This is not a bluff is what he said if you prefer a literal translation, but yeah.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
Their casualties figure is almost comical, how is anyone buying that when in conjunction for the need for partial mobilisation.
@harms A Russian acquaintance of mine published a post that had mentioned Russian riot police had flamethrowers?! Can this actually be real...
Not to worry, everyone’s getting a Lada!
I doubt it, I’ve never seen it at least and in general it sounds like a stupid way to go. They have their sticks, electroshockers, tear gas, sound grenades and freedom to torture detainees, that’s been enough so far.
BBC Russia counts all the deaths that are getting mentioned by the official sources (by name, openly) and even that figure that obviously is way lower than the actual estimate is higher than Shoigu’s.
That’s what someone that is bluffing would say.
This nation deserves everything that’s coming its way now (and for the decades), slave mentality embedded into their DNA.
They probably were afraid they'd get mobilised right from the rally.
All advanced NATO/US weapons should now be on the table for Ukraine. Make the technological disparity so steep that no amount of meat will be enough to hold on to occupied territories.
Wow.
Still a lot more cities to go, there is still a chance we might witness double digits in Moscow or St Petersburg.
I won’t belittle your question as others have done. Yes, which is probably why the idea of another revolution is referenced a lot throughout this thread and generally pops up when talking about Russia given it was recent history (100years ago). Fascinating but horrible period of history.
The context is generally important too, Russia performed terribly in WWI which led to a bloody revolution, assassination of whole royal family including the children and complete overhaul of system.
They are performing poorly in war right now too, and they also have autocratic leader.
I wonder if we’ll see Putin take the place of the Romanov’s this time around. You know there’s an old fella in the U.K. who just became King and has a direct claim to reestablish the Russian monarchy…
The equivalent of a military semi
Or you go in if you've aready done it.
At least Russian liberal “opposition” won’t be able to call it as Putin’s war anymore.
That 100 percent will happen. That’s why Russia are talking about not bluffing and all that nonsense in a desperate attempt to stop it happening
Still feel terrible that Ukraine fights on their own as far as the human risk in this conflict. They've proven themselves the opposite of a lost cause like the former Afghan government, or further back the Republic of Vietnam, who were governments with little actual support of the population.
If Putin gets on TV and already tells his people that they're fighting the west, how escalatory would it even be if that were simply made to become reality? Or to look at it from a different angle, would the costs of Ukraine losing/having to agree to a stalemate without parts of it's territory also not be an unsustainable peace? I think that Russian aggression would likely reoccur within a decade at most.
I think there's a mismatch in terms of the strategic significance of this conflict (indirectly will define the security situation in Eastern Europe for a decade or longer, implications for global security) and the current commitment of US/NATO resources. I think the deployment of aerial, anti-air, logistics support, intelligence, and any other sort of units short of armor (explicit commitment not to violate Russian territory with ground units and no use of strategic bombers) to support Ukraine should be considered. Even while I know that the actual answer is that none of this will be considered or done.
If Putin gets on TV and already tells his people that they're fighting the west, how escalatory would it even be if that were simply made to become reality? Or to look at it from a different angle, would the costs of Ukraine losing/having to agree to a stalemate without parts of it's territory also not be an unsustainable peace? I think that Russian aggression would likely reoccur within a decade at most.
I think there's a mismatch in terms of the strategic significance of this conflict (indirectly will define the security situation in Eastern Europe for a decade or longer, implications for global security) and the current commitment of US/NATO resources. I think the deployment of aerial, anti-air, logistics support, intelligence, and any other sort of units short of armor (explicit commitment not to violate Russian territory with ground units and no use of strategic bombers) to support Ukraine should be considered. Even while I know that the actual answer is that none of this will be considered or done.
I think this is merely a ploy from Putin to try and stop the rapid counter offensive from the Ukranian forces. They will potentially now have to think about what they can hold in a spring offensive from Russia, once it get's these mobilised troops into position.
They have to take a calculated gamble to stop and consolidate now before winter sets in hard, or do they go for the jugular and hope the mobilized troops are as poorly led and badly motivated as the current Russian soldiers have been.
Personally I think you can't "normalise" Putin's behaviour and let him hold these fragments of territory. Some rapidly "rebadged" resources need to suddenly appear on the battlefield to establish total air supremacy and a squadron of A10's to raze the remaining Russian forces will force widespread mutiny and collapse within a week. It would just be a question of where to draw the line - Crimea??
They have to take a calculated gamble to stop and consolidate now before winter sets in hard, or do they go for the jugular and hope the mobilized troops are as poorly led and badly motivated as the current Russian soldiers have been.
Personally I think you can't "normalise" Putin's behaviour and let him hold these fragments of territory. Some rapidly "rebadged" resources need to suddenly appear on the battlefield to establish total air supremacy and a squadron of A10's to raze the remaining Russian forces will force widespread mutiny and collapse within a week. It would just be a question of where to draw the line - Crimea??
But it’s not though? There’s precedent for what I posted there, it’s a major difference.
There's probably some truth in that. If Ukraine know a load more troops are potentially on the way, they're more likely to consolidate positions rather than counterattack and risk being exposed. They'll still look to take strategic cities back I imagine.
Thanks- I should have looked it up first - but dont know anything bout Russian history. Its just something I have never read about.
These guys just had their most prestigious field army level formation (1st Guard Tanks Army) partially routed. I don't think that conscripts will display higher morale, determination or skill in holding against future offensives.
A reverse historical precedent that comes to mind is the Battle of the Bulge, where after a few US line divisions were defeated by German forces, at least what the generals had in strategic reserve to rapidly deploy and hold the new line + Bastogne were the mostly volunteer 82nd and 101st airborne divisions.
A reverse historical precedent that comes to mind is the Battle of the Bulge, where after a few US line divisions were defeated by German forces, at least what the generals had in strategic reserve to rapidly deploy and hold the new line + Bastogne were the mostly volunteer 82nd and 101st airborne divisions.
Kofman’s usually cautious analysis doesn’t see this as any sort of game changer until at least the medium term:
You probably already know the main names and storyline without being aware. For example Rasputin, The Bolsheviks, the ‘reds’ vs ‘white’ army, Lenin etc. the film Anastasia
If this translation is correct she is spot on, there is nothing partial about it besides the name. The only limiting factors are age and health reasons. To me this sounds like a general mobilization and the next step after this would be declaring martial law.
Good assessment from Hertling as usual. And another reason why Putin's so called mobilization is little more than a final act of desperation rather than one that will turn the tide back in Russia's favor.
Last edited:
I'm not sure Russian mobilisation will necessarily lead to Ukrainians stoping their offensive in short term, and by short term I mean next couple of weeks. If anything, they may look to launch new offensives soon to liberate more territory before Russian extra men arrive.
She is spot on, she's about as thorough as they get.
From what I heard from acquaintances it used to be piss easy to bribe yourself out of the military service. @harms do you think those that have done so will still be drafted now?
It certainly was very easy, especially in wealthier regions. I'm not sure how hard it is to prove that someone cheated their way out of conscription — usually a doctor in the army-affiliated facility or an army officer at the conscription office were bribed to get a fake medical diagnosis that get you expelled from service. Unless those particular people were caught red-handed, which happens sometimes (and triggers a retrospective reassessment of their previous cases), it's pretty tough to prove foul play.
I doubt that they'll have the time to check old cases and issue those reassessments on those who are already expelled from service. It'll take so much time as you'll have to prove that their medical evaluation was not legit (which, most likely, means a couple of weeks in an army's hospital to check everything out for themselves).