Guardian is publishing Russian Propaganda

[Swayingpalmtrees]

AIBU to be very disappointed that the Guardian has resorted to publishing Russian propaganda. It was shocking to read, largely inaccurate and wholly from the Russian perspective. I am all for listening to all sides, but there was no effort to understand how Ukraine feels, Ukraine's objective is clearly to win the war and reclaim their nation, and blaming the western leaders for arming Ukraine and the bloodshed caused by the Russians is somewhat misleading, Ukraine have every right to defend themselves.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/27/ukraine-war-end-putin-russia-talks

@LuluBlackey your post is wishful thinking at best and strangely degrading towards UK and Europe. Degrading them vehemently and emotionally enough to make me ask - why? Your statement is not factually correct but seems to be the hill you'll die on.

It does sound a bit like the Darth Putin twitter account, doesn't it? This was all part of a grand plan, I remain a master strategist.

I can quite understand feeling a bit sick at Boris getting the opportunity to do his Churchill impersonation, particularly given that he's been happy enough to benefit from Russian influence when it suited him. But him leveraging as much political benefit as he can from the situation is not very important in the grand scheme of things. The UK isn't acting alone, we're acting as part of a large and powerful group of nations. Now I doubt we'd be capable of successfully invading Ukraine in the face of widespread opposition, sanctions and sanction observance from nearly all the global economy and extensive weapon supply from the rest of the West, any more than Russia have been. But unlike them, we weren't that fucking stupid.

Putin has barely used his armed forces- his military power is vast and, if he unleashes it, it could be catastrophic.

This is not correct. To conquer and hold cities, you need to win a ground war. That requires troops on the ground, not the kind of bomb the place to rubble and fuck off home approach of the Russian forces in Syria. So you need lots and lots of well-trained, well-equipped troops.

The Russian armed forces have around 900K active personnel. Around 190K of them - more than 20% of the total armed forces - were involved in the initial invasion. Many of them were the highest quality end of the armed forces, e.g. paratroop regiments, though there also seem to have been a lot of totally unsuitable conscript troops. Everyone - elite forces and conscripts - took an absolute hammering in the first phase of the war. The Russians have been redeploying from places like the Eastern Military District and Russian-occupied South Ossetia in Georgia, but still seem to be short of troops - the Pentagon assesses that they're still not up to their anticipated strength in Donbas, despite several weeks of the much-touted 'phase 2' of the war.

Many of the approx. 700K (probably less now) active personnel not already committed are not frontline troops. We've already seen the consequences of putting non-frontline troops into frontline positions (goes about as well as you'd expect).

Even in a war, Russia can't just try to put all its troops into Ukraine. It has ongoing interests elsewhere that need defending and it needs to keep a lot of men and equipment for the defence of Russia itself. Putin tried and failed to push Belarus and other Collective Security Treaty Organisation states into committing troops. Sooner rather than later Russia is going to be at the outer limit of its capacity to reinforce troops in Ukraine from active personnel elsewhere.

So then the next stage is to move to reserves, of which there are many, and beyond that to a call-up of other fighting-age men. But it takes time to get reserves up to speed and much longer (months) to make conscripts ready to go into battle.

Meanwhile, the remaining professional forces in Ukraine are being ground further down and more Russian equipment is being either destroyed or captured. A few weeks ago, the Pentagon estimated that the Ukrainians had more tanks than they began the war with, because they'd taken so many off the Russians.

Russia's ability to quickly replace men and equipment is degrading. Ukraine is not getting troops from NATO but they're on the receiving end of staggering levels of military aid from the US. Russia simply has no capacity to compete with that.

@HardyBuckette I specifically said Russia has the ability to manufacture non smart weapons pretty much forever and that it can use them to prosecute this war for many years.
The tech Russia has used to access its raw materials is still there and whilst you are correct that Russia is heavily sanctioned, i do not think outside of the US/Europe, the sanctions are anything what you suggest... Yes China has said it wont supply weapons but what about technology?
Russia also managed to get out its raw materials in Soviet era.

