NATO return to Cold War force structure

[Josh]

5 hours ago, glenn239 said:

The Russian pattern is to respond afterwards, not be proactive in the response to a new NATO policy.  The Ukrainian pattern is to search the cupboards for anything that will bring NATO in.  Between the two the Ukrainians seem to have more to gain from taking a risk, while the Russians don't seem to have anything to gain from the behaviour.

Oh bullshit. Russia has used chemical weapons in the UK. Can you imagine the shit storm that would occur if NATO used a nerve agent even in Belarus? This bullshit that Russia only responds to NATO provocations ignores a shit load of history.

[seahawk]

6 hours ago, glenn239 said:

The Russian pattern is to respond afterwards, not be proactive in the response to a new NATO policy.  The Ukrainian pattern is to search the cupboards for anything that will bring NATO in.  Between the two the Ukrainians seem to have more to gain from taking a risk, while the Russians don't seem to have anything to gain from the behaviour.

Exactly, that is why Western support to the Ukraine needs to end. 

[MiGG0]

7 hours ago, glenn239 said:

The Russian pattern is to respond afterwards, not be proactive in the response to a new NATO policy.  The Ukrainian pattern is to search the cupboards for anything that will bring NATO in.  Between the two the Ukrainians seem to have more to gain from taking a risk, while the Russians don't seem to have anything to gain from the behaviour.

Like Josh said that not true. RUS do both reactive and proactive thing depending on sitatuation. And in sending a message like that you cannot do it reactively. Now message has been sent it has raised the bar for NATO to intervene regardless would RUS directly attack NATO or not for it. NATO pretty much has to assume they would and it itself makes decision to do so harder (as NATO work with consensus principle and there most likely would be countries opposing it). -> It is beneficial to RUS nevertheless and reason to do such a thing.


BTW:

Interesting claim in polish newspaper (failed AMRAAM caused that explosion seen in news):

https://www.rp.pl/wojsko/art43015001-polska-rakieta-uderzyla-w-dom-na-lubelszczyznie

Edited September 17 by MiGG0

[Stuart Galbraith]

15 hours ago, glenn239 said:

The part where you think I'm naive enough to assume that Russia and not Ukraine did it.  Specifically, that in the past year Russia has launched thousands of the decoy type Shahed drones into Ukraine, and since these have no warheads, the Ukrainians could have recovered and repaired dozens of them.

Ukraine is losing the war and has motive to try and bring NATO in.  Russia has no need to involve NATO and no motive to probe Polish air defenses.  I'd be more attuned to the Russia theory if there was a coherent motive for it, but I don't see one.

 

 

 

So what you are saying is, you are concluding Ukraine did it based on a Russian press release from a bunch of guys that lie their ass off all the time, against common sense, and the huge amounts of evidence of Russia plastering Ukraine with drones, and having sent their drones above NATO territory before. Not to mention the huge backlash Zelensky would get if it was ever determined that such drones were Ukrainian in origin, something that would be relatively easy to determine with the amount of radars now looking into Ukrainian skies.

Ukraine is losing the war, about a village a week, Russia is running out of oil. On present evidence it sounds like Russia is going to hit the bottom of the barrel first. Ergo, plenty of need for Russia to try and intimidate NATO into backing down right now before they get there.

I wouldnt be so keen to point out your highly attuned antenna, which always somehow manages to miss the bleeding obvious.

Edited September 17 by Stuart Galbraith

[MiGG0]

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

So what you are saying is, you are concluding Ukraine did it based on a Russian press release from a bunch of guys that lie their ass off all the time, against common sense, and the huge amounts of evidence of Russia plastering Ukraine with drones, and having sent their drones above NATO territory before. Not to mention the huge backlash Zelensky would get if it was ever determined that such drones were Ukrainian in origin, something that would be relatively easy to determine with the amount of radars now looking into Ukrainian skies.

Ukraine is losing the war, about a village a week, Russia is running out of oil. On present evidence it sounds like Russia is going to hit the bottom of the barrel first. Ergo, plenty of need for Russia to try and intimidate NATO into backing down right now before they get there.

I wouldnt be so keen to point out your highly attuned antenna, which always somehow manages to miss the bleeding obvious.

