There’s a couple very interesting reports that made it through the transom this week which I couldn’t fit into the last writeup as they’re a bit adjacent to main developments.
What crimes do you feel Putin should be prosecuted for? Were they committed before or after the 2014 referendums in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, Crimea, and Sevastopol, and the Kiev and Kolomoisky-backed war on the Donbass that then began, supplied from the west?
I just looked up the warrant and it's for the war crime of deporting children during war. It's not for invading.
There are some who believe that all the ethnic Russians from the disputed Donetsk and Luhansk regions who have fled the warzone to go to pre-2022 Russia are in fact "Ukrainians" who have been captured and deported en masse.
Nobody who knows more than the tiniest amount about pre-2022 Ukraine would believe such rubbish.
Where would you expect Donbass Russian civilians to flee to?
I meant supplied from the region to the west of the Donbass, under the control of the Kiev government.
The four mentioned regions held referendums in 2014 which all resulted in very large majorities for leaving Ukraine. The Kiev government refused to recognise the referendum results, and in the same year launched its war on the Donetsk and Luhansk regions that had seceded.
The war had already been going on for eight years by the time Russia declared war on the Kiev regime in 2022 and attacked Kiev etc.
You didn't say what crimes you think Putin should be prosecuted for.
Reading this interview with "Fritz" and why he is called that sounds like a bad movie trope... You know what they say, reality is stranger than fiction...
Unlikely they're going to be moved at all during the mud season, they're too heavy. If the ground freezes in winter, then we may see more Challenger bonfires to keep things warm at the front.
So about the 3 hours late thing. I think this might be due to the fact that once you get a platoon or company within artillery range, you have to assume you'll be spotted and shot at within 10-15 mins. So you have to relocate, which makes it tough to cue up units to exploit or support the ongoing fight.
I just assume it was a traffic or logistics jam due to the mash-up of trying to assemble in the night a battalion that's probably in 70 or more locations and get it to the line-of-departure in the dark and then attack. All of this while observing light discipline and no rehearsals.
Artillery range is definitely a factor that always need to be taken into account. The squads/platoons all marshaled far behind where they needed to assemble as a battalion cuz of the "nuns with big guns".
Fritz's interview brings the war down to earth. The admission of Polish involvement blew me away. Simplicius' explanation, stoking the fires of my interest.
"It was all a sort of heady whirligig of patriotism and puissance and that old-time grainy newsreel squeaky-Gramophone jazz American glory that was like a warm fur-coat of comfort about the sagging shoulders of these mentally traumatized Ukrainian fleischsoldaten."
To be fair, US training programs are pretty good. But the reason the Gulf war was a success was not because of the Bradleys or Abrams, or NATO magic fairy dust, it was because of rigorous planning and training. I believe their mechanized brigades trained a whole year specifically for the initial opening offensive, against an inferiour force in both equipment, readiness and competence. But even if the equipments were reversed, i.e. the Iraqis had the NATO gear and the US had the knockoff Soviet gear, the outcpme would not have changed much. Ukraine never stood a chance of winning this offensive, and not because NATO gear is superior or inferior, but because they were set up for failure on so many levels from the start.
Gulf war was shooting fish in barrel. 1950/60s equipments no AD/AA and Arabs who can't fight conventional warfare (no offense but Israel proved that many times)
That's exactly my point. It wasn't that the magical NATO equipment or training, or US military doctrine that won against the inferior Soviet equipment, training and strategy, but the entire "Russian gear is junk compared to Bradleys and Abrams" notion comes from these wars.
But let's not diminish their achievements. What the US pulled off back then was still pretty impressive and well coordinated, even against a bought-and-payed-for, demoralized ragtag force.
Hell, it's not even that easy to move and sustain a rapid advancement of an army through a desert even if there is literally no enemy there. Troops run out of food, fuel and water, equipment breaks down, etc. But it's a completely different ball game than the situation in Ukraine.
It's why "special forces" aren't that useful in Ukraine. It doesn't matter how good tou are at Battle Drill 6 and clearing buildings, if you're sitting in a trench, that capability won'thelp you.
You can have the best mobile army in the world, that's very proficient in sustaining troops throughout a rapid advance, and punch way above your weight, but that capability doesn't translate into efficiency in artillery / trench attritional warfare.
I attended graduate school with some of the men who participated in Desert Storm, including brigade commanders. That was a different breed than those who currently run the U.S. military. This was the post-Vietnam, reconstructed U.S. army, who did everything possible to ensure that they had a trained cadre of professional soldiers: officers, NCOs, and enlisted. The current U.S. military bears little resemblance to that of 30 years ago.
And the US's demolishiom of a completely outmatched and unprepared ragtag force back then brought in a complete era of false public expectations about militaries and the superiority of US forces to everyone else. That strangely escaped being completely shatter in the Iraq and Afghanistan clusterfucks.
