Ukraine 13: Pavlov's Bellum

[Werthead]

Analysis of the impact of the war on Russia. The article suggest a large number of high-ranking Kremlin officials believe the war has become a major disaster and, even if able to pull off something that can be sold as a victory, Russia will be many years in rebuilding its military and economy. However, the majority of people with such views are unable to express them and, if they do, Putin has been able to shoot them down. They believe that Putin thinks the economic problems have already been solved even before they hit the situations with proper defaults and other delayed issues.

Interesting side-note that Abramovich still seems to have some limited pull with Putin and has apparently told him that Ukraine will not surrender easily after initially believing it would be a walkover. This may be what caused Putin to pivot to blaming the FSB for intelligence failures.

Having said that, Russian oligarch Oleg Tinkov has publicly called for an end to the war. He is the highest-profile oligarch to call for its end and call it "crazy." Two other high-profile oligarchs have also called for peace, but have not criticised the operation.

Oryx confirming that visually-confirmed Russian heavy equipment losses have surpassed 3,000 items destroyed.

[Gorn]

1 hour ago, broken one said:

I wonder if the "spare parts" were not (among others) NATO MIGs, dismantled after the blooper.

Possible, but Ukraine has literally hundreds of decommissioned Soviet planes in deep storage (a 2011 estimate puts the total number at over 800 for both active and decommissioned). Getting them running is the easiest and least costly way of getting them more planes.

[Darzin]

23 hours ago, Werthead said:

The Tadjik wing of the Taliban has apparently been advocating for an attack on Tajikistan on the grounds that the Russian troops assigned to help defend Tajikistan have been redeployed to Ukraine, leaving the border vulnerable. Apparently this is unlikely to happen,since Tajikistan's own military is still in play and the Taliban are trying not to antagonist Russia, and may even be looking to work with them in some capacity as the Afghan wing of IS steps up attacks across the country (including a possible bombing in Kabul in the last 24 hours).

I wouldn't be very confident in the Tajik military resisting any kind of attack at all. Compared to them Russian recruitment is a dream. The Tajik military doesn't bother with draft cards or enticing impoverished minorities rather they hire  impressment gangs who drive around vans and trucks and abduct young men off the street. During the draft season you'll see noticibly less young men around as they are in hiding. I  wouldn't expect an army based around random kidnapping to fight with any realistic vigor. What's more even by Central Asian standard the Tajik army is porrly equiped Kyrgyzstan which has a similar population and economy has significantly more equipment. The Taliban have the edge in numbers, morale, leadership and realistically kit as well. So I don't think the Tajik military would trouble them much. 

I agree it's unlikely though because the Taliban seem to be stepping too carefully to invade another country. I suspect some Islamic renessiance die hards are pitching the idea as the Russians who made a significant difference during the civil war. 

[Werthead]

Russia has tested a new ICBM, launching it from the far north-west of Russia and apparently landing on target in Kamchatka.

Simultaneously, Putin appeared on TV and seemed to back other recent claims that Russia is now exclusively focusing on Donbas alone and wishes only to "liberate" it.

[Maithanet]

There are reports from Ukrainian sources that the Russians plan to impress people from captured areas like Kherson into the military to fight against the Ukrainian army. 

While that was a classic tactic of Genghis Khan, I don't see that working well for the Russian army.  Even assuming these troops would be given only rudimentary weapons and training, you have to assume those troops will surrender at the first possible opportunity, and quite possibly join the UA.  Training and arming the enemy to fight against you is not a good strategy.  I know that they have been doing this in the seperatist districts, but those at least have been under Russian control for 8 years, rather than 8 weeks.  And even still, those Donetsk/Lunhansk troops have been performing terribly in combat.  Perhaps they could use those unreliable troops in areas far from combat (garrisoning Crimea or something) but if they are needed to do any actual fighting, Russia will be sorely disappointed. 

This seems like such a bad idea that I wonder if this is just Ukrainian propaganda. 

[Werthead]

38 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

There are reports from Ukrainian sources that the Russians plan to impress people from captured areas like Kherson into the military to fight against the Ukrainian army. 

While that was a classic tactic of Genghis Khan, I don't see that working well for the Russian army.  Even assuming these troops would be given only rudimentary weapons and training, you have to assume those troops will surrender at the first possible opportunity, and quite possibly join the UA.  Training and arming the enemy to fight against you is not a good strategy.  I know that they have been doing this in the seperatist districts, but those at least have been under Russian control for 8 years, rather than 8 weeks.  And even still, those Donetsk/Lunhansk troops have been performing terribly in combat.  Perhaps they could use those unreliable troops in areas far from combat (garrisoning Crimea or something) but if they are needed to do any actual fighting, Russia will be sorely disappointed. 

