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Not so much a feint, that would apply more to naval maneuvers off the coast of Odessa. The main group of Ukrainian forces are those in the Donbass, and they cannot be fully engaged until such time that they cannot be supported, either by reinforcement or counter attack. The Russians moved to block, which is not exactly the same are surround, the main areas from which the Donbass group could be supported, and that is Kiev, Chernigov, Sumy, Kharkov and Nikolaev. The mere presence of Russian forces at those cities pins down the Ukrainian units there. They are effectively paralized, for if they move out to try to support the Donbass group they will leave a city exposed to being taken, and, as they have no air cover, will expose themselves to being destroyed from the air, as happened to German forces after D-Day when they had lost control of the skies over the battlefield. As not a single serious counter offensive has been launched by Ukrainian forces, only localized counter attacks, and not a single move made to relieve Mariupol or to reinforce the main Donbass group, this tactic by the Russians has fully succeeded. Unfortunately, because the media had decided on day one that they knew exactly what the Russian plans where, ie to take Kiev and other cities by day 3 or 4, as this clearly did not happen, voila, Russian "defeat". This may convince many members of the public who do not know better, but it is utterly risible to those who do know better, and any who actually think that Russia has been defeated are going to get a very nasty surprise.

A number of times I have referenced the military operations in Ukraine during 1943, and while weapons change, the terrain does not, and what was the right way then to conduct operations is still the right way. Of course the circumstances are not exactly the same, for instance in 1943 the Germans were holding Crimea and it had to be recaptured later, also today's battlefield stops north at Kiev whereas in 1943 the entire front stretched to the Baltic. However, due to the terrain, forests and hills in the east and north, then the Dneiper river bisecting the battlefield, and open steppe in the center and south, it is the east that needs to be dealt with first. A grand "cavalry charge" into the steppes achieves nothing unless you can engage and destroy your enemy there, and the Ukrainians know this and essentially central Ukraine is devoid of major formations.

It's only when you can block reinforcements and take vital positions, such as Izyum, which has now occured, though still with fighting to it's south, that you can engage in what most people will think of as a "blitzkrieg", though we did have that in the first days, specifically to put Russian forces on the doorstep of Kiev, and to drive to Kherson.

I'm not going into casualty figures as they are notoriously difficult to assess when fighting is ongoing, and what one side says about the other sides losses should not be taken as factual. The only time you could give a figure for enemy dead is if you controlled the battlefield after the fighting and could count the bodies, though that is more applicable to battles before WWI when fighting took place in one place, and at the end of the day one side won and the other runs off leaving their dead behind them to be counted. However, there is no indication that the Russians are loosing men at the same rate as the Red Army in 1943, which the Ukrainian figures show. The Russians have admitted to just over 1,300 dead, which will of course be lower than reality, but to times that by a factor of more than ten is deep in the realms of propaganda. As with most of what is happening, time will tell.

 

Edit to address this specific part of your post:

No, where they are the strongest. The Ukrainians have the majority of their best brigades in the Donbass, and they have spent 8 years preparing three lines of defence. This is not a continuous line of WWI style trenches, but "hedgehogs", places that can be more easily defended, and can give supporting fire to the next "hedgehog" and so on along the line. Then there are some specific towns that are now fortresses, such as Konstantinovka, Kramatorsk and Slavyansk, which will be difficult to take. So the "easy" part, stopping the Ukrainian forces in the Donbass from being reinforced, or supported in any form, needed to be done first. Another part of the distraction campaign was to actually attack these forces head on from out of Donetsk and Lugansk, not in the expectation of defeating them, though the LPR has made significant progress, but to hold them down. If they had made a move, and they still might, to extricate themselves and withdraw from the Donbass, it's very difficult to do so in combat, and they are being pressed very hard to give them no opportunity to make a clean break. Though even if they tried to, they will be hit from the air as soon as they move out of their defensive positions.

This has to be the best analysis I have read on this thread so far or even in the media for that matter. Very informative. I hope you keep posting.

