Jump to content

Ukraine #17: Is There Life on HIMARS?


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

According to a Ukrainian contact, the Russians are trying to assemble a new tank and mechanised corps with around 200 tanks, 400 IFVs and up to 15,000 personnel. This force is being put together in Nizhny Novgorod Oblast, quite far back from the lines. Interesting to see what they plan to do with that, send them to Kharkiv?

Apparently most Russian probing attacks are being mounted by recon forces, with a focus in Izium, but they lack both the strength and artillery support needed.

Edited by Werthead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I’ve been arguing with this repeated application of the Tu Quoque fallacy by Russian apologists since Russia first attacked Ukraine.  

The Russians even used to joke about it.  You’d complain about food shortages in the Soviet Union, to which the response was “In America, they lynch negroes.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The Russians even used to joke about it.  You’d complain about food shortages in the Soviet Union, to which the response was “In America, they lynch negroes.”

The saying is still used in Poland to comment on any kind of whataboutism: "Oh yeah? And you are lynching Negroes!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the inevitability of mobilization from Russia (from a Russian):

https://wartranslated.com/pro-russian-source-on-the-inevitability-of-the-mobilisation-in-russia/

Quote

 

And now the third tipping point is looming. To change the situation in Russia’s favour, it is necessary to move away from the “special operation” which is carried out by the peacetime army (“we haven’t even started anything seriously”) to a total war. This means mobilisation and war time economy mode. Otherwise, you see, many Russians still don’t notice what is happening, and as Putin said they roam around exhibitions while others are sitting in the trenches. I think that if on 15 July the martial law is not imposed, this will happen sooner or later anyway. That’s the logic of things. We are all being slowly sucked into this huge meatgrinder – first the edge of our clothes got stuck, and then boom and echelons of mobilised men are already going to the frontline from across the country.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Wilbur said:

This entire interview with two Ukrainian volunteers is just wild.  Especially at the end where they talk about the Russian infantrymen on drugs.

 

Thank you for sharing that. I am very taken with the main subject's idealism and bravery.

Are they calling Russian soldiers "orcs?" Is it an acronym, some cultural reference I don't get, or is it really a fantasy monster reference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

or is it really a fantasy monster reference?

This seems to be it, from what I can tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KalVsWade said:

On the inevitability of mobilization from Russia (from a Russian):

https://wartranslated.com/pro-russian-source-on-the-inevitability-of-the-mobilisation-in-russia/

 

Anyone have any idea how the Russian public would react to an actual declaration of war and a full mobilization?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Thank you for sharing that. I am very taken with the main subject's idealism and bravery.

Are they calling Russian soldiers "orcs?" Is it an acronym, some cultural reference I don't get, or is it really a fantasy monster reference?

Yes, its about the Tolkien's Orcs, the kill and destroy attitude. The term has become very popular soon after the war started, i think even more popular than the Ruscists.

I met an Ukrainian who called Russians orcs, but did not know what orc was, she had not encountered Tolkien, games etc.. At some point she even asked me about it, but I could not find words. Then she asked if that's some evil spirit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, broken one said:

Yes, its about the Tolkien's Orcs, the kill and destroy attitude. The term has become very popular soon after the war started, i think even more popular than the Ruscists.

I met an Ukrainian who called Russians orcs, but did not know what orc was, she had not encountered Tolkien, games etc.. At some point she even asked me about it, but I could not find words. Then she asked if that's some evil spirit.

They were elves once, then the dark powers took them and consumed them. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Anyone have any idea how the Russian public would react to an actual declaration of war and a full mobilization?

It's hard to get a good answer to this question.  But my best attempt would be that full mobilization means the Russian public is asked to make significantly more sacrifices (in terms of men in uniform/casualties, but also on the homefront).  At the moment the vast majority of the fighting and dying has been done by ethnic minorities far from the richer metropolitan areas of Russia's west.  Mobilization would probably change that, which would carry much greater potential for pushback.  In addition, it doesn't help the economy to be pulling more and more men out of their jobs and into uniform. 