This seems like such a bad idea that I wonder if this is just Ukrainian propaganda. 

That's just odd. That only really works when you have people in the actual area who are already your supporters. So in Donbas that worked because there was a strong pro-Russian faction present, ready to fight for Russia to improve their power in the region. In Kherson that doesn't work because it was never particularly pro-Russian in the first place, and is even less so now.

I saw an interesting survey earlier today where they took a head count in both the Ukrainian and Russian-held areas of Donbas and, whilst acknowledging the problems of Russian-based bias in that area, they still found a clear majority wanted even the currently Russian-held areas of Donbas wanted to be part of Ukraine (some with a special autonomous status, others not). Assuming that a lot of people would have been too scared to answer honestly, that's quite striking.

[Zorral]

 

[Werthead]

The United States has said the ICBM test by Russia was not a surprise and it was properly notified some time ago as under the provisions of existing US-Russia treaties. It looks like Russia did take the required steps not to alarm the US and NATO with an unscheduled launch.

In fact, this test was supposed to happen in 2015 and has been repeatedly delayed (most recently due to COVID but before that technical issues).

[Arakasi]

After years of being the state that promotes hacking and data breaches it looks like Russia and it’s agencies are massively under attack.

 

[Werthead]

The USA has clarified that no NATO member has sent whole planes to Ukraine, only parts and supplies.

[Corvinus85]

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

 

Prepping for more saber rattling against Sweden and Finland?

[HoodedCrow]

Hackers are probably able to read international news.

[Zorral]

45 minutes ago, Corvinus85 said:

Prepping for more saber rattling against Sweden and Finland?

Probably more because the historical facts of the Rus -- an eclectic mix of Nords -- settling and naming Rus -- which means Ukraine -- cuts so sharply across his non-factual historical argument that Ukraine has always been RUSSIAN, i.e the property of the Russia long before even the tsars (evidently long long long prior to the annexing of Crimea for Russia by Catherine the Great's general, about which she sponsored many great state spectacles in celebration, none more spectacular than the staged months long journey of she and the court in winter from Petersburg to Crimea to show herself to her new people), thus Ukraine is the heartland of the Real Russia, the Big Russia, even before the soviet era of all those other "little Russias" which since boke away after the soviet empire dissolved.

Quote

 

The Rus' people (Old East Slavic: Рѹсь; Modern Belarusian, Russian, Rusyn, and Ukrainian: Русь, romanised: Rus'; Old Norse: Garðar; Greek: Ῥῶς, romanised: Rhos) were an ethnos in early medieval eastern Europe. The scholarly consensus holds that they were originally Norse people, mainly originating from present-day Sweden, settling and ruling along the river-routes between the Baltic and the Black Seas from around the 8th to 11th centuries AD. They formed a state known in modern historiography as Kievan Rus', which was initially a multiethnic society where the ruling Norsemen merged and assimilated with Slavic, Baltic and Finnic tribes, ending up with Old East Slavic as their common language. The elite of Kievan Rus' was still familiar with Old Norse until their assimilation by the second half of the 11th century,^[1] and in rural areas vestiges of Norse culture lingered as long as the 14th and early 15th centuries.^[1]

The history of the Rus' is central to 9th through 10th-century state formation, and thus national origins, in eastern Europe. They ultimately gave their name to Russia and Belarus, and they are relevant to the national histories of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. Because of this importance, there is a set of alternative so-called "Anti-Normanist" views that are largely confined to a minor group of East European scholars.

 

Quote

Little Russia, also known in English as Malorussia, Little Rus' and Rus' Minor, is a historical non-native name for Ukraine. The first use of such names has been attributed to Bolesław-Jerzy II, ruler of Ruthenia and Galicia-Volhynia, who in 1335 signed his decrees Dux totius Russiæ minoris

 

[Gorn]

25 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Probably more because the historical facts of the Rus -- an eclectic mix of Nords -- settling and naming Rus -- which means Ukraine -- cuts so sharply across his non-factual historical argument that Ukraine has always been RUSSIAN, i.e the property of the Russia long before even the tsars (evidently long long long prior to the annexing of Crimea for Russia by Catherine the Great's general, about which she sponsored many great state spectacles in celebration, none more spectacular than the staged months long journey of she and the court in winter from Petersburg to Crimea to show herself to her new people), thus Ukraine is the heartland of the Real Russia, the Big Russia, even before the soviet era of all those other "little Russias" which since boke away after the soviet empire dissolved.

