Political Posts

[Xerxes]

Don’t watch “Under Siege” anymore !!

lol

 

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/02/27/europe/vladimir-putin-steven-seagal-award-intl-scli/index.html

Edited February 27, 2023 by Xerxes

[Spekulatius]

2 hours ago, Xerxes said:

no longer available. 
I even looked for it on YouTube 

Huh? I can clink on the link above and it's still there.

[cubsfan]

3 hours ago, Xerxes said:

Good interview w/o chest thumping.

It is really a geopolitical shitshow out there.  

 

 

 

Pretty darn good interview. Thanks for posting. Expect the major spring offensive by Russia. The Western Allies better get their act together and get weapons/munitions flowing big time to Ukraine. If they don't - Ukraine will be a smoking pile of rubble. 

[Xerxes]

1 hour ago, cubsfan said:

 

Pretty darn good interview. Thanks for posting. Expect the major spring offensive by Russia. The Western Allies better get their act together and get weapons/munitions flowing big time to Ukraine. If they don't - Ukraine will be a smoking pile of rubble. 

 

You are most welcome sir.

Cheers

 

 

[Xerxes]

4 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

Huh? I can clink on the link above and it's still there.

needs VPN.

Not available for Canadian. 
 

[no_free_lunch]

Some random notes from xerxes vid.

 

- Germany and France have to take some blame for standing down in 2014.  NATO as well.  This fed into Putins logic.

- failure of RU Intel pre invasion 

- half of RU  armor lost due to mechanical failure.  Too high even given conditions. "unprecedented"

- weak RU leadership constant

- RU not living up to their own combined arms doctrine

- Ukr receiving exceptional Intel, frequently from the west, providing significant edge

- Ukraine ability to target logistics depots and commanders

- Defense of bakhmut may have been a Ukraine error.  However many variables. 

- Ukraine success in Kharkov and Kherson do not represent full scale defeat of a Russia force

- benefits of ukr foreign troops

- importance of manpads and antitank missiles in bunting Russian advance

- Mlrs critical role, targeting logistics

- difficult to relate to any conflicts in his experience 

- largest conflict for west since ww2

- new tech weapons , drones, cyber attacks, ai, etc.  not playing as large a role as thought previously 

- still require conventional arms 

- conventional artillery still very effective. Russia has significant advantage here. 

-putin has no choice but a counter offensive.  Stalemate and casualties unacceptable. 

- likely more casualties to Ukraine to date

- strengthening of NATO, Finland and Sweden joining, are seen as losses by RU

- increases to west defense spending a result of the war also a loss

- Putin can't go backwards given these conditions 

- objective likely to secure all donbass and south coast.  Cut Ukraine from sea.

- possible to take down Ukraine government if losses significant 

- Rus boosting manpower in spite of losses

- Russia boosting conventional munitions 

- likelihood of some Russia successes.  Possibly significant.

- putins goals will be to undermine nato further if victory in Ukraine. E.g. securing corridor to Kalingrad.  Will NATO respond?

- question raised, "ukr is corrupt, why help them? Find political solution."  He responds that it's a bigger war, a war against the west. If RU wins it sets a precedent.  Undermines the west's authority.   

- Defeat here emboldens China.  If US can't win here , why would they help Taiwan.

- Iran and North korea are listed as learning from this as well.

- comparison to 1930s appeasement 

- should supply Ukraine with what they need to resist

- his goal would be to push RU back to pre invasion borders

- Crimea cannot be retake by Ukraine 

 

That's all I got from it. Definitely worth watching.

 

Cubsfan, I think the analyst in the interview broadly agrees with you. 

Edited February 28, 2023 by no_free_lunch

[Viking]

24 minutes ago, no_free_lunch said:

Some random notes from xerxes vid.

 

- Germany and France have to take some blame for standing down in 2014.  NATO as well.  This fed into Putins logic.

- failure of RU Intel pre invasion 

- half of RU  armor lost due to mechanical failure.  Too high even given conditions. "unprecedented"

- weak RU leadership constant

- RU not living up to their own combined arms doctrine

- Ukr receiving exceptional Intel, frequently from the west, providing significant edge

- Ukraine ability to target logistics depots and commanders

- Defense of bakhmut may have been a Ukraine error.  However many variables. 

