The troll got a week ban. I don't mind posting contrary or heterodox views but don't SPAM the same thing 100 times such that you turn the comments section into a cesspit (which was his goal, I presume as destabilization/saboteur agent). I'll give him a chance to come back, if he repeats the behavior then perma ban
Reliance on excessive "technology and logistics" are indeed a hindrance in war. The U.S. has only been successful in warfare against third world countries.
The idea that "Russia is basically out of armor and artillery at this point" is demonstrably, and comically, false.
"Russia is basically out of armor and artillery at this point."
It seems Russia has been "out of artillery" every other week for the last year.
In the meantime, Biden has returned to the US & all of Ukraine is under air alert yet again. And Russia just took out a couple more HIMARs (launchers, not just the missiles, altho a coue missiles to). And is pretty much lighting up the entire front line.
Face it. The only ones running out of weapons & ammo is NATO. And it will take them years to get production up to levels useful for anything beyond further enriching Lockheed Martin & Raytheon, etal. That's assuming they're able to fulfill contracts at all in the face of loss of energy sources, critical rare materials & outsourced components.
Near-autarky Russia has been producing as they go, and only just recently supplementing with drones from Iran & possibly something from Korea as they further increase
relationships to build their vision of a multipolar world.
US is toast. It just doesn't realize it yet. But eventually, too-clever-by-a-half Wile E Coyote will look down & crash & burn. As it is written.
Nowhere in the article is it even remotely claimed that technology and logistics are a hindrance in war, on the contrary.
This poster is trying to move the goalposts and change the debate by inserting fallacious claims about the article, which is the go-to tactic of (paid) trolls.
I gave him a week ban (next time permaban) not because he has contrary views which I'm open about, but because the troll continued to spam it over and over so many times that it threatens to devolve the entire comments section into a cesspool of bickering (which was his goal I'm sure, as saboteur/destabilization agent)
It's a tricky balance to pull off, keeping an open mind for different viewpoints versus keeping the trolls out who are only out to sow discord. Normally I just ignore them, but here he tried to push rather blatantly an opposite claim of what you were posting, and people were, to some degree, falling for it. That annoyed me considerably. Hence to response.
Some trolls are easy to spot, but others, the 'professional' kind, are a lot more insidious. They shift the debate and try to insert baseless accusations, this can be very hard to spot though. Remember a couple of posts of yours ago some commenter (Sai something or other) replied regarding the battle at Ugledar? He claimed that the 'poor results' (which itself is debatable, but a fair to point to argue over) of the Russian there was due to poor leadership (again something you could argue over), but then he added the bit that that leadership was using the naval infantry there as 'cannon fodder'. That set my alarm bell off. Because that's right out of the troll's playbook; put forward fairly debatable points, but then add highly emotive and unsubstantiated elements. And those points, the 'cannon fodder' bit here, then tend to stick with people. That's when I called him out on that back then. Unsurprisingly, he hasn't replied to me.
I've seen this type of behaviour and methodology many times over in discussion fora. It's the same general script every time. Be alert for highly emotive but unsubstantiated words mixed in with seemingly fair arguments. It's one tactic of how they try to shift the debate, by setting the assumptions they want to insert as the basis for further discussion. Like trying to turn the notion of the naval infantry being used as 'cannon fodder' as a fact. And they rarely, if ever, come up with arguments if you call them out on it.
Yep, it's never a good feeling to ban someone because you always end up feeling like "you've turned into one of THEM" i.e. the liberal censorship loving, cancel-culture snowflakes and so I hate having to 'silence' people. But as you said there's a certain red line that gets crossed when it becomes apparent that the person is not simply making an argument or participating in debate, but is acting as an outright saboteur agent whose purpose by way of the famous CIA playbook from the 1940's is to instigate as much chaos and irritation as possible. These types of people hate our new 'spaces' that the resistance sphere have found and created for ourselves, places like substack, bitchute etc which are away from the globalist monopoly of the Big Tech octopus who controls everything. They hate that they can't silence or censor us so they come after us in OUR spaces and try hard as they might to create destabilization, distortion, resentment amongst ourselves (instigating fights and arguments amongst us etc).
So once I start feeling like the person is veering in that direction, I have no choice but to ban them because I won't let the experience of thousands of well-intentioned people by ruined by the targeted/focused agitation of a professional agitator/agent-provocateur sitting in some slimy SBU cubicle beneath Kiev or Langley
I saw some of your recent replies to these 'agents provocateur', looks like I needn't have worried. But, they also try to monopolise people's time, by leading them onto pointless avenues of debate, detracting from the time you could be spending productively elsewhere with others.
It's another balancing act. I guess it's another iteration of the tolerance paradox; 'how can you remain tolerant when faced with the antics of the intolerant'?
Exactly. I had to ban the recent provocateur today because he already wasted several hours of my time when I had been planning to start a new article in a critical few hours that I had free. So his mission had already been accomplished today, but now I'm wiser to how they operate
There will always be individual instances of failure, sometimes catastrophic and large. Russia is not perfect and all current systems are complex (it's more a matter of "level of complexity").
The important thing to note here is that the Russian armed forces operate upon very different assumptions than their Western counterparts. This is clearly displayed by the West's surprise and alarm at the "scale" of the conflict. It's also notable that the Russians have had to make adjustments to how they were fighting the war as well in spite of the fact that their military system is much more flexible than the West's. The scale and variability of truly modern warfare--between peers, not the one-sided conflicts the U.S. has fought in the past 50-odd years--is something that has clearly surprised the participants.
This may be true. But the same can be said for a direct confrontation between German and British armies or German and American armies. Britain's only successful camaign against the Germans in WWII was in North Africa.
Also Italy and the clearing out of Northern France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Northern Germany. Ever heard of General Montgomery? My uncle was killed at Monte Cassino, and he was English. The Canadians took Altoona. Look it up.
Who ran every convoy to Murmansk with both British and American war materiel? The Royal Navy. No Americans involved.
Who came up with the idea of making rubber, canvas and wood tanks and artillery to fool the Germans' reconnaisance flights as to where Patton's troop were located in England before D Day? Hint it wasn't Eisenhower and the mystical Patton. Who made the decoys? The British.
Americans think entirely too much of themselves, and believe the horse manure shovelled out by their leaders. From the way Americans (the johnny-come-lately entrant into both WW1 and 2) claim they won things singlehandedly, it's a bad joke of pure nonsense. How many heavy bombers did Britain turn out? You know, Lancasters, Halifaxes and Stirlings? You probably never heard of them. And the Lancasters were far superior bombers to B17s and fragile B24s. Plus they didn't need a crew-member agonizing over the optimization of the mixture and boost of the engines, an American anachronism. The British planes were much simpler to fly, and considering the subject matter of this post, more Russian in outlook than having a team of grunts using a $79 Harbor Freight pulley and tackle to load HIMARS. What an eye-opener that video is!
I've become accustomed in my 75 years to hearing Americans boasting about how they won the wars, blah blah, blah. Yeah sure, and what? The British were sitting on their rear ends sewing socks in thatched houses? Ditto the Canadians and ANZACs? American hubris is just that, hubris plus a giant dollop of Madison Avenue and Hollywood BS and hype.
The Russians won the land war in Europe, and by a country mile, whatever Patton's and Montgomerty's delusions of grandeur were afterwards. If the Germans hadn't have had Red Army hordes beating them to death in their east, they would have turfed the D Day invasion back into the English Channel with ease.
Rewriting history with glaring omissions seems to me to be a peculiarly American sport. And lapped up by a populace too incurious to even want to know the truth. They'd rather thump their patriotic chests. Tell me -- how's the US-backed Ukrainian government doing these days against Russia? The Americans excel at beating a dead horse trying to revive it. Shades of the petshop owner in a Monty Python sketch who nailed the dead parrot's feet to its perch and sold it as a live-going concern to a credulous buyer.
You're entitled to be annoyed with Americans, but get your facts straight: My uncle, an American merchant marine, served on the sealift to Murmansk. Ships were being blown up right and left. That turned him into an alcoholic.
American aircraft carrier groups are only good for bullying 3rd world countries. Park them off of the coast of some African or middle east country and bomb them to kingdom come. But try that sort of thing with Russia and China.... they are going down ! Aircraft carriers are obsolete when fighting near peer rivals. Same vulnerabilities as the Moskva courtesy of ISR and hypersonic missiles.
Prior to the 1971 Indo-Pak war, the Pakis were genociding Banglas in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) after they militarily overthrew the government and imprisoned its leader. India intervened after the Paki morons who were murdering civilians with impunity for 8 months, decided to bomb the Indian Airforce base in West Bengal thus giving India the legitimacy to war.