Russia's political machine and propaganda in the Putin era has been focused on keeping the populace disengaged/apathetic.  The Ukraine war has showed signs of going to a more fascist "let's get the people engaged against our enemies" approach, but that is by no means omnipresent.  Russia still tries to instill in everyday citizens the idea that they cannot change things (like the govt).  Russian elites fear activating its citizens politically.

Finally, full mobilization would mean doubling down on this war, and with it, expectations of success.  Russian propagandists insist they are fighting a proxy war with NATO.  If Russia is able to fight NATO to a draw in a Ukrainian special operation, that isn't so bad.  Putin has the flexibility to basically declare victory at any time, and so long as whatever peace eventually gets negotiated isn't too onerous, he can sell it as a win.  If war is declared, he loses that wiggle room.  Putin would then have to achieve significant successes to justify the long term sacrifice of a war.  If Putin declares war+mobilization, then we should absolutely expect this war to go another year, because it will take 8 months to train up significant Russian troops to make any difference in the war, and then several months to see actual battlefield progress.  But there is some question about whether Russia can even sustain this war for 9-12 more months.  The economy could collapse, or Russia could completely run out of modern military equipment like missiles and IFVs that are less than 50 years old. 

Putin is a man who likes keeping his options open.  He has already trapped himself in this Ukraine debacle, and declaring war would pull him further into the mud.  At that point, there's good reason to think that his regime cannot survive anything but victory.  And there's no guarantee a war declaration will achieve that. 

Edited by Maithanet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My take remains the same: the longer the Ukrainian war lasts, the more the discontent will increase in the 'outlying regions' - at all levels. It is at least possible Putin will be faced with some sort of rebellion/revolt in these areas - and not have sufficient internal security to suppress them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, KalVsWade said:

On the inevitability of mobilization from Russia (from a Russian):

https://wartranslated.com/pro-russian-source-on-the-inevitability-of-the-mobilisation-in-russia/

 

I have a problem with the assessment of the March negotiations in Turkey. If Russia had really offered to give up the land corridor in exchange for Ukraine agree to a ceasefire along the 2014 contact lines and halt offensives against them, I suspect Ukraine would have accepted that with alacrity. In fact, Zelensky was saying that was acceptable to him. And the Ukrainian position was that their forces along the contact line were only returning fire, not mounting an offensives.

The problem that led to the collapse of the talks, even before Bucha, was that Russia seemed to want either a ceasefire along the entire borders of Luhansk and Donetsk (i.e. including large sections still in Ukraine at that time, and still are now) or that it wanted formal recognition of their independence (and Crimea) by Ukraine, which was clearly never going to happen. Ukraine agreeing to what was effectively a 15-year transferral of Crimea to Russia (with UN-monitored elections) was already a massive concession.

I suspect that internal Russian propaganda has made out that Russian terms in the talks were incredibly generous and the nasty Ukrainians (and their mean allies) turned them down, and in reality they were not.

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Anyone have any idea how the Russian public would react to an actual declaration of war and a full mobilization?

Russia does not need to declare war and conduct a full mobilisation. It can declare that the special operation has been a resounding success for their friends in Luhansk and they are now reinforcing the operation to achieve a similar success for their friends in Donetsk, and to that end they need to call up a modest number of reservists (say, 30,000).

Russia declaring full mobilisation, putting a million troops into Ukraine and going for broke would put a massive dent in the Russian economy, probably trigger a lot of discontent and is not really necessary at the moment. Also, they probably can't equip or feed them with their current situation.

58 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

To be clear, Russian propaganda has been gearing up since, like, 2012, to militarize the populace and make it popular, especially against places like Ukraine. 

