Current Affairs Ukraine

[davids]

I don’t apart from the proxy conflict in Ukraine; I suspect Russia will eventually move its focus to the Baltic through subterfuge, political influence etc.

There was no suggestion of the two engaging in combat, but as I said it was using European armies to compare the inefficiency of Russia’s.

Yet some of our resident experts are quoting
"As you say these battalions are drawn from Asiatic and very rural Russian areas. From what I’ve seen they’re generally a bunch of drunken fatties with crap equipment and just a few days training."
So which is it,the Ukraine are fighting bravely against Russian troops or the Ukraine are being booted out of city by city in the Donbass by a poorly trained overweight rabble? Or can it be both? Quite how the Russians would be contemplating expansion into the Baltic Nato protected nations given the alleged state of their army is pretty strange to say the least. But then if it's in the Daily Mail it must be true.

 

[davids]

Veterans For Peace Statement on Ukraine

Veterans For Peace (VFP) unequivocally condemns Russia’s horrific invasion of Ukraine. VFP opposes western militarism and increased US military spending, and we are deeply concerned about even the possibility of nuclear warfare.

www.veteransforpeace.org

 

[Noisy noise annoys]

Yet some of our resident experts are quoting
"As you say these battalions are drawn from Asiatic and very rural Russian areas. From what I’ve seen they’re generally a bunch of drunken fatties with crap equipment and just a few days training."
So which is it,the Ukraine are fighting bravely against Russian troops or the Ukraine are being booted out of city by city in the Donbass by a poorly trained overweight rabble? Or can it be both? Quite how the Russians would be contemplating expansion into the Baltic Nato protected nations given the alleged state of their army is pretty strange to say the least. But then if it's in the Daily Mail it must be true.

It is as if you have never heard of sheer weight of numbers, both manpower and hardware!!

 

[stipe]

It is as if you have never heard of sheer weight of numbers, both manpower and hardware!!

Isn't that same thing and type of excuse that Nazi Generals were talking after the war while writing their biographies.

"Our superior Wehrmacht were overwhelmed by this never-ending, drunken Asiatic hordes"

Its a common theme you can find while listening apologists for German army and various American movies and video games. Seems to me, same thing was being repeated today.

 

[devogue]

 

[Noisy noise annoys]

Isn't that same thing and type of excuse that Nazi Generals were talking after the war while writing their biographies.

"Our superior Wehrmacht were overwhelmed by this never-ending, drunken Asiatic hordes"

Its a common theme you can find while listening apologists for German army and various American movies and video games. Seems to me, same thing was being repeated today.

I think it is safe to say the Ukes were overwhelemd by the size of the initial Russian deplyment of both men and arms. The playing field has now been levelled a tad

 

[PhilM]

Yet some of our resident experts are quoting
"As you say these battalions are drawn from Asiatic and very rural Russian areas. From what I’ve seen they’re generally a bunch of drunken fatties with crap equipment and just a few days training."
So which is it,the Ukraine are fighting bravely against Russian troops or the Ukraine are being booted out of city by city in the Donbass by a poorly trained overweight rabble? Or can it be both? Quite how the Russians would be contemplating expansion into the Baltic Nato protected nations given the alleged state of their army is pretty strange to say the least. But then if it's in the Daily Mail it must be true.

Without trying to offend, I'm getting the sense you're either not fully reading responses, have an ulterior motive or you're being a deliberate WUM.

To return to my post, the stated modus operandi for the Baltic states, as the Russians have shown already, is and will be subterfuge and political influence etc.

By destabilising the political setup, they will aim to push the Baltic states away from the NATO sphere of influence and come closer to their own.

This will be in unison with the military threat they can still offer. which brings us to the point of the Russian military. You've asked which view it is.

Does it have to be the linear, 2-dimensional narrative that you're suggesting or, like life usually is, could there be nuance? Could it be grey rather than black or white?

We are able to criticise the military of a country and its effectiveness and still appreciate the potential it has - it isn't totally inept or unbelievably strong.

Due to its size amongst its relative technological power, it is still a force to be concerned about as shown by its ability to take land within Ukraine.

On the other hand, we can also discuss how an army, of such suppose power, has been halted by a less resourced army, but one trained by western nations.

The Russian forces have always, like their Soviet predecessors, had the double edge sword of begin a threat while being notorious for poor training and discipline.

Hence why we're at the current state and potentially moving towards a status quo: brave Ukrainians fighting a larger army but one that's not particularly great.

If situations were so simplistic, would you say the BEF in 1914 was a terrible force because they fell back against the Germans? Were they worse than their foe?

By the way, I hope I'm wrong about the first line and it's definitely not an attempt to offend or attack.

 

[FrenchDarrenBent]

Yet some of our resident experts are quoting
"As you say these battalions are drawn from Asiatic and very rural Russian areas. From what I’ve seen they’re generally a bunch of drunken fatties with crap equipment and just a few days training."

