Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2016/02/16 04:29:45
Subject: Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
Did Crimea change sovereignty to Ukraine in 1954? Yes? That's all annexation is. The transfer of territory from one political entity to another. While it does carry a negative connotation (usually such that the annexing state is treated as an aggressor), that's not really part of the definition of the term.
Great! So now every time "annexation by Russia" is mentioned I will adding "annexation by Ukraine".
That hair is very nicely split.
Of course it is. If one can argue that it's Bush's personal fault for Iraq occupation but not America's, the same thing can apply to Russia.
Yeah. Stalin was kind of a dick to everyone. Not really surprising the USSR wanted to tone down the guy's legacy after he died. Doesn't really change that the USSR was effectively a mechanism of Russian hegemony/empire throughout the 20th century.
You are lucky Trotsky got an ice-axe in the head, he was really into the Communist World Revolution. Stalin was just "power projecting" in the modern terms.
So... Just like every other state that exists, and ever will exist, Ukraine came into existence by incorporating territories from other states. I'm not sure that makes a case for anything, let alone territorial rights to Crimea.
Ah... no. "Ukraine" as an entity didn't not exist until 1991 and all it's territorial gains were done by somebody else for it.
Case in point - India and Pakistan. Both modern countries were a UK colony until the British decided to pull out and split it into two parts. It doesn't mean that this countries don't exist, it means they were created by somebody else.
By that logic, all nations are artificial, which is decent logic given that 'nation' is nothing more than a social construct that exists solely because people proclaim it to exist and other people recognize their proclamation.
Would you consider Scottish people and Irish people the same nation if they live together inside UK?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/16 04:34:06
Of course it is. If one can argue that it's Bush's personal fault for Iraq occupation but not America's, the same thing can apply to Russia.
I've made no such claim and never would, because such a claim is BS.
Ah... no. "Ukraine" as an entity didn't not exist until 1991 and all it's territorial gains were done by somebody else for it.
Ukraine as an identifiable region has existed since.at least the 19th century (arguably older, given that 'the Ukraine' basically means 'the borderlands'). As a nationality it has most certainly existed since the 18th century thanks to Taras Shevchenko, and arguably even older than that in Ukrainian nationalism is taken as an offshoot of Cossack nationalism. Ukraine first attempted to declare independence in 1917, then comes some civil war, some political stuff, and then the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic was part of the USSR. So no. Ukraine an an entity has existed for at the very least 200+ years, and as a political entity it is one year off from it's 100th birthday.
Case in point - India and Pakistan. Both modern countries were a UK colony until the British decided to pull out and split it into two parts. It doesn't mean that this countries don't exist, it means they were created by somebody else.
Yet no one would ever proclaim India did not exist until 1947/1950, because that would be silly. India as a distinct political entity has existed for hundreds of years. So has China. Or England. Or France. Or Greece. Comparatively, Ukraine is pretty young, but that's not really relevant to anything.
Would you consider Scottish people and Irish people the same nation if they live together inside UK?
No. But then, United Kingdomian is not a nationality. British is, but I'm not sure how many Irish or Scottish would identify themselves as British. I've always been kind of fuzzy on that. Of course, now we're getting to that area where Ethnic and National identities start blurring. EDIT: And of course the question of how many identities can a single person hold at the same time.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/02/16 04:55:12
We have at the one in China that I know of, considering China lent us half a billion dollars (Yes, we even have a national debt).
Holy cow the things you learn on a miniature gaming website. Well, my warmest congratulations! Any plans to stop paying taxes to US any time soon and to start repaying China?
Hold on a second, first you're basing your argument with 'I met these guys posting comments on YouTube' and then you're denying the Katyn massacre took place?
You mean Nazis shooting polish POWs and presenting it to the World as "Soviet war crimes? Sure. Kinda sad that the Western World is so Russophobic they would believe the exact enemies they are fighting against, never mind the Cold War propaganda.
One: Poland did not occupy any areas of Czechoslovakia after the Munich Agreement. Hungary did annex the area that is now in the Ukraine. Some Poles did cross over the boarder and join the Sich, an insurgent force opposing the annexation (Which made the whole thing a bit surreal, as both the annexation and the resistance to it were both backed by the Germans). Polish members captured by the Hungarians were turned back over to the Poles for illegal boarder crossing. Some have stated that Polish soldiers did shoot some of these people, though the numbers are unlikely, considering the Sich at best could field about 2k men, so the idea of 500 them being shot by the Poles seems a bit unlikely, and there's never been any direct evidence found.
Two: During the Polish-Soviet war both sides committed horrors against their POWs. The Poles killed or allowed to die about 1/4th of the prisoners (around 16-20k). The Soviets about half (of 50k POWs). I could show a picture of what the Soviets were doing to amuse themselves with the Polish POWs, but the mods here would freak out. They tend to oppose photos of men with rods rammed up their ass while hung from a tree with ropes.