Nope, attacking oil production cost RUs but it wont stop it winning. Military will get all the fuel needed. Civilians (as always) mostly has issues with it

Analysis of current situation from Emil Kastehelmi (In short at best UKR can manage to achieve phyrric victory for RUS if NATO wont intervene direclty)

https://www-iltalehti-fi.translate.goog/ulkomaat/a/0993392b-c0cd-4225-b172-ece421bcff7d?_x_tr_sl=en&_x_tr_tl=fi&_x_tr_hl=fi&_x_tr_pto=wapp

Edited September 17 by MiGG0

[urbanoid]

Nobody is implying that the Russian Army will be out of fuel, but the Ukrainians are hitting their bottom line hard. There hasn't been much Russian 'winning' on the scale bigger than purely tactical in a looong time now.

For war we need three things-money, money and more money.

[MiGG0]

26 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

Nobody is implying that the Russian Army will be out of fuel, but the Ukrainians are hitting their bottom line hard. There hasn't been much Russian 'winning' on the scale bigger than purely tactical in a looong time now.

For war we need three things-money, money and more money.

Strategical level RUS has been winning long time as UKR is running out of troops before they do.

About money, in the end loser will pay it all (and it will be UKR wihtout NATO intervention). UKR has been out of money already several years but still can keep fighting. Same thing applies to RUS aswell.

Edited September 17 by MiGG0

[urbanoid]

Ukraine is soooo running out of people that it allowed men aged 18-22 to leave the country just last month. Sure, buddy.

[MiGG0]

2 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

Ukraine is soooo running out of people that it allowed men aged 18-22 to leave the country just last month. Sure, buddy.

You really have not read UKR and western sources that complain serious UKR manpower issues????

Just for you one UKR source about it:

https://kyivindependent.com/behind-ukraines-manpower-crisis-lies-a-bleak-new-battlefield-reality-for-infantry/

Edited September 17 by MiGG0

[urbanoid]

If they are as serious as some claim, why are they letting out young men previously barred from leaving the country?

If they are as serious, why do they have absolutely unique draft age of 25 and even that just since last year, as it used to be 27?

[MiGG0]

5 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

If they are as serious as some claim, why are they letting out young men previously barred from leaving the country?

If they are as serious, why do they have absolutely unique draft age of 25 and even that just since last year, as it used to be 27?

Because they realize that if they lose that generation aswell in "meatgrinder" UKR future is fucked what ever happens...

 

UKR did limit younger people leaving country before but it has proved be counter productive.

Edited September 17 by MiGG0

[urbanoid]

So they don't keep them even 'in reserve', but they just let them go where they'll be out of their reach in case of e.g. the breakdown of their frontline positions? 

I'd say that what one does tells us a lot more about the real situation than what one says. 

[MiGG0]

15 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

So they don't keep them even 'in reserve', but they just let them go where they'll be out of their reach in case of e.g. the breakdown of their frontline positions? 

I'd say that what one does tells us a lot more about the real situation than what one says. 

Yes, it does. UKR dont have any real strategic reserves anymore (even in Pokrovs theather they needed to pull units pretty much every other sector and now RUS is advancing everywhere else, most notably towards Lyman). 

If you bothered to read that linked arfticel it clearly states to forcibly recruited troops has very high desertation rate. So forcibly recruited younger people would be just counter productive as whole.

Edited September 17 by MiGG0

[urbanoid]

32 minutes ago, MiGG0 said:

Yes, it does. UKR dont have any real strategic reserves anymore (even in Pokrovs theather they needed to pull units pretty much every other sector and now RUS is advancing everywhere else, most notably towards Lyman). 

If you bothered to read that linked arfticel it clearly states to forcibly recruited troops has very high desertation rate. So forcibly recruited younger people would be just counter productive as whole.

Unbelievable levels of rationalizations, otherwise known as copium.

Ivan Vsevolodovich* seems to have a better understanding:

Quote

For some reason, everyone in our country always looks for some kind of PR in the enemy's actions and denies the enemy rationality. We still haven't gotten out of the habit of "throwing hats at the enemy", "laughing" with Iskanders and telling them that if we want, if we strain ourselves, we will be in Kiev and defeat everyone.

Things are completely different. The enemy is smart, cunning, dodgy, cruel, determined and steadfast. And in three and a half years of war, some of our propagandists, how can I put it mildly about them, have not appreciated or understood this. Apparently, they tell the same story about how we are about to win, literally tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. Nothing of the sort.

We will not win without very serious efforts, neither tomorrow, nor the day after tomorrow , nor the day after the day after tomorrow. And there will be no compromise, the war will continue.

The explanation is actually very simple: yes, it is undoubtedly a PR stunt. Yes, undoubtedly, in Ukraine someone is trying to earn political points this way. However, we need to look at the situation from a completely different angle. The enemy does not need to call such an age, tighten the exit regime, or even maintain the exit regime that was in place before. We were unable to break through the front anywhere over the summer . We were unable to do anything over the summer except finally push the enemy out of Chasov Yar, which we stormed for 16 months - a town with a population of 20,000!