1991 was the peak for the U.S. military. After Vietnam, there was serious introspection and reform in the U.S. army: something that the institution is incapable of performing today. They recognized that the draft and Vietnam had made mayhem of discipline and morale. So they set out to redesign the army and marines and focus on retaining and recruiting the best people that they could find. They also redesigned the training programs around the best NCOs.... "be all that you can be." They focuses especially on legacies and "military families."
Throughout the 1980s, they built up the force with an emphasis on a European great-power war. The force that went to war with Saddam Hussein in 1991 was large and crack: built around integrated, mechanized divisions, well-trained in combined arms warfare. The desert terrain was the perfect terrain for this force to perform to its best capabilities. Complete air superiority and the lack of Iraqi surveillance assets, allowed them to run text-book blitzkrieg maneuvers.
After this war, Clinton began drawing down the size of the force, focused primarily on the army, because the belief was that a large-scale European war was no longer a concern. When Rumsfeld came in with Bush the Younger, he was obsessed with "lightening" the force and making it as air-mobile as possible: assuming that only small units would be needed in the future to quell regional issues. Such was the mindset of the neo-cons. The empire had no peers, so needed no great continental-sized army.
With Obama, the focus became political. He purged the general staff, removing the competent commanders above the rank of major who remained, and replaced them with political appointees. The Democrats had become concerned that the military was potentially subversive, and since Obama, they have been as focused as a laser on ensuring the political loyalties of all senior staff. Recruitment and training have suffered significantly under these attempts to transform the military into an arm of the state party. The result is a leadership cadre bereft of any actual talent in charge of a small force of poorly trained misfits. The U.S. no longer has the capability to fight a large-scale continental war, or even a regional conflict of any significance. To be frank, Ukraine has performed better, without doubt, than the U.S. would be capable of doing today.
Since no one competent remains, there is no one in Washington to tell the neo-cons and Israeli-first Biden-administration Jews that the U.S. no longer has the capability to carry out their imperial dreams or even support allies like Israel or Ukraine in a war against any significant regional power.
Keep in mind the US had bribed the senior military command, so it wasn't so much they can't fight as their management had either deserted them or just as likely set them up.
Ret. Lt. Col. Daniel Davis has stated in several interviews that they trained in Saudi Arabia for a solid year - you are correct. He added that, even after that intense training it "wasn't easy".
They didn't train for a year. But for sure a solid 90 days either in the US, Germany or Saudi during Desert Shield. A hyuuge freakin' army with total air superiority.
The Iraqi knock-off tanks, at least some, had wooden floor boards.
Old Fritz still wants to fight with no legs...The Ukrainians obstinacy is to be admired. I often say it takes Russians to beat Russians and this is the best force Russia could possibly face. NATO chumps would be crying for momma in two weeks. Ukraine comes up short this time just based on superior #'s of Russians proper and better/more materials of Russia but no other European army could beat Ukrainians.
Ukrainians that live will make very good Russian Soldiers when this is all over.
Oh really? If NATO will try to directly attack Russia, all their reconnaissance satellites will be destroyed and all their air bases in Europe will suffer massive missile strikes. Russian missiles can attack any target anywhere in Europe. Also Russia have largest amount of nuclear warheads and can annihilate entire Europe. And USA will not help them because they don't want to see nuclear mushrooms in USA territory and die for their slaves.
They just resign themselves to die which can be either admired or sneered at. I would go for the option 2. When you look closely at the boots on the frontline you see unfit dudes who just act as deadmeat. Nothing to boast about
I'm sick of detonating Ukrainian cannon fodder, which are partially odessa russian fodder too that they conscripted. Time to focus more on the masterminds, like greater balfour.
I am not optimistic about the Ukrainian war being over soon. The Ukrainians will get funding for a defensive war. The reality is that the Federal Reserve needs to stop the multipolar world if it ever expects to pay off the debt. To control interest rates, they must control inflation - that is the price of oil and commodities. The colonies want freedom and higher prices. See the problem? This is a banker's war. It it not about Democratic vales.
Never was. In the USA the word ‘democracy’ is simply a buzzword that politicians and the feeble minded that follow them use in order to validate whatever they are selling on any given day.... All the while the system is much closer to a corporate oligarchy with massive regulatory capture.
Historically, the US was also intended to be an oligarchy, though at least one led by an educated aristocracy rather than the wealthiest among them (a rather small step up), to be dominated neither by the "tyranny of the majority" nor the "tyranny of the minority."
Democracy was never very popular in the US, and most of its founders hated it with a passion with only a few exceptions like Jefferson. That it was ever intended to be a democracy or to promote democracy are among the biggest lies they've told/sold everyone worldwide. It's American mythology, what happens to a nation when ignorance becomes the rule and it forgets its own history.