I really hate to repeat myself, especially when I am so right.
The issue was finally settled in 2004, where a joint team of Polish and Russian historians (prof. Waldemar Rezmer and prof. Zbigniew Karpus from Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń and prof. Gennady Matveyev from Moscow State University), after reexamining documents from Polish and Russian archives published their results (printed in Russia by Federal Agency for Russian Archives). Their findings show that the number of Russian POWs can be estimated at between 80,000 and 85,000, and that the number of deaths in the camps can be estimated from 16,000 (Karpus, Rezmer) to 20,000 (Matveyev). Existing documents and proofs does not also confirm thesis made by many Russian historians that Russian POWs were specially exterminated in Polish camps because of their nationality, religion or other issues. They also show that the main cause of death were various illnesses and epidemics (influenza, typhus, cholera and dysentery), noting that these diseases also took a heavy toll among fighting soldiers and the civilian population.
As for the pictures, I can find pictures of Soviet POWs in the polish prison camps. Not a Disneyland either. I bet you would like them.
Three: the finding of the Prosecutor General's Office of the Soviet Union in 1990 was that yes, the Katyn massacre took place much as the Germans described it, and some things the Germans didn't even know went on on top that, and it had been ordered by Stalin. The victims, according to declassified Soviet documents, consisted of an admiral, two generals, 24 colonels, 79 lieutenant colonels, 258 majors, 654 captains, 17 naval captains, 3,420 non-commissioned officers, seven chaplains, three landowners, a prince, 43 officials, 85 privates, 131 refugees, 20 university professors, 300 physicians; several hundred lawyers, engineers, and teachers; and more than 100 writers and journalists as well as about 200 pilots.
Sure, sure. "Accidentally" at the same time Russia needed an approval from poland to build the "Nord Stream" so I wouldn't put too much faith into what the Russian Government gave away to get the permission. The rumor says, after polish investigative authorities went through those "documents" they've been "lost". Besides, Putin is a piece of something and he indeed would say anything to please his Western "partners" even if it comes to dishonor the history of it's own country.
I'm curious how the 300 physicians 'deserved' to be executed in a forest on the 3rd of April 1940. How did those teachers and engineers warrant a bullet in the head? You're quick to justify horror Yaraton, or try and excuse it by claiming that others did worse. What's your answer to this?
Of course they didn't deserve it but the SS and Gestapo are not known to be the "peoples organizations".
Holy cow the things you learn on a miniature gaming website. Well, my warmest congratulations! Any plans to stop paying taxes to US any time soon and to start repaying China?
I don't really get it but there are numerous 'Indian Nations' within the United States that are treated as sovereign states, and parts of the United States, at the same time. It's a giant legal feth hole as far as I can tell. The Indian Nations have their own government, are not subject to US State or Federal Law (except those specifically pertaining to them which are limited), and as I understand it reservations and sovereign lands granted to Native Americans by treaty with the US are not subject to State or Federal taxes.
I've made no such claim and never would, because such a claim is BS.
Then we don't need to discuss it further I gather?
Ukraine as an identifiable region has existed since.at least the 19th century (arguably older, given that 'the Ukraine' basically means 'the borderlands'). As a nationality it has most certainly existed since the 18th century thanks to Taras Shevchenko, and arguably even older than that in Ukrainian nationalism is taken as an offshoot of Cossack nationalism. Ukraine first attempted to declare independence in 1917, then comes some civil war, some political stuff, and then the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic was part of the USSR. So no. Ukraine an an entity has existed for at the very least 200+ years, and as a political entity it is one year off from it's 100th birthday.
Yet no one would ever proclaim India did not exist until 1947/1950, because that would be silly. India as a distinct political entity has existed for hundreds of years. So has China. Or England. Or France. Or Greece. Comparatively, Ukraine is pretty young, but that's not really relevant to anything.
How about Pakistan?
No. But then, United Kingdomian is not a nationality. British is, but I'm not sure how many Irish or Scottish would identify themselves as British. I've always been kind of fuzzy on that. Of course, now we're getting to that area where Ethnic and National identities start blurring. EDIT: And of course the question of how many identities can a single person hold at the same time.
So the "British" nation is artificial because it includes other nations?
I think we can all stand to be more polite and less sarcastic in some of our posts. Work towards that or else red text and warnings will end up in this thread that has done a good job of flying under the radar for a while.
I wish I had time for all the game systems I own, let alone want to own...