The Americans under Nixon as well as their British dogs threatened India of dire consequences of interfering in the genocide. Nixon sent the 7th Fleet (USS Enterprise) into the Bay of Bengal while the Brits sent theirs into the Arabian Sea. They even asked the Chinese to open another front against India, but the Chinese refused.
This so-called Superpower backed out after the Soviet Union sent 3 destroyers, 2 frigates and 6 nuclear submarines to India's aid.
The rest is history. Pakistan Army capitulated pretty quickly within weeks and signed the dotted line. Bangladesh gained Independence.
If you are still deluding yourself about US supremacy over all oceans, I've got a red pill to sell you.
Forget facing Russia. Can the US deal with China in a war?
You do realise that the russians lost more soldiers în the battle of Stalingrad that the USA lost în all it s wars, including the civil war? How would have the USA had performed if 5 milion germans would have marched from Canada?
>Soviets had a lot of people and equipment and information about the German preparations and still allowed themselves to get taken by surprise...
The Red Army in 1941 was in the process of rearmament and reorganization. These processes were to be completed around 1943, for the fleet in 1945-50. So Hitler caught the Red Army with their pants off. In fact, all Stalin could do was press the "Mobilization" button, and/or send more troops to the border with the Germans.
But the Russians, traditionally, seem to have too much faith in treaties with the Europeans. The Soviets were waiting for a some sort of prelude, like a "Phoney War" on the Western Front in 1939-1940.
>Even later in the war, during the battle of Stalingrad you mention, they often sent their men into certain death with little chance of success... The Americans would not do that.
But that's exactly what the Americans did at the Battle of Hürtgen Forest.
Purges were among the top ten problems, but not even in the first five. Increasing the size of the army by 3+ times invariantly brings disorder. Tukhachevsky lost to the Poles, and Blucher lost to the Japanese, so it's not a big loss. Also, on the example of Rokossovsky, repression did not always mean death and even dismissal.
>Still, they had a lot of assets in the West and almost two years to study German tactics and prepare.
Stalin had no observers in the German troops. The Soviets received the first documents on German tank troops in 1941, when they seized the staff documents of one and the panzer divisions.
>Hürtgen Forest was a difficult battle and Wehrmacht was a better army than the American IMO...
OK, the Yankees also lost to the Japanese army in the Philippines 1941-1942. As you say, "they had a lot of assets in the East and almost four years to study Japanese tactics and prepare."
>but I think the Soviets would have many more losses in the same situation...
It doesn't matter.What matters is that the Americans threw their soldiers into the meat grinder, just like everyone else.
In the end you lost though, so all your whining means little as your arguments have been proven wrong by history. Your side lost, and the USSR prevailed
Most of the German military was tied down in the USSR while millions of Japanese soldiers had been mired in China since 1937.
The only forces we faced were the remaining Nazis in Europe and the Japanese Navy (who made a costly mistake at Midway) and the Japanese Marines on some Pacific Islands.
You're are dead wrong about this false premise that "without Western help, the Soviets would have been defeated". It's a nice fantasy by butthurt Americans to pass down to their children and grand children. But unbiased military historians such as David M. Glantz and Jonathan House have already documented and pointed out that even without Western support, the Soviets would still have beaten the German Wehrmacht, but it would have taken a bit longer (12-18 months).
I'll paste my comment from above for the fake narrative about 'western help'
"'western military logistics/help' actually did nothing whatsoever for USSR in WW2. I already covered this in previous post, but Lend Lease was not even signed til September of 1941 and by the end of '41, only 2% of Lend Lease funds (negligible amount) had come in, by 1942 it was about another 5-7%, and only in 1943 did it begin kicking in with a significant and noticeable amount. But the problem is, by winter of '41 in battle of moscow, the Soviets had already broken the German army's back and began pushing them back. So the war was essentially already won by the USSR single handedly LONG before Lend Lease had any effect or even trickled into the country."
Here's the proof: https://i.imgur.com/W9tPksz.png - as per wikipedia. Notice that lend lease assistance to USSR in 1941 amounted to a negligible and insignificant 2%. By 1942 itkicked up to a still low 14% and didn't begin to actually start coming in heavily and noticeably until 1943. The problem is by 'battle of moscow' in december 1941, the USSR had already broken the German army's back and sent them retreating, at which point the war was already essentially over anyway as USSR had the initiative from that point on and Germany suffered their first true defeat from which it never recovered. All without any lend lease help. So this narrative that USSR couldn't win without allied assistance is of coursefraudulent.
I'm not sure if your first comment was sarcasm or serious, but yes the Admiral Kuznetsov would single handedly destroy an entire carrier fleet. You see unlike U.S. carriers which don't actually have armaments of their own, the Kuznetsov is not even officially designated as a aircraft carrier but rather "Heavy Aircraft CRUISER" in Russian designation. The term Cruiser signifies the fact that it's basically an aircraft carrier mixed with the firepower of a heavy cruiser like the Moskva. This is because the Kuznetsov has a vast array of offensive weaponry unlike any western aircraft carriers, it can launch P800 anti-ship missiles and many other things. So yes the Kuznetsov would obliterate any U.S. aircraft carrier in a head to head duel, as they have zero armaments.
2ndly, 'western military logistics/help' actually did nothing whatsoever for USSR in WW2. I already covered this in previous post, but Lend Lease was not even signed til September of 1941 and by the end of '41, only 2% of Lend Lease funds (negligible amount) had come in, by 1942 it was about another 5-7%, and only in 1943 did it begin kicking in with a significant and noticeable amount. But the problem is, by winter of '41 in battle of moscow, the Soviets had already broken the German army's back and began pushing them back. So the war was essentially already won by the USSR single handedly LONG before Lend Lease had any effect or even trickled into the country. So once again, you continue to be wrong.
You can play semantic games if you want but that doesn't change that Kuznetsov is armed to the teeth and your carrier is not. Your original question was asking whether Kuznetsov can destroy a U.S. carrier, so the answer is YES it absolutely would, but you attempted to deflect with semantics games.
Like I said, none of the production stuff you claim even began to trickle in in any number until the USSR had already LONG practically defeated Germany and broken its back. Numbers don't lie: https://i.imgur.com/8LZLYLK.png
2% given to USSR in 1941, and only 14% in 1942? You've got to be joking.
400,000 trucks but conveniently leave out the fact that the vast majority didn't come til almost the end of the war when the USSR needed them for the final push to move forward into Germany. But the German army had already been broken and devastated long before that.
Same goes for the rest of your numbers. You give just absolute numbers (most of which are wrong anyway) but you very sneakily and conveniently refuse to post WHEN those percentages showed up, which shows your absolute disingenuousness in argument.
Now, after having destroyed your flimsy argument. I'm going to ask you only ONE time, why are you here on this blog? I've written elsewhere that I'm a free speech absolutist, and hate blocking people simply for heterodox views which I don't care if you have them. You can see my bitchute channel which has tons of anti-Russian stuff posted and I let it all go.
However, there is a red line that's crossed when a poster clearly and unquestionably begins to have the character of an agent-provocateur whose SOLE and ONLY job is to stir up agitation in order to destabilize and disharmonize our space.
You are starting to look like that type of person because, not only is the sheer posting volume indicative of someone hellbent on spamming their propaganda in a way as to flood the boards and drown out the actual reasonable voices, but out of the dozens of posts you're spamming out like a paid agent, not a single one has been either even about the topic at hand in the reports, or in any other way indicative of an impartial or nonpartisan position. You clearly seem to hate Russia and are here to spread negative, false, propaganda about it. However, even THAT I would normally be dismissive of, but not when it begins to attain "spam" levels of volume that starts clogging the actual intelligent debates and conversations otherwise happening here.
So again, I'll ask you one time, what is your real purpose here, and what are you trying to attain by being here? If you disagree with every single one of my views, why are you reading my blog and commenting on it? There are a million other blogs that have anti-Russian sentiment, 'doomer'-sentiment, etc. Why are you not THERE instead?
Please answer as clearly, truthfully, and concisely as possible.
From speaking to friends who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan (or both), I can attest to the wholesale orientation of Western forces towards a SOCOM style of operations. High tech, exceptionally well trained super soldiers supported by overwhelming signals and surveillance and airborne supremecy. I certainly don't envy a force facing against SAS/SEAL/Delta or similar on their terms
But none of that matters if you're pinned in a trench by sustained 155mm fire against an adversary with near-peer ISR and a shell lands in your lap. You're as dead as the next guy.
A super soldier dies the same as a conscript. Plus they have only foght against talibans, how would Delta Force perform against Wagner or the Chechens în a close combat urban situation?
Real Ukie casualties are through the roof and so are that of the NATO "mercenaries" that are dying. The actual ratio of dead between each side has been unclear, and may be lopsided against Ukraine more so than lopsided against Russia.