Gore Vidal wrote a lot on this, to anyone interested in what the US was really like. I highly recommend his book "The Last Empire", and "History of the National Security State"—the latter I read first and learned of from Assange, who chose to hold it on display (to the confusion of the dependent media) when he was arrested and illegally kidnapped from the Ecuadorean embassy.
Respectfully, the US was never intended to be a Democracy, but a Republic. Democracy is rule by the majority, a Republic is rule by agreement. Now a lot of the original Republic rules have been corrupted, see US elections for details, but the format of a Republic remains.
And there would have been no earthly reason for less populated states to have ever joined a Democratic union. So if you think about it, a small part of the decision may have been about Marketing the new government to the masses.
Like every war there are multiple interests among multiple players. Stopping the multipolar world is certainly one, stopping the economic alliance between Russia and Germany was a big one, looting Russia was also big.
I saw a science program long ago, it covered an experiment where two types of moss were grown on either side of a good sized rock. As time passed they encountered each other. They began attacking each other, never stopped. Much of the world's leadership operate on the same intellectual level as moss.
They are doing that today. News is that the 1st Battalion is now in the field. See: Battalion of Ukrainian ex-POWs Heads Out on Combat Mission in Special Op Zone
Great article - thanks. One question I have had for a while, is the extent of big unit training - that is the ability of units like the 47th to operate in units larger than a company? It seems to me that the failure to attack with co-ordinated masses of troops might have been due to the fact that whilst small unit and weapons training was undertaken, battalion and brigade size operations were not extensively practised. Does the first report give any indication of this? From what you write, it suggests a validation of my view.
"Admittedly, Russia too learned this lesson the hard way in the opening of the war"
You don't accept the Kiev operation was a feint in order to lock down half of AFU in Kiev in order for real push to secure land bridge? Here allow General Van Riper to explain.
I actually wrote my opinion on this very matter long ago under the Nightvision name but long story short, I believe it was multi-dimensional, as any responsible planning would have. In that there was a main objective that was the optimal goal, but alternative and secondary objectives were still diligently launched not only as backups but also as potential hedges.
There were so many important initial objectives like for instance racing to the bio-labs and significant nuclear facilities (like ZNPP) in order to prevent Ukraine from either torching or fortifying them. So a lot of these were still done in accordance with doctrine just in case the main Kiev thrust/hail mary failed. So Russian general staff definitely hedged their bets in accordance with very well thought out and responsible doctrine.
So the whole Kiev land bridge fixing operation thing I believe was also part of that secondary consideration as you say. True planning takes on multi-dimensional aspects of this sort, where you try to kill as many 'birds with one stone' as possible. So yes, while they had *hoped* the Kiev stunt would potentially work, they still knew and planned for the secondary fallback of using it as a fixing operation to secure the landbridge and many other aforementioned secondaries (like time-sensitive biolabs, nuke plants, etc.).
Otherwise, if that wasn't the case, then why would they even open on other fronts? They could've just sent the entire army to Kiev as a huge "all in one" operation.
IF Kiev was a primary objective, they would have invaded from the russian side of the border at all contact points, as well as made Belarussia invade or just used their borders as cloak to hide russian forces. Vladimir Putin likely Xed his own general's desire to do so. If Vladimir hadn't cemented his power, maybe there would have been some early cia prigozins.
Nightvision name sounds familiar...was that you on the Saker blog? Always enjoyed that guy's analysis, then he just dissapeared! If you're the same, glad I stumbled upon you again.
The Saker was a great site, sorely missed, as are the comments. Does anyone remember the Russian (?) guy that wrote quite extensively in the latter months of the blog, and where I could find him now? I always thought his pieces very thoughtful and well written.
Just a note; I think the biolabs you reference were a major Russian concern; their US funded existence and what may have been their possible planned for roles in this war should get a lot more scrutiny.
China is ringed with them, and if I were China some day when it would be least expected I would attack everyone of them, remove the staff, the documents, etc., and whisk them back to China.
It was a bit of horse trading as well. I am sure not all the Russian generals believed in vladimir putin's "ideas" about limited war ops and trying to find those bio weapon labs that may or may not exist. So they wanted a conventional thrust to force Kiev to negotiat,e and they thought they could do it. In reality, the bio labs and protecting the South was far more important. Ukraine was already invading Donbass/Crimea. That had to be broken first at mariupol, and if not mariupol, then donetsk/lugansk and crimea had to hold the nato nazis off.
The problem with ALl in is that somebody on Vladimir's military staff realized that nato/nuland just wanted an excuse to concentrate russian/slav forcs and then nuke em. Then blame russia for it. So that is why they didn't even bother using more than 100-120k russian forces, combined with donetsk/lugansk that was not more than 250-300k total forces, vs ukraine's 250-300k+700k reserves.
Two comments. The amx-10 is no bad vehicle either. In fact it and particularly its sensors and the accuracy of its gun at long range got a lot of praise, as one would expect from a scout vehicle. Where things went sideways was when it was used like a tank.