Edited by Occult1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:

I think where you have gone wrong are the dates, Crimea was annexed in 2014.

At Novorossiysk the only thing operational there in 2014 were naval administration offices.

You know what, I'm not gonna waste more time on a discussion about semantics. You are probably going to see this as you "winning". Just remember that to get that "win" you are defending a war that have cost thousands of innocent lives. Congratulations on your win.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some stuff on the state of the war.

https://militaryland.net/ukraine/invasion-day-35-summary/

Ukraine has liberated more towns around Kyiv as they continue the counter offensive in that area. 

Around Sumy Russian troops have retreated across the border, Ukraine still doing counter offenses.

Not mentioned in the link but from other stuff I have read and heard the northern front around Sumy is extremely bad for Russia and seems to be at risk of collapse.  Russia has extremely long supply lines which they have been unable to defend and are under constant attack by Ukranian forces.  Russian troops are essentially paralyzed due to lack of supplies as Ukraine constantly eliminates small elements of the Russian military as they keep pushing the Russians back.  Seems the Russian 4th Guard Tank division has been heavily mauled during the recent fighting and is no longer combat effective, the 4th Guard Tank division is one of the best trained and equipped divisions Russia has.  Rumor floating around the guy leading the 13th guard tank regiment, element of the 4th Guard Tank division, recently committed suicide after finding out his regiment essentially lost all of its tanks, but it's only an unconfirmed rumor.

Around Kharkiv fighting is intense with both Russia and Ukraine doing offensive operations.

Mariupol is still resisting and intense urban combat is still going on.  Not much is making it out from either Ukraine or Russia and what little is coming out is completely unverifiable.  

Eastern front not much has changed recently.

Southern front not much has changed recently either.

Heard rumors of artillery 5 km to 10 km away from the city of Kherson but nothing has been confirmed.  Was a picture yesterday showing what seemed to be Russians preparing the main bridge to be demolished which does suggest Russia isnt very confident in their ability to hold the city of Kherson.

Edited by DarkHunter
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I've had to remove some posts, a reminder to all posters to discuss the topic in hand, and not each other.

No more Russian troll accusations, please.

Thanks in advance,

Tiggs
[Forum Mod Team]

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, VZ73 said:

I´m told spiritually that some in NATO and Biden admin wanted this war in Ukraine. Can see several possible reasons but not sure.

Told spiritually by whom?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

You know what, I'm not gonna waste more time on a discussion about semantics. You are probably going to see this as you "winning". Just remember that to get that "win" you are defending a war that have cost thousands of innocent lives. Congratulations on your win.

Wars are almost always waged over perceptions of wrongdoings or wanting something someone else has...

Rarely if ever are innocent lives a concern,and it has never really had much to do with "feelings" in the past...not much has changed,except for those not fighting to voice their opinions in an instant worldwide.

No reason to get angry or upset about others opinions when none here are actually so much as throwing a punch in this mess...

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Occult1 said:

This has to be the best analysis I have read on this thread so far or even in the media for that matter. Very informative. I hope you keep posting.

Thank you. I'll continue when something major happens, whenever that will be.

 

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

If the Russian performance has been "shockingly bad", can you show why you think this is so.

I only have general numbers to go on.  But we’ll use a conflict which you brought up, the Gulf war.  Look at the numbers of coalition casualties, not just in the opening weeks but the entire conflict.

 

13 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

I'll point out that advancing too far and too fast by some reccon units at the start, thus leaving their logistics tail vulnerable to ambush, is just a part of warfare in it's early stages

That’s a rather blasé statement to make from someone who is military experienced.  If you were in any way in a position of command in your military career, I hope that wasn’t part of your pep-talk.

Look, this all plays into the discipline factor, if you have ‘hyped up’ recon elements rushing off, to the tune of 10000 plus personnel (conservative estimates), there’s something very wrong.  Commanders should be issuing orders which are followed, if they are not being followed, there’s poor discipline.  Then there’s the point that why would the Russian commanders expect the units being used for Recon to be staying with the baggage train?  That makes little sense.