If the russians would had big losses they would had multiple mobilisations by now. They had 120k troops vs 400k ukranian troops at the start of the war and they performed good. They had only one mobilisation în september, the ukranians have had 11!!! As for the americans, they have not fight a real war since Vietnam and we know how that turned out. If the americans would had fought this war they would have run out of ammo în a short time. The americans fighter who got out of Ukraine said în inter jews that this is not Irak or Afganistan, this is hell. The american soldiers are not acustomed to this kind of brutal war. All the russians brigades are intact, the ukranian ones have been destroyed and they had to regropup în other firmation. So it s pure propaganda that the russians have big losses. Even the BBC puts the cassulaties at 20k while the ukranian are at allmost 200k. The russians just have more fire power, that s all.
Has anyone in this thread actually tracked the horrific Russian losses?
Wrong question Michael Z.
The question is: Have You?? How?? With what Accuracy and Precision? Using what sources and methods??
Because the only people making those claims are regurgitating Western Media claims based in turn on Uke propaganda...which makes Saddam's Ministry of Truth look like a paragon of honesty.
The Late, formerly Great BBC tried to track Russkie losses, using WW2 methods updated to 21st C tech. They stopped, because it was clear the Russians are NOT losing job lots of troops....but the Ukes are.
Feb 22, 2023·edited Feb 22, 2023Liked by Simplicius
Agreed. Bash is awestruck as are most western Rambo fanboys.
Facts are that most SFs that Bash mentioned are festooned with high tech and ISR capabilities, takew that away and they are just meat. And most are glory seeking dickwads ie SEALS.
Kicking in doors of mudhuts and shooting unarmed teenage (military aged males) is no where near taking on Russian forces.
I don’t think the Afghani’s get enough respect. We love to throw around the “uneducated goat f***er” pejorative, but those goat f***ers defeated both the Soviet Union AND the United States.
Of course the CIA assisted with the former and Soviet materiel assisted with the latter but the Mujahideen and Taliban had ZERO air support, zero cool guy ISR, zero BUDS, zero Ranger School, no modern logistics.
And yet they beat two different super powers.
Tough sons of bitches IMO are some of the best irregular soldiers since the Viet Cong.
They deserve a case study on how to fight a guerilla war against a technologically superior enemy.
I just read just this week, they took down a 32 million dollars US Drone, MQ-9. And they sunk a British tanker, the same day!!! This after aaaall the beating they got from the coalition forces. Amazing!!! If the Houthis can do this, anything is possible.
Even Trump on one of his rallies gave them credit. I personally heard him say that, so it's not a cnn lie. Something along the lines of "Taliban are great fighters and tough negotiators."!!!! Yep Trump did that.
And somebody else long ago b4 him, gave then even bigger credit by writing poem, a famous one:
end of it:
"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier."
Somalies too should get some credit for what they did to US special Forces 30 years ago. I mean it Huuuurts LOL.
Couldn't we start placing more value on somebody who can play one of Dowland's galliards without a single mistake and with SOUL? Look up the cover art for Zappa's Grand Wazoo.
Using Delta to clear buildings is a waste of force. It's not designed for sustained urban combat. To answer your question, Delta would die, just like any other force. Defender has the hyuuge advantage in urban areas when it's time to start clearing the buildings and never forget the drains and water pipes.
"Super soldiers". Delta Forces failed in Iran, Rangers and SOF trapped in Somalia, SAS hunted down and captured by Iraqis, GRU Spetsnaz killed and captured by Chechens etc.
There is no such thing as super soldiers, just well trained servicemen with highly specialized task oriented skill sets. Success by these groups have always been determined by proper intelligence, operational planning, support and dumb luck.
I didnt mean some Rambo types. Just that their training, motivation, and capabilities exceed regular units by a significant amount. Regular American GI's look ridiculous compared to their SOF soldiers
A simply superb analysis. I stand, or rather huddle over my computer in awe. I have written article which allude to the main ideas in your article but never in such detail, nor so comprehensively. Well done. Of particular interest to me was the historical context you elaborated on. This has been mentioned by many others (including Putin himself) but never with such clarity. Russia is pragmatic because it must be. For, war is existential. For Americans, quite the opposite as I emphasize in my own articles. The key factor is, as you say, history -- which is also the key to Russia's determination to fully demilitarize and denazifiy -- effectively neuter -- Western "Ukraine". I put "Ukraine" in quotation marks because I am not sure what to call this state, which has little historic basis for its existence or legitimacy. Putin does not want to occupy the area west of the Dniepr, but he will surely welcome regions that want to join Russia. "Denazification" -- ie. tribunals and trials -- will drive those supporting the current regime to flee. Russia has a lot more to offer than the West which only seeks to exploit the region. So, yeah, you might see a rather smallerl Western "Ukraine" in the end, landlocked and neutral and dependent on the rest of Novorossiya.
I was particularly impressed by your analysis of Western misunderstanding of Russian concern for the safety of its troops, which obviously influences a.) strategy in the Ukraine b.) design of weapons.
A good example is the Abrams. To big, too heavy to cross a bridge in Ukraine. Needs jet fuel . Breaks down every 100 km. Too expensive to use. Ditto the F35-- still not really fit for combat. Again too expensive to use; too expensive to lose. l And "stealthy:' only under the very best circumstances. The Su47 does "stealth" a lot better -- assuming that no matter what an aircraft is detectable as the Serbs proved shooting down an F117.
I am working through your articles. Some are long and I need to read them a couple of times to digest, with my weak little brain.
Afghanistan was such a great victory for America....... lol. The American war machine is designed to provide profit to the defense contractors, not victory.
Systems that break down constantly and have huge support infrastructure are virtually useless unless they can provide complete superiority over the battlefield. And if there is such a strong learning curve and slow production that losing one system is a major loss, then there is a real problem. America needs to completely rethink its military goals and develop tools that can be effectively deployed.
There is no real Nazi problem in Ukraine. These extremist groups were financed by an Israeli oligarch, Kolomoisky, to stir up problems between the different groups in Ukraine.
The best one yet as far as I'm concerned, but then again, these more 'philosophical' oriented pieces are right up my alley. I'm also impressed with the speed with which you keep producing these pieces. What's your secret? ;-)
As for the speed, yeah it's hard I might've bitten off more than I can chew with the recent output. Just many hours of work, might have to slow down a little
You have written before, I take it? The way you are able to compose a coherent story, putting things in the right order, etc, and quickly too, given the pace of your posts, suggests you've got a fair bit of experience in this field. It's not easy to make an analytical piece 'readable', and certainly not for a wide audience. But as many other commenters have also attested to, you pull it off, and seemingly without much effort. Really well done.
Thank you very much, those are very appreciated words. And you're right most analytical stuff is very dry by its nature. And I do wrestle with the fears of going 'overboard' in too 'light' and glib of a style, fearing that people might mistake it for lightheartedness or a sensationalist/Tabloid sort of style. I only do the glib tongue in cheek stuff for the very purpose that you said, so that it's more 'readable' and people actually get a kick out of reading it rather than slogging through, particularly because I'm so loquacious that I end up writing huge walls of text compared to others, so if people were forced to read all that in a "dry" style, I feel like it would be a big turn off.
But yes I've written before for a few other blogs like TheSaker under different names, simply because I never expected one particular name to 'take off' in popularity and wasn't really thinking ahead as I was just trying to get information out. But now this name has stuck so I guess I'm going with this one.
Lol, so we have at least that in common, although it's been a few years since I had a few articles published there, and as you, under a different name.
I guess it might be good idea for you to keep 'mixing it up', combining easier accessible pieces with more detailed and more technical ones, like the 'All seeing eye' one.
Me? No, my contributions were of a decidedly more philosophical nature, and besides, his latest contributions were much more recently than 'a few years' ago. I do wish him well in his life and his endeavours, should he happen to stumble upon this conversation of ours. :-)
Sorry about my earlier reply, I'm still getting used to the structure of the threads here and mistook your post as a reply to mine. Obviously I should have realised you were referring to the author and not me, so please disregard my earlier reply.
I claim no military expertise but in WWII the shells from the German Panzers were bouncing off the Russian tanks so the Germans had to improvise and use the 88 AA guns to knock out the Russians. By the end of the war the Russian Joseph Stalin tank was more than a match for the German King Tiger Panzers which the Germans didn't have many of anyway. The famous British Spitfire was using 303 WWI ammunition with no cannon and no inverted fuel oil systems. On the other hand, the German fighter pilots were so much better than any of the "allies" that a 100 kill pilot wasn't rare. The blonde Knight had over 350 Russian kills and Rudel the Stuka pilot had hundreds of Russian tanks to his credit. As an old retired construction Electrician I love the capital equipment that came later in my career but somehow every Job took longer and little seemed to go smoothly for some reason. The latest greatest US F22, too expensive even for amerika has a service ceiling of only 50,000' and lacks vectored thrust for supermaneurability and F35 is a hyper complicated turkey that has so many flaws the US is keeping the 40 year old F16 design which will go well with the 70 year old B52. We won't go into amerikan infrastructure and homelessness and drugs and obesity and and. The European economies combined with the Russian federation was something that amerika couldn't tolerate so the biggest loser of the war is and will continue to be Europeans. Russia has been forced to go East and the ROTW May finally be free of the western bankster exploiter Rentier extraction classes. I won't see but I'm hopeful as long as the western ruling classes don't blow up the world.