- Ukraine success in Kharkov and Kherson do not represent full scale defeat of a Russia force

- benefits of ukr foreign troops

- importance of manpads and antitank missiles in bunting Russian advance

- Mlrs critical role, targeting logistics

- difficult to relate to any conflicts in his experience 

- largest conflict for west since ww2

- new tech weapons , drones, cyber attacks, ai, etc.  not playing as large a role as thought previously 

- still require conventional arms 

- conventional artillery still very effective. Russia has significant advantage here. 

-putin has no choice but a counter offensive.  Stalemate and casualties unacceptable. 

- likely more casualties to Ukraine to date

- strengthening of NATO, Finland and Sweden joining, are seen as losses by RU

- increases to west defense spending a result of the war also a loss

- Putin can't go backwards given these conditions 

- objective likely to secure all donbass and south coast.  Cut Ukraine from sea.

- possible to take down Ukraine government if losses significant 

- Rus boosting manpower in spite of losses

- Russia boosting conventional munitions 

- likelihood of some Russia successes.  Possibly significant.

- putins goals will be to undermine nato further if victory in Ukraine. E.g. securing corridor to Kalingrad.  Will NATO respond?

- question raised, "ukr is corrupt, why help them? Find political solution."  He responds that it's a bigger war, a war against the west. If RU wins it sets a precedent.  Undermines the west's authority.   

- Defeat here emboldens China.  If US can't win here , why would they help Taiwan.

- Iran and North korea are listed as learning from this as well.

- comparison to 1930s appeasement 

- should supply Ukraine with what they need to resist

- his goal would be to push RU back to pre invasion borders

- Crimea cannot be retake by Ukraine 

 

That's all I got from it. Definitely worth watching.

One of my key take-aways was the West cannot allow Putin to win in Ukraine as it will simply embolden Russia, China, Iran, North Korea etc to take more (of whatever they want) knowing that the West has no spine (will fold like a tent at the first sign of trouble). Appeasement with characters like Putin and Xi never works.

[Spekulatius]

We will see but I think the Russian offensive will be a bust. They will likely make their advance in Donbas, because controlling the entire Donbas is Putins scaled back goal.

 

The reason why I think the offensive will be a bust is, because the added manpower from recruits are mostly useless in an offensive. They are mostly just meatshields to plug holes in the front line, but in an offensive, they will mostly just take huge losses with little gain, similar to what happens now in Bakhmut.

 

Mike Clarke said that if an Ukraine has two functional tank brigades and supporting armored infantery support, they likely can do some nice offensive things with it. Think maneuver warfare and a pincer movement, cut the landbridge while the russian are busy elsewhere etc , that sort of thing.

Edited February 28, 2023 by Spekulatius

[cubsfan]

2 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

We will see but I think the Russian offensive will be a bust. They will likely make their advance in Donbas, because controlling the entire Donbas is Putins scaled back goal.

 

The reason why I think the offensive will be a bust is, because the added manpower from recruits are mostly useless in an offensive. They are mostly just meatshields to plug holes in the front line, but in an offensive, they will mostly just take huge losses with little gain, similar to what happens now in Bakhmut.

 

Mike Clarke said that if an Ukraine has two functional tank brigades and supporting armored infantery support, they likely can do some nice offensive things with it. Think maneuver warfare and a pincer movement, cut the landbridge while the russian are busy elsewhere etc , that sort of thing.

 

^^^ Yeah, that may be - but why take any chances at all. What you do know is that Russia is full of surprises and stacked with manpower (however inept). The eastern part of Ukraine is effectively destroyed. And of course your big, big problem is the West or Ukrainians cannot take out the productive capacity of the Russians EVER. How likely is the West to actually go into Russia and destroy their munitions works, etc?  Therefore, the war of attrition will continue, with Putin trying to outlast the Western Allies until they cut and run (like Afghanistan).

[Spekulatius]

@cubsfan No I would not take any chance. I am all for giving tanks, fighter planes , drones , long range weapons.

 

Basically, the russian  strategy will be to get into close combat range with the Ukrainian army to inflict losses in them. It’s what they are doing in Bahkmut and is essentially the German strategy in WW1 Verdun. The counter should be to give the Ukrainians the tools to keep the  Russians arms length with longer range weapons (like HIMARS destroyed the Russian artillery and logistics in summer last year), just more of it - smart ammo, more HIMARS, drones, possibly fighter planes . They need weapons to hit the entire land bridge in depth including all of Crimea  ( a staging ground for the Russians)- Then tank and armored divisions to do a Guderian style pincer movement swiftly in a weak spot after their logistic network had been destroyed locally and cut through the land bridge and isolate a huge part of the Russian fighting force and destroy them.

 

This probably not going to happen, but this is a scenario where Putin loses the war.