Concerning the almost crash of the Polish Boeing; the pilot having to fight his own stick rather sounds like the cause that brought down the two 737Max some years ago. So maybe nothing sinister about that, although I don't know whether the NG-version has a similar problem as the MAX.
That's a good point--we must always consider the true purpose and role of a vehicle. But to be honest, my slant on it was tongue in cheek to poke fun at how ugly and maligned it is. In truth most of these vehicles can be put to good use. And once in a while you'll catch me maligning all NATO gear much more vociferously but it's only out of frustration at the other side constantly maligning Russian gear for no reason. When they learn to show respect I'll do likewise. But yeah in reality, let's all be honest with ourselves, the French have one of the most storied histories of warfighting of any nation--minus the jokes and jeers of white flags and all that--so anything they produce is clearly capable and advanced. The French CAESAR is probably the single most powerful and advanced artillery on the Ukrainian side presently
Not really the tech. Germany has consistently neglected maintenance of military equipment, of which government airplanes are a part. This can be very much traced back to Ursula's stint as defense minister. With Boeing it goes back to the merger with McConnell-Douglas and leadership being greedy beancounters rather than engineers ever since. It led to cutting corners that should not be cut.
On a somewhat related note, we now know that one ISR plane from the USAF did not survive DEI hiring practices...although its groundbreakingly diverse crew did!!
The French tanks had some of the best innovations, although many of it didn't work. Their autoloading hardware is on the same philosophy as Soviet autoloaders, but some of it is pretty clunking. Like the need to level the turret barrel at 45 degrees. THat's not exactly a good thing in urban combat or ambush situations.
The last 737-800 was built in 2019, it went to Asia. When they talk about a "brand new" 737 in 2022 it has to be a MAX. The description of the trouble they experienced looks alike.
I have to correct this, as the end of production in 2019 refers to civil jets only. The Polish Air Force got 2 pieces of 737 BBJ2, which is based on the 737-800, in October of 2021 (https://zbiam.pl/rzadowe-bbj2-w-komplecie/)
Well, you also have to take into account that this Fritz guy would not likely say bad things about the people who got him things "for free", like biting the hand that feeds.
Nothing new on the Polish politicians, bark and no talk like the chihuagua meme. They are traitors that sold themselves to the US.
The Fritz's article was published by Censor Net, it is one of main Ukrainian propaganda source, so even if he said anything of that regard it was censored out (the title obliges).
What crimes do you feel Putin should be prosecuted for? Were they committed before or after the 2014 referendums in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, Crimea, and Sevastopol, and the Kiev and Kolomoisky-backed war on the Donbass that then began, supplied from the west?
I just looked up the warrant and it's for the war crime of deporting children during war. It's not for invading.
There are some who believe that all the ethnic Russians from the disputed Donetsk and Luhansk regions who have fled the warzone to go to pre-2022 Russia are in fact "Ukrainians" who have been captured and deported en masse.
Nobody who knows more than the tiniest amount about pre-2022 Ukraine would believe such rubbish.
Where would you expect Donbass Russian civilians to flee to?
I meant supplied from the region to the west of the Donbass, under the control of the Kiev government.
The four mentioned regions held referendums in 2014 which all resulted in very large majorities for leaving Ukraine. The Kiev government refused to recognise the referendum results, and in the same year launched its war on the Donetsk and Luhansk regions that had seceded.
The war had already been going on for eight years by the time Russia declared war on the Kiev regime in 2022 and attacked Kiev etc.
You didn't say what crimes you think Putin should be prosecuted for.
You think the referendum results were fake news then?
Ignore the troll "John", he posts this same drivel every 12 hours.
I am calling for "John" to go to the Donbass front and get blown to pieces for it's heinous trolling.
Give it a rest dickhead. Do you really believe anyone gives a shit what you want?
Change your focus to the south border. You are about to be replaced
Change your tune. Putin is your obsession not ours
This post has been brought to you by an AI
Would you like fries with it?
I am calling for "John" to travel to the Donbass and force Russia to withdraw.
Let's see if the mouthy bitch can match actions to trolling.
Reading this interview with "Fritz" and why he is called that sounds like a bad movie trope... You know what they say, reality is stranger than fiction...
Again, your pace of production is amazing. And the quality outstanding. As always many thanks.
Another one bites the dust;
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-21/australian-joel-stremski-killed-ukraine-battling-russians/103128292
A.M.F. = "adios, motherfucker"
any word on more Challenger Tanks burning? Really really wanna see some BURN!!!
Unlikely they're going to be moved at all during the mud season, they're too heavy. If the ground freezes in winter, then we may see more Challenger bonfires to keep things warm at the front.
too busy guarding the brothels in Kiev, lol
When the Leopards run out, they'll have their turn. But there's a pecking order at work...