I'm something of a junkie for Napoleonic history, and would encourage anyone who mocks Russian fighting capability and spirit to read a good account of the battles of Eylau and Borodino. The Russian infantry was arguably the most tenacious of the entire period - Bonaparte himself could not consistently master them, as was the case with the Austrians and Prussians. Anyway, great stuff, Simplicius.
Thanks, you're right he has a handful of very eye opening quotes from the war like: " “Of the fifty battles I have fought, the most terrible was that before Moscow. The French showed themselves to be worthy victors, and the Russians can rightly call themselves invincible“
I remember some famous german general in WW2 who fought against bought troops said that "1 Soviet soldier is equal to 10 American soldiers"
Feb 24, 2023·edited Feb 24, 2023Liked by Simplicius
Yes. And it's worth remembering that for the most part, the divisions faced by the US and the British were second rate - the toughest German divisions, and the best generals (eg Manstein) were sent against the Russians. In the Napoleonic period, the Russians rarely if ever routed, even in absolute bloodbath battles like Borodino and Eylau (fought in a blizzard - IMO the most fascinating of the Nap-era battles). While they were beaten at Friedland, that was largely due to a really bad disposition by Benningsen. Alex Mikaberidze, who has done great work in assembling Russian accounts of the 1807, 1812 and 1814 campaign, is working on a book about Eylau that will tell it from the Russian perspective. He has done great books on Borodino and Berezina, and I can't recommend his history of the Napoleonic Wars highly enough. He also assembled a good biographical dictionary of the Russian officer corps. I also recommend his biography of Kutuzov.
Correct me if I'm wrong, since you seem to be more well versed historically, but it was my understanding that some/much of European and particularly German military prowess is even indirectly owed to Russia. For instance, the main heart of German military advancement came from their 'Prussian' heritage. And I read once that one of the reasons that the Prussians have such a long storied and vaunted military history is because of their experience in fighting against the Russian/Slavic forces in the northeast over the course of centuries and learning many tactics from them, but in general being hardened by them.
Then fast forward to post-WW1 we know for instance German Blitzkrieg took big inspiration from Soviet 'deep-battle', but then also as per Big Serge's writings https://bigserge.substack.com/p/german-rebirth-blitzkrieg even German WW2 panzer success appears to be partially owed to Russia as Volckheim studied in the famed Russian Kazan tank school and learned all his tank tactics there, which he quickly took and applied to Germany's burgeoning panzer forces.
yes, you're right- Prussia was the land of the Teutonic Knights, which of course invaded Russia and were beaten by St Aleksandr Nevsky.
And during the Napoleonic period - at least 1813-1814, which saw the huge campaigns in Germany (Bautzen, Dresden, Dennewitz, Kulm, Leipzig, etc) that broke the French -- the Russians and Prussians were in the same armies. There were roughly three different armies facing off against Napoleon in those years, each made up of Russian, Prussian and Austrian divisions. The Russians were seen as the senior partner, because they'd chased Bonaparte out of Russia. And before that, the remnants of the Prussian army that Bonaparte crushed at Jena/Auerstadt fought with the Russians at Eylau. So I'm sure there was a great deal of "knowledge" imparted by the Russians to the newer Prussian armies. Of course, the French tactical innovations and training made them unstoppable in 1805-1806, but the Russians learned quite quickly.
I read Big Serge - his stuff is first-rate. Anyhow, anyone that says the Russians were incompetent tactically who relied on "human wave" assaults doesn't know what they're talking about. The Russians were incredibly good; I genuinely think the Russian infantryman was the finest soldier of the period. Ditto their cavalry.
In The Arms of Krupp, William Manchester documents how the Tiger and Panther tanks were 'junked up' by Krupp with complex and useless parts and systems. So as to increase the value and profit to the company. So, this made the tanks expensive, took a long time to manufacture, made for big parts and supply problems in the field, required a large number of trained personnel to service. As a result, the things broke down often and could not be serviced back into battle use.
I start thinking of the F-35. When push comes to shove the best thing would be they never get off the ground. Or break down enroute. War is a racket. U.S. manufacturers make crapola to lay in the loot. Not to prevail in combat.
Such an interesting article, and thanks for the historical perspective. I knew very little about Russia before February last year, but my respect for that country for president Putin and the Russian military is now huge. The West is collapsing for sure in every way; my fear now is that the current situation will be the excuse given for Eu re-armament, an arms race and even a perpetual war scenario between the Eu state and Russia. Thanks again STT for such an informative article and blog.
Amazing write up Simplicius. One additional thing I may add is the US likes to prepare the battlefield for its toys. In 1991 Iraq war an intense stealth and standard air campaign to eliminate air defense and aircraft ensued for many days before even armor stepped into the field. And American armor cannot operate without air support and all these systems are interdependent. Russians don’t always have the luxury of preparing the battlefield but now days with satellites you can see group mass formations. 1991 gulf war and 2003 wars in Iraq/Afghanistan type groupings can be seen by near peer and appropriate counters can be done. While the US is lauded as a logistics king and it certainly is; large ships traveling across the Atlantic are east targets. This was the concern about the GIUK Gap.
Feb 22, 2023·edited Feb 22, 2023Liked by Simplicius
The U.S. military should change their “combined arms” doctrine to “inclusive arms” since it’s focus has been on being as fake, gay and vaxxed as possible lately.
I propose creation of the “U.S. Transforce”. Nothing will be able to stop degenerate men and women pretending to be the opposite sex.
But seriously our combined arms and technological advantages served us well in Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan.
Brilliant article once again. There has always been a complete lack of understanding and ignorance of Russia, be it militarily, economically, philosophically. The entire west believes nothing but myths of its own superiority to not only Russia, but the rest of the world.
This dismissal of reality has now come back to bite us, or more like eat us. The beauty of Russian literature was always to me the necessity of suffering in one's life, as opposed to western literature which is utopian and therefore unrealistic and childish.
Your highlighting of how practical and deadly Russian weapons and tactics are, sheds new light on how disastrously we in the west have been brought up. Another example of western unreality is trying to integrate native populations with massive levels of immigrants. Another is encouraging our children to change their sex, as if this is physically possible!!
The end is nigh for us poor fools in the west. We've only ourselves to blame too.
This troll always states the opposite of the facts, just like the MSM.
Noticed how this "battle" never produced any footage or photo evidence of mass casualties?
The troll got a week ban. I don't mind posting contrary or heterodox views but don't SPAM the same thing 100 times such that you turn the comments section into a cesspit (which was his goal, I presume as destabilization/saboteur agent). I'll give him a chance to come back, if he repeats the behavior then perma ban
Reliance on excessive "technology and logistics" are indeed a hindrance in war. The U.S. has only been successful in warfare against third world countries.
The idea that "Russia is basically out of armor and artillery at this point" is demonstrably, and comically, false.
"Russia is basically out of armor and artillery at this point."
It seems Russia has been "out of artillery" every other week for the last year.
In the meantime, Biden has returned to the US & all of Ukraine is under air alert yet again. And Russia just took out a couple more HIMARs (launchers, not just the missiles, altho a coue missiles to). And is pretty much lighting up the entire front line.
Face it. The only ones running out of weapons & ammo is NATO. And it will take them years to get production up to levels useful for anything beyond further enriching Lockheed Martin & Raytheon, etal. That's assuming they're able to fulfill contracts at all in the face of loss of energy sources, critical rare materials & outsourced components.
Near-autarky Russia has been producing as they go, and only just recently supplementing with drones from Iran & possibly something from Korea as they further increase
relationships to build their vision of a multipolar world.
US is toast. It just doesn't realize it yet. But eventually, too-clever-by-a-half Wile E Coyote will look down & crash & burn. As it is written.
Cremington why did you change your ID?
People, please, ignore this liar.
Nowhere in the article is it even remotely claimed that technology and logistics are a hindrance in war, on the contrary.
This poster is trying to move the goalposts and change the debate by inserting fallacious claims about the article, which is the go-to tactic of (paid) trolls.
