Russian Tensions
- This topic has 5,312 replies, 39 voices, and was last updated 3 weeks, 3 days ago by
.
-
Posts
-
“That said the veracity of the story is not really important, regardless of the truth of the story or not, the question is about your view on it.”
Say what?! The veracity isn’t important?! Erm, yeah it is. The claim sounded bunk when I first heard it and now I know it’s BS. So my view is, you were listening to a liar. Find a more reliable source of information on the conflict.
I’ll add that to the long list of questions you are unable or unwilling to answer.
I would have thought a straight targeting civillians regardless of the situation is not acceptable would have done, but you can’t even give a straight answer to that question.
Are you too frightened to condemn it, just in case it turns out to be the correct?
“Essentially the question is, “do you agree that it is appropriate to target civilians when there is a “fortress” situation”.”
It is always wrong to target civilians fortress or no. That’s why Russia went to war with the Kiev Nazis; to stop them targeting civilians in the Donbass.
“Whether it turns out to a lie or if it turns out to be true, this should not impact on your judgement on the matter.”
And it doesn’t impact my judgment on the matter. But it should impact your judgment as to which sources you choose to inform you of the conflict. Garbage in, garbage out.
Thank you for answering the question and I am glad that at least there is one thing we can agree about, i.e. that targeting civilians is abhorant.
As to the source of the quote, as I said in my previous post, I listen to RTE (the Irish broadcaster) more often than to the BBC because it appears to be less biased than the BBC. (it also gives good coverage of Gaelic Games).
I did not state that I thought it was unbiased or accurate. I do not take any media (including Russian and pro Russian media) with a very large pinch of salt.
“Is it likely that Russia will invade NATO in the near future?”
May I remind you that the subject of NATO’s demilitarisation came up with respect to my claim that Russia will win in its conflict with Ukraine because Ukraine is running out of the means to stay in the fight. I was then ridiculed for not understanding NATOs military might. Well, looks like I was right afterall. Lol
“As you keep saying, Russia is not the aggressor, so present shortages are not an immediate critical issue.”
Not for Russia, no. For Ukraine, big yes.
“It simply supports all those who say that NATO is not a threat to Russia.”
Not in a toe to toe ground war, no. But that’s not what keeps the Kremlin up at night. Nukes and missile silos do. Moscow will never allow NATO to build such infrastructure on its borders.
“On the other hand, if a war did unexpectedly break out, it does raise the prospect of nuclear weapons being used to compensate for the lack of conventional supplies.”
Indeed. And then we’re all dead.
“Without sufficient 155mm shells, a tactical nuke may well be employed.”
Gold star for you. You may actually be right about something for once.
“Stockpiles of weaponry are being depleted but NATO members have all committed to increasing their military budgets and are ordering new armaments from manufacturers.”
Words are one thing, deeds another. Like the SPGB I suspect its mostly blather.
“It will take time for them to be produced to replenish. But it will happen.
Perhaps the time-line may not be sufficient to save Ukraine from the anticipated Russian offensive,”
The offensives have already started. You sleeping in class again? Do pay attention. And yes, it is too late for Ukraine. But then again, Ukraine never had a chance as I was saying from the get go.
“but it does not mean that NATO is being demilitarised.”
Actually, it does.
“On the contrary.
NATO is on course to enlarge its membership with Finland and Sweden planning to join.”
Maybe, maybe not. It won’t change the dynamics on the ground.
“The lesson being learned is that the expenditure of ammunition in today’s modern war is vast, much more than war-games had foreseen.”
You mean NATOstani wargames? The Russians and Chinese never forgot this lesson.
“Do you think NATO countries will not take such lessons into consideration when they re-stock and re-arm themselves?”
That could take up to a decade. NATOstan doesn’t have that long. It may well collapse after Ukraine’s inevitable defeat. The cracks are already showing.
“For the working class, it means that national budgets will be adjusted with less GDP spent on social welfare and much more spent on the military.”
Yeah, but when have things been otherwise?
“Tanks for nothing, Putin and Zelensky, for putting more money into the coffers of the armament industry and less into health, education and the elderly.”
Lol. You’ve airbrushed NATOstan out of the rogues gallery. Putin doesn’t belong there BTW. He was coming to the aid of those poor civilians being targeted by Nazis. You know, the one’s Bojo’s Brains is clutching his pearls over?
“Something to be proud of.”
Way to miss the forest for the trees All in with Washington’s neo-con imperialists.
“As always, it is the workers who pay the price of war.”
As always, your analysis is a day late and a dollar short.
Dmitry Polyanskiy, Russian envoy to the United Nations, has said it will be impossible for his country to achieve its war aims unless Bakhmut is captured.
“I know that there is no way to liberate Donbas without capturing Bakhmut and I know that liberation of Donbas is one of the tasks of our military operation,” Polyanskiy said.