2016/02/16 05:51:34
Subject: Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
I don't really get it but there are numerous 'Indian Nations' within the United States that are treated as sovereign states, and parts of the United States, at the same time. It's a giant legal feth hole as far as I can tell. The Indian Nations have their own government, are not subject to US State or Federal Law (except those specifically pertaining to them which are limited), and as I understand it reservations and sovereign lands granted to Native Americans by treaty with the US are not subject to State or Federal taxes.
Well, if they are already not paying taxes I don't know what to tell. It does sound like they are sovereign nations within the country. Pretty much like Vatican in Italy.
Except that quote does not support your position.
You are not paying attention. He said that poles killed "only" 16-20K of the Soviet POWs when the polish-Russian committee agreed on the number of 80-85K.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
motyak wrote: I think we can all stand to be more polite and less sarcastic in some of our posts. Work towards that or else red text and warnings will end up in this thread that has done a good job of flying under the radar for a while.
It's very hard but believe me, I am trying. Again, my congrats to the Mods team for doing such an outstanding job warning people and keeping this discussion more or less civilized.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/16 05:54:25
Then we don't need to discuss it further I gather?
You make a claim. I point out it is fallacious. You respond with a straw man. I point out that is equally fallacious. You ask if there's any need to discuss it further.
I don't know. Throwing out nonsense and pointing out nonsense is nonsense isn't much of a discussion, so was there ever really a discussion to begin with?
How about Pakistan?
I just gave you a post explaining why it doesn't matter.
So the "British" nation is artificial because it includes other nations?
As stated earlier, all nations could be considered artificial. They exist because people proclaim them to exist, but that's getting existential about it It can get pretty complex too. One could be British and Scottish. They could also be Seneca and American. They could be Japanese and Ugandan even. I suppose that's where the word 'multinational comes into existence
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yaraton wrote: He said that poles killed "only" 16-20K of the Soviet POWs when the polish-Russian committee agreed on the number of 80-85K.
Yes. The committee agreed there were 80-85k POWs and that of that 80-85k, 16-20k died, hence the 1/4th Baron cited earlier.
No one in this thread has denied that POWs died in Poland. They've pointed out the larger context that POWs also died in Soviet Russia (50k), and that the Committee you cite identified the leading cause of death in Poland as illness, which was also rampant among the general population. It's very clearly written that way and you have quoted it twice now and claimed it says something it in fact does not say.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/16 06:02:10
Pure semantics. Scraping the bottom of the barrel now?
As much as I don't like Wubbya I am pretty sure he is not a despot who assassinates political opponents abroad and in front of the Kremlin.
Neither is Putin.
Putin is not a despot, he is a leader elected by the people and bound by the Constitution and the Constitutional Court, who over the past years has done a great deal to strenghten the rule of law and in general make Russia a better, fairer, less corrupt and more prosperous place than it was before. Compare Putin to Yeltsin, the Soviets and the Tsars, and you will see what a true despot is, and why Putin isn't one.
Putin has also never assassinated political opponents. He doesn't even need to, with his popularity, and there is no proof he ever did. Much unlike your US government, which is infamous for having assassinated many political opponents abroad:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/mar/21/usa.davidpallister https://wikispooks.com/wiki/US/Foreign_Assassinations_since_1945
Ah... no. "Ukraine" as an entity didn't not exist until 1991 and all it's territorial gains were done by somebody else for it.
Ukraine as an identifiable region has existed since.at least the 19th century (arguably older, given that 'the Ukraine' basically means 'the borderlands'). As a nationality it has most certainly existed since the 18th century thanks to Taras Shevchenko, and arguably even older than that in Ukrainian nationalism is taken as an offshoot of Cossack nationalism. Ukraine first attempted to declare independence in 1917, then comes some civil war, some political stuff, and then the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic was part of the USSR. So no. Ukraine an an entity has existed for at the very least 200+ years, and as a political entity it is one year off from it's 100th birthday.
It is important to make a distinction between Ukraine as a region, Ukraine as a state, and Ukraine as a nation.
Ukraine as a region is very old, dating back to the time of the westernmost principalities of the Rus people (altough the term was rarely used until the 18th century). Ukraine as a independent state can be traced back to the Zaporizhian Sich of the Cossacks. This was however not a Ukrainian nation. Ukraine did not exist at that time as a nation, people back then still considered themselves as part of the larger Slavic Rus identity. The emergence of the Ukrainian nation can only be traced back to the 19th century when under influence of romanticism, lifestyle of peasants and independent history of Zaporizhian Cossacks in Ukraine literary elites developed the notion of Ukrainian as a seperate language and the idea of Ukrainians as a seperate people from Russians and Belarusians. This idea then spread at first only in Central Ukraine (back then the only Ukraine) to the peasants, and later to peasants in Galicia and other parts of the area that we now call Ukraine. Ukraine as the state of the Ukrainian nation dates back to that time, to 1917. That attempt at independence was quickly crushed by the Poles and then "liberated" by the Soviets who encouraged Ukrainian nationalism as a way to fight historical Polish influence. It is the Soviets who created Ukraine as we know it today. Thus not until in the 20th century do we get anything resembling the modern Ukrainian identity.