I gave him a week ban (next time permaban) not because he has contrary views which I'm open about, but because the troll continued to spam it over and over so many times that it threatens to devolve the entire comments section into a cesspool of bickering (which was his goal I'm sure, as saboteur/destabilization agent)
It's a tricky balance to pull off, keeping an open mind for different viewpoints versus keeping the trolls out who are only out to sow discord. Normally I just ignore them, but here he tried to push rather blatantly an opposite claim of what you were posting, and people were, to some degree, falling for it. That annoyed me considerably. Hence to response.
Some trolls are easy to spot, but others, the 'professional' kind, are a lot more insidious. They shift the debate and try to insert baseless accusations, this can be very hard to spot though. Remember a couple of posts of yours ago some commenter (Sai something or other) replied regarding the battle at Ugledar? He claimed that the 'poor results' (which itself is debatable, but a fair to point to argue over) of the Russian there was due to poor leadership (again something you could argue over), but then he added the bit that that leadership was using the naval infantry there as 'cannon fodder'. That set my alarm bell off. Because that's right out of the troll's playbook; put forward fairly debatable points, but then add highly emotive and unsubstantiated elements. And those points, the 'cannon fodder' bit here, then tend to stick with people. That's when I called him out on that back then. Unsurprisingly, he hasn't replied to me.
I've seen this type of behaviour and methodology many times over in discussion fora. It's the same general script every time. Be alert for highly emotive but unsubstantiated words mixed in with seemingly fair arguments. It's one tactic of how they try to shift the debate, by setting the assumptions they want to insert as the basis for further discussion. Like trying to turn the notion of the naval infantry being used as 'cannon fodder' as a fact. And they rarely, if ever, come up with arguments if you call them out on it.
Yep, it's never a good feeling to ban someone because you always end up feeling like "you've turned into one of THEM" i.e. the liberal censorship loving, cancel-culture snowflakes and so I hate having to 'silence' people. But as you said there's a certain red line that gets crossed when it becomes apparent that the person is not simply making an argument or participating in debate, but is acting as an outright saboteur agent whose purpose by way of the famous CIA playbook from the 1940's is to instigate as much chaos and irritation as possible. These types of people hate our new 'spaces' that the resistance sphere have found and created for ourselves, places like substack, bitchute etc which are away from the globalist monopoly of the Big Tech octopus who controls everything. They hate that they can't silence or censor us so they come after us in OUR spaces and try hard as they might to create destabilization, distortion, resentment amongst ourselves (instigating fights and arguments amongst us etc).
So once I start feeling like the person is veering in that direction, I have no choice but to ban them because I won't let the experience of thousands of well-intentioned people by ruined by the targeted/focused agitation of a professional agitator/agent-provocateur sitting in some slimy SBU cubicle beneath Kiev or Langley
I saw some of your recent replies to these 'agents provocateur', looks like I needn't have worried. But, they also try to monopolise people's time, by leading them onto pointless avenues of debate, detracting from the time you could be spending productively elsewhere with others.
It's another balancing act. I guess it's another iteration of the tolerance paradox; 'how can you remain tolerant when faced with the antics of the intolerant'?
Exactly. I had to ban the recent provocateur today because he already wasted several hours of my time when I had been planning to start a new article in a critical few hours that I had free. So his mission had already been accomplished today, but now I'm wiser to how they operate
Graduated from the Mark Milley school of military prowess, you have.
There will always be individual instances of failure, sometimes catastrophic and large. Russia is not perfect and all current systems are complex (it's more a matter of "level of complexity").
The important thing to note here is that the Russian armed forces operate upon very different assumptions than their Western counterparts. This is clearly displayed by the West's surprise and alarm at the "scale" of the conflict. It's also notable that the Russians have had to make adjustments to how they were fighting the war as well in spite of the fact that their military system is much more flexible than the West's. The scale and variability of truly modern warfare--between peers, not the one-sided conflicts the U.S. has fought in the past 50-odd years--is something that has clearly surprised the participants.
This may be true. But the same can be said for a direct confrontation between German and British armies or German and American armies. Britain's only successful camaign against the Germans in WWII was in North Africa.
Also Italy and the clearing out of Northern France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Northern Germany. Ever heard of General Montgomery? My uncle was killed at Monte Cassino, and he was English. The Canadians took Altoona. Look it up.
Who ran every convoy to Murmansk with both British and American war materiel? The Royal Navy. No Americans involved.
Who came up with the idea of making rubber, canvas and wood tanks and artillery to fool the Germans' reconnaisance flights as to where Patton's troop were located in England before D Day? Hint it wasn't Eisenhower and the mystical Patton. Who made the decoys? The British.
Americans think entirely too much of themselves, and believe the horse manure shovelled out by their leaders. From the way Americans (the johnny-come-lately entrant into both WW1 and 2) claim they won things singlehandedly, it's a bad joke of pure nonsense. How many heavy bombers did Britain turn out? You know, Lancasters, Halifaxes and Stirlings? You probably never heard of them. And the Lancasters were far superior bombers to B17s and fragile B24s. Plus they didn't need a crew-member agonizing over the optimization of the mixture and boost of the engines, an American anachronism. The British planes were much simpler to fly, and considering the subject matter of this post, more Russian in outlook than having a team of grunts using a $79 Harbor Freight pulley and tackle to load HIMARS. What an eye-opener that video is!
I've become accustomed in my 75 years to hearing Americans boasting about how they won the wars, blah blah, blah. Yeah sure, and what? The British were sitting on their rear ends sewing socks in thatched houses? Ditto the Canadians and ANZACs? American hubris is just that, hubris plus a giant dollop of Madison Avenue and Hollywood BS and hype.
The Russians won the land war in Europe, and by a country mile, whatever Patton's and Montgomerty's delusions of grandeur were afterwards. If the Germans hadn't have had Red Army hordes beating them to death in their east, they would have turfed the D Day invasion back into the English Channel with ease.
Rewriting history with glaring omissions seems to me to be a peculiarly American sport. And lapped up by a populace too incurious to even want to know the truth. They'd rather thump their patriotic chests. Tell me -- how's the US-backed Ukrainian government doing these days against Russia? The Americans excel at beating a dead horse trying to revive it. Shades of the petshop owner in a Monty Python sketch who nailed the dead parrot's feet to its perch and sold it as a live-going concern to a credulous buyer.
You're entitled to be annoyed with Americans, but get your facts straight: My uncle, an American merchant marine, served on the sealift to Murmansk. Ships were being blown up right and left. That turned him into an alcoholic.
American aircraft carrier groups are only good for bullying 3rd world countries. Park them off of the coast of some African or middle east country and bomb them to kingdom come. But try that sort of thing with Russia and China.... they are going down ! Aircraft carriers are obsolete when fighting near peer rivals. Same vulnerabilities as the Moskva courtesy of ISR and hypersonic missiles.
OMG another dickhead parroting the greatness of the US military. Or the same troll with a different ID?
Prior to the 1971 Indo-Pak war, the Pakis were genociding Banglas in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) after they militarily overthrew the government and imprisoned its leader. India intervened after the Paki morons who were murdering civilians with impunity for 8 months, decided to bomb the Indian Airforce base in West Bengal thus giving India the legitimacy to war.
The Americans under Nixon as well as their British dogs threatened India of dire consequences of interfering in the genocide. Nixon sent the 7th Fleet (USS Enterprise) into the Bay of Bengal while the Brits sent theirs into the Arabian Sea. They even asked the Chinese to open another front against India, but the Chinese refused.
This so-called Superpower backed out after the Soviet Union sent 3 destroyers, 2 frigates and 6 nuclear submarines to India's aid.
The rest is history. Pakistan Army capitulated pretty quickly within weeks and signed the dotted line. Bangladesh gained Independence.
If you are still deluding yourself about US supremacy over all oceans, I've got a red pill to sell you.
Forget facing Russia. Can the US deal with China in a war?
https://johnmenadue.com/war-with-china-despite-their-immense-military-capabilities/
You do realise that the russians lost more soldiers în the battle of Stalingrad that the USA lost în all it s wars, including the civil war? How would have the USA had performed if 5 milion germans would have marched from Canada?
>Soviets had a lot of people and equipment and information about the German preparations and still allowed themselves to get taken by surprise...
The Red Army in 1941 was in the process of rearmament and reorganization. These processes were to be completed around 1943, for the fleet in 1945-50. So Hitler caught the Red Army with their pants off. In fact, all Stalin could do was press the "Mobilization" button, and/or send more troops to the border with the Germans.
But the Russians, traditionally, seem to have too much faith in treaties with the Europeans. The Soviets were waiting for a some sort of prelude, like a "Phoney War" on the Western Front in 1939-1940.
>Even later in the war, during the battle of Stalingrad you mention, they often sent their men into certain death with little chance of success... The Americans would not do that.
But that's exactly what the Americans did at the Battle of Hürtgen Forest.
>...the political purges...