I wonder how our brave British Lion Hearts would fare if we were to invade Ukraine.
Peace disease is a real factor for every developed nation bar the U.S.
If anything it gives Russia (and China) the insight to do better and adapt in the future. Not politicising of military functions would be a good start for them.
We can't afford to rest on our laurels because of their botched Ukraine campaign.

The Russians are in trouble because of the excellent US satellite surveillance and the gifted equipment. The Ukrainians will survive but only if we keep the support up. I fear the cold winter will weigh on the solidarty

 

[Noisy noise annoys]

Without trying to offend, I'm getting the sense you're either not fully reading responses, have an ulterior motive or you're being a deliberate WUM.

To return to my post, the stated modus operandi for the Baltic states, as the Russians have shown already, is and will be subterfuge and political influence etc.

By destabilising the political setup, they will aim to push the Baltic states away from the NATO sphere of influence and come closer to their own.

This will be in unison with the military threat they can still offer. which brings us to the point of the Russian military. You've asked which view it is.

Does it have to be the linear, 2-dimensional narrative that you're suggesting or, like life usually is, could there be nuance? Could it be grey rather than black or white?

We are able to criticise the military of a country and its effectiveness and still appreciate the potential it has - it isn't totally inept or unbelievably strong.

Due to its size amongst its relative technological power, it is still a force to be concerned about as shown by its ability to take land within Ukraine.

On the other hand, we can also discuss how an army, of such suppose power, has been halted by a less resourced army, but one trained by western nations.

The Russian forces have always, like their Soviet predecessors, had the double edge sword of begin a threat while being notorious for poor training and discipline.

Hence why we're at the current state and potentially moving towards a status quo: brave Ukrainians fighting a larger army but one that's not particularly great.

If situations were so simplistic, would you say the BEF in 1914 was a terrible force because they fell back against the Germans? Were they worse than their foe?

By the way, I hope I'm wrong about the first line and it's definitely not an attempt to offend or attack.

As has been the case for weeks, and I bit which I should never have.

 

[stipe]

I think it is safe to say the Ukes were overwhelemd by the size of the initial Russian deplyment of both men and arms. The playing field has now been levelled a tad

Think it was classic example of supposedly major power underestimating their foe and paying high price for it. Russians seriously believed they gonna walk in and majority of Ukrainians gonna welcome them with flowers, basically Crimea 2.0, or repeat of 2014 in Donbas. Instead this turned into bloody, trench style war.

Not to mention Ukraine mobilized fully (i think) while Russians can't, because if they do, it would be admittance of failure of "Special Operation" and losing face internally for Putin. People from most richest and important Russian cities also wouldn't accept easily giving their sons for war, because so far this war left them unscathed, majority of Russians contract soldiers fighting are from outer provinces or Asian part of Russia, not Muscovites or from St. Petersburg.

 

[davids]

Without trying to offend, I'm getting the sense you're either not fully reading responses, have an ulterior motive or you're being a deliberate WUM.

To return to my post, the stated modus operandi for the Baltic states, as the Russians have shown already, is and will be subterfuge and political influence etc.

By destabilising the political setup, they will aim to push the Baltic states away from the NATO sphere of influence and come closer to their own.

This will be in unison with the military threat they can still offer. which brings us to the point of the Russian military. You've asked which view it is.

Does it have to be the linear, 2-dimensional narrative that you're suggesting or, like life usually is, could there be nuance? Could it be grey rather than black or white?

We are able to criticise the military of a country and its effectiveness and still appreciate the potential it has - it isn't totally inept or unbelievably strong.

Due to its size amongst its relative technological power, it is still a force to be concerned about as shown by its ability to take land within Ukraine.

On the other hand, we can also discuss how an army, of such suppose power, has been halted by a less resourced army, but one trained by western nations.

The Russian forces have always, like their Soviet predecessors, had the double edge sword of begin a threat while being notorious for poor training and discipline.

Hence why we're at the current state and potentially moving towards a status quo: brave Ukrainians fighting a larger army but one that's not particularly great.

If situations were so simplistic, would you say the BEF in 1914 was a terrible force because they fell back against the Germans? Were they worse than their foe?

By the way, I hope I'm wrong about the first line and it's definitely not an attempt to offend or attack.

I'm quoting other forum members on the thread and the same opinions pop up in the media. If the Russians are deploying barely trained troops from the sticks,does that mean they don't have any well trained troops at all. I think in a previous post you stated Russia hasn't fired any hypersonic missiles in the war yet American military advisors tells us they have. Our resident Conservative military specialist tells us that all Russian armaments are 1950s vintage. The 25 stone general story was found to be faked, where does the truth lie?

 

[davids]

Without trying to offend, I'm getting the sense you're either not fully reading responses, have an ulterior motive or you're being a deliberate WUM.

To return to my post, the stated modus operandi for the Baltic states, as the Russians have shown already, is and will be subterfuge and political influence etc.