As a nitpick, Ukrainian nationalism is not really an offshoot of Cossack nationalism. It was inspired by the history of the Zaporizhian Cossacks, but those were long gone by this time, having been resettled east by the tsars to the Don and Kuban (as well as further east to the Caucasas and Siberia). Cossacks originate in Ukraine, but they and Ukrainians while not considered seperate peoples at the time of the Sich, have since experienced seperate and different development into seperate peoples.. Cossack nationalism and Ukrainian nationalism have little similarity to each other. Ukrainian nationalism is more of an offshoot of the romanticising of the rural countryside life and the traditions of the local peasants by literary and artistic elites during the late 18th and 19th century. It is out of this romanticism that the idea of "Ukrainian" as an identity seperate from the larger "Rus" identity was born. Russian and Belarusian nationalism were born in much the same way earlier in the 18th century.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And in other Russian news:
The Russian government has once again come up with a great idea to get more people into Siberia: Let's dump refugees from Ukraine there!
https://www.rt.com/politics/332629-go-east-government-supports-plan/ Really, this is so futile. The Russian government has been trying things like this for centuries, and it has never worked. Most people don't want to live in places where they are thousands of miles removed from the next sign of civilisation and where there is no good infrastructure to support them. The government should really stop wasting money with these hopeless colonisation attempts of the middle of nowhere.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/16 15:59:33
Error 404: Interesting signature not found
2016/02/16 18:46:28
Subject: Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
It is important to make a distinction between Ukraine as a region, Ukraine as a state, and Ukraine as a nation.
Most certainly. I was more getting at the absurdity of the idea that Ukraine did not exist as something that could be recognized as distinct from Russia prior to 1991
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/16 18:46:54
You mean Nazis shooting polish POWs and presenting it to the World as "Soviet war crimes? Sure. Kinda sad that the Western World is so Russophobic they would believe the exact enemies they are fighting against, never mind the Cold War propaganda.
Yes, clearly the Russians admitting they did it was just Nazi Propaganda, 60 years after the war ended, particularly with the addition of other areas that massacres took place in that no one knew about until they admitted it.
I admit I should have wrote that 'as part of' instead of 'following'. Poland did annex what amounted to a single railhead and the surrounding area, in a separate agreement with the Czech government.
I really hate to repeat myself, especially when I am so right.
You didn't post anything that wasn't what I said. (20k of 80k is 1/4th) you just highlighted the total number of prisoners they had rather than the total killed to make it look like they killed a whole lot more.
As for the pictures, I can find pictures of Soviet POWs in the polish prison camps. Not a Disneyland either. I bet you would like them.
I've seen those too, and far worse, i think, than you can ever imagine. I don't particularly like any of them, as they generally represent an utter failure of man's basic humanity. That said, while the conditions in the Poles POW camps were horrendous, again, no pics of them ramming a pole up a man's ass and standing around getting their picture taken like it was a sport.
It's like comparing Andersonville and Buchenwald. Both are nightmares, but one was driven by negligence and a failure to properly provide for prisoners, and the other driven by what might be called open malevolence.
Sure, sure. "Accidentally" at the same time Russia needed an approval from poland to build the "Nord Stream" so I wouldn't put too much faith into what the Russian Government gave away to get the permission. The rumor says, after polish investigative authorities went through those "documents" they've been "lost". Besides, Putin is a piece of something and he indeed would say anything to please his Western "partners" even if it comes to dishonor the history of it's own country.
Yes, that crazy Putin who was, not actually in power at the time, and it was started under the Soviet State eight years before Nord Stream was even conceived. Further the documents were not lost. Of the 185 volumes of documents involved, 116 were declared classified and not released. Since then, all but 35 volumes of those documents have since been declassified and subsequently released.
Putin did make a big deal out of it in 2010 (70th Anniversary), but this was over 20 years after the initial Russian admissions and release of information. This may be the source of your confusion.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/16 22:30:35
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
2016/02/17 10:10:53
Subject: Re:Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
Not to speak for the own man's integrity, but throwing him out for a lack of reform, as the same people who vote for this are they themselves holding back reform with their own corruption is a bit hypocritical.
Spoiler:
Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk's government has survived a no-confidence vote hours after the president asked him to step down.
The prime minister has been criticised over the slow pace of reforms and faces allegations of corruption.
Earlier, President Petro Poroshenko said the PM had lost the support of the coalition and the country's trust.
Mr Yatsenyuk's public support has eroded amid Ukraine's economic problems.