Ironically, Catherine the Great was German. In fact, due to pretty much exclusively marrying German spouses, the entire Romanov dynasty after mid-18th century was ethnically German.

Russia was ruled by non-ethnic Russians from Peter the Great until Andropov in 1980s (Stalin was Georgian, Khrushchev and Brezhnev were Ukrainian), except for a brief interlude while Lenin was at the helm, which must sting Russian nationalists pretty fiercely.

[Werthead]

18 minutes ago, Gorn said:

Russia was ruled by non-ethnic Russians from Peter the Great until Andropov in 1980s (Stalin was Georgian, Khrushchev and Brezhnev were Ukrainian), except for a brief interlude while Lenin was at the helm, which must sting Russian nationalists pretty fiercely.

Khruschev was raised in the Donbas, but was technically Russian: he was born in Kaliovka, which was (and is) 7 miles from the border on the Russian side. Although he did refer to himself as Ukrainian several times, I believe. That technicality does allow Russian nationalists to claim him as one of their own (just), though it can get heated.

[Zorral]

35 minutes ago, Gorn said:

Ironically, Catherine the Great was German. In fact, due to pretty much exclusively marrying German spouses, the entire Romanov dynasty after mid-18th century was ethnically German

That's right!  But let us never allow the historical facts obscure history!

[Werthead]

Ukraine has indicated that it is willing to hold talks with Russia that might include surrendering Mariupol with the entire military and civilian population allowed to leave. In return, Ukraine has indicated it is willing to discuss a very large Russian prisoner swap. Ukraine and Russia conducted a successful large prisoner exchange yesterday.

Interesting offer, if it gives Russia a win in Mariupol without further effort and also potentially returns thousands of captured Russian soldiers to them. They won't be happy about Mariupol's defenders escaping, but maybe its worthwhile for them to consider.

[Toth]

If this turns out to be true, it's at least some relief: https://ukranews.com/en/news/851256-germany-will-train-ukrainian-military-to-use-heavy-artillery-and-provide-ammunition-for-it-media

So Germany may soon start training Ukrainians in PzH 2000s, but the vehicles themselves will be Dutch. Well, one step at a time I guess...

[Maithanet]

30 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Ukraine has indicated that it is willing to hold talks with Russia that might include surrendering Mariupol with the entire military and civilian population allowed to leave. In return, Ukraine has indicated it is willing to discuss a very large Russian prisoner swap. Ukraine and Russia conducted a successful large prisoner exchange yesterday.

Interesting offer, if it gives Russia a win in Mariupol without further effort and also potentially returns thousands of captured Russian soldiers to them. They won't be happy about Mariupol's defenders escaping, but maybe its worthwhile for them to consider.

That is a great deal for Russia unless they specifically need to eliminate the Azov battalion for PR reasons.  Even then, Russia could quite accurately declare that the unit has been destroyed, even if a few members survive. 

I hope they take that deal, but they probably won't. 

[SpaceChampion]

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

Probably more because the historical facts of the Rus -- an eclectic mix of Nords -- settling and naming Rus -- which means Ukraine -- cuts so sharply across his non-factual historical argument that Ukraine has always been RUSSIAN, i.e the property of the Russia long before even the tsars (evidently long long long prior to the annexing of Crimea for Russia by Catherine the Great's general, about which she sponsored many great state spectacles in celebration, none more spectacular than the staged months long journey of she and the court in winter from Petersburg to Crimea to show herself to her new people), thus Ukraine is the heartland of the Real Russia, the Big Russia, even before the soviet era of all those other "little Russias" which since boke away after the soviet empire dissolved.

That thread roll from Galeev linked to earlier was about how the concept of Russian was not about ethnicity at all, but religion.  Dozens of different groups were called "Russian" because their Eastern Slavonic Orthodox church all used the same "Old Church Slavonic" language by their priests, like how Catholics use Latin, and Islam uses Classical Arabic.  The priest caste of any religion uses obscure dead languages to keep their memetic influence from being diluted from the languages used by anyone alive. 

It's like claiming all Spaniards, French, English etc (before Protestantism) are all Romans, and Italy justifying centuries of conquest on that basis, despite well all of history before and after the Roman Empire.