The Russian diplomat described the war-ravaged city as a “fortress” that is “part of a heavily fortified line of defense.”
“It’s not just a simple city. It’s a city that has long underground tunnels and fortifications,” he said. “That’s why it’s so difficult to capture this fortress, but I’m sure that we will do it.”
Comments from others that I know TS will dismiss.
Jon Roozenbeek, at the University of Cambridge, said taking the town would be symbolic for Russia as it would enable Putin to show some form of military victory. If captured, it would be Russia’s first major battlefield gain since the summer of 2022.
Roozenbeek said Bakhmut itself doesn’t hold a lot of strategic value, but the location does. He explained that taking Bakhmut would enable Putin’s troops to launch artillery strikes on key places, such as the cities of Kramatorsk and Slovyansk in the Donetsk region.
Jaroslava Barbieri at the University of Birmingham, also said the city has more symbolic—rather than strategic—military importance.
“Taking control over Bakhmut is a desperate attempt to send the message that Russia is making incremental gains and can still win in Ukraine.”
The Institute for the Study of War assessment is that had Russian troops taken Bakhmut without significant Ukrainian resistance, they could have hoped to expand operations in ways that could have forced Ukraine to construct hasty defensive positions in less favorable terrain.
“Therefore, Ukraine’s defense of Bakhmut and undertaking an effort to set conditions for a counteroffensive are likely complementary, not mutually exclusive, activities considering that Russian forces would have continued their offensive beyond Bakhmut had Ukraine yielded the city earlier.”
It seems everything is dependent upon the success or failure of the imminent Russian Spring Offensive. IMHO even such a victory will not be sufficient to bring subdue Ukraine and bring it to the negotiation table. The war will go on and I have to agree with Wagners Prigozhin that the conflict will drag on, draining not only the combatants but the rest of the world of resources.
Recall the Iraq-Iran war lasted 8 long bloody years.
“Roozenbeek said Bakhmut itself doesn’t hold a lot of strategic value, but the location does.”
(Whiplash) Say what?! The town isn’t of strategic value but it’s of strategic value. Lol. This guy’s a professor? Of clownery?
“It seems everything is dependent upon the success or failure of the imminent Russian Spring Offensive.”
The offensive has already begun. Google it.
“IMHO even such a victory will not be sufficient to bring subdue Ukraine and bring it to the negotiation table.”
Russia is done talking. If Ukraine has a guardian angel Moscow may just be magnanimous enough to offer them one last chance to negotiate. But Moscow doesn’t need to. The war is going its way. It’s winning decisively and nothing, short of nukes, will prevent a Russian victory.
“The war will go on and I have to agree with Wagners Prigozhin that the conflict will drag on, draining not only the combatants but the rest of the world of resources.”
No, it’s not going to go on much longer. Ukraine and NATOstan are almost spent. NATOStan is busily preparing one final iteration of its proxy army. Like the other 2 this third will also be reduced to chum and smoldering slag.
“Recall the Iraq-Iran war lasted 8 long bloody years.”
Recall the Hundred Years War. Erm, why?
AJ – “It will take time for them to be produced to replenish. But it will happen.
Perhaps the time-line may not be sufficient to save Ukraine from the anticipated Russian offensive,”
TW “The offensives have already started. You sleeping in class again? Do pay attention. And yes, it is too late for Ukraine. But then again, Ukraine never had a chance as I was saying from the get go.”
From the get go you have been saying that Russia would steamroller the Ukrainian state very quickly. One year on this has not happened, tragically to the cost of thousands of working class people on both sides.
As to whether there will be a Russian breakthrough in 2023, the outcome is probably pretty uncertain. The usually expected numerical advantage that attackers need to breakthrough defensive forces has long been set at about 3:1.
The Soviet era Military Author A A Siderenko, stated that although a general 3:1 superiority was the least ratio needed to create a battlefield breakthrough, he also stated that attackers needed a 5:1 advantage in terms of personnel, 8:1 or 9:1 in artillery and 3:1 to 4:1 advantage in tanks.
Has Russia got the level of advantage over Ukrainian forces, I don’t know and I’m very confident that TW doesn’t know either. It is likely in the fog of war neither side can give an accurate forecast of these numbers.
We also need to take into consideration that these are the minimum estimated numbers required. It is also possible that these numbers can be impacted on quality of arms and troops (A British force of 36,000 overwhelmed an Italian force of 150,000 troops during Operation Compass in 1940-41 taking 133,000 prisoners of war).
What is certain that without meaningful peace negotiations and some settlement between these two capitalist powers, thousands of more workers will be fed into the meat grinder to keep the powerful elite in their positions of power.
“Roozenbeek said Bakhmut itself doesn’t hold a lot of strategic value, but the location does.”
I’ll try and explain this to TW. “Bakhmut doesn’t itself hold a lot of strategic value” – This means the city (its resources, its manufacturing, its population, etc.) do not hold a resource based value. “but it’s location does” it has a strategic geographic position in terms of defensibility for the Ukranian Forces.