Ukraine teeters a few steps from chaos
Ukraine country profile
The no-confidence motion required 226 votes to pass in parliament, but only 194 out of the 339 MPs supported it.
This means the government will probably be safe at least until the next parliament session starts in September.
The decision came moments after lawmakers voted the cabinet's work in 2015 unsatisfactory.
In a passionate speech to parliament earlier, Mr Yatsenyuk said his government, which is backed by Western countries, had done all it could under difficult circumstances.
"We have built the foundations for a new country. Let's build a new Ukraine: do not stop. Reforms are the only way forward," he said.
Hundreds of demonstrators had gathered outside parliament in Kiev during Tuesday's session to protest against government policies.
Troubles from start
A former speaker of parliament and foreign minister, Mr Yatsenyuk was one of the main opposition leaders during the massive protests that removed former pro-Russia President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014.
Only two weeks after Mr Yatsenyuk took up his post, Russia annexed Crimea and, soon after, a violent pro-Moscow insurgency raged in the industrial east, where a one year-old ceasefire agreement has failed to stop the conflict.
On the economy, despite being credited with helping negotiate a rescue package with Western countries, there has been growing public discontent with the lack of progress.
Recent opinion polls suggest that support for Mr Yatsenyuk's bloc is at 1%.
Analysis: BBC's Tom Burridge in Kiev
So Ukraine's increasingly fractured government wins one vote and loses another. Crucially it won the no-confidence vote, so at least for now the government survives.
On the face of it, the already uneasy relationship between the prime minister and the president became even more complicated, after President Poroshenko called on PM Yatsenyuk to step down.
But in some sense Mr Poroshenko seems to be playing a double game, because many MPs from his own party voted to keep the current government.
The complex machinations of Ukrainian party politics are complicated further by pressure from outside forces, namely the International Monetary Fund, which has bailed Ukraine out, and the European Union, which has plunged considerable amounts of financial and technocratic support into the country.
Those outside forces have grown increasingly cynical about the ability of the Ukrainian government to carry out reforms to rout out corruption, after two high-profile reformers resigned from public office.
So the government lives on, but instability remains and you cannot rule out some form of change, within the government.
Mr Yatsenyuk has promised to tackle corruption, but has become the focus of similar accusations, although no concrete evidence has emerged.
He has also faced infighting, which culminated with Mr Poroshenko's call for his resignation on Tuesday. The president said "surgical means" were needed to restore trust.
Mr Poroshenko heads Ukraine's largest party, and Mr Yatsenyuk the next largest, and both are in the ruling coalition.
The government now faces the challenge of implementing changes required to secure a massive international aid package.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has threatened to withhold aid money to Ukraine if it does not carry out reforms.
Western governments have previously expressed concern over the resignation of reform-minded figures.
Economy Minister Aivaras Abromavicius stepped down earlier this month, claiming that huge quantities of money were being diverted from the government.
Also on Tuesday, the country's controversial prosecutor general Viktor Shokin resigned, following a call from Mr Poroshenko for him to do so.
2016/02/17 11:32:39
Subject: Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
Tyran wrote: Ukraine is politically cannibalizing itself, news at eleven.
One of the four parties which formed current coalition government has decided to step down over the vote of no confidence failing. Perhaps a little counterproductive as that'd leave the corrupt guys in place, whilst the ones who gave a damn (or were just as bad, but wanted to vent) have lost their *current influence.
More calls for permanent basing in the Baltic States. Hmn, not sure if this is on topic or whether this is becoming "the stupid crap Russia's done lately in Europe" thread (their Syrian one's for when they go on holiday, seeing as the current European holiday spots for Russian "volunteers" are a bit oversubscribed).
A leading analyst on NATO policy called for the alliance to place a permanent military presence in Baltic member states as a hedge against a more active Russian military.
Speaking Tuesday at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., Jorge Benitez of the Atlantic Council said that so far NATO’s response in its exercise of military preparedness to Moscow’s threats against Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, in particular, and other front line states, in general:
◾Lack speed in political decision-making and force deployment;
◾Lack size “so they’re not intimidating” to Russia and remain less costly to members;
◾And show weakness in readiness—from German air transport, to combat ratings of U.S. ground forces, to the availability of precision munitions.
Using the alliance’s Trident Juncture exercise last year as an example that involved about 30,000-40,000 NATO forces, “Russia sees over 80,000-100,000 deployed” in exercises calling for movement in 24 hours, marking a difference in scale and speed.
He called for a permanent military presence in the Baltic States to “show there are no second-class members” of NATO. That presence could be met with the establishment of the European equivalent of the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, Calif., with a permanent Opposing Force to train the alliance’s armored forces, as well as first-responding light forces, which would have to meet a conventional military crisis on the continent.