Sort of, but like a lot of things it seems to have been half-arsed. The government seems to have tried to get people passionate and geared up to see Ukraine, NATO etc as opponents (all those weird propaganda books we discussed a couple of months back, for example) but simultaneously they also seem to have been happy making people as apathetic and disengaged from politics as possible, to the extent where spontaneous demonstrations in favour of the war have been shut down by police and the participants arrested. Putin seems fearful of people showing excitement and energy in politics for any reason. He's been paranoid about it since the various springs and the angry, large protests in Russia against him becoming President again, when he really started cracking down on such things. 

55 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

My take remains the same: the longer the Ukrainian war lasts, the more the discontent will increase in the 'outlying regions' - at all levels. It is at least possible Putin will be faced with some sort of rebellion/revolt in these areas - and not have sufficient internal security to suppress them.

Yes, this is a major problem for Moscow and one they are in danger of underestimating. The situation in Chechnya is far less stable than it appears: Kadyrov is playing both ends against the middle, keeping his troops out of the direct fighting and even, according to some reports, seems to be on talking terms with elements whose followers are in Ukraine fighting against the Russians. He has also made it clear that the agreements that effectively ended the war and have kept Chechnya sweet ever since are between him and Putin, not Russia. He is "Putin's infantryman," not Russia's. If he sees an opportunity to break away and become a king in his own right, he may very well be minded to take it, although not unless he has 100% expectation of success. Even if he doesn't, it's entirely possible other elements opposed to him in Chechnya might flare up.

Tatarstan and Dagestan are also not in love with Putin's regime, to put it mildly (Tatarstan is furious after their special legal exemptions from certain Russian laws were ended a few years ago), and both would likely take advantage of reversals in Ukraine and Chechnya to make their own plays.

A disintegration of the Russian Federation is not necessarily a great outcome, though, since it is very unlikely the regime in Moscow would survive such a reversal, and if the regime decides it is under real existential threat (even a situation they have 100% brought about), as in Putin thinks he might end up swinging from a rope in Red Square, and they decide to blame other countries for that, that could become a dicey situation.

I would say a collapse of Russia is not a likely outcome at the moment, but nor is it completely unrealistic. Repeated Soviet military failures in the 1980s and economic turmoil led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem surely is equipping and transporting these milkion soldiers. Not just getting then to Ukraine (which woukd cost a fortune in fuel alone) but in moving them aboit. Surely nowhere near enough APC’s to move around battleground

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

The problem surely is equipping and transporting these milkion soldiers. Not just getting then to Ukraine (which woukd cost a fortune in fuel alone) but in moving them aboit. Surely nowhere near enough APC’s to move around battleground

They can just walk! If it was good enough for the Great Patriotic War*, it's good enough for now!

 

* Ignoring that Russian troops after the start of 1943 mostly drove everywhere in tens of thousands of American-donated trucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

They can just walk! If it was good enough for the Great Patriotic War*, it's good enough for now!

 

* Ignoring that Russian troops after the start of 1943 mostly drove everywhere in tens of thousands of American-donated trucks.

American logistical support of the Soviet effort during the “Great Patriotic War” (WWII) is rarely mentioned in Russian historical discussions I’ve been made to understand…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

American logistical support of the Soviet effort during the “Great Patriotic War” (WWII) is rarely mentioned in Russian historical discussions I’ve been made to understand…

The Russians were, quite rightly, annoyed with the Americans and Brits massively underselling the Soviet contribution to victory in WWII during the Cold War and the occasional American historian who declared that the Soviet success was solely down to US support. However, some Russian sources, especially recently, tend to go the other way and dismiss the American and British contributions as completely pointless and Russia did 99.9% of all the work to beat Hitler, which is likewise inaccurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

The Russians were, quite rightly, annoyed with the Americans and Brits massively underselling the Soviet contribution to victory in WWII during the Cold War and the occasional American historian who declared that the Soviet success was solely down to US support. However, some Russian sources, especially recently, tend to go the other way and dismiss the American and British contributions as completely pointless and Russia did 99.9% of all the work to beat Hitler, which is likewise inaccurate.

This is true to the point that you can look at a lot of heavy trucks "designed" and built in Russia up until the turn of the century and still see the underlying Studebaker US6.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...