Yes, a Ukrainian scholar in Ukrainian and Russian wars with an impressive coterie of publications and institutional affiliations. I'm sure you know more than he does. His son is also not currently in the city of Mariupol being laid siege by Russians, so this means he's likely a Russian propagandist in the alternative reality some live in (italic for sarcasm here). This trend of sabotaging the person because you dislike their analysis for whatever biased reason needs to stop. It's becoming ludicrous.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
I've no idea who he is but that makes his opinions even more strange, stand by my comments.
edit: I suppose if he has a child in Mariupol he would be desperate for any kind of peace deal so might explain his focus.
Really don't get this part. He's not some sort of real-time OSINT analyst.
That's fair play. If there were any civvies in that mall then they were not thinking straight.
I think his factual comments all stand up. Bear in mind, he's translating Ukrainian into English so sometimes you see rough sentences. Or if you've heard him speak, you'll understand.
No, but check his feed. I've been following the NYT tracker for weeks and he's typically been ahead of it. Their map seems to mirror his reporting in places. Other than that, he clearly knows the material inside and out. No one has a live real-time feed unless you're in the military command, which is my point. Outside of that scenario to which none of us will be privy people like this are your next best thing. There are a couple dozen of them with the experience and expertise and some who are well positioned. Typically more informed than mainstream reporters who might break some story first but only after relaying so much crap before it, which is the price of access.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Can't imagine how a Russian drone would lose its datalink.
Well if the Iranians can pull it off..Can't imagine how a Russian drone would lose its datalink.
According to this article, the Kadyrovtsy act as anti-retreat forces for Russian troops near Kyiv. They have orders to shoot their own front-line troops, which avoid fighting with the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
https://en.lb.ua/news/2022/03/11/10705_kadyrovtsy_act_antiretreat.html
https://en.lb.ua/news/2022/03/11/10705_kadyrovtsy_act_antiretreat.html
Well, historically, that tracks.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
And here I was thinking the Chechens were spending their days standing around making IG videos to the tune of ISIS hymns.
Last edited:
Why Can’t the West Admit That Ukraine Is Winning?
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/03/ukraine-is-winning-war-russia/627121/
A sample extract:
"... most modern militaries rely on a strong cadre of noncommissioned officers. Sergeants make sure that vehicles are maintained and exercise leadership in squad tactics. The Russian NCO corps is today, as it has always been, both weak and corrupt. And without capable NCOs, even large numbers of technologically sophisticated vehicles deployed according to a compelling doctrine will end up broken or abandoned, and troops will succumb to ambushes or break under fire.
... Russian losses are staggering—between 7,000 and 14,000 soldiers dead, depending on your source, which implies (using a low-end rule of thumb about the ratios of such things) a minimum of nearly 30,000 taken off the battlefield by wounds, capture, or disappearance. Such a total would represent at least 15 percent of the entire invading force, enough to render most units combat ineffective. And there is no reason to think that the rate of loss is abating—in fact, Western intelligence agencies are briefing unsustainable Russian casualty rates of a thousand a day.
... The 1-to-1 ratio of vehicles destroyed to those captured or abandoned bespeaks an army that is unwilling to fight."
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/03/ukraine-is-winning-war-russia/627121/
A sample extract:
"... most modern militaries rely on a strong cadre of noncommissioned officers. Sergeants make sure that vehicles are maintained and exercise leadership in squad tactics. The Russian NCO corps is today, as it has always been, both weak and corrupt. And without capable NCOs, even large numbers of technologically sophisticated vehicles deployed according to a compelling doctrine will end up broken or abandoned, and troops will succumb to ambushes or break under fire.
... Russian losses are staggering—between 7,000 and 14,000 soldiers dead, depending on your source, which implies (using a low-end rule of thumb about the ratios of such things) a minimum of nearly 30,000 taken off the battlefield by wounds, capture, or disappearance. Such a total would represent at least 15 percent of the entire invading force, enough to render most units combat ineffective. And there is no reason to think that the rate of loss is abating—in fact, Western intelligence agencies are briefing unsustainable Russian casualty rates of a thousand a day.
... The 1-to-1 ratio of vehicles destroyed to those captured or abandoned bespeaks an army that is unwilling to fight."
Last edited:
Recently I can't read articles from the Atlantic on my phone. I open the link and I see a header, but literally no body text. And I can't scroll.
The responsibility of taking tactical initiative can fall to either NCOs or junior officers, but what it can't do is fall to neither.
I've edited the post to include a few sample extracts:
"... most modern militaries rely on a strong cadre of noncommissioned officers. Sergeants make sure that vehicles are maintained and exercise leadership in squad tactics. The Russian NCO corps is today, as it has always been, both weak and corrupt. And without capable NCOs, even large numbers of technologically sophisticated vehicles deployed according to a compelling doctrine will end up broken or abandoned, and troops will succumb to ambushes or break under fire.