I thought we were talking about Ukraine/Russia conflict, so when i said "collapse" i meant Russia being quickly defeated...not a re run of the late 80s early 90s... apologies' for not making that clear.

As far as i can tell, Russia is surviving Ukrainian attacks and is moving to limit/stop the supply of western munitions from the west to the east, there is only so much that can be transported by road and the Russians seem to be going for the 'rail network now.

I want the 'West (this would be the US Navy) to lift the BlackSea blockade, if we are really serious about defeating Putin and seeing a free Ukraine, then this is urgently required, appreciate the Turkish angle but surely we cannot allow the crippling of Ukraines economy and the constant shelling of the south of the country/longer range cruise strikes to continue?

@FatherBuzzCagney I hope your analysis is correct.

As other PPs have said, and as military commentators have said, bombing Syria to fuck is very different from occupying a country. Occupying a country that doesn't want to be occupied takes many more soldiers than just attacking that country. And you have to keep occupying it for years, taking up all your military.

Most of the things I said are in the public domain and not contested.

The estimate of Russian active personnel is from the Military Balance, published by the International Institute of Strategic Studies, and widely recognised as an (maybe the) authoritative source on states' military capabilities.

The figure of 190K for the pre-war build-up of Russian troops around Ukraine was in the public domain for at least a couple of weeks before the start of the war.

That Russia has been pulling troops out of places like South Ossetia and redeploying troops from remote military districts inside Russia is a matter of public record. It's not doing this - or appealing for Syrian mercenaries, or advertising on Russian public transport offering high wages for short term military contracts - on a whim, it's doing these things because they are short of men to fight in Ukraine.

The US has pledged over $3bn of military aid to Ukraine just since the start of the war (had already given it a huge amount before the war) and much of that seems to have been delivered. US military aid to Ukraine is now equivalent to something like 2/3rds of Ukraine's 2021 military budget. Biden has asked Congress for another $20bn of military aid for Ukraine. If it's approved, US military aid to Ukraine will have been over a third of Russia's total military budget for last year.

Bear in mind that Russia's military budget has to cover everything from nukes to their bases in the Arctic to rations for conscripts doing military service inside Russia, plus the sums making their way into senior officers' bank accounts, so most of it isn't available for the Ukraine war. And, of course, they'll have to find the equivalent of many hundreds of millions, or billions, of dollars to replace tanks, helicopters, fighter jets and the warship lost in Ukraine, so they'll have to hugely increase spending in these areas just to get back to where they were at the start of the war.

Tl;dr Russia is losing trained personnel faster than it can replace them and will not be able to compete with US military aid to Ukraine. These are two of the many reasons why Russia almost certainly cannot win in Ukraine.

@FatherBuzzCagney excellent posts are doing a much better job than I was of explaining why the contention that Russia are just going to be able to carry on like this at leisure is such a shaky one, and certainly isn't anything close to a fact as has been claimed in this thread. They don't have the goods, in any sense of the term. Nobody has yet been able to explain where they're going to come from either.

I do understand the arguments that NATO should get more involved @Alexandra2001 , some of which are made in good faith. However, that's not on the cards at the moment: which isn't to say it won't happen in the future, but for now it's not likely. Roxburgh also knows this. He knows that the actual choices on the menu at the moment are between the West arguing the Ukrainians in order to allow them the opportunity to liberate themselves, or to not do that.

So when he says the West should either take an option that he knows isn't going to be chosen (and that let's be honest, nothing he's done in the past suggests he actually wants) or stop arming Ukraine, it's actually an argument to stop arming Ukraine. And he's hidden it behind claims about the Russian military that have been widely condemned by people who actually understand that field. It's a disingenuous bullshitting exercise.

As far as i can tell, Russia is surviving Ukrainian attacks Russia need to be doing much more than merely surviving to have any hope of even a small and successful advance anywhere in Ukraine. I don't actually think they will hold out for very much longer, which is why almost certainly Putin will announce an all out war, and call up every man/cannon fodder he can get his dirty hands on. I genuinely feel sorry for the Russian mothers, who stand to lose all of their children before they are forced out of Ukraine. He will sell this as patriotism and it is nothing short of planned genocide using his own people.