So about the 3 hours late thing. I think this might be due to the fact that once you get a platoon or company within artillery range, you have to assume you'll be spotted and shot at within 10-15 mins. So you have to relocate, which makes it tough to cue up units to exploit or support the ongoing fight.
I just assume it was a traffic or logistics jam due to the mash-up of trying to assemble in the night a battalion that's probably in 70 or more locations and get it to the line-of-departure in the dark and then attack. All of this while observing light discipline and no rehearsals.
Artillery range is definitely a factor that always need to be taken into account. The squads/platoons all marshaled far behind where they needed to assemble as a battalion cuz of the "nuns with big guns".
Fritz's interview brings the war down to earth. The admission of Polish involvement blew me away. Simplicius' explanation, stoking the fires of my interest.
Earth, wind, and fire. :)
Really worth exploring the OTHER 90% of their material....EWF, that is...
Arguably one of the few fusion bands that combined Jazz, Funk & Soul.....
Fantastically interesting piece.
And some great writing!
This line was brilliant:
"It was all a sort of heady whirligig of patriotism and puissance and that old-time grainy newsreel squeaky-Gramophone jazz American glory that was like a warm fur-coat of comfort about the sagging shoulders of these mentally traumatized Ukrainian fleischsoldaten."
Yes, I really enjoyed that line too. I have a visual mind and it whipped up that image for me as I read :)
Simplicius - and I don’t say this lightly - you are a marvel.
Yes! 3 Cheers for our Hero!!!
To be fair, US training programs are pretty good. But the reason the Gulf war was a success was not because of the Bradleys or Abrams, or NATO magic fairy dust, it was because of rigorous planning and training. I believe their mechanized brigades trained a whole year specifically for the initial opening offensive, against an inferiour force in both equipment, readiness and competence. But even if the equipments were reversed, i.e. the Iraqis had the NATO gear and the US had the knockoff Soviet gear, the outcpme would not have changed much. Ukraine never stood a chance of winning this offensive, and not because NATO gear is superior or inferior, but because they were set up for failure on so many levels from the start.
Gulf war was shooting fish in barrel. 1950/60s equipments no AD/AA and Arabs who can't fight conventional warfare (no offense but Israel proved that many times)
That's exactly my point. It wasn't that the magical NATO equipment or training, or US military doctrine that won against the inferior Soviet equipment, training and strategy, but the entire "Russian gear is junk compared to Bradleys and Abrams" notion comes from these wars.
But let's not diminish their achievements. What the US pulled off back then was still pretty impressive and well coordinated, even against a bought-and-payed-for, demoralized ragtag force.
Hell, it's not even that easy to move and sustain a rapid advancement of an army through a desert even if there is literally no enemy there. Troops run out of food, fuel and water, equipment breaks down, etc. But it's a completely different ball game than the situation in Ukraine.
It's why "special forces" aren't that useful in Ukraine. It doesn't matter how good tou are at Battle Drill 6 and clearing buildings, if you're sitting in a trench, that capability won'thelp you.
You can have the best mobile army in the world, that's very proficient in sustaining troops throughout a rapid advance, and punch way above your weight, but that capability doesn't translate into efficiency in artillery / trench attritional warfare.
Just ask Germany.
I attended graduate school with some of the men who participated in Desert Storm, including brigade commanders. That was a different breed than those who currently run the U.S. military. This was the post-Vietnam, reconstructed U.S. army, who did everything possible to ensure that they had a trained cadre of professional soldiers: officers, NCOs, and enlisted. The current U.S. military bears little resemblance to that of 30 years ago.
And the US's demolishiom of a completely outmatched and unprepared ragtag force back then brought in a complete era of false public expectations about militaries and the superiority of US forces to everyone else. That strangely escaped being completely shatter in the Iraq and Afghanistan clusterfucks.
1991 was the peak for the U.S. military. After Vietnam, there was serious introspection and reform in the U.S. army: something that the institution is incapable of performing today. They recognized that the draft and Vietnam had made mayhem of discipline and morale. So they set out to redesign the army and marines and focus on retaining and recruiting the best people that they could find. They also redesigned the training programs around the best NCOs.... "be all that you can be." They focuses especially on legacies and "military families."
Throughout the 1980s, they built up the force with an emphasis on a European great-power war. The force that went to war with Saddam Hussein in 1991 was large and crack: built around integrated, mechanized divisions, well-trained in combined arms warfare. The desert terrain was the perfect terrain for this force to perform to its best capabilities. Complete air superiority and the lack of Iraqi surveillance assets, allowed them to run text-book blitzkrieg maneuvers.
After this war, Clinton began drawing down the size of the force, focused primarily on the army, because the belief was that a large-scale European war was no longer a concern. When Rumsfeld came in with Bush the Younger, he was obsessed with "lightening" the force and making it as air-mobile as possible: assuming that only small units would be needed in the future to quell regional issues. Such was the mindset of the neo-cons. The empire had no peers, so needed no great continental-sized army.