Benitez also said NATO should give back to the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) the flexibility to use “the crisis management power he had before,” that was used to train and use the Rapid Response Force in the wars that followed the break-up of Yugoslavia in the mid 1990s.
As for taking care of their own security needs, he suggested that the three Baltic countries contribute a battalion and Poland a brigade for a new rapid-response force under SACEUR’s authority.
Marius Laurinavicius, a Lithuanian defense analyst now at the Center for European Policy Analysis, said, the real Russian threat is conventional, not hybrid warfare as is being seeing in Ukraine. He added Moscow’s military actions in Georgia in the recent past and Syria now “are very different” from what many NATO leaders believe will happen.
NATO leaders cite Russia’s disruption of Estonia’s communications in a dispute a few years ago as an example of its willingness to use hybrid warfare in the Baltic rather than conventional military force to get its way. He dismissed that thinking by saying “I don’t think so.” What Moscow actually did then was “disrupt lives for several days or a week or so” and ran the risk of retaliation for little gain, a situation it would face in the future.
Putin’s Kremlin is “is really opportunistic” and willing to take advantage of the moment to advance its interests—such as opening a corridor to the Russian-speaking enclave at Kaliningrad, a large seaport on the Baltic between Poland and Lithuania.
He said another key difference between the Baltic nations and Ukraine, in addition to their membership in NATO, is “we are ready to fight . . . ready to fight back” conventionally and in hybrid warfare, having changed their laws to better respond.
Even in a conventional conflict where NATO reinforcements would be slow to arrive, Russia would face military challenges, Luke Coffey of Heritage said in answer to a question: “Things do start to go wrong” as they did in 2008 in Georgia when its forces had not reached Tbilisi in a week. “I think sometimes we give the Russian military too much credit.”
Ann-Sophie Dahl of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said although the Baltic nations— about the size of Missouri in territory and population—are largely isolated from the rest of NATO by geography, they are covered by Article 5 of the treaty. The article says if one nation is attacked the others will respond. Sweden and Finland, two non-aligned nations, “don’t get the same guarantee.”
“There’s real aggression in the Baltic Sea” with Russian overflights and submarine patrols, she added, noting that Moscow is doing that at the same time as it is carrying out air strikes in Syria.
As for Sweden and Finland joining NATO, “we shouldn’t expect to change that any time soon,” but both are talking with the alliance and its members on how better to cooperate in shared defense.
“You really need to have the troops on the ground” in the Baltic to deter and defend, Coffey, who served as an infantry officer, said. He asked “When are we going to train on sending tens of thousands of troops” to Europe to exercise on the military equipment we have re-positioned on the continent in the wake of Russia’s seizure of Crimea, meddling in Ukraine and threats to the Baltic states?
And actually, while we're at it, Belarus is putting out mixed messages...
MINSK, 16 February (BelTA) – Belarus and Russia will adopt a new Military Doctrine of the Union State of Belarus and Russia, BelTA learned from Zygmund Valevach, member of the National Security Commission of the House of Representatives of the National Assembly of Belarus, on 16 February.
The MP said: “Last year's Russian Military Doctrine and the Belarusian doctrine for 2016 will be used to create and discuss a new Military Doctrine of the Union State.”
The parliamentarian reminded that the previous Union State doctrine was adopted in 2011 on the basis of the relevant documents of Belarus and Russia. “It's been 14 years since then. In this time the Russian Federation adopted the Military Doctrine in 2010 and in 2015. Now a new doctrine is emerging in Belarus,” added Zygmund Valevach.
The MP remarked that it is important to adopt the Union State Military Doctrine because the regional military group of Belarus and Russia exists now. “We cannot but talk about the united air defense system. We cannot but rely on the Collective Security Treaty,” stressed the MP.
The diplomat pointed out that new countries have joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. For instance, Montenegro joined NATO a short time ago. The inclusion of other Balkan nations will be considered soon. It is possible that Georgia and Moldova may join NATO as well.
“We are not threatening anyone. The new Military Doctrine [of Belarus] is a defensive one just like the previous document. But we should be ready to carry out our missions. We should be able to ensure the security of our country if necessary,” said Zygmund Valevach.
New Belarusian military doctrine responds to Putin's policies
Siarhei Bohdan 03 February 2016
Spoiler:
Image: mil.by
On 22 January, President Alexander Lukashenka approved changes to Belarus' military doctrine. This document reveals fundamental changes in the mindset of the Belarusian establishment. Learning Ukrainian lessons, Minsk is putting issues of military security at the top of its priority list.
Belarusian strategists have also identified which threats are to be countered. They include violent political changes, which Minsk suspects may come from Ukraine and pro-Moscow forces' attempts to repeat in Belarus their exploits in Ukraine.
