Jump to content

Ukraine 10: Lviv free


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Darryk said:

That is true, but at the time no one really knew what sort of leader Putin would become.

 

On the other hand, there was a German business delegation visiting St. Petersburg in 1993(!), there Putin expressed his admiration for Pinochet, and how he viewed him as somme kinda role model. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. Russia has apparently agreed to pull back from Kyiv and Chernihiv as a sign of good faith to "increase trust" as negotiations continue.

The fact they were starting to lose positions around Kyiv and Chernihiv anyway makes this a relatively low-cost concession.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, broken one said:

Some could have foreseen this, its KGB afterall. Especially Kremlin insiders and young wolves who became millionaires on theft of public good and survived the process

This is the definition of hindsight bias. Just because something makes sense in retrospect and our brains are able to connect past dots that lead to the present result, nobody is able to foresee the future. Because what we can’t do is connect present and future dots that lead to an unknown future result. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, RhaenysBee said:

This is the definition of hindsight bias. Just because something makes sense in retrospect and our brains are able to connect past dots that lead to the present result, nobody is able to foresee the future. Because what we can’t do is connect present and future dots that lead to an unknown future result. 

All I meant was we cannot absolve Abramovich because - being there and then, doing what he was doing, he most probably knew who he was dealing with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Interesting. Russia has apparently agreed to pull back from Kyiv and Chernihiv as a sign of good faith to "increase trust" as negotiations continue.

The fact they were starting to lose positions around Kyiv and Chernihiv anyway makes this a relatively low-cost concession.

When was this announcement made… are Russian troops actually moving back?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

When was this announcement made… are Russian troops actually moving back?  

20 minutes ago.

 

Quote

"Due to the fact that negotiations over an agreement on Ukraine’s neutrality and non-nuclear status and security guarantees (for Ukraine) are moving into a practical stage, and taking into consideration the principles discussed during today’s meeting, the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation has taken the decision to drastically reduce combat operations in the Kyiv and Chernihiv areas in order to boost mutual trust and create the necessary conditions for further negotiations and for the signing of the aforementioned agreement."

Alexander Fomin, Russia's Deputy Defence Minister
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, broken one said:

All I meant was we cannot absolve Abramovich because - being there and then, doing what he was doing, he most probably knew who he was dealing with.

I really don't think it takes extraordinary foresight to be extra careful when supporting a former intelligence operative taking power.
So yeah, I definitely wouldn't absolve anyone who helped that happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going further, the forces NW of Kyiv are in serious threat of being cut off.  Long narrow spot lines are a big problem in this war.  Retreating there avoid a potential disaster is good military sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

When was this announcement made… are Russian troops actually moving back?  

Apparently yes,

But I'd view this as a military decision that they are just trying to claim credit for as a concession.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Fez said:

Apparently yes,

But I'd view this as a military decision that they are just trying to claim credit for as a concession.

I fear @3CityApache is correct and this is a tactical move to allow the Russians to rearm, reorganize, and resupply before making another push.  

:/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Preparations for any new push in the north will be clearly visible to satellites, and Ukrainians will have time to prepare their defenses. The Battle of Kyiv (at least this one) has been won by the Ukrainians.

On the other hand, concentrating their forces on a single front enables Russians to switch from a mobile warfare with no clear battle lines (at which they suck) into a frontal WWI and WWII-style warfare, which they should be better at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ive read an interesting interview with a Polish volunteer in Ukraine, actually two interviews. He's retired soldier, he set out in the very beginning of the war. Ukrainians took him in at once when he said he knows what to do with RPG and sent him together with Ukrainian soldiers somewhere near Kiyev to ambush Russian convoys.  

Later he moved west to the base in Jaworowo to join other foreigners but did not like the place from the start. It was open, anyone could enter or leave at any time, he slept in tent outside the spot and later at local priest. This way he avoided the bombardment at March 13.

He said he preferred not to join a unit consisting of Georgians or Belarusians, because one may expect Russian agents in such unit. 

