Kev The Rat
Player Valuation: £70m
V. unusual for that propaganda outfit to post anything anti-Ukrainian, so yes the possibility is high.
Current Affairs Ukraine
- Thread starter Mutzo Nutzo
- Start date
- Status
dylsexicbleu
Player Valuation: £8m
Not enough troops for the meat grinder it seems.MAD only works if you are convinced there will be a serious response to the initial strike. You are convinced that there would be a massive response regardless of where the strike takes place - I am not, based on the US not being attacked itself.
And I dont see how you can say why would Russia do this or that for fear of annihilation, without asking the same questions of NATO.
To be fair, none of this is going to happen anyway, as we can see the Ukrainians are completely running out of steam now, they cant even get men to fight any more.
Ukraine war: The men who don't want to fight
Ukraine has a soldier shortage. Though many have volunteered, others are dodging the draft.www.bbc.co.uk
Oh dear! Looks like you’ve failed your trolling exam - go away and do your research on Aaron Mate.
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
I think you will point at any source if you think it plays into your support of Russia……
dylsexicbleu
Player Valuation: £8m
I know exactly who Aaron Mate is, thanks. Anyway, Mate is not the important one here, the important thing is that its NYT reporting this. The NYT has long become the in house publication for US intel agencies. The quote doesn't even have to be true. However, I can recognise narrative formation and finger pointing when I see it. What did JFK say about victory and defeat? 'Victory has a thousand father's, but defeat is an orphan'.
Play the man not the ball lad!
dylsexicbleu
Player Valuation: £8m
The quote is obviously in the NYT, there is not doubt about that. What is unknown is whether or not Ukraine has really become casualty averse. I have absolutely no idea if they have, neither do you. I suspect neither do US intel.You said it
Then why post it?
dylsexicbleu
Player Valuation: £8m
As I previously stated; the NYT(and others)has become an organ for intel agencies to leak stories they want to get out. IF Ukraine hasn't become risk averse in seeing it's soldiers die then some intel agency at least wants us to believe they have. It further points to the war not going the way we in the West want it to. The story imo is no more or less significant than this.
Of course Ukraine is risk averse to having their troops killed. What I see as a twist on the original article is the implication that they don’t want to fight.
The original source of this piece comes at the start of the Uke counter-offensive when they ploughed headlong into 10Km deep minefields and took a lot of casualties. Since then they’ve altered their tactics and the result being a slower more methodical advance.
Now someone in the Pentagon has probably talked to a reporter and leaked this info. Since that point the info has been distorted to become Ukes are more risk adverse. Then Aaron Mate and his chums get hold of it and twist it further saying the Ukes don’t wanna fight anymore. Then finally the BBC get hold of it and repost it as well as they’re dreadful.
So you see how the original story has now been twisted out of all recognition and become something it was never meant to be.
Careless talk costs lives
What are we comparing against? If we're talking about being adverse compared to the Russians, of course they are. Is it adverse to the point it's holding them back?
That's a different question entirely. In terms of their acceptable level of attrition, we'd all recognise a sizeable difference between Russia and Ukraine.
The RA holds little or no regard for its conscripted soldiers, so is pretty willingly churning through them, to the point you could say they are disposable.
Single-use, perhaps? On the other hand, Ukraine appears to be taking a far more sensible, yet cautious approach - longevity may be a suitable word here.
From what I've seen, there is a much greater focus on welfare, both pre- and post-combat. We're talking better equipment, training, rations and whatnot.
Post-combat, evidence suggests there is a focus on rehabilitation for those wounded, so if a soldier is injured they are hopefully (when ready) returned to the front.
In terms of the Ukraine approach, it's the prudent one because, put simply, they have fewer men to call up, so it's important to be more cautious with them.
However, their approach provides the advantage of a soldier being a) able to fight in multiple actions, and b) gain a level of experience the Russians can't match.
This could level out the numbers, to some extent. So going back to the topic, I think it probably is fair to presume that the UA is casualty averse, to some extent.
That may, as the NYT suggests, be against western guidance, which has in the past few decades been based on quick, mobile actions - show and awe.
Yet, these (western) actions have typically been planned to be finished quickly, whereas Ukraine is considering that this may be a longer war.
So while the strategy may mean that the offensives aren't as quick to push through lines, it does give Ukraine the scope to continue to rebuild their forces.
It does suit the tactical situation in front of them of deep linear defences, with minefields, that the UA is trying to outflank through numerous incursions.
dylsexicbleu
Player Valuation: £8m
Thanks for the informative reply. All rather depends on whether the original 'risk averse' quote was a flippant throwaway line from an official or a carefully worded excuse. Your guess is as good as mine on which it was. However, it does appear to have been used. The general public's knowledge of warfare can be written on the back of a postcard. Is it good or bad that the Ukrainians have become more risk averse? I don't bloody know and neither do the NYT.
The careless talk in this instance appears to come from US intel via the NYT. I'm sure front line troops in Ukraine are talking zero interest in an Aaron Mate tweet.
tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
TBF the NYT is more the official mouthpiece of the gobsh**e foreign policy "experts" (ie: cadet politicians) rather than the actual intel community, which you can see by how they almost exclusively leak "newsworthy" stuff attached to idiotic commentary.
For example, I seem to remember a few years ago they were daily leaking photos and operationally sensitive information in the immediate aftermath of the Manchester bombing. They only stopped when adults got involved and told them to STFU.
dylsexicbleu
Player Valuation: £8m
Fair enough if you see it differently. I honestly don't see too much difference between foreign policy experts and the intel agencies themselves. I think there is a very blurred line between many of them. Many of these same experts are labelled as 'ex intel' officials and in that line of work unless you have resigned in utter disgrace I don't think there is such a thing as an 'ex intel official'. Even young up and coming foreign policy/intel wonks are going to have excellent contacts in the foreign policy/intel field. It's all(by it's nature) a very murky field.
- Status