13 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

It's not "shockingly bad" unless it was widespread and continuous, which it is not and there have been no videos of destroyed Russian columns for a few weeks now, only isolated vehicles and small groups of vehicles, and that's what happens in war, no side in immune to casualties.

It’s certainly not shockingly good is it?  Look, I have no info one way or the other, I just have media to go on.  I watch a bit of both side and use a VPN as well.  Just because there’s no recent videos does not mean there’s no losses on either side.  News of Ukraine has wound down somewhat now as time goes on.

 

13 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

You say that the Russians will leave themselves "incredibly exposed across a significant front", but the entire focus of their efforts in the north and northeast has been to tie down the Ukrainian army specifically so they cannot disrupt the coming assault on their forces in the Donbass.

Well, yes.  The problem is, I have very basic maps to go on.  I can’t find anywhere any details on Ukrainian formations, unit types or placement.  So I can make a broad assessment that where the point out Russian positions, there will be significant Ukrainian opposition.  That’s all I can say.  I would suggest it is not Ukrainian military that is necessarily pinned down.  If those forces in the North are required to move south east to Donbas, they are exposed.  And I can only assume that not all of Ukraine’s capacity is used up.  If there is a Russian line around the whole of the Donbas region they will be exposed to the front and the rear if they converge from the North West.  But I dunno what the plan is, and there’s been no movement thus far, last I heard Russian units were digging in, in the North.  If the intention is to tie up Ukrainian units there, that’s one way to do it I suppose, but the Ukrainians only then need to keep the Russians heads down, while they redirect forces elsewhere.  As a Tanker you should understand how important mobility is.

 

13 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

particularly as they don't have to worry about attack from the air. And this lack of Ukrainian air power is extrememly vital,

They don’t have to worry about air power?  Not sure that’s strictly true.  Air power might be problematic for Ukraine, but it’s not incapable.

13 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

those thinking that Ukraine has any chance of winning. It's modern warfare, how can airpower, or lack of it, not be so totally vital.

Ukraine has already won.  The borders may shift through the force of arms, but the longer political strategy that follows will decide what Ukraine looks like on a map.

 

13 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Can you show why, in your opinion, Russia has only been kept in the game due to their artillery, when they are in fact outnumbered by Ukraine in the field in men, tanks and artillery, and both sides use almost exactly the same type of artillery

Just my opinion, take it or leave it.

 

13 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

It what respect are the Russians indisciplined, bar over reaching by some reccon at the start. If they where not doing what they should be doing we would be reading about substansive Ukrainian counter offensives, but apart from local counter attacks, nothing, not a thing. The "counter-offensive" that was supposed to have been coming from Nikolaev was not much more than a reccon, and smashed very badly, as even the commander of their 59th Brigade has admitted, and the overflowing hospitals in Nikolaev testify.

Again I only have media reports to go on, but if only half of those reports are true, discipline among Russian forces is an embarrassment.  Drunk troops, looting civilian homes, reports of soldiers shooting themselves, running over officers.  Troops asking for fuel and food from civilians.

Edited by Grey Area
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Starting to hear reports that multiple Russian soldiers have been evacuated to Belarus with acute radiation sickness/radiation exposure.  There are doubts about it being acute radiation sickness.

Seems that Russian troops traveled through the red forest with no radiation protection equipment on, heard but havent confirmed that some Russians even tried to dig defensive trenches/tank berms inside the red forest.

For those that dont know the red forest is located near Chernobyl and is one of the most radioactive places on earth.  When Chernobyl melted down a lot of the released radioactive debris ended up landing in a pine forest, killing the trees and causing their pine needles to turn a brownish red color.  The soil there is still decently radioactive and driving through it will kick up radioactive dust let alone trying to dig defensive fortifications inside it if that is true.

The fact that Russian troops seemingly entered the red forest without radiation protection is concerning so it is possible some amount of Russian troops are now experiencing radiation issues.