Now he is in the east with group of Westerners, they clean villages of Russian marauders. He said Russians steal everything they can and destroy what they cannot steal, even break glass in windows when they leave, also kill civilians, mostly old people who did not escape. They also found corpses seriously mutilated.

He said that most of Westerners fight for free, just for the cause, but some specialists are said to have contracts with Ukrainians and get paid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would it be tactically sound to harass the hell out of them while they retreat in their 'act of good faith'? I mean, they are still fighting a bloody war and it's up in the air whether those negotiations will go anywhere, so those troops would be redeployed to murder people elsewhere. Better kill as many as you can now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Toth said:

Would it be tactically sound to harass the hell out of them while they retreat in their 'act of good faith'? I mean, they are still fighting a bloody war and it's up in the air whether those negotiations will go anywhere, so those troops would be redeployed to murder people elsewhere. Better kill as many as you can now.

I don't know about killing as many as you can, but it would make sense for the Ukrainians to try to prevent them from taking munitions and equipment with them as they retreat.    And that is why the Russians are calling it an "act of good faith" for the peace process, to make the Ukrainians look bad if they attack this "peaceful" retreat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Leofric said:

I don't know about killing as many as you can, but it would make sense for the Ukrainians to try to prevent them from taking munitions and equipment with them as they retreat.    And that is why the Russians are calling it an "act of good faith" for the peace process, to make the Ukrainians look bad if they attack this "peaceful" retreat.

Yeah, I'd be happy with taking all their weapons as well. Sorry for sounding as bloodthirsty, but this push to sell a defeat as a gracious act of kindness just really, really, really pisses me off.

So I guess in my mind the best result would be aggressively going through with the encirclement and making many surrender. I somehow doubt the Russian leadership cares enough for their pawns to do a relief sally if they end up bungling the retreat and have their escape route cut off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Toth said:

Yeah, I'd be happy with taking all their weapons as well. Sorry for sounding as bloodthirsty, but this push to sell a defeat as a gracious act of kindness just really, really, really pisses me off.

So I guess in my mind the best result would be aggressively going through with the encirclement and making many surrender. I somehow doubt the Russian leadership cares enough for their pawns to do a relief sally if they end up bungling the retreat and have their escape route cut off.

I think all involved parties are clear-eyed about Russia, and Ukraine will do whatever is the most tactically sound option for them. They know those forces will be redeployed against them elsewhere, so it's all a question of how much they can punish the retreat without overextending themselves and ending up in a bad spot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Loge said:

The West didn't pay Russia much attention after 9/11. And Putin showed a friendlier attitude.

I am not a fan of John McCain, especially when it comes to foreign/security policy.  However, I think America's perspective on Putin early in his tenure (i.e. during Dubya's presidency) can best be encapsulated by this:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Toth said:

Would it be tactically sound to harass the hell out of them while they retreat in their 'act of good faith'? I mean, they are still fighting a bloody war and it's up in the air whether those negotiations will go anywhere, so those troops would be redeployed to murder people elsewhere. Better kill as many as you can now.

I think if this Russian retreat is just a tactical military retreat, and there was no agreement on the Ukrainian side to give them passage, then I would think they can send them on their way with more 'parting gifts' and not call it a war crime. At the very least they can lay traps that disable more Russian vehicles which can then be retrieved later. That being said, the Ukrainians have been good at conserving their munitions, so maybe they won't do anything extreme.

 

2 hours ago, Gorn said:

On the other hand, concentrating their forces on a single front enables Russians to switch from a mobile warfare with no clear battle lines (at which they suck) into a frontal WWI and WWII-style warfare, which they should be better at.

Unless they actually start supporting their ground forces with effective air strikes, any frontal assault will be met by a barrage of infantry fired rockets that will do the same thing it's done so far, but in one concentrated area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

On the other hand, there was a German business delegation visiting St. Petersburg in 1993(!), there Putin expressed his admiration for Pinochet, and how he viewed him as somme kinda role model. 

That is unfortunate and a definite sign of a sociopath, which explains why Margaret Thatcher also loved Pinochet and even sent him a bottle of Scotch. People who associated with Thatcher don't seem to be suffering the same fate as RA though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...