5 ms·

I'm wondering if that mobilisation isn't worse than a band-aid. I think it might actually be hurting Russia's ability to fight this war, for the reasons you sta

by mcv 4y ago

I'm wondering if that mobilisation isn't worse than a band-aid. I think it might actually be hurting Russia's ability to fight this war, for the reasons you state, and because it's putting more stress at all the weaknesses of the Russian military: logistics, command and control, and morale. Those people need to be moved to the front, more food, ammo and fuel needs to be moved to the front, and Russia is already struggling with logistics. Their command and control seems to be a mess with Wagner and the militias operating independently from the Russian army, which is short on officers, and each branch blaming each other for all the failures. Adding more untrained troops is not going to improve that situation. The impact on morale is probably obvious. Best thing to do with those conscripts would probably be to put them in trucks and let them drive more stuff to the front. Or in factories to make more stuff. Best thing strategically for him would probably be to withdraw from all those recently "annexed" regions and bet everything on keeping Crimea. And negotiate a deal to trade all of that land for recognition of the annexation of Crimea. I think Crimea is really the best thing Putin can possibly get out of this war. And even that is hardly certain.

trasz 4y ago
Putin had a whole bunch of opportunities to withdraw and minimize his losses, and didn’t take any of them. At the same time it’s been obvious for some time now that there’s no way he can win. One theory that explains it is that his objective at this point is to lose - but lose to USA or NATO, not to Ukraine.
- Max-Ganz-II 4y ago
  I may be completely wrong, but looking back at history, at people in similar situations, my take on it is that he's faced with what is for him an unacceptable outcome, but where there is no way to avoid it : in this situation, people try and delay and defer, rather than facing it. I think it's only that, nothing more sophisticated. He won't give up, because it's so unpleasant, but he can't win, so he's in limbo. The war continues until Ukraine and the West push Russia out of Ukraine.
- aa-jv 4y ago
  This is simply not true. Russia withdrew its regular army months ago - whats fighting now are non-regular forces (mercenaries, etc.) in order to keep the battlefield 'soft' while the next offensive is being planned. Its not good to believe ones own propaganda, and we in the West are extremely propagandized about this action. Russia hasn't applied the full forces of its war machines to Ukraine - yet. Its a "special military operation" because Putin is limited by Russia's democracy as to what he can apply. Escalating to actual war policies is whats happening right now. Once the ground freezes in Ukraine (within the next few weeks), there will be another round of attacks from Russia - this time, with all the 'terrorist attacks on the Russian state', Putins' gloves will be coming off. We in the West don't understand that what we incorrectly perceive as a "failed military invasion" is really just the first round in a 'special military operation' that has to scale up to war before Russia's full war machine is activated. We want to believe it was a failed full-blown war - the truth is, its just the beginning ..
  - mopsi 4y ago
    > Russia withdrew its regular army months ago Strange. As far as rest of the world knows, Ukraine fought a spectacular counteroffensive against Russia's elite tank division (4th Guards) near Izyum just a few weeks ago, took many of them prisoners and captured 100 or so of their best tanks and hundreds of APCs.
    - trasz 4y ago
      - aa-jv 4y ago
        >clueless tankie. Keep your hate-filled agit-prop to yourself and try to stay rational. I'm not rooting for Russia - I'm trying to indicate you are in danger of mis-underestimating your enemy - a fatal mistake to make! I'm not mentioning "terrorist attacks on Russian state" because I agree that thats what they are - I am 100% anti-war, no matter who is fighting it - but that is what Russia's democratic process requires in order to authorize an escalation of its "special military operation" to a broader war-fighting stance. In precisely the same way that the USA needed terrorist attacks to justify its own special military operations around the world, Russia has the very same condition in its own democratic processes - and whether you like it or not, Russia is just as democratic as the USA - they just don't vote for people you like. Whether you agree or not, Russia has not applied the full forces of its military to this "special operation" - this will happen in the next few weeks, now that the political conditions within Russia are in place to authorize the use of such force. You don't really think Putin can just dictate that a war happen - just like the USA, Putins' power is limited by democratic processes. Know Your Enemy! Putins' hands have been tied thus far - once the gloves come off, you might change your mind about Russia's weaknesses ...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- mcv 4y ago
  > One theory that explains it is that his objective at this point is to lose - but lose to USA or NATO, not to Ukraine. Interesting perspective, and it makes sense. There's probably less shame in losing to the most powerful alliance in the world, than losing to a former vassal. This might actually increase the chance of him using tactical nukes; that's the surefire way to get NATO involved. But ideally he'll want to lose just barely to NATO; he doesn't want to get completely destroyed. That's probably why he's escalating one small step at a time.
  - trasz 4y ago
    I’m not sure if using nukes would get NATO directly involved. First, it would be counterproductive wrt Putin’s goal above. Second, it could provoke strikes against NATO - Russia stands no chance militarily, but they can still kill civilians. Third, I don’t think isn’t even necessary - looking at experiences so far, Ukraine is more than capable of wiping the floor with Russian army, provided they get the hardware necessary. So far NATO has been very (way too much imho) careful to only provide Ukraine with defensive weapons; they didn’t give them cruise missiles or fighter jets, for example. Likewise Ukraine so far avoided striking anything that’s not strictly a military target. Nuclear strike would probably change that.
    - mcv 4y ago
      I don't think there's any way NATO can afford not to respond to the offensive use of nuclear weapons in a war of conquest, just outside their borders, against a friendly nation. But as long as it's a small, tactical nuke, I think NATO's response will be conventional, but still big enough to cripple all Russian positions in Ukraine, and possibly more.
      - brokenmachine 4y ago
        This is basically what General Petraeus said would happen.
wnkrshm 4y ago
I've heard that the mobilized people are used as a sort of early-warning meatshield for the more veteran forces by from an intercepted call by Ukrainian SIGINT (ofc veracity cannot be independently confirmed), which gels with Russian BTG tactics as known to US defence before the 2022 invasion[0]. [0] "Defeating the Russian Battalion Tactical Group" https://www.benning.army.mil/armor/earmor/content/issues/2017/spring/2Fiore17.pdf https://www.benning.army.mil/armor/earmor/content/issues/201... (warning PDF link)