Edited February 28, 2023 by Spekulatius

[cubsfan]

^^^ I sincerely hope you are right, but we better get moving and stop bickering about who is giving what weapons. Tough talk and no action has always been a Biden hallmark.

 

Taking back Crimea and/or the Eastern Ukraine is going to be hell on earth when you can not eliminate the Russians capacity to produce armaments. Putin can go on forever while we fight amongst ourselves.

[cubsfan]

11 hours ago, Viking said:

One of my key take-aways was the West cannot allow Putin to win in Ukraine as it will simply embolden Russia, China, Iran, North Korea etc to take more (of whatever they want) knowing that the West has no spine (will fold like a tent at the first sign of trouble). Appeasement with characters like Putin and Xi never works.

 

@VikingI think this is largely correct and underscores the importance of Ukraine, which seems like a nothing country, irrelevant to US/Europe interests.

 

It's unfortunate that this tragedy has largely brought the US & Europe much closer together.  When you are led by pacifist leaders - you have to learn the hard way unfortunately. Currently, support against Russia is galvanizing - just not quickly enough. Still too much tough talk. 

 

But it appears the European support against President Xi is finally there: his support of Russia is scaring the Europeans shitless. The Europeans that love trade - and never want to disrupt commerce - are finally coming down on the existential threat of both China and Russia - and are forced to face the issue of what matters for the LONG term. It did not help that a weak US President sided with Europe from 2008 to 2014.

 

You can hate Trump all you like - just don't forget his final words in the short video you posted:

 

"Peace through Strength"

 

It really does mean something.

Edited February 28, 2023 by cubsfan

[ValueArb]

On 2/27/2023 at 7:56 PM, no_free_lunch said:

Some random notes from xerxes vid.

 

- Germany and France have to take some blame for standing down in 2014.  NATO as well.  This fed into Putins logic.

- failure of RU Intel pre invasion 

- half of RU  armor lost due to mechanical failure.  Too high even given conditions. "unprecedented"

- weak RU leadership constant

- RU not living up to their own combined arms doctrine

- Ukr receiving exceptional Intel, frequently from the west, providing significant edge

- Ukraine ability to target logistics depots and commanders

- Defense of bakhmut may have been a Ukraine error.  However many variables. 

- Ukraine success in Kharkov and Kherson do not represent full scale defeat of a Russia force

- benefits of ukr foreign troops

- importance of manpads and antitank missiles in bunting Russian advance

- Mlrs critical role, targeting logistics

- difficult to relate to any conflicts in his experience 

- largest conflict for west since ww2

- new tech weapons , drones, cyber attacks, ai, etc.  not playing as large a role as thought previously 

- still require conventional arms 

- conventional artillery still very effective. Russia has significant advantage here. 

-putin has no choice but a counter offensive.  Stalemate and casualties unacceptable. 

- likely more casualties to Ukraine to date

- strengthening of NATO, Finland and Sweden joining, are seen as losses by RU

- increases to west defense spending a result of the war also a loss

- Putin can't go backwards given these conditions 

- objective likely to secure all donbass and south coast.  Cut Ukraine from sea.

- possible to take down Ukraine government if losses significant 

- Rus boosting manpower in spite of losses

- Russia boosting conventional munitions 

- likelihood of some Russia successes.  Possibly significant.

- putins goals will be to undermine nato further if victory in Ukraine. E.g. securing corridor to Kalingrad.  Will NATO respond?

- question raised, "ukr is corrupt, why help them? Find political solution."  He responds that it's a bigger war, a war against the west. If RU wins it sets a precedent.  Undermines the west's authority.   

- Defeat here emboldens China.  If US can't win here , why would they help Taiwan.

- Iran and North korea are listed as learning from this as well.

- comparison to 1930s appeasement 

- should supply Ukraine with what they need to resist

- his goal would be to push RU back to pre invasion borders

- Crimea cannot be retake by Ukraine 

 

That's all I got from it. Definitely worth watching.

 

Cubsfan, I think the analyst in the interview broadly agrees with you. 

 

This is no different than the pronouncement that the war would last 4 days or 2 months last year. We've been waiting for the real Russian army to show up the entire war and it looks more and more likely that it no longer exists.

 

I find it obvious Russia will boost manpower, I find it very hard to imagine how they are going to boost conventional munitions of any sophistication. They can't rebuild their tank force, the tanks still in storage are the worst of the worst and likely stripped by the Kleptocrats. They can't build advanced weapons without access to western technology. 