Minsk is also reevaluating its alliance with Russia. The Kremlin for years ignored Minsk's interests and is embarking on an increasingly chauvinist path. Last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin criticised Soviet-era international borders as 'arbitrary', implying that they could be changed through a Crimea- or Donbas-like scenario.
Minsk identifies threats
On 22 January, Lukashenka approved changes to Belarus' military doctrine, which had remained unchanged since 2001.
the new edition of the doctrine points to 'hybrid warfare' and 'colour revolutions'
Identifying the potential military threats, the new edition of the doctrine points to 'hybrid warfare' and 'colour revolutions', clear terms if taken in the Belarusian and regional context.
'Hybrid warfare' refers to possible Russian interventions like those that occurred in Ukraine. Colour revolution means the West, interpreted IHS Jane's Defence Weekly. But that is a moot point.
Minsk indeed harbours suspicions that somebody in the West might be working on toppling Lukashenka, but in recent years Belarusian officials have more frequently named Ukraine as a source of destabilisation in Belarus. For instance, just before the recent October 2015 presidential election a Belarusian government-affiliated TV channel reported about "200 armed Ukrainians" being detained at the border.
Although Lukashenka cites the collapse of the state in Libya, Syria and Yemen as examples of possible scenarios that he wants to prevent, Minsk reviewed its military doctrine only after the crisis and conflict in Ukraine developed. In parallel, it started – however reluctantly - to construct a border with Ukraine.
Beware of Kremlin allies
Commenting on forthcoming changes in the military doctrine, last autumn Defence Minister Andrei Raukou claimed that Belarus did not consider any foreign state an enemy and added, “But we, of course, will not concede our territory and will use any forces and means, including military, to avoid that.”
The official Belarusian parlance sends signals warning to extremist elements in Russia not to try in Belarus anything like they did in Ukraine.
Raukou was merely further developing earlier statements made by Lukashenka who has many times publicly rebuked the Ukrainian government for “giving up its lands [in Crimea]” and neglecting the Ukrainian army which as a result failed to defend the country.
Belarus remains an ally of Russia but Minsk regards this status less and less only as an asset, and hence is trying to reformulate the alliance. The Belarusian leadership sees a danger of the country being enmeshed in somebody else's war as a result of confrontation between Russia and other countries.
In his earlier statements Lukashenka described the alliance with Russia as an obligation with reservations and qualifications. On 30 October, speaking before commanders of the national armed forces, he said, “Having allies is an important factor in ensuring our military security. Nonetheless, we shall build the mechanism of collective protection in accordance with our national interests.”
No arms for Belarusians
The very first reason for Minsk to review the conditions of its alliance with Russia has to do with Moscow itself. The Kremlin frequently refuses to deal with Belarus as an ally and does not hide it. To take only the most known example, Moscow concealed from Minsk the early stages of the Russian operation to annex Crimea.
Russia provides only minimal support for the Belarusian army that is sorely in need of equipment
Despite all lamentation about NATO expansion, Russia provides only minimal support for the Belarusian army that is sorely in need of equipment. This concerns even the most critical sphere for Russia – air defence. The Kremlin after many years of delays gave Belarus second-hand decommissioned S-300 surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems of the oldest possible model. While Moscow is about to supply Iran with the S-300PMU, a model from the 1990s, Minsk receives from Moscow S-300PS, a model from the early 1980s.
Likewise, while proclaiming ever closer military cooperation, Russia attempted to give Belarus only the export models of another SAM system, the Tor-M2E. That means limited – in comparison to the models supplied to Russian army – capacities. Belarus received Tors also only after Moscow forced Minsk to give in on the issue of a Russian airbase.
Other cases also show a hardly ally-like attitude. Many Russian analysts acknowledge that the Belarusian army provides the bulk of force protecting Moscow from the west. Both in the air and on land, Moscow for many years has refused to give Belarusians newer aircraft.
The Belarusian army has only a few old fighter jets and no bombers, and plans to decommission its remaining battlefield close-support aircraft. This has rendered the Belarusian air defence system porous and ground forces useless without air support.
Last rouble for military
The current economic situation in Belarus in comparison with 2010 has considerably worsened, with inflation reaching about 12 per cent in 2015. However, Lukashenka today insists that “if the last rouble remains in the state budget, we shall spend it on the security of our people.” To underline his point he again cited the situation in Ukraine, implying that insufficient care for security allowed that country to become a toy for more powerful forces.
The Belarusian government seems to be taking the matter seriously. Despite economic hardships, it has found resources for projects that should result in military or dual-use products – like designing and manufacturing the multiple rocket launch system SAM and possibly other weapons with Chinese and probably Ukrainian firms. It has also invested in the overhaul of old Belarusian fighter jets, putting national security interests over economic calculations.