By destabilising the political setup, they will aim to push the Baltic states away from the NATO sphere of influence and come closer to their own.

Sphere of influence?
The Baltic states or the Baltic countries is a modern unofficial geopolitical term, typically used to group three countries: Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. All three countries are members of NATO, the European Union, the Eurozone, and the OECD.

 

[PhilM]

Sphere of influence?
The Baltic states or the Baltic countries is a modern unofficial geopolitical term, typically used to group three countries: Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. All three countries are members of NATO, the European Union, the Eurozone, and the OECD.

Your point being? Russia would rather said countries were not part of NATO which is, by its nature, an organisation that is influenced be certain member states.

So yes, they would rather it be under their sphere of influence. To do this, a foe may want to destabilise to the point they leave NATO, EU and others.

I'm quoting other forum members on the thread and the same opinions pop up in the media. If the Russians are deploying barely trained troops from the sticks,does that mean they don't have any well trained troops at all. I think in a previous post you stated Russia hasn't fired any hypersonic missiles in the war yet American military advisors tells us they have. Our resident Conservative military specialist tells us that all Russian armaments are 1950s vintage. The 25 stone general story was found to be faked, where does the truth lie?

With reference to the hypersonic missiles, to clarify I wrote, "the state and efficiency ... is also up for debate as some may believe they're not yet ready."

This is reference to the US downplaying its efficiency and a number of NATO nations suggesting it may not be as capable as Russia would want us to believe.

To clarify at to not lead to more misquotes or misinterpretation, hypersonic missile technology is often labelled due to their potential ability - their capacity.

This is speeds of mach 5 plus, with low and flat trajectories and high mobility meaning they'll be hard to detect and will be able to avoid defences.

Defence experts are saying that while the Russian missiles are able to exceed mach 5, they lack the latter trait and the trajectories are similar to cruise missiles.

So ultimately we're talking about an upgraded cruise missile rather than the proposed abilities people are worried about - again the grey area.*

And yes they do have well trained troops, but the point people have made is their overall standard of their armed forces is lower than many western counterparts.

This comes down to a lower mean standard with more troops but more poorly trained and equipment that is, as an average, quite poor in comparison.

It's like with the standard of their subs (ask @john jako or @Dylan) or their air force (ask @Mutzo Nutzo and others) - it's all relative.

*We have hypersonic missiles too - Trident. But oh, we're talking about specific abilities aren't we rather than misunderstanding the generic term.

 

[Mutzo Nutzo]

Your point being? Russia would rather said countries were not part of NATO which is, by its nature, an organisation that is influenced be certain member states.

So yes, they would rather it be under their sphere of influence. To do this, a foe may want to destabilise to the point they leave NATO, EU and others.

With reference to the hypersonic missiles, to clarify I wrote, "the state and efficiency ... is also up for debate as some may believe they're not yet ready."

This is reference to the US downplaying its efficiency and a number of NATO nations suggesting it may not be as capable as Russia would want us to believe.

To clarify at to not lead to more misquotes or misinterpretation, hypersonic missile technology is often labelled due to their potential ability - their capacity.

This is speeds of mach 5 plus, with low and flat trajectories and high mobility meaning they'll be hard to detect and will be able to avoid defences.

Defence experts are saying that while the Russian missiles are able to exceed mach 5, they lack the latter trait and the trajectories are similar to cruise missiles.

So ultimately we're talking about an upgraded cruise missile rather than the proposed abilities people are worried about - again the grey area.*

And yes they do have well trained troops, but the point people have made is their overall standard of their armed forces is lower than many western counterparts.

This comes down to a lower mean standard with more troops but more poorly trained and equipment that is, as an average, quite poor in comparison.

It's like with the standard of their subs (ask @john jako or @Dylan) or their air force (ask @Mutzo Nutzo and others) - it's all relative.

*We have hypersonic missiles too - Trident. But oh, we're talking about specific abilities aren't we rather than misunderstanding the generic term.

Russias Hypersonic missiles (Kh-31) are not really hypersonic, they are in fact modified cruise missiles launched by the MIG-31’s.

True that they reach hypersonic speeds during phases of flight, however they don’t maintain those speeds during the final terminal (target acquisition phase) and are therefore able to be designated and destroyed by advanced SAM systems, such as Patriot and starstreak.

If anyone is interested in true hypersonic technology then Google “ramjet propulsion”….Light bedtime reading?

PS Russian Air Force are awful

 

[PhilM]

Russias Hypersonic missiles (Kh-31) are not really hypersonic, they are in fact modified cruise missiles launched by the MIG-31’s.

True that they reach hypersonic speeds during phases of flight, however they don’t maintain those speeds during the final terminal (target acquisition phase) and are therefore able to be designated and destroyed by advanced SAM systems, such as Patriot and starstreak.

If anyone is interested in true hypersonic technology then Google “ramjet propulsion”….Light bedtime reading?

Alas, which was my original point regarding certain people misunderstanding the capabilities of other nations.