 

Unless we fail to supply Ukraine with enough munitions, they'll continue to relentlessly attrite the Russian forces. Soon with  Bradleys (and Leopards) they'll dominate the remaining Russian armor. They are just receiving ER GMLRS and GLSDB can reach out nearly 100 miles and hit precise targets, forcing Russians to move their ammo and headquarters (again) even farther away from the battlefield and accentuating their issues with supplying front line troops.

 

Lastly, the Ukrainians are smart with modern military leadership that gives individual units initiative and they desperately want to win. The Russians are trapped in a Stalinesque top down command system, and their troops are just trying to balance between dying on suicidal wave assaults and being shot by their own officers.

 

[Xerxes]

The way I see it:

 

Everybody was off on the "Ukraine will fold within a week" back in 2022. They surprised every body and above else, they surprised themselves.

 

The late spring and summer 2022 could have turned differently, was it not for Western intelligence support, SpaceX, sanctions against Russia. West did not provide any major h/w back then, but it provided a moral legitimacy to the conflict, if that was not already clear.

 

Fall of 2022 was about when Kremlin taking a step back, as it geared and re-directed its economy and industrial base for the long conflict. In the meantime, while manpower was being raised, they needed to "fix" Ukraine attention somewhere, both giving themselves time and bleeding the enemy. Enter the mercenaries. Ukraine slowly wisen up to Bakhmut, and even it start using its 'lower quality' troops for Bakhmut. In parallel, General Surovikin was tasked to wage a defensive war, hold the line and to decimate the country' infrastructure.

 

Winter 2023. Ministry of defense takes formal command from General Surovikin and everything gets to subordinated to Gerasimov, including Surovikin. And that is where we are now.

 

I don't know how the 2023 Russian offensive will unfold. But I would say that the "shock" that Russian military felt in 2022, it was the same "shock" Ukraine felt in 2014. So in many ways, Ukraine was more prepared as it had many many years to get ready. It had no choice.

 

So do not assume, Russian cannot learn. They got their "shock" 8 years later than Ukrainian. But they can adapt. After all, Ukrainian and Russian ruled the Soviet Union side by side for decades. They both know a thing or two, once they put their mind to it.  

 

 

 

 

[mcliu]

Democrats

 

[Spekulatius]

Almost unbelievable , but this simple drone hit a target 50 miles south of Moscow:

The Russian air defense is a joke. I think Ukraine should be able to do way more to hit the Russian supply lines pretty much everywhere they want inside Russia.

[Dinar]

27 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

Almost unbelievable , but this simple drone hit a target 50 miles south of Moscow:

The Russian air defense is a joke. I think Ukraine should be able to do way more to hit the Russian supply lines pretty much everywhere they want inside Russia.

Why are you surprised?  Mathias Rust 1987 rings a bell?

[Spekulatius]

45 minutes ago, Dinar said:

Why are you surprised?  Mathias Rust 1987 rings a bell?

Yes, I recall that flight with a Cessna, but back then he was supposedly discovered and tracked fairly early, the military bureaucracy just couldn’t decide what to do with him. They could have shot him down, but didn’t.

 

These drones however are slower than WW1 planes, there no stealth whatsoever and they can penetrate Russian air space 500 km deep apparently.

[Dinar]

1 hour ago, Spekulatius said:

Yes, I recall that flight with a Cessna, but back then he was supposedly discovered and tracked fairly early, the military bureaucracy just couldn’t decide what to do with him. They could have shot him down, but didn’t.

 

These drones however are slower than WW1 planes, there no stealth whatsoever and they can penetrate Russian air space 500 km deep apparently.

My biggest worry, and the one I have had since Russian initial attacks failed, is that in the long run, Russia holds massive advantage.  The question is how can it be neutralized or Russia induced to end the war.   Russian incompetence will eventually end - Finnish war and WWII are good examples.  

[ValueArb]

11 hours ago, Dinar said:

My biggest worry, and the one I have had since Russian initial attacks failed, is that in the long run, Russia holds massive advantage.  The question is how can it be neutralized or Russia induced to end the war.   Russian incompetence will eventually end - Finnish war and WWII are good examples.  

 

Putin doesn't have the control that Stalin had in order to push out the changes the Russian military needs, and this is only an existential battle for him and his cronies, not for the troops, officers and country.

 

Russian "soldiers" are untrained, poorly equipped and don't want to be there. Ukrainian soldiers are battle tested and fighting for their homeland and freedom. I think the massive advantage is on the other foot.