I do understand the arguments that NATO should get more involved There is no need for NATO to get involved. Ukraine are doing an outstanding job without the alliance, and seem to understand the issues of escalation. Quite rightly the west are now arming Ukraine with everything they have asked for, making the war much easier to win.
Of course they can not lose now whatever happens, it is their country, and like most people they will fight to the death to keep it. Russia would need millions of soldiers to take over and control a country the size of Ukraine with a very hostile nation.
I am not even sure they have the appetite now. Many conscripts do not even understand why they are even there. Far from being the 'great war' this is looking like a global embarrassment and a shambles. Putin's great hero is Peter the Great. I imagine this is Putin's legacy to finally defeat the west, show the world NATO is a weakened and irrelevant alliance and bring the USSR back to life. It all looked quite simple when he was reading the books in lockdown.....

Thank you @HardyBuckettebut not true - you've being doing a great job of explaining the situation.

Putin tried and failed to push Belarus and other Collective Security Treaty Organisation states into committing troops.

Having mentioned this earlier, thought I should say that Belarus seems to be showing possible signs of getting involved after all (sudden announcement of "combat readiness drills"). But hard to see them making a great deal of difference to the war in the long term.

And if Russia was the terrifying, massive force that some PPs seem to think it is, why would they even need Belarus's troops?!

Well, quite.

Possible cannon fodder, why use your troops when you can recruit others and use them for war ?

That's never been the Russian approach in this region (not since 1991, at least). Russia has generally preferred to conduct military operations in the former Soviet Union on its own and hasn't made an attempt to rope others in, except in a couple of cases in Central Asia (the Tajik civil war in the 90s and the recent CSTO "peacekeeping" operation in Kazakhstan), where the additional troops were largely window dressing.

Russia has been attempting to pressure the Belarusian president to get involved for weeks now - because of Russian army shortages and possibly to give a veneer of legitimacy by making it look like a regional action (though who that would fool I have no idea). Lukashenko has refused because he's already widely hated in Belarus after he stole the 2020 election, and involvement in the attack on Ukraine would be very unpopular. If he has cracked (and it may just be shit stirring - we'll have to wait and see) then Putin must have put a lot of pressure on him. Which would also suggest increased desperation in the Kremlin.

Fair points and analysis

Thank you that's kind.

Re Lukashenko, I think he's worried he won't survive dragging Belarus into Putin's war. Agree there would surely have to be huge pressure on him for him to take that risk.

Excuse my ignorance but when you say "At some point the west will need to reconcile its wish to avoid war, with the reality that we may not have the choice if it comes to it" what do you mean @Swayingpalmtrees? My understanding is that that war (if, God forbid, it comes) would be a nuclear war and then it's all over. Or are you referring to some kind of conventional war? And what theatre would that play out in?

The threat from Belarus cannot be ignored by Ukraine, so it ties up forces that otherwise might be sent to the south.
Same as the threat to Odesa is used to keep forces there too.

Where has anyone said Russia has a massive and terrifying military? they clearly don't, that has been very clear for many weeks but that doesn't mean they cannot make this war last a very long time.

Lulublakey at 930 yesterday. Vast and catastrophic, apparently.

The threat from Belarus cannot be ignored by Ukraine, so it ties up forces that otherwise might be sent to the south

It is was my understanding that a percentage of troops from Belarus have been in Ukraine for a while in fact more or less from the second week of the invasion, and many have died a result.
It was a wake up call for Belarus when the much vaulted special forces from Chechnya didn't make it out alive. I understand Belarus have since brokered a deal with Russia to take all of the wounded Russians soldiers into their hospitals (which are overflowing according to reports) on the borders, and are assisting with logistics rather than ground forces. One would not expect Belarus to be able to offer more than this, as they have their own country and interests to defend. Chechnya have pulled back after they lost some of their best. Although I imagine both are present to some degree.