Purges were among the top ten problems, but not even in the first five. Increasing the size of the army by 3+ times invariantly brings disorder. Tukhachevsky lost to the Poles, and Blucher lost to the Japanese, so it's not a big loss. Also, on the example of Rokossovsky, repression did not always mean death and even dismissal.
>Still, they had a lot of assets in the West and almost two years to study German tactics and prepare.
Stalin had no observers in the German troops. The Soviets received the first documents on German tank troops in 1941, when they seized the staff documents of one and the panzer divisions.
>Hürtgen Forest was a difficult battle and Wehrmacht was a better army than the American IMO...
OK, the Yankees also lost to the Japanese army in the Philippines 1941-1942. As you say, "they had a lot of assets in the East and almost four years to study Japanese tactics and prepare."
>but I think the Soviets would have many more losses in the same situation...
It doesn't matter.What matters is that the Americans threw their soldiers into the meat grinder, just like everyone else.
In the end you lost though, so all your whining means little as your arguments have been proven wrong by history. Your side lost, and the USSR prevailed
Well yes the Americans în Vietnam weren t taken by surprise, especially the Tet ofensive.
Most of the German military was tied down in the USSR while millions of Japanese soldiers had been mired in China since 1937.
The only forces we faced were the remaining Nazis in Europe and the Japanese Navy (who made a costly mistake at Midway) and the Japanese Marines on some Pacific Islands.
You're are dead wrong about this false premise that "without Western help, the Soviets would have been defeated". It's a nice fantasy by butthurt Americans to pass down to their children and grand children. But unbiased military historians such as David M. Glantz and Jonathan House have already documented and pointed out that even without Western support, the Soviets would still have beaten the German Wehrmacht, but it would have taken a bit longer (12-18 months).
I'll paste my comment from above for the fake narrative about 'western help'
"'western military logistics/help' actually did nothing whatsoever for USSR in WW2. I already covered this in previous post, but Lend Lease was not even signed til September of 1941 and by the end of '41, only 2% of Lend Lease funds (negligible amount) had come in, by 1942 it was about another 5-7%, and only in 1943 did it begin kicking in with a significant and noticeable amount. But the problem is, by winter of '41 in battle of moscow, the Soviets had already broken the German army's back and began pushing them back. So the war was essentially already won by the USSR single handedly LONG before Lend Lease had any effect or even trickled into the country."
Here's the proof: https://i.imgur.com/W9tPksz.png - as per wikipedia. Notice that lend lease assistance to USSR in 1941 amounted to a negligible and insignificant 2%. By 1942 itkicked up to a still low 14% and didn't begin to actually start coming in heavily and noticeably until 1943. The problem is by 'battle of moscow' in december 1941, the USSR had already broken the German army's back and sent them retreating, at which point the war was already essentially over anyway as USSR had the initiative from that point on and Germany suffered their first true defeat from which it never recovered. All without any lend lease help. So this narrative that USSR couldn't win without allied assistance is of coursefraudulent.
I'm not sure if your first comment was sarcasm or serious, but yes the Admiral Kuznetsov would single handedly destroy an entire carrier fleet. You see unlike U.S. carriers which don't actually have armaments of their own, the Kuznetsov is not even officially designated as a aircraft carrier but rather "Heavy Aircraft CRUISER" in Russian designation. The term Cruiser signifies the fact that it's basically an aircraft carrier mixed with the firepower of a heavy cruiser like the Moskva. This is because the Kuznetsov has a vast array of offensive weaponry unlike any western aircraft carriers, it can launch P800 anti-ship missiles and many other things. So yes the Kuznetsov would obliterate any U.S. aircraft carrier in a head to head duel, as they have zero armaments.
2ndly, 'western military logistics/help' actually did nothing whatsoever for USSR in WW2. I already covered this in previous post, but Lend Lease was not even signed til September of 1941 and by the end of '41, only 2% of Lend Lease funds (negligible amount) had come in, by 1942 it was about another 5-7%, and only in 1943 did it begin kicking in with a significant and noticeable amount. But the problem is, by winter of '41 in battle of moscow, the Soviets had already broken the German army's back and began pushing them back. So the war was essentially already won by the USSR single handedly LONG before Lend Lease had any effect or even trickled into the country. So once again, you continue to be wrong.
You can play semantic games if you want but that doesn't change that Kuznetsov is armed to the teeth and your carrier is not. Your original question was asking whether Kuznetsov can destroy a U.S. carrier, so the answer is YES it absolutely would, but you attempted to deflect with semantics games.
Like I said, none of the production stuff you claim even began to trickle in in any number until the USSR had already LONG practically defeated Germany and broken its back. Numbers don't lie: https://i.imgur.com/8LZLYLK.png
2% given to USSR in 1941, and only 14% in 1942? You've got to be joking.
400,000 trucks but conveniently leave out the fact that the vast majority didn't come til almost the end of the war when the USSR needed them for the final push to move forward into Germany. But the German army had already been broken and devastated long before that.
Same goes for the rest of your numbers. You give just absolute numbers (most of which are wrong anyway) but you very sneakily and conveniently refuse to post WHEN those percentages showed up, which shows your absolute disingenuousness in argument.
Now, after having destroyed your flimsy argument. I'm going to ask you only ONE time, why are you here on this blog? I've written elsewhere that I'm a free speech absolutist, and hate blocking people simply for heterodox views which I don't care if you have them. You can see my bitchute channel which has tons of anti-Russian stuff posted and I let it all go.
However, there is a red line that's crossed when a poster clearly and unquestionably begins to have the character of an agent-provocateur whose SOLE and ONLY job is to stir up agitation in order to destabilize and disharmonize our space.
You are starting to look like that type of person because, not only is the sheer posting volume indicative of someone hellbent on spamming their propaganda in a way as to flood the boards and drown out the actual reasonable voices, but out of the dozens of posts you're spamming out like a paid agent, not a single one has been either even about the topic at hand in the reports, or in any other way indicative of an impartial or nonpartisan position. You clearly seem to hate Russia and are here to spread negative, false, propaganda about it. However, even THAT I would normally be dismissive of, but not when it begins to attain "spam" levels of volume that starts clogging the actual intelligent debates and conversations otherwise happening here.
So again, I'll ask you one time, what is your real purpose here, and what are you trying to attain by being here? If you disagree with every single one of my views, why are you reading my blog and commenting on it? There are a million other blogs that have anti-Russian sentiment, 'doomer'-sentiment, etc. Why are you not THERE instead?
Please answer as clearly, truthfully, and concisely as possible.
From speaking to friends who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan (or both), I can attest to the wholesale orientation of Western forces towards a SOCOM style of operations. High tech, exceptionally well trained super soldiers supported by overwhelming signals and surveillance and airborne supremecy. I certainly don't envy a force facing against SAS/SEAL/Delta or similar on their terms
But none of that matters if you're pinned in a trench by sustained 155mm fire against an adversary with near-peer ISR and a shell lands in your lap. You're as dead as the next guy.
A super soldier dies the same as a conscript. Plus they have only foght against talibans, how would Delta Force perform against Wagner or the Chechens în a close combat urban situation?
Real Ukie casualties are through the roof and so are that of the NATO "mercenaries" that are dying. The actual ratio of dead between each side has been unclear, and may be lopsided against Ukraine more so than lopsided against Russia.
The ratio is clear. Have we seen mass new cemeteries for Russians? Donbass?
Are Russian hospitals overwhelmed with spillover from field hospitals?
If the russians would had big losses they would had multiple mobilisations by now. They had 120k troops vs 400k ukranian troops at the start of the war and they performed good. They had only one mobilisation în september, the ukranians have had 11!!! As for the americans, they have not fight a real war since Vietnam and we know how that turned out. If the americans would had fought this war they would have run out of ammo în a short time. The americans fighter who got out of Ukraine said în inter jews that this is not Irak or Afganistan, this is hell. The american soldiers are not acustomed to this kind of brutal war. All the russians brigades are intact, the ukranian ones have been destroyed and they had to regropup în other firmation. So it s pure propaganda that the russians have big losses. Even the BBC puts the cassulaties at 20k while the ukranian are at allmost 200k. The russians just have more fire power, that s all.
Nah, Russia smashed AFU in all those places with 10:1 ratio. Stop coping
Welcome to the newest troll, Michael Z, or maybe just lost on his way home from facebook.
He missed the excellent, must read first article by this author. Or the Mossad report or any other numerous articles. Welcome Michael Zzzzzz
Has anyone in this thread actually tracked the horrific Russian losses?
Wrong question Michael Z.
The question is: Have You?? How?? With what Accuracy and Precision? Using what sources and methods??
Because the only people making those claims are regurgitating Western Media claims based in turn on Uke propaganda...which makes Saddam's Ministry of Truth look like a paragon of honesty.