[james22]

"Morale is to material as three is to one," you know.

[Dinar]

1 hour ago, ValueArb said:

 

Putin doesn't have the control that Stalin had in order to push out the changes the Russian military needs, and this is only an existential battle for him and his cronies, not for the troops, officers and country.

 

Russian "soldiers" are untrained, poorly equipped and don't want to be there. Ukrainian soldiers are battle tested and fighting for their homeland and freedom. I think the massive advantage is on the other foot.

What makes you think that Soviet soldiers wanted to fight in Finland?  You underestimate the power of propaganda.  As for being poorly trained and equipped, that can change.   @james22, Russian population is/was more than 3.3x Ukraine's, and millions of Ukrainians have fled.  Russia also has apparently access to mercenaries.  There was an article in Jerusalem Post yesterday claiming that Russia is aggressively recruiting in Lebanon and Syria - including people with experience in fighting Syrian civil war.

 

I hope that you two are right but...

 

[ValueArb]

41 minutes ago, Dinar said:

What makes you think that Soviet soldiers wanted to fight in Finland?  You underestimate the power of propaganda.  As for being poorly trained and equipped, that can change.   @james22, Russian population is/was more than 3.3x Ukraine's, and millions of Ukrainians have fled.  Russia also has apparently access to mercenaries.  There was an article in Jerusalem Post yesterday claiming that Russia is aggressively recruiting in Lebanon and Syria - including people with experience in fighting Syrian civil war.

 

I hope that you two are right but...

 

 

Russia has been recruiting in Syria since last summer, it's not helping. Russia is much larger than Ukraine, but it's more and more isolated every day. Russia's GDP was smaller than Italy before the war started, now with sanctions it's likely far smaller. 

 

Before the war started their only aircraft carrier has been out of service for 6 years due to a series of mind numbing accidents and lack of resources. Their new "wonder weapons" like the Armata tanks and SU-57 super fighters only existed in a handful of copies despite decades of development. They started the war lacking precision guided munitions and used almost all of their stock within the first few months. Their space program is falling apart with nearly a dozen serious accidents or failures in the last five years. They have 10,000 tanks in storage but few of them are usable, most stripped and parts sold, and all of them well out of date.

 

They can get more light weapons from China, more ammunition from North Korea, more drones from Iran, but they lack the manufacturing and technical ability to restore the stocks of their most advanced anti tank weapons, precision guided munitions, planes, helicopters and SAM systems. They were using western processors they've been cut off from and now they scavange chips out of washing machines.

 

Russia will continue to feed poorly trained and equipped troops into the meat grinder as long as Putin remains in power. But without the abilty to stop HIMARS and other precision long range strikes, they'll be perpetually short of ammo and rolled up quickly once they expended their maximum efforts.

 

I've said from the beginning this war would go on for years, the only way for Russia to "win" is for the US and Europe to let down Ukraine but so far we've done the bare minimum to keep them in the fight.  

 

Once Ukraine gets heavy western tanks and Bradleys in volume, they'll have the battlefield edge, and begin retaking more territory. Note the influx of new long range precision strike weapons, esp. hititng Mariupol. If Ukraine pushes through to Mariupol and we supply them with ATACMS or they built their own local weapon with similar range, Crimea becomes untenable for Russia. The bridge will be kept permanently out of action, the fleet will have to leave or be sunk at their moorings. They'll have no ability to supply their troops in Crimea with any significant volume.

Edited March 2, 2023 by ValueArb

[no_free_lunch]

Ukraine has foreign volunteers too. More and more.  You have to actually be selected, require combat experience.  They are ok for now on manpower.

 

Conventional munitions are still an issue.  Russia is out producing substantially and I read that it matters.  For now.

 

Nato needs to really push on smart but CHEAP munitions. Need the equivalent of Moores law on that stuff.   Drones with basic sensors and autonomous can be built for $1000-3000, that kind of thing in scale is needed. 

Edited March 3, 2023 by no_free_lunch

[shhughes1116]

5 hours ago, no_free_lunch said:

Conventional munitions are still an issue.  Russia is out producing substantially and I read that it matters.  For now.

you are suggesting that Russia is out-producing conventional munitions?  As in, they are producing more than the West?

 

Please provide a source for that statement, because it contradicts what is and has been widely known about the Russian munitions industry.  
 

At this point, most Russian munition production is “re-processing” of existing munitions that have reached the end of their usable life.  Their ability to produce new munitions is pretty limited, especially 152mm and 122mm shells.  Producing artillery shells is deceivingly hard.