Therefore , why does the enemy need more people if he is coping with the forces he has . Yes, it is possible that the enemy will lose a certain number of potential soldiers. But right now, it turns out that he does not even need them.

This is a disgrace. This is a slap in the face to our wonderful genius politicians, military leaders and other geostrategists.

I look at it from this point of view. If the enemy really stood on the verge of death and defeat, he would grab hold of sixteen-year-olds, as they say, "Volksturmists", send them into battle, and, unfortunately, they would be found, and in large numbers. But he does not need to call up even 22-year-olds. This is a great achievement. Let's continue to talk about how " ha-ha, this clown, this fool" is not a fool at all. If, excuse me, he is a fool, then I want to ask, what kind of geniuses are they who cannot win a war against this fool in three and a half years? That's all.

*I must admit I'm really happy he's in jail and not in some high position in Russia

[MiGG0]

14 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

Unbelievable levels of rationalizations, otherwise known as copium.

Ivan Vsevolodovich* seems to have a better understanding:

*I must admit I'm really happy he's in jail and not in some high position in Russia

Except that UKR mapower issues are repoerterd by multiple western and UKR sources. Copium is that you believe something that have no evidence whatsoever. RUS is advancing multiple fronts and "breaktrough" is not even their main goal (RUS forces are dispersed aswell). It is to attrit UKR forces.

This area specific goals has been allways issue with western sources (you need conquer x-amount of area to say you "win" ). And there they have been always wrong (only lately western sources are started to see that maybe, just maybe it is not the goal).

Edited September 17 by MiGG0

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, MiGG0 said:

Nope, attacking oil production cost RUs but it wont stop it winning. Military will get all the fuel needed. Civilians (as always) mostly has issues with it

Analysis of current situation from Emil Kastehelmi (In short at best UKR can manage to achieve phyrric victory for RUS if NATO wont intervene direclty)

https://www-iltalehti-fi.translate.goog/ulkomaat/a/0993392b-c0cd-4225-b172-ece421bcff7d?_x_tr_sl=en&_x_tr_tl=fi&_x_tr_hl=fi&_x_tr_pto=wapp

What two things do you need to win a war? Money, lots of money, and gasoline (or diesel). You blow up the oil refineries, and Ukraine has hit the vast majority of them right now, then there is an obvious problem with this model. It wasnt casualties that stopped Hitlers war machine, it was lack of oil.

And its not just the immediate costs. They are struggling to supply to people they have contracts with, particularly in Europe. So what happens if they can no longer supply? Those people go away to new suppliers, and most like, they never come back.This wouldnt just be a Pyrric victory. Its catastrophic. Presumably China would prop them up with fuel in the short term to keep them going, though its hardly as if China is going to want to carry the burdern. Its hardly an oil producer itself. Iran? Possibly. Bits its not exactly flush with petrodollars itself. India? An oil importer, not exporter.

And we still havent yet gone after the Russian shadow fleet, an option that remains on the table but as yet unrealised. The Russian navy is in absolutely no position to do anything about that.

Right now, Id much prefer to be in Ukraines corner. The last Russian offensive has stalled, and in places has actually been rolled back. Ukraine have yet to use some of their newer developed long range weapons. Its true Russia has more troops they can throw in, and the next feared attack is in Zaporhizia. But the F16 delivered bombs, and their new defensive model based on drones and artillery is delivering lots of casualties, without apparently taking similar levels on Ukraine. Indeed, the argument people have 'Ukraine doenst have enough troops' can be viewed both ways. They have inadequate levels of troops in the front line, yet somehow are still stopping Russia, even rolling them back. Its difficult to see how one can have equal levels of casualties on both sides if this is the case.

As always, respect your opinion, but I completely disagree.

 

[MiGG0]

Stuarts wall of text  

 

Anyway pretty much as alwayyou are wrong multiple areas. Money -> UKR eventually pay as been said multiple times. Worth of mineral deposits that RUS have already taken are more than calculated cost of whole war (or was some time ago).They are not getting them back.

Oil, they dont have capability to distrupt it so much it affect anything on front. It is causes inconvience to RUS civilians and money for RUS but nothing more. You know, Russian also repair those facilities..

And read that Emil Kastehelli analysis, I linked before. It is one of the best about overall sitatuation.

Edited September 17 by MiGG0

[Stuart Galbraith]

And yet, words are the most succint way of discussing complex issues. 