“Recall the Iraq-Iran war lasted 8 long bloody years.”
Recall the Hundred Years War. Erm, why?
Because it was two states with comparable scale armies fighting trench warfare and able to resupply their armies: it is a suitable modern comparator.
Remember, the size of Ukraine means supply lines are a key feature of the war, and Russia cannot advance too fast, unless the Ukrainian army completely collapses, which it is unlikely to do while it is still being supplied.
Look at Artemovsk: if Ukraine manages to pull out it’s forces, Russia will face another three or four such city assaults to keep it’s assault moving.
Yes, the possibility of sudden collapse is there.
“From the get go you have been saying that Russia would steamroller the Ukrainian state very quickly. One year on this has not happened, tragically to the cost of thousands of working class people on both sides.”
My initial assessment was based on that of Scott Ritter. He expected Russia to follow their standard military doctrine, a doctrine that would have been used in a confrontation with NATO. But Russia refrained from doing so because they wish to preserve civilian life and, for the first months of the conflict, civilian infrastructure.
“As to whether there will be a Russian breakthrough in 2023, the outcome is probably pretty uncertain. The usually expected numerical advantage that attackers need to breakthrough defensive forces has long been set at about 3:1.”
Indeed, which is why claims that Russia attempted to take Kiev at the beginning of the conflict are farcical.
“Has Russia got the level of advantage oveer Ukrainian forces, I don’t know and I’m very confident that TW doesn’t know either.”
Actually. I do know because I follow trusted and knowledgeable analysts rather than propagandists and wishful thinkers.
“It is likely in the fog of war neither side can give an accurate forecast of these numbers.”
Not true either. I am very confident in the numbers state because the sources I follow have proven themselves time and time again to be correct.
“We also need to take into consideration that these are the minimum estimated numbers required. It is also possible that these numbers can be impacted on quality of arms and troops (A British force of 36,000 overwhelmed an Italian force of 150,000 troops during Operation Compass in 1940-41 taking 133,000 prisoners of war).”
Imagine that scenario but the numbers reversed. That’s the equivalent of the situation. The kill ratio is approximately 15:1 now in favour of Russia.
“What is certain that without meaningful peace negotiations and some settlement between these two capitalist powers, thousands of more workers will be fed into the meat grinder to keep the powerful elite in their positions of power.”
This about capitalism for one side only. NATOstan. For Russia it is about confronting NATOstani aggression.
“I’ll try and explain this to TW. “Bakhmut doesn’t itself hold a lot of strategic value” – This means the city (its resources, its manufacturing, its population, etc.) do not hold a resource based value. “but it’s location does” it has a strategic geographic position in terms of defensibility for the Ukranian Forces.”
No shit Sherlock. But that’s true of the entire conflict. The city is strategically important because it’s strategically important.
“Because it was two states with comparable scale armies”
Not true. Russia’s army dwarfs that of Ukraine.
“fighting trench warfare”
They’re not. The Ukrainians are in the trenches. The Russians are smoking them out of them.
“and able to resupply their armies: it is a suitable modern comparator.”
Erm, miss the conversation about NATO’s pantry being bear?
“Remember, the size of Ukraine means supply lines are a key feature of the war, and Russia cannot advance too fast, unless the Ukrainian army completely collapses, which it is unlikely to do while it is still being supplied.”
Russia doesn’t need to advance fast. Russia’s number one goal is the demilitarisation of Ukraine. Ukraine is obliging by funneling its forces into the Donbass where they are being destroyed at a horrific rate. 15:1 casualties. An approximate survival time of four hours for new Ukrainian conscripts at the front.
“Look at Artemovsk: if Ukraine manages to pull out it’s forces, Russia will face another three or four such city assaults to keep it’s assault moving.”
Abandoning Bhakmut is Ukraine’s death knell. All other defensive lines are hastily erected and fortified. Donbass will be fully liberated by August if Scott Ritter is to be believed and he hasn’t got much wrong so far.
“Yes, the possibility of sudden collapse is there.”
Bhakmut is mere days if not hours away from falling.
Knacker Dan said “My initial assessment was based on that of Scott Ritter.”
That’ll be the same Scott Ritter who predicted before the 2nd Gulf War that
“The United States is going to leave Iraq with its tail between its legs, defeated. It is a war we can not win … We do not have the military means to take over Baghdad”
The same Scott Ritter who didn’t have the sense to realise he was going to get himself entrapped as seeking out underage sex, not once but twice!!
Presumably he is one of your “trusted and knowledgeable analysts”
According to you ” I am very confident in the numbers state because the sources I follow have proven themselves time and time again to be correct.”
There are 284 pages on this discussion board, can you show just how you have proven the numbers you have stated “time and time again to be correct”. Very little you have predicted has come to fruition.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.