The Late, formerly Great BBC tried to track Russkie losses, using WW2 methods updated to 21st C tech. They stopped, because it was clear the Russians are NOT losing job lots of troops....but the Ukes are.
Oryx has been debunked many times by many including myself. Russian losses are 1/10th that of Ukrainian losses
Russian casualties in Ukraine.
Mediazona count, updated
https://en.zona.media/article/2022/05/20/casualties_eng
I believe that has happened on more than one occasion - and they only won one of those as I recall, an ambush.
Remember the mighty squad of US SFs somewhere in Africa a few years ago? Their own go pros filmed their deaths.
Was nothing special about them from the attackers POV. Hoorah!
Agreed. Bash is awestruck as are most western Rambo fanboys.
Facts are that most SFs that Bash mentioned are festooned with high tech and ISR capabilities, takew that away and they are just meat. And most are glory seeking dickwads ie SEALS.
Kicking in doors of mudhuts and shooting unarmed teenage (military aged males) is no where near taking on Russian forces.
Against peer opponents their shiny gloss fades.
I don’t think the Afghani’s get enough respect. We love to throw around the “uneducated goat f***er” pejorative, but those goat f***ers defeated both the Soviet Union AND the United States.
Of course the CIA assisted with the former and Soviet materiel assisted with the latter but the Mujahideen and Taliban had ZERO air support, zero cool guy ISR, zero BUDS, zero Ranger School, no modern logistics.
And yet they beat two different super powers.
Tough sons of bitches IMO are some of the best irregular soldiers since the Viet Cong.
They deserve a case study on how to fight a guerilla war against a technologically superior enemy.
Then, taking it to a new level, are the 'flipflop' soldiers in Yemen.
I just read just this week, they took down a 32 million dollars US Drone, MQ-9. And they sunk a British tanker, the same day!!! This after aaaall the beating they got from the coalition forces. Amazing!!! If the Houthis can do this, anything is possible.
Even Trump on one of his rallies gave them credit. I personally heard him say that, so it's not a cnn lie. Something along the lines of "Taliban are great fighters and tough negotiators."!!!! Yep Trump did that.
And somebody else long ago b4 him, gave then even bigger credit by writing poem, a famous one:
end of it:
"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier."
Somalies too should get some credit for what they did to US special Forces 30 years ago. I mean it Huuuurts LOL.
Couldn't we start placing more value on somebody who can play one of Dowland's galliards without a single mistake and with SOUL? Look up the cover art for Zappa's Grand Wazoo.
Using Delta to clear buildings is a waste of force. It's not designed for sustained urban combat. To answer your question, Delta would die, just like any other force. Defender has the hyuuge advantage in urban areas when it's time to start clearing the buildings and never forget the drains and water pipes.
"Super soldiers". Delta Forces failed in Iran, Rangers and SOF trapped in Somalia, SAS hunted down and captured by Iraqis, GRU Spetsnaz killed and captured by Chechens etc.
There is no such thing as super soldiers, just well trained servicemen with highly specialized task oriented skill sets. Success by these groups have always been determined by proper intelligence, operational planning, support and dumb luck.
I didnt mean some Rambo types. Just that their training, motivation, and capabilities exceed regular units by a significant amount. Regular American GI's look ridiculous compared to their SOF soldiers
"Regular American GI's look ridiculous compared to their SOF soldiers."
Go tell them that to their faces. What a stupid shit to say.
As a young boy, we use to watch this series on Russia's Great Patriotic War. Too bad most Americans either never saw it or forgot about it's lessons.
We also tend to ignore the sacrifices of Yugoslavia and the war efforts of China and the Philippines against Imperial Japan.
As an American, I confess that we haven't had to face war on our soil since 1865 so we lose perspective of what an existential threat looks like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ibizxvxgaY&list=PLhs30iGhgICncex8qB-_Fmej-0HSwy4fH
Soviet Storm is way better. The entire serie is available in YouTube. Highly recommend
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6CerdjvePsg&pp=ygUWc292aWV0IHN0b3JtIGVwaXNvZGUgMQ%3D%3D
Thanks for the link, my friend. Bookmarked to watch later. 👍
Really brilliant piece! Who else is producing this quality of analysis? Also, the quality of your writing is way over the top. Many thanks!
A simply superb analysis. I stand, or rather huddle over my computer in awe. I have written article which allude to the main ideas in your article but never in such detail, nor so comprehensively. Well done. Of particular interest to me was the historical context you elaborated on. This has been mentioned by many others (including Putin himself) but never with such clarity. Russia is pragmatic because it must be. For, war is existential. For Americans, quite the opposite as I emphasize in my own articles. The key factor is, as you say, history -- which is also the key to Russia's determination to fully demilitarize and denazifiy -- effectively neuter -- Western "Ukraine". I put "Ukraine" in quotation marks because I am not sure what to call this state, which has little historic basis for its existence or legitimacy. Putin does not want to occupy the area west of the Dniepr, but he will surely welcome regions that want to join Russia. "Denazification" -- ie. tribunals and trials -- will drive those supporting the current regime to flee. Russia has a lot more to offer than the West which only seeks to exploit the region. So, yeah, you might see a rather smallerl Western "Ukraine" in the end, landlocked and neutral and dependent on the rest of Novorossiya.
As for military technologies, the Russians don't have money to waste. Nor do they treat weapons as consumer items as I suggest here: https://julianmacfarlane.substack.com/p/much-ado-about-nothing-western-wunderwaffen.
I was particularly impressed by your analysis of Western misunderstanding of Russian concern for the safety of its troops, which obviously influences a.) strategy in the Ukraine b.) design of weapons.
A good example is the Abrams. To big, too heavy to cross a bridge in Ukraine. Needs jet fuel . Breaks down every 100 km. Too expensive to use. Ditto the F35-- still not really fit for combat. Again too expensive to use; too expensive to lose. l And "stealthy:' only under the very best circumstances. The Su47 does "stealth" a lot better -- assuming that no matter what an aircraft is detectable as the Serbs proved shooting down an F117.
I am working through your articles. Some are long and I need to read them a couple of times to digest, with my weak little brain.
Afghanistan was such a great victory for America....... lol. The American war machine is designed to provide profit to the defense contractors, not victory.
Systems that break down constantly and have huge support infrastructure are virtually useless unless they can provide complete superiority over the battlefield. And if there is such a strong learning curve and slow production that losing one system is a major loss, then there is a real problem. America needs to completely rethink its military goals and develop tools that can be effectively deployed.
You forgot to mention how American technology and doctrine helped defeat the Viet Cong and Koreans.
Oh wait, we also lost those wars…
They did not win the Korean war
The only war America has won since ww2 is Iraq. And that's not one to be proud of
Which 'America?
Removed? Why?
the individual was identified as an agent-provocateur
D'accord.
There is no real Nazi problem in Ukraine. These extremist groups were financed by an Israeli oligarch, Kolomoisky, to stir up problems between the different groups in Ukraine.
The best one yet as far as I'm concerned, but then again, these more 'philosophical' oriented pieces are right up my alley. I'm also impressed with the speed with which you keep producing these pieces. What's your secret? ;-)
thanks a lot I appreciate it.
As for the speed, yeah it's hard I might've bitten off more than I can chew with the recent output. Just many hours of work, might have to slow down a little
You have written before, I take it? The way you are able to compose a coherent story, putting things in the right order, etc, and quickly too, given the pace of your posts, suggests you've got a fair bit of experience in this field. It's not easy to make an analytical piece 'readable', and certainly not for a wide audience. But as many other commenters have also attested to, you pull it off, and seemingly without much effort. Really well done.
Thank you very much, those are very appreciated words. And you're right most analytical stuff is very dry by its nature. And I do wrestle with the fears of going 'overboard' in too 'light' and glib of a style, fearing that people might mistake it for lightheartedness or a sensationalist/Tabloid sort of style. I only do the glib tongue in cheek stuff for the very purpose that you said, so that it's more 'readable' and people actually get a kick out of reading it rather than slogging through, particularly because I'm so loquacious that I end up writing huge walls of text compared to others, so if people were forced to read all that in a "dry" style, I feel like it would be a big turn off.
But yes I've written before for a few other blogs like TheSaker under different names, simply because I never expected one particular name to 'take off' in popularity and wasn't really thinking ahead as I was just trying to get information out. But now this name has stuck so I guess I'm going with this one.
Lol, so we have at least that in common, although it's been a few years since I had a few articles published there, and as you, under a different name.
I guess it might be good idea for you to keep 'mixing it up', combining easier accessible pieces with more detailed and more technical ones, like the 'All seeing eye' one.
Maybe I am really you, and you are me? But our personalities have split , hmmm
Nightvision?