While only a few experts have noticed these technical paraphernalia, adoption of an effectively new military doctrine has attracted much more attention. The doctrine, however, is only one small, visible example of fundamental changes triggered in Belarusian foreign and security policy by Putin's policies in the post-Soviet space. Minsk cannot cope with all the new risks without cooperating with other nations in the region and beyond. But it does what it can.
Don't invade us, we love you!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/18 13:26:10
2016/02/18 14:08:54
Subject: Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
Tyran wrote: Ukraine is politically cannibalizing itself, news at eleven.
One of the four parties which formed current coalition government has decided to step down over the vote of no confidence failing. Perhaps a little counterproductive as that'd leave the corrupt guys in place, whilst the ones who gave a damn (or were just as bad, but wanted to vent) have lost their *current influence.
There is no one in Ukrainian politics who isn't corrupt. They would not even be able to survive in Ukrainian politics.
Wyrmalla wrote: More calls for permanent basing in the Baltic States. Hmn, not sure if this is on topic or whether this is becoming "the stupid crap Russia's done lately in Europe" thread (their Syrian one's for when they go on holiday, seeing as the current European holiday spots for Russian "volunteers" are a bit oversubscribed).
This thread is about the war in Ukraine, and its effects too. So if someone is considering to build more bases in the Baltic as a result of Russian actions in Ukraine, that is most certainly on topic, I think. Not that building more bases in the Baltic has any practical use. It certainly won't scare Russia away, more like the contrary, in fact. It will convince Russia that decisive action in the Baltics is becoming more urgent.
Wyrmalla wrote: And actually, while we're at it, Belarus is putting out mixed messages...
It isn't any different from usual. The only messages Belarus has ever put out are: "we have potatoes", and that Lukashenko should stay in power, whatever the cost. Lukashenko has always been paranoid to any perceived threat to his power, whether that threat comes from the West, the East or from inside Belarus itself. Belarus has always tried to find a balance between pressure from the East and West. Lukashenko has been more anxious for pro-Russian rebellions (with or without support from polite people) springing up amongst its population since the Ukraine crisis began. He has been afraid for West-sponsored colour revolutions for a good deal longer. Quite understandably, the Ukraine scenario (A colour revolution and a pro-Russian rebellion) is an absolute nightmare for Lukashenko. Luckily for him, he has done a lot better job at running his country than the leaders of Ukraine ever did, and Belarusians are overall quite content. They are not really the kind of people to rise up against the government. They are too busy with their potatoes. Hell, even Lukashenko himself is busy with potatoes:
Spoiler:
(contrast this with Putin and you know everything about the differences between Russia and Belarus you need to know )
Now where did I leave my favourite potato?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/18 14:10:05
Error 404: Interesting signature not found
2016/02/18 21:50:33
Subject: Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
OK, there's actual logic there, besides the xenophobia. The word Russian originally referred to the Kiev empire. Over time rule of that empire moved from Kiev to Moscow, and so Ukraine became known as the borderlands and Moscow took the name of the empire. So, in a historical context, if we're using the archaic names, then modern Russia could be referred to as Moscow.
Sure, we'll roll with that...
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/02/18 22:20:49
2016/02/18 22:23:55
Subject: Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
OK, there's actual logic there, besides the xenophobia. The word Russian originally referred to the Kiev empire. Over time rule of that empire moved from Kiev to Moscow, and so Ukraine became known as the borderlands and Moscow took the name of the empire. So, in a historical context, if we're using the archaic names, then modern Russia could be referred to as Moscow.
Sure, we'll roll with that...
Okay, some few historical corrections here: The word "Russian" originally reffered to the Scandinavian people (likely to have been from the area of Roslagen) who settled and ruled in Gardariki (which later was named after them, hence Russia and Russians. The word is derived from an Old Norse word meaning 'the men who row'). These Scandinavians over time merged with Slavic and Finnic tribes to become the ancestors of today's Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians. Back then it was just one single people who were called Russians (the splitting of this people into three different groups did not happen until far after the Middle Ages). The original capital of this people was Great Novgorod (Holmgardr), which later shifted towards Kiev (Konugardr) after the Russians expanded southwards. Kiev and the state around it (Kievan Rus) were destroyed by the Mongols.
So it is not so much as that the Russian capital shifted from Kiev to Moscow, rather it was that the Russian state was destroyed and fell apart in several independent city states, of which Moscow (which in Kievan Rus times was nothing but a small town) managed to rise, defeat the Mongols and conquer the other city-states into the Tsardom of Moscovy, what would later become the Russian Empire after Moscow conquered all of the original Russian lands. Moscovy was not a continuation of Kievan Rus, if there is any state that could have laid claim to that it would have eiter been the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