... Russian losses are staggering—between 7,000 and 14,000 soldiers dead, depending on your source, which implies (using a low-end rule of thumb about the ratios of such things) a minimum of nearly 30,000 taken off the battlefield by wounds, capture, or disappearance. Such a total would represent at least 15 percent of the entire invading force, enough to render most units combat ineffective. And there is no reason to think that the rate of loss is abating—in fact, Western intelligence agencies are briefing unsustainable Russian casualty rates of a thousand a day.
... The 1-to-1 ratio of vehicles destroyed to those captured or abandoned bespeaks an army that is unwilling to fight."
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Solid article
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Might upset Vlad.
Curiously enough, I don't trust fully Biden on this. Could be, but doesn't make sense because cruise missiles and short range ballistic missiles had seemed to be hitting targets in prior weeks. I also think in general (and I've mentioned this before) that he's not very disciplined when it comes to messaging. He's probably been briefed on what the military knows and doesn't know about this strike, but the official line so far had been that they were unable to confirm or deny.
We've seen a lot of estimates about Russian losses, but I wonder what Ukrainian (military/paramilitary) losses are like. Presumably... higher?
They're already up and have been since the invasion began. Now, that may be due to other threat actors taking the opportunity during a crisis but yeah, I've assumed the west has been under massive cyber attack since this started.
https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2022/03/16/658336.htm
No, presumably lower. Attackers usually suffer higher losses than defenders. Plus the Ukrainians know the terrain better and won't be suffering re-supply issues to the same degree as the Russians.
Also, from what I've read, the average Ukrainian soldier is better trained - and led more ably - than their Russian counterparts.
The IT guy at my law firm also works as a security expert for ATOS (big cybersecurity company in western europe) and yeah, he's been pretty busy for the past months but he told me that nothing too serious has showed up so far.
So the Russians don’t have an NCO corps and also don’t have a commanding General who is responsible for the whole campaign. No wonder they’re making it up as they go.
No, much lower at least in the military. They have advantage of defence , it is said around 10-1 as a rule of thumb, although I am not sure for what type of force parity this usually pertains to.
That part has been echoed yesterday by Gen. David Petraeus when he made the last point to Jake Tapper on how and why 5 Russian generals have been picked off thus far in less than a month.
The most interesting comment on Youtube brought up an interesting point that explains the stark contrast between American/Western-inspired military and Russian military:
"The death of the generals is amplified by the lack of self direction identified in the lower ranks. That is the opposite of what one German general observed about American soldiers: he found them one and all to believe they were the next General Patton, and that the old military ploy of killing the leaders didn't work the same with American soldiers. The Russian front line personnel lack any knowledge of the overall strategies involved or overall goals of the campaign. They also have no way of honestly conveying what they are seeing on the battle field to the command level personnel because they have been taught that 'thinking wrong' will get them punished."
Last edited:
Wut? Come on, that must must be just an internet meme.
Is the commander Putin from a work PC, with Command & Conquer: Red Alert loaded and simulating the war?
Last edited:
According to reports, it appears that there are independent commanders for each front/theater rather than an overarching commander.
True, but there's always the question of firepower.
I just fear we're making some wildly optimistic assumptions that are going to confuse us when dispelled.
Well it definitely won't be Command & Conquer, where Russia has joined the GDI (basically Nato).
Even worse, apparently many of the troops didn't even know - weren't told - that they were being sent to invade Ukraine. They initially thought that everything was just a continuation of the training exercises they were on.
I mean so long as these guys are all in a room and taking decisions collectively while redistributing their assets based on changing circumstances on the battlefield then it's fine. If they are in silos taking decisions individually and potentially even competing against each other to ingratiate themselves to uncle Vlad, then god help them.
No historian but I think that's how they worked in WW2, although whether that was to stimulate the commanders to compete against each other to become the most successful, or whether it was to prevent a great commander from taking all the credit and becoming a threat to the leader, or a combination of both, I'm not sure.
You're right that the Russians have a big advantage in firepower, although this will diminish with time because ever-more sophisticated weapons are being funnelled into Ukrainian hands. Also, it's not clear how rapidly the Russians are using up their stocks of missiles (etc) - e.g. some reports suggest that up to half of their entire stock of Cruise missiles have already been fired.
Overall, superior fire-power only takes you so far. It doesn't occupy and hold ground, nor protect re-supply roots. For these you need boots on the ground - and Russia is depleting their boots at an astonishing rate.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Except the French defeat wasn’t that though, it was a well fortified position with minefields, mounted artillery, salients, the lot. Hard to see the Ukrainians achieving a similar outcome if Russians are dug in and well entrenched.
Feck me this is hard to watch.
Russia can never win this war, even if they occupy the whole of Ukraine, too much bad blood. This will never be forgiven.