by mcv 4y ago

trasz 4y ago

Putin had a whole bunch of opportunities to withdraw and minimize his losses, and didn’t take any of them. At the same time it’s been obvious for some time now that there’s no way he can win. One theory that explains it is that his objective at this point is to lose - but lose to USA or NATO, not to Ukraine.

Max-Ganz-II 4y ago
I may be completely wrong, but looking back at history, at people in similar situations, my take on it is that he's faced with what is for him an unacceptable outcome, but where there is no way to avoid it : in this situation, people try and delay and defer, rather than facing it. I think it's only that, nothing more sophisticated. He won't give up, because it's so unpleasant, but he can't win, so he's in limbo. The war continues until Ukraine and the West push Russia out of Ukraine.
aa-jv 4y ago
This is simply not true. Russia withdrew its regular army months ago - whats fighting now are non-regular forces (mercenaries, etc.) in order to keep the battlefield 'soft' while the next offensive is being planned. Its not good to believe ones own propaganda, and we in the West are extremely propagandized about this action. Russia hasn't applied the full forces of its war machines to Ukraine - yet. Its a "special military operation" because Putin is limited by Russia's democracy as to what he can apply. Escalating to actual war policies is whats happening right now. Once the ground freezes in Ukraine (within the next few weeks), there will be another round of attacks from Russia - this time, with all the 'terrorist attacks on the Russian state', Putins' gloves will be coming off. We in the West don't understand that what we incorrectly perceive as a "failed military invasion" is really just the first round in a 'special military operation' that has to scale up to war before Russia's full war machine is activated. We want to believe it was a failed full-blown war - the truth is, its just the beginning ..
- mopsi 4y ago
  > Russia withdrew its regular army months ago Strange. As far as rest of the world knows, Ukraine fought a spectacular counteroffensive against Russia's elite tank division (4th Guards) near Izyum just a few weeks ago, took many of them prisoners and captured 100 or so of their best tanks and hundreds of APCs.
  - trasz 4y ago
    - aa-jv 4y ago
      >clueless tankie. Keep your hate-filled agit-prop to yourself and try to stay rational. I'm not rooting for Russia - I'm trying to indicate you are in danger of mis-underestimating your enemy - a fatal mistake to make! I'm not mentioning "terrorist attacks on Russian state" because I agree that thats what they are - I am 100% anti-war, no matter who is fighting it - but that is what Russia's democratic process requires in order to authorize an escalation of its "special military operation" to a broader war-fighting stance. In precisely the same way that the USA needed terrorist attacks to justify its own special military operations around the world, Russia has the very same condition in its own democratic processes - and whether you like it or not, Russia is just as democratic as the USA - they just don't vote for people you like. Whether you agree or not, Russia has not applied the full forces of its military to this "special operation" - this will happen in the next few weeks, now that the political conditions within Russia are in place to authorize the use of such force. You don't really think Putin can just dictate that a war happen - just like the USA, Putins' power is limited by democratic processes. Know Your Enemy! Putins' hands have been tied thus far - once the gloves come off, you might change your mind about Russia's weaknesses ...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mcv 4y ago
> One theory that explains it is that his objective at this point is to lose - but lose to USA or NATO, not to Ukraine. Interesting perspective, and it makes sense. There's probably less shame in losing to the most powerful alliance in the world, than losing to a former vassal. This might actually increase the chance of him using tactical nukes; that's the surefire way to get NATO involved. But ideally he'll want to lose just barely to NATO; he doesn't want to get completely destroyed. That's probably why he's escalating one small step at a time.
- trasz 4y ago
  I’m not sure if using nukes would get NATO directly involved. First, it would be counterproductive wrt Putin’s goal above. Second, it could provoke strikes against NATO - Russia stands no chance militarily, but they can still kill civilians. Third, I don’t think isn’t even necessary - looking at experiences so far, Ukraine is more than capable of wiping the floor with Russian army, provided they get the hardware necessary. So far NATO has been very (way too much imho) careful to only provide Ukraine with defensive weapons; they didn’t give them cruise missiles or fighter jets, for example. Likewise Ukraine so far avoided striking anything that’s not strictly a military target. Nuclear strike would probably change that.
  - mcv 4y ago
    I don't think there's any way NATO can afford not to respond to the offensive use of nuclear weapons in a war of conquest, just outside their borders, against a friendly nation. But as long as it's a small, tactical nuke, I think NATO's response will be conventional, but still big enough to cripple all Russian positions in Ukraine, and possibly more.
    - brokenmachine 4y ago
      This is basically what General Petraeus said would happen.

wnkrshm 4y ago

I've heard that the mobilized people are used as a sort of early-warning meatshield for the more veteran forces by from an intercepted call by Ukrainian SIGINT (ofc veracity cannot be independently confirmed), which gels with Russian BTG tactics as known to US defence before the 2022 invasion[0]. [0] "Defeating the Russian Battalion Tactical Group" https://www.benning.army.mil/armor/earmor/content/issues/2017/spring/2Fiore17.pdf https://www.benning.army.mil/armor/earmor/content/issues/201... (warning PDF link)