Of course, I was completely wrong Putin was a threat, completely wrong Russia was arming for war, completely wrong anyone in Eastern Europe was under threat. Wrong, wrong wrong. Always wrong. Bad Stuart bad.

[Josh]

3 hours ago, MiGG0 said:

Nope, attacking oil production cost RUs but it wont stop it winning. Military will get all the fuel needed. Civilians (as always) mostly has issues with it

Analysis of current situation from Emil Kastehelmi (In short at best UKR can manage to achieve phyrric victory for RUS if NATO wont intervene direclty)

https://www-iltalehti-fi.translate.goog/ulkomaat/a/0993392b-c0cd-4225-b172-ece421bcff7d?_x_tr_sl=en&_x_tr_tl=fi&_x_tr_hl=fi&_x_tr_pto=wapp

It would be almost physically impossible to starve the Russian army of diesel fuel. I am not sure even the USAF could achieve that task. The attacks against refineries are purely economic in nature: they put pressure on population and deny Russia funds for the war effort by forcing more crude to be sold on the market (or potentially forcing a slow down in crude production if the op temp can be maintained). The long term hope would be that Russia changes it terms for negotiations due to a lack of funding - at some point, if the money runs thin, full mobilization/conscription or some compromise in their current demands will be necessary. Contract troops make a rather plush amount of money by Russian standards.

[Josh]

3 hours ago, MiGG0 said:

Strategical level RUS has been winning long time as UKR is running out of troops before they do.

About money, in the end loser will pay it all (and it will be UKR wihtout NATO intervention). UKR has been out of money already several years but still can keep fighting. Same thing applies to RUS aswell.

How will Ukraine ever pay Russia back? It’s already basically funded by Europe. Russia is simply going inherit all the damage it has created, both on its side and Ukraine’s, and probably an insurgency to boot since it seems incredibly unlikely even basic services are restored.

[MiGG0]

2 minutes ago, Josh said:

It would be almost physically impossible to starve the Russian army of diesel fuel. I am not sure even the USAF could achieve that task. The attacks against refineries are purely economic in nature: they put pressure on population and deny Russia funds for the war effort by forcing more crude to be sold on the market (or potentially forcing a slow down in crude production if the op temp can be maintained). The long term hope would be that Russia changes it terms for negotiations due to a lack of funding - at some point, if the money runs thin, full mobilization/conscription or some compromise in their current demands will be necessary. Contract troops make a rather plush amount of money by Russian standards.

This I mostly agree, but like UKR, RUS have backers that keep it running even after their own funds run out. Not from good will, but contracts like ”you get 50% income from seized mines in UKR” (just illustrative example).

[MiGG0]

7 minutes ago, Josh said:

How will Ukraine ever pay Russia back? It’s already basically funded by Europe. Russia is simply going inherit all the damage it has created, both on its side and Ukraine’s, and probably an insurgency to boot since it seems incredibly unlikely even basic services are restored.

Mentioned already. RUS already control most valuable industry areas and mines. They are seized by RUS even legally (like it matters…). Depending how bad they lose, UKR might have to give rights to other aswell.

Edited September 17 by MiGG0

[Josh]

3 minutes ago, MiGG0 said:

This I mostly agree, but like UKR, RUS have backers that keep it running even after their own funds run out. Not from good will, but contracts like ”you get 50% income from seized mines in UKR” (just illustrative example).

Who will finance Russia? China? Is it doing anything to do so now, outside buying a finite amount of cut rate Russian oil? They apparently refuse to buy in greater volume because they want to keep their sources diversified.

I would not invest in Ukrainian resources long term regardless of the outcome of the war. Local infrastructure is likely neglected regardless of the ‘winner’ and the issue likely is still contested regardless of outcome, either through insurgency or another war.

[Josh]

7 minutes ago, MiGG0 said:

Mentioned already. RUS already control most valuable industry areas and mines. They are seized by RUS.

Are they making any money then?

[MiGG0]

17 minutes ago, Josh said:

Who will finance Russia? China? Is it doing anything to do so now, outside buying a finite amount of cut rate Russian oil? They apparently refuse to buy in greater volume because they want to keep their sources diversified.

I would not invest in Ukrainian resources long term regardless of the outcome of the war. Local infrastructure is likely neglected regardless of the ‘winner’ and the issue likely is still contested regardless of outcome, either through insurgency or another war.

Mostly China, but others like India aswell. RUS/China just made contract to buil new pipeline. It is totally Chinas interest to keep RUS in their pocket. 

Edited September 17 by MiGG0