Edited by DarkHunter
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

I only have general numbers to go on.  But we’ll use a conflict which you brought up, the Gulf war.  Look at the numbers of coalition casualties, not just in the opening weeks but the entire conflict.

 

 

I'll only deal with this part of your post as the rest is based on a mix of you believing Ukrainian propaganda, and that's fine if you want to believe them, and of rather distorting some of what I said, and an unrealistic assumption that the Russians were supposed to be "the best", and failure to meet targets set by MSM, yeah, riiight, are then "evidence" of failure.

I used the Gulf was as an example of a deception plan, which worked, and this same type of plan, a threatened amphibious landing, has worked for the Russians at Odessa as the Ukrainians have to keep forces tied up there, and a number of photos have appeared showing Ukrainian T-64s in positions within the city. As far as anything else goes the Gulf war, either of them, were totally different to this current war. For a start in the first war the Iraqis were bombarded for week after week, and I remember one Iraqi artillery brigade commander saying after it was over that his brigade had lost 80% of it's guns even before the ground war started. No such "softening up" bombardment has been used by the Russians, they went in cold as it were, and the consequence of that was casualties that the allies in the gulf wars never took. Would you have prefered it if the Russians had operated as the Allies in the Gulf wars? no, of course not, so trying to make it seem that Russian forces are "hopeless" is just unfounded propaganda.

Then in Gulf war II Baghdad was subjected to "shock and awe" which had everybody cheering at this "entertainment", and the Iraqi army, with no airforce, and you cannot accept that Ukraine is poweless in the air, why, and very demoralized from the start, just faded away. Yet it still took the Americans nearly a month to get to Baghdad over excellent tank country and almost no opposition. We, the British had almost no oposition at all driving to Basra, and when there engaged in what the media called a "huge tank battle". The reality was that the RSDG in Challenger II engaged and destroyed one Iraqi company of ancient T55s, with no losses to themselves. In Ukraine both sides have pretty much the same equipment, and of course the Ukrainians, unlike the Iraqis, are fighting back. So, what do the allied casuality figures from the Gulf wars show that has any bearing on Ukraine today?

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, CrimsonKing said:

Wars are almost always waged over perceptions of wrongdoings or wanting something someone else has...

Rarely if ever are innocent lives a concern,and it has never really had much to do with "feelings" in the past...not much has changed,except for those not fighting to voice their opinions in an instant worldwide.

No reason to get angry or upset about others opinions when none here are actually so much as throwing a punch in this mess...

I'm not upset,  just tired of a discussion that was going nowhere. 

People who are defending Russia, like Cooki Monster, are defending the killing of innocent people. I think it's worth calling him out on that. Does he care about those people ? Probably not. 

Edited by Noteverythingisaconspiracy
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

I'll only deal with this part of your post as the rest is based on a mix of you believing Ukrainian propaganda, and that's fine if you want to believe them,

Okay.  It's true that I only have Media to go on.  I pointed out in my post that I look at western media and russian and employ a VPN to do this so the websites think I am from the country that I am viewing the media from.  In and of itself this statement is fine and is your prerogative.  I do have issue though, with the fact that you yourself must of course be limited to the same information issues that the rest of us are, yet your expectation is that your points are replied to in full.  My post was made following your very own invitations to give my position on various points.  So unless there is some inside knowledge you have access to, your information is subject to the same doubt cast by the propoganda war as everyone elses.  Why is your opinion more worthy of response than my own?

2 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

and an unrealistic assumption that the Russians were supposed to be "the best"

Perhaps that assumption was unrealistic.  Does nothing to change the situation on the ground.

2 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

and failure to meet targets set by MSM, yeah, riiight, are then "evidence" of failure.

What else do we have to go on?  Putin stated that this invading force was NOT going to invade, they did, then Putin stated that they were de-militarising and de-nazifying Ukraine, they bombarded civilians in cities, agreed to humanitarian cease-fires and corridors which went unfulfilled.  Putin lied to his own people in Russia about the situation.  Everything that comes out of Putin's mouth is a crock of ****, and now Putin states that the original plan all along was to liberate the two regions in the Crimea.  Yeah, riiight, is the correct statement to use, just the wrong context.