With Obama, the focus became political. He purged the general staff, removing the competent commanders above the rank of major who remained, and replaced them with political appointees. The Democrats had become concerned that the military was potentially subversive, and since Obama, they have been as focused as a laser on ensuring the political loyalties of all senior staff. Recruitment and training have suffered significantly under these attempts to transform the military into an arm of the state party. The result is a leadership cadre bereft of any actual talent in charge of a small force of poorly trained misfits. The U.S. no longer has the capability to fight a large-scale continental war, or even a regional conflict of any significance. To be frank, Ukraine has performed better, without doubt, than the U.S. would be capable of doing today.
Since no one competent remains, there is no one in Washington to tell the neo-cons and Israeli-first Biden-administration Jews that the U.S. no longer has the capability to carry out their imperial dreams or even support allies like Israel or Ukraine in a war against any significant regional power.
Very cool insight.
Had a quick thought.
'91 was a US Military preparing to take on the Russians, but were asked to fight conscripted goat herders.
Today, the US military is prepared to fight conscripted goat herders, and they're ask to fight the Russians.
Not a great plan.
Iraqi generals were paid millions to not fight. It was a bogus 'war'.
Hello, I just posted something similar, hadn't seen yours. Apologies!
Keep in mind the US had bribed the senior military command, so it wasn't so much they can't fight as their management had either deserted them or just as likely set them up.
Hundreds of suitcases full of cash were handed out to high ranking military men prior the invasion in order to ensure an easy ride…
Ret. Lt. Col. Daniel Davis has stated in several interviews that they trained in Saudi Arabia for a solid year - you are correct. He added that, even after that intense training it "wasn't easy".
The first conventional US army unit in Saudi was the DRF 1 battalion from the 82 ABN on August 9th or 10th, I think the day was.
Lt. Col Davis was an arty officer supporting Colonel MacGregor at 73 Easting.
They didn't train for a year. But for sure a solid 90 days either in the US, Germany or Saudi during Desert Shield. A hyuuge freakin' army with total air superiority.
The Iraqi knock-off tanks, at least some, had wooden floor boards.
Sorry, my bad on that. I should have said preparation instead of training and not quite 1 year, just under half a year.
I belive they started the buildup in August 1990, and launched the invasion in January 1991, so 5 months, give or take.
I was attached to the 197th Mechanized brigade at the time. We had to plunder FT Benning in late July to get the brigade TOE up to standard.
The air war started mid January '91 and the ground invasion started about 30 days later.
I was there and I didn't know what day the land war began or when it ended. I am not even curious about it today.
Old Fritz still wants to fight with no legs...The Ukrainians obstinacy is to be admired. I often say it takes Russians to beat Russians and this is the best force Russia could possibly face. NATO chumps would be crying for momma in two weeks. Ukraine comes up short this time just based on superior #'s of Russians proper and better/more materials of Russia but no other European army could beat Ukrainians.
Ukrainians that live will make very good Russian Soldiers when this is all over.
You are utterly deluded. No, more than that, incapable of cohesive rational thought.
Oh really? If NATO will try to directly attack Russia, all their reconnaissance satellites will be destroyed and all their air bases in Europe will suffer massive missile strikes. Russian missiles can attack any target anywhere in Europe. Also Russia have largest amount of nuclear warheads and can annihilate entire Europe. And USA will not help them because they don't want to see nuclear mushrooms in USA territory and die for their slaves.
🏆
They just resign themselves to die which can be either admired or sneered at. I would go for the option 2. When you look closely at the boots on the frontline you see unfit dudes who just act as deadmeat. Nothing to boast about
Pity is also an option.
Was he boasting?
Have you looked closely "at the boots on the frontline"?
What would one be on the frontline if one does not deal with the idea of death?
I'm sick of detonating Ukrainian cannon fodder, which are partially odessa russian fodder too that they conscripted. Time to focus more on the masterminds, like greater balfour.
You may be onto something there....who really does benefit from Slavs killing Slavs...
Yes. Exactly, I hope Russia is doing just that.
Ahhhh...maybe the ones passing out the cookies?
The usual suspects.
@Chevrus
Blackrock et alia.
I am not optimistic about the Ukrainian war being over soon. The Ukrainians will get funding for a defensive war. The reality is that the Federal Reserve needs to stop the multipolar world if it ever expects to pay off the debt. To control interest rates, they must control inflation - that is the price of oil and commodities. The colonies want freedom and higher prices. See the problem? This is a banker's war. It it not about Democratic vales.
Never was. In the USA the word ‘democracy’ is simply a buzzword that politicians and the feeble minded that follow them use in order to validate whatever they are selling on any given day.... All the while the system is much closer to a corporate oligarchy with massive regulatory capture.
Historically, the US was also intended to be an oligarchy, though at least one led by an educated aristocracy rather than the wealthiest among them (a rather small step up), to be dominated neither by the "tyranny of the majority" nor the "tyranny of the minority."