Me? No, my contributions were of a decidedly more philosophical nature, and besides, his latest contributions were much more recently than 'a few years' ago. I do wish him well in his life and his endeavours, should he happen to stumble upon this conversation of ours. :-)
how'd you know?
Me? How did I know?
Just piecing together a morsel here and a morsel there. You did leave a few breadcrumbs. Not many, but some. Enough for me to suspect you're him.
Sorry about my earlier reply, I'm still getting used to the structure of the threads here and mistook your post as a reply to mine. Obviously I should have realised you were referring to the author and not me, so please disregard my earlier reply.
Thought I recognized you from Saker by your style of writing. You stand out from the crowd, in a good way.
Russian take:
Russia designs weapons to win battles.
The US & west design weapons to enrich the elite.
What difference does it make what I believe?
It is what it is.
They beat Napoleon and Hitler. What is America s track record? Bombing Lybia and Serbia? Americans can t even beat the somalis.
The russians arms forces as an institution is older than the USA.
Don't engage. He's getting paid to do this. Fools are fools by choice. They can't be changed because that's the way they've chosen to be.
You just summed up the entire 20 years of the GWOT.
I claim no military expertise but in WWII the shells from the German Panzers were bouncing off the Russian tanks so the Germans had to improvise and use the 88 AA guns to knock out the Russians. By the end of the war the Russian Joseph Stalin tank was more than a match for the German King Tiger Panzers which the Germans didn't have many of anyway. The famous British Spitfire was using 303 WWI ammunition with no cannon and no inverted fuel oil systems. On the other hand, the German fighter pilots were so much better than any of the "allies" that a 100 kill pilot wasn't rare. The blonde Knight had over 350 Russian kills and Rudel the Stuka pilot had hundreds of Russian tanks to his credit. As an old retired construction Electrician I love the capital equipment that came later in my career but somehow every Job took longer and little seemed to go smoothly for some reason. The latest greatest US F22, too expensive even for amerika has a service ceiling of only 50,000' and lacks vectored thrust for supermaneurability and F35 is a hyper complicated turkey that has so many flaws the US is keeping the 40 year old F16 design which will go well with the 70 year old B52. We won't go into amerikan infrastructure and homelessness and drugs and obesity and and. The European economies combined with the Russian federation was something that amerika couldn't tolerate so the biggest loser of the war is and will continue to be Europeans. Russia has been forced to go East and the ROTW May finally be free of the western bankster exploiter Rentier extraction classes. I won't see but I'm hopeful as long as the western ruling classes don't blow up the world.
I'm something of a junkie for Napoleonic history, and would encourage anyone who mocks Russian fighting capability and spirit to read a good account of the battles of Eylau and Borodino. The Russian infantry was arguably the most tenacious of the entire period - Bonaparte himself could not consistently master them, as was the case with the Austrians and Prussians. Anyway, great stuff, Simplicius.
Thanks, you're right he has a handful of very eye opening quotes from the war like: " “Of the fifty battles I have fought, the most terrible was that before Moscow. The French showed themselves to be worthy victors, and the Russians can rightly call themselves invincible“
I remember some famous german general in WW2 who fought against bought troops said that "1 Soviet soldier is equal to 10 American soldiers"
Yes. And it's worth remembering that for the most part, the divisions faced by the US and the British were second rate - the toughest German divisions, and the best generals (eg Manstein) were sent against the Russians. In the Napoleonic period, the Russians rarely if ever routed, even in absolute bloodbath battles like Borodino and Eylau (fought in a blizzard - IMO the most fascinating of the Nap-era battles). While they were beaten at Friedland, that was largely due to a really bad disposition by Benningsen. Alex Mikaberidze, who has done great work in assembling Russian accounts of the 1807, 1812 and 1814 campaign, is working on a book about Eylau that will tell it from the Russian perspective. He has done great books on Borodino and Berezina, and I can't recommend his history of the Napoleonic Wars highly enough. He also assembled a good biographical dictionary of the Russian officer corps. I also recommend his biography of Kutuzov.
Correct me if I'm wrong, since you seem to be more well versed historically, but it was my understanding that some/much of European and particularly German military prowess is even indirectly owed to Russia. For instance, the main heart of German military advancement came from their 'Prussian' heritage. And I read once that one of the reasons that the Prussians have such a long storied and vaunted military history is because of their experience in fighting against the Russian/Slavic forces in the northeast over the course of centuries and learning many tactics from them, but in general being hardened by them.
Then fast forward to post-WW1 we know for instance German Blitzkrieg took big inspiration from Soviet 'deep-battle', but then also as per Big Serge's writings https://bigserge.substack.com/p/german-rebirth-blitzkrieg even German WW2 panzer success appears to be partially owed to Russia as Volckheim studied in the famed Russian Kazan tank school and learned all his tank tactics there, which he quickly took and applied to Germany's burgeoning panzer forces.
yes, you're right- Prussia was the land of the Teutonic Knights, which of course invaded Russia and were beaten by St Aleksandr Nevsky.
And during the Napoleonic period - at least 1813-1814, which saw the huge campaigns in Germany (Bautzen, Dresden, Dennewitz, Kulm, Leipzig, etc) that broke the French -- the Russians and Prussians were in the same armies. There were roughly three different armies facing off against Napoleon in those years, each made up of Russian, Prussian and Austrian divisions. The Russians were seen as the senior partner, because they'd chased Bonaparte out of Russia. And before that, the remnants of the Prussian army that Bonaparte crushed at Jena/Auerstadt fought with the Russians at Eylau. So I'm sure there was a great deal of "knowledge" imparted by the Russians to the newer Prussian armies. Of course, the French tactical innovations and training made them unstoppable in 1805-1806, but the Russians learned quite quickly.
I read Big Serge - his stuff is first-rate. Anyhow, anyone that says the Russians were incompetent tactically who relied on "human wave" assaults doesn't know what they're talking about. The Russians were incredibly good; I genuinely think the Russian infantryman was the finest soldier of the period. Ditto their cavalry.
Thanks. Yep, well as I said in another post, there was no bigger an example of "human wave tactics" than U.S. D-Day assault, so....
In The Arms of Krupp, William Manchester documents how the Tiger and Panther tanks were 'junked up' by Krupp with complex and useless parts and systems. So as to increase the value and profit to the company. So, this made the tanks expensive, took a long time to manufacture, made for big parts and supply problems in the field, required a large number of trained personnel to service. As a result, the things broke down often and could not be serviced back into battle use.
I start thinking of the F-35. When push comes to shove the best thing would be they never get off the ground. Or break down enroute. War is a racket. U.S. manufacturers make crapola to lay in the loot. Not to prevail in combat.
You are a treasure of real world, easy to understand analysis.
Such an interesting article, and thanks for the historical perspective. I knew very little about Russia before February last year, but my respect for that country for president Putin and the Russian military is now huge. The West is collapsing for sure in every way; my fear now is that the current situation will be the excuse given for Eu re-armament, an arms race and even a perpetual war scenario between the Eu state and Russia. Thanks again STT for such an informative article and blog.
Less emotion, more analysis, please.
Amazing write up Simplicius. One additional thing I may add is the US likes to prepare the battlefield for its toys. In 1991 Iraq war an intense stealth and standard air campaign to eliminate air defense and aircraft ensued for many days before even armor stepped into the field. And American armor cannot operate without air support and all these systems are interdependent. Russians don’t always have the luxury of preparing the battlefield but now days with satellites you can see group mass formations. 1991 gulf war and 2003 wars in Iraq/Afghanistan type groupings can be seen by near peer and appropriate counters can be done. While the US is lauded as a logistics king and it certainly is; large ships traveling across the Atlantic are east targets. This was the concern about the GIUK Gap.
The U.S. military should change their “combined arms” doctrine to “inclusive arms” since it’s focus has been on being as fake, gay and vaxxed as possible lately.
I propose creation of the “U.S. Transforce”. Nothing will be able to stop degenerate men and women pretending to be the opposite sex.
But seriously our combined arms and technological advantages served us well in Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan.
Well aware of combined arms, but they are too heavy in interdependent operations. Any one leg is dead And all tanks are done
Good point
Brilliant article once again. There has always been a complete lack of understanding and ignorance of Russia, be it militarily, economically, philosophically. The entire west believes nothing but myths of its own superiority to not only Russia, but the rest of the world.
This dismissal of reality has now come back to bite us, or more like eat us. The beauty of Russian literature was always to me the necessity of suffering in one's life, as opposed to western literature which is utopian and therefore unrealistic and childish.
Your highlighting of how practical and deadly Russian weapons and tactics are, sheds new light on how disastrously we in the west have been brought up. Another example of western unreality is trying to integrate native populations with massive levels of immigrants. Another is encouraging our children to change their sex, as if this is physically possible!!
The end is nigh for us poor fools in the west. We've only ourselves to blame too.