The truth is no one knows what Putin's end game was, and now it is going to be whatever he can cobble together that makes him look the least idiotic by the Russian people.

2 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

I used the Gulf was as an example of a deception plan, which worked, and this same type of plan, a threatened amphibious landing, has worked for the Russians at Odessa as the Ukrainians have to keep forces tied up there, and a number of photos have appeared showing Ukrainian T-64s in positions within the city.

Well that wasnt clear, infact it was a very obscure statement you made with no reference.

2 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

As far as anything else goes the Gulf war, either of them, were totally different to this current war. For a start in the first war the Iraqis were bombarded for week after week, and I remember one Iraqi artillery brigade commander saying after it was over that his brigade had lost 80% of it's guns even before the ground war started.

It is true, different wars, different times.  But it is you that keep bringing up parallels with other wars.  You quite enjoy that.  I am playing the game by your rules here.

2 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

No such "softening up" bombardment has been used by the Russians, they went in cold as it were, and the consequence of that was casualties that the allies in the gulf wars never took.

Wait... I thought the causalties that had been suffered were from hyped up recon elements getting ahead of themselves?  Now it's because the Russians didnt soften up Ukraine enough first?

2 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Would you have prefered it if the Russians had operated as the Allies in the Gulf wars? no, of course not

I am sure that thousands of Russian Mothers and widows would have.  Why would they not have given their troops every advantage possible?  This is what doesnt make sense.  The conclusion we come back to is that Russia went in thinking Ukraine would surrender after a few days.

2 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

No such "softening up" bombardment has been used by the Russians, they went in cold as it were, and the consequence of that was casualties that the allies in the gulf wars never took. Would you have prefered it if the Russians had operated as the Allies in the Gulf wars? no, of course not, 

And this statement as a whole is one of the reasons why your posts are not liked.  I take away from this the following:  'You should be thanking the Russians for not bombarding first, for being so merciful as to invade without an intial period of bombardment.' 

2 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

so trying to make it seem that Russian forces are "hopeless" is just unfounded propaganda.

But as you pointed out, our expectations of a solid, professional army were unrealistic.

2 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Then in Gulf war II Baghdad was subjected to "shock and awe" which had everybody cheering at this "entertainment", and the Iraqi army, with no airforce, and you cannot accept that Ukraine is poweless in the air, why, and very demoralized from the start, just faded away. Yet it still took the Americans nearly a month to get to Baghdad over excellent tank country and almost no opposition. We, the British had almost no oposition at all driving to Basra, and when there engaged in what the media called a "huge tank battle". The reality was that the RSDG in Challenger II engaged and destroyed one Iraqi company of ancient T55s, with no losses to themselves. In Ukraine both sides have pretty much the same equipment, and of course the Ukrainians, unlike the Iraqis, are fighting back. So, what do the allied casuality figures from the Gulf wars show that has any bearing on Ukraine today?

I simply responded to your analogy, with little to no referrence or context given.  My comment was trying to picture what deception you were referring to, unfortunately my psychic powers were still charging up at that point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Noteverythingisaconspiracy I think it's all right to just ignore posts "from the Russian point of view". (I deliberately avoid using the exact words that describe what's going on.)

It's unbearable to read those (for me, that is) and near impossible to not react to those, but it's actually a mistake to engage them and thus give them an illusion of being legitimate takes worth discussion. 

 

Screw it. 

Let's look at this pretty flower instead :D   

4n2jVEhFTHcoxHqVSIA_jqtqYyI.jpg

Edited by Helen of Annoy
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Grey Area said:

Okay.  It's true that I only have Media to go on.  I pointed out in my post that I look at western media and russian and employ a VPN to do this so the websites think I am from the country that I am viewing the media from.  In and of itself this statement is fine and is your prerogative.  I do have issue though, with the fact that you yourself must of course be limited to the same information issues that the rest of us are, yet your expectation is that your points are replied to in full.  My post was made following your very own invitations to give my position on various points.  So unless there is some inside knowledge you have access to, your information is subject to the same doubt cast by the propoganda war as everyone elses.  Why is your opinion more worthy of response than my own?