Ukraine are not alone either, it is worth noting. Many civilians from all around the world have joined the fight. I am always surprised to hear the number from Thailand and places you would not expect!

Where has anyone said Russia has a massive and terrifying military? they clearly don't, that has been very clear for many weeks but that doesn't mean they cannot make this war last a very long time

Then the war will have to last a long time. Ukraine are prepared for it, the West are prepared for it, and certainly NATO are ready. Have you seen the forces gathered in Poland and other surrounding countries?
Russia have traded heavily on their military capacity in the past, leading others to believe they are capable of far greater conflict than we have seen so far. The war has been a helpful insight into the true state of affairs.
If Russia want to drag this war out, that is a matter for them. I think they would be ill advised to do so, when the Russian population starts to truly understand the scale and huge cost and consequences to this war, Putin might find this will be his undoing.

pink It is possible for NATO and Russia to be involved in conventional war, it would not automatically mean a nuclear war. Things could escalate very quickly in a way that Russia would not be prepared for. I am not sure how keen they will be after the debacle in Ukraine to take on half the world - it would be suicidal to even consider it, and there are only so many times you can threaten the world that you will press the button before other nations just stop listening, and see you for what you are.

A conventional war fought by NATO in Eastern Europe or a WWII style conflict? Just googling to see how much Anderson shelters are going for before I move to bunkers. What a world.

No one can rule it out pink and the biggest worry for defence experts has always been the 'room for an accident' in conflicts like this. Which is why the back channels are kept open, and communication even with the war raging in Ukraine continues between the West and Russia.

One would like to think there would be a reasoned conversation about the next steps before they happen (but not always) Intelligence is really key. Planning for all eventualities ditto. I would imagine this is the reason why Russia, despite having the capacity to inflict a biological or precision nuclear attack is in reality very reluctant to do so as this will be a step too far for the whole world, and not just those on the Ukrainian side. The fact that they have so far chosen not to do so indicates some reasoned thinking in the Kremlin.

I wouldn't bother with a bunker, it would be better to go out in style with the first flash as the world you would return to would probably not be one worth living and would be a living hell for many years to come.

Russia may have miscalculated this war, and have over played their hand but they are not stupid and are not IS - their lives have value as well, they all have skin in the game so to speak.

**ISIS

@HardyBuckette Missed that, strange thing to say!
@Swayingpalmtrees Yes i listened to a Ch4 report yesterday, from near Donetsk, the heavily camouflaged soldier was saying that it is so easy to kill the Russian as they never change tactics and keep coming back for me.

The Syrian and Chechen so called elite forces, were little more than hired killers, slaughtering lightly armed civilians and its heart warming to know they have been killed by Ukrainian forces.

Yes the war lasting a long time is what i have been saying the danger is & i don't want that, i want the 'west to be looking at ways to shorten the war, whilst at the same time not giving an inch of ground to Putin, thats a Ukrainian decision only.

There are no ways to shorten the war that will be attractive to Putin Alex
He does not want to shorten the war, he only wants to win and move next to Moldova as soon as he can.

Putin's aim is to take as much as he can, as quickly as he can. The only way to stop him is to take away his army, his supply routes, the financial means to pay for the war and cripple him in every direction - at every level. That is how we shorten the war, by defeating him and doing so in such a way that Russia are extremely unlikely to do the same ever again.
In short, Russia needs a brutal kicking and it needs to be good if it is to work as a deterrent for their next leader's ambition. A shame and stain on Russia so deep that can span generations, that is the only way we can all prevent WW3. The only way. Anyone that says otherwise now, after all that we now know, is just kidding themselves.

The days of niceties and peace talks about what Ukraine is prepared to give away are truly over. Now it is a matter of just how long it takes to drive Russia out. You do know Russia can not be allowed to win, you do know that Alex? A win for Russia would see a huge escalation and spread of war, the security situation for all citizens including Russia would be at huge risk. There is no peaceful way out of this, that has credence now unless Putin does a total U turn and pulls out.