Democracy was never very popular in the US, and most of its founders hated it with a passion with only a few exceptions like Jefferson. That it was ever intended to be a democracy or to promote democracy are among the biggest lies they've told/sold everyone worldwide. It's American mythology, what happens to a nation when ignorance becomes the rule and it forgets its own history.
Gore Vidal wrote a lot on this, to anyone interested in what the US was really like. I highly recommend his book "The Last Empire", and "History of the National Security State"—the latter I read first and learned of from Assange, who chose to hold it on display (to the confusion of the dependent media) when he was arrested and illegally kidnapped from the Ecuadorean embassy.
As Vidal once said in an interview with Consortium News, "[Democracy;] it’s the one form of government that we’ve never tried." (https://consortiumnews.com/2021/07/31/a-conversation-with-gore-vidal-on-the-e-word/)
Be hard to be on defense with Russias stand off advantage. After their weak lines are busted Russia can siege and starve out every city.
Respectfully, the US was never intended to be a Democracy, but a Republic. Democracy is rule by the majority, a Republic is rule by agreement. Now a lot of the original Republic rules have been corrupted, see US elections for details, but the format of a Republic remains.
And there would have been no earthly reason for less populated states to have ever joined a Democratic union. So if you think about it, a small part of the decision may have been about Marketing the new government to the masses.
Respectfully:
It’s Official: America Is an Oligarchy
The Congressional Budget Office confirms that the rich exponentially increased their share of America’s wealth over the past 30 years.
https://www.thenation.com/article/society/cbo-american-wealth-inequality/
(Actually the BBC proclaimed it to be an oligarchy a decade or so ago.)
I agree, we are in a horrific state.
We began as a Republic, today's governance is closer to Dane law with a side of late stage Rome.
More like the Weimar Republic of late 1920's Germany I'd say.
Not to mention the problem in morale.
Like every war there are multiple interests among multiple players. Stopping the multipolar world is certainly one, stopping the economic alliance between Russia and Germany was a big one, looting Russia was also big.
I saw a science program long ago, it covered an experiment where two types of moss were grown on either side of a good sized rock. As time passed they encountered each other. They began attacking each other, never stopped. Much of the world's leadership operate on the same intellectual level as moss.
Always a banker's war.
Who are the bankers?
The banker?
They are doing that today. News is that the 1st Battalion is now in the field. See: Battalion of Ukrainian ex-POWs Heads Out on Combat Mission in Special Op Zone
https://sputnikglobe.com/20231122/battalion-of-ukrainian-ex-pows-heads-out-on-combat-mission-in-special-op-zone-1115126726.html
If the Ukrainians had turned left in the beginning, they'd be in Brest (the Atlantic one) by now...
Great article - thanks. One question I have had for a while, is the extent of big unit training - that is the ability of units like the 47th to operate in units larger than a company? It seems to me that the failure to attack with co-ordinated masses of troops might have been due to the fact that whilst small unit and weapons training was undertaken, battalion and brigade size operations were not extensively practised. Does the first report give any indication of this? From what you write, it suggests a validation of my view.
"Admittedly, Russia too learned this lesson the hard way in the opening of the war"
You don't accept the Kiev operation was a feint in order to lock down half of AFU in Kiev in order for real push to secure land bridge? Here allow General Van Riper to explain.
https://imetatronink.substack.com/p/a-former-us-marine-corps-officershtml
I actually wrote my opinion on this very matter long ago under the Nightvision name but long story short, I believe it was multi-dimensional, as any responsible planning would have. In that there was a main objective that was the optimal goal, but alternative and secondary objectives were still diligently launched not only as backups but also as potential hedges.
There were so many important initial objectives like for instance racing to the bio-labs and significant nuclear facilities (like ZNPP) in order to prevent Ukraine from either torching or fortifying them. So a lot of these were still done in accordance with doctrine just in case the main Kiev thrust/hail mary failed. So Russian general staff definitely hedged their bets in accordance with very well thought out and responsible doctrine.
So the whole Kiev land bridge fixing operation thing I believe was also part of that secondary consideration as you say. True planning takes on multi-dimensional aspects of this sort, where you try to kill as many 'birds with one stone' as possible. So yes, while they had *hoped* the Kiev stunt would potentially work, they still knew and planned for the secondary fallback of using it as a fixing operation to secure the landbridge and many other aforementioned secondaries (like time-sensitive biolabs, nuke plants, etc.).
Otherwise, if that wasn't the case, then why would they even open on other fronts? They could've just sent the entire army to Kiev as a huge "all in one" operation.
IF Kiev was a primary objective, they would have invaded from the russian side of the border at all contact points, as well as made Belarussia invade or just used their borders as cloak to hide russian forces. Vladimir Putin likely Xed his own general's desire to do so. If Vladimir hadn't cemented his power, maybe there would have been some early cia prigozins.