Perhaps that assumption was unrealistic.  Does nothing to change the situation on the ground.

What else do we have to go on?  Putin stated that this invading force was NOT going to invade, they did, then Putin stated that they were de-militarising and de-nazifying Ukraine, they bombarded civilians in cities, agreed to humanitarian cease-fires and corridors which went unfulfilled.  Putin lied to his own people in Russia about the situation.  Everything that comes out of Putin's mouth is a crock of ****, and now Putin states that the original plan all along was to liberate the two regions in the Crimea.  Yeah, riiight, is the correct statement to use, just the wrong context.

The truth is no one knows what Putin's end game was, and now it is going to be whatever he can cobble together that makes him look the least idiotic by the Russian people.

Well that wasnt clear, infact it was a very obscure statement you made with no reference.

It is true, different wars, different times.  But it is you that keep bringing up parallels with other wars.  You quite enjoy that.  I am playing the game by your rules here.

Wait... I thought the causalties that had been suffered were from hyped up recon elements getting ahead of themselves?  Now it's because the Russians didnt soften up Ukraine enough first?

I am sure that thousands of Russian Mothers and widows would have.  Why would they not have given their troops every advantage possible?  This is what doesnt make sense.  The conclusion we come back to is that Russia went in thinking Ukraine would surrender after a few days.

And this statement as a whole is one of the reasons why your posts are not liked.  I take away from this the following:  'You should be thanking the Russians for not bombarding first, for being so merciful as to invade without an intial period of bombardment.' 

But as you pointed out, our expectations of a solid, professional army were unrealistic.

I simply responded to your analogy, with little to no referrence or context given.  My comment was trying to picture what deception you were referring to, unfortunately my psychic powers were still charging up at that point. 

I'm rubbish at multi quoting, so I hope it makes sense this way.

I don't expect my posts to be answered in full, or answered at all, but it would be great if any answer that there was addressed the topic and not me, and that it was, no matter now brief, a genuine attempt to engage and not just propaganda slogans. I also don't think that my opinion should be more worthy than anybody elses, but, when faced by many posts that do not show much military knowledge, it may be worth pointing out that I do have some knowledge. I would not have mentioned it at all except for one noisy poster talking nonsense.

No, the assumption, not put forward by the Russians, that they were "the best", changes nothing on the ground. If anything, the point I was putting across was that some MSM elements bigged them up beyond reasonable expectations just to shout with glee when they fail to meet these expectations. It's just crude propaganda.

Putin said one thing and did another, of course, because you do not tell your enemy your plans. Why be truthfull when about to wage war, no, you lie and lie and lie, and then lie again, and then some, it's normal. For the second part of your point, I have yet to see evidence that the Russians are "bombarding civilians in cities". To explain. They are certainly not carrying out an air or missile bombardment on residential areas of cities, for if they, had, we would have seen huge amounts of evidence. All we have seen from, say, Kiev, is an apartment block hit by a missile. However, it was not Russian, it was Ukrainian BUK, and thankfully there were no deaths. The second was the Russian missile strike on the sports mall, but the Ukrainians themselves had to admit that it was being used as an artillery firing point when video evidence of Grad launchers at the store emerged. All these other strikes have been on military infrastructure, which look like all hell is breaking loose in nightime images with the horizon glowing red, but not even the Ukrainians are coming forward to say that X residential district was hit and XXX civilians killed and wounded. If this had been the case we would be overwhelmed with real evidence. However, such is the lack of evidence that, and I think I posted about this before, the Ukrainian Tochka-U strike into downtown Donetsk on Monday 14th March was presented as an attack on Kiev, and that this can be done is a product of trying to block all access in western Europe to any news other than MSM. Also, on Tuesday night a Ukrainian Urugan MLRS hit an apartment block in Donetsk, causing one death and about a dozen wounded. A photo of this has been used the same way as that of the March 14th attack, and has also been used to say it was a Russian attack on Kiev.

Continuation of the same point. It's true that civilians have been killed, it's unfortunately unavoidable in war, always has been, always will be. This reply will I know generate howls and screams, but I'll point to an article in the  Stars and Stripes which while engaging in the usual "Russia bad, Putin bad" rhetoric, admits, however grudgingly, that the Ukrainians have been placing their military with the civilain population. That they have admitted this indicates that the issue is far more serious, and it is this "human shields" issue, copied from IS, that has caused many civilian casualties at Volnovakha and ongoing in Mariupol. The evidence from civilians, not on MSM of course, is massive and damning against Ukrainian forces, primarily Azov and other nationalist units. Yes, this won't be believed, but, the evidence will eventually emerge in full in MSM, maybe.

Of course nobody knows what Putin's end game is, and it's not for me to defend this, I'm English, not Russian, and this is a war that to me is the natural consequence of the way the Soviet Union was broken up, and none of my, or any other countries business, just as the Iraq wars, or Northern Ireland, were none of Russia's business. However my opinion is that Ukraine will be broken up, with what used to be called Novorossia, that's roughly from memory, Kharkov, Lugansk, Donetsk, Zaporozhia, Kherson, Nikolaev and Odessa oblasts removed form Kiev's control, leaving just parts of central Ukraine, Galicia and Transcarpathia, if the Hungarians don't make a land grab if things really fall apart very badly.

I think I made if clear in about two posts that the deception plan I was refering to in Gulf War I was the threat of an amphibious landing on the coast of Kuwait. Maybe I caused confusion by using this form of words in a reply to you "Deception/Diversion". The deception is the still valid threat of a landing at Odessa, and the diversion is the presense of Russian forces strung out from Kiev around to Kharkov, as they are "diverting" the attention of the Ukrainians away from the main theatre of operations in the Donbass. Maybe I should have been clearer.

Well I'm glad you like that I refer to previous wars, and that somebody has taken note. We can never stop learning from the past, and even the campaigns of Thutmose III, the "Egyptian Napoleon" can still show us how to wage war.

I'll deal with the next two points about casualties in one reply. In hindsight using the phrase "hyped up" about reccon units was not the best choice. It's more an eagerness to get on with the job, and if things seem to be going well, letting down your guard and running ahead of yourself. I've done that myself on an exercise and had to be called back, it's learning. The issue here of course is that war is a harsh master and learning needs to be done very quickly. I did not want to imply that these units lacked discipline, just full awareness of what they were getting into, and as I poined out, this has now been rectified, but there are still casualties of course. So, if the Russians had gone in like the allies in Gulf War I with a long preparatory air bombardment followed by a massive artillery bombardment, now many civilians do you think may have been caught in this and died? quite a lot I would think, and even more manure poured on Russia's head. As to Russian mothers loosing their sons due to there being no preparatory bombardment of any type, how would work out this equation, Ukrainian civilians against Russian soldiers? Who got the better deal here?

I can only presume that if my posts are not liked, and some do and some don't, it would because my mentioning the way the way the Gulf war was conducted, and the aftermath, causes problems with conscience, perhaps caused by Powell waving a tube of chalk or whatever around and lying. The biolabs found in Ukraine are at least real, and very worrying.

The point here about "unrealistic" expections of the Russian capability is not that they do not, and who does, live up to some unrealistic expectation, but that it is propaganda to say that they are loosing. MSM says this, the Ukrainians say this, but western defence analysts do not say this, and there seems to be a serious contradiction between "Russia loosing" and "Russia about to launch new huge offensive", both cannot be right, but both come from the Ukrainian supporting side.

Your final point is covered by several previous answers in this reply.

 

 

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
  • The topic was unlocked
  • This topic was locked and unlocked
  • This topic was locked and unlocked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.