Nightvision name sounds familiar...was that you on the Saker blog? Always enjoyed that guy's analysis, then he just dissapeared! If you're the same, glad I stumbled upon you again.
Yes I remember Nightvision at the Saker's blog
The Saker was a great site, sorely missed, as are the comments. Does anyone remember the Russian (?) guy that wrote quite extensively in the latter months of the blog, and where I could find him now? I always thought his pieces very thoughtful and well written.
You found him
Nightvision/Simp is one of the best analysts I have seen in intel analysis work.
Just a note; I think the biolabs you reference were a major Russian concern; their US funded existence and what may have been their possible planned for roles in this war should get a lot more scrutiny.
China is ringed with them, and if I were China some day when it would be least expected I would attack everyone of them, remove the staff, the documents, etc., and whisk them back to China.
It was a bit of horse trading as well. I am sure not all the Russian generals believed in vladimir putin's "ideas" about limited war ops and trying to find those bio weapon labs that may or may not exist. So they wanted a conventional thrust to force Kiev to negotiat,e and they thought they could do it. In reality, the bio labs and protecting the South was far more important. Ukraine was already invading Donbass/Crimea. That had to be broken first at mariupol, and if not mariupol, then donetsk/lugansk and crimea had to hold the nato nazis off.
The problem with ALl in is that somebody on Vladimir's military staff realized that nato/nuland just wanted an excuse to concentrate russian/slav forcs and then nuke em. Then blame russia for it. So that is why they didn't even bother using more than 100-120k russian forces, combined with donetsk/lugansk that was not more than 250-300k total forces, vs ukraine's 250-300k+700k reserves.
I feel like the Russians didn't think it was going to work but it would be stupid to not try.
Two comments. The amx-10 is no bad vehicle either. In fact it and particularly its sensors and the accuracy of its gun at long range got a lot of praise, as one would expect from a scout vehicle. Where things went sideways was when it was used like a tank.
Concerning the almost crash of the Polish Boeing; the pilot having to fight his own stick rather sounds like the cause that brought down the two 737Max some years ago. So maybe nothing sinister about that, although I don't know whether the NG-version has a similar problem as the MAX.
That's a good point--we must always consider the true purpose and role of a vehicle. But to be honest, my slant on it was tongue in cheek to poke fun at how ugly and maligned it is. In truth most of these vehicles can be put to good use. And once in a while you'll catch me maligning all NATO gear much more vociferously but it's only out of frustration at the other side constantly maligning Russian gear for no reason. When they learn to show respect I'll do likewise. But yeah in reality, let's all be honest with ourselves, the French have one of the most storied histories of warfighting of any nation--minus the jokes and jeers of white flags and all that--so anything they produce is clearly capable and advanced. The French CAESAR is probably the single most powerful and advanced artillery on the Ukrainian side presently
For the record, Germany's government planes have also suffered multiple mechanical problems, including very serious ones.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/14/technical-problems-ground-german-foreign-ministers-plane-in-abu-dhabi
The plane in question above was an Airbus, not a Boeing, but the truth remains that Western tech is increasingly turning to shit.
Not really the tech. Germany has consistently neglected maintenance of military equipment, of which government airplanes are a part. This can be very much traced back to Ursula's stint as defense minister. With Boeing it goes back to the merger with McConnell-Douglas and leadership being greedy beancounters rather than engineers ever since. It led to cutting corners that should not be cut.
nato cannot resist the waxxine zombification.
On a somewhat related note, we now know that one ISR plane from the USAF did not survive DEI hiring practices...although its groundbreakingly diverse crew did!!
The French tanks had some of the best innovations, although many of it didn't work. Their autoloading hardware is on the same philosophy as Soviet autoloaders, but some of it is pretty clunking. Like the need to level the turret barrel at 45 degrees. THat's not exactly a good thing in urban combat or ambush situations.
The last 737-800 was built in 2019, it went to Asia. When they talk about a "brand new" 737 in 2022 it has to be a MAX. The description of the trouble they experienced looks alike.
I have to correct this, as the end of production in 2019 refers to civil jets only. The Polish Air Force got 2 pieces of 737 BBJ2, which is based on the 737-800, in October of 2021 (https://zbiam.pl/rzadowe-bbj2-w-komplecie/)
Yes, the new Boeing planes like 787 are unreliable pieces of shit
Never get on a 787
Well, you also have to take into account that this Fritz guy would not likely say bad things about the people who got him things "for free", like biting the hand that feeds.
Nothing new on the Polish politicians, bark and no talk like the chihuagua meme. They are traitors that sold themselves to the US.
The Fritz's article was published by Censor Net, it is one of main Ukrainian propaganda source, so even if he said anything of that regard it was censored out (the title obliges).
Add to that the fact that Fritz is less likely to go off script because it’s not as though he can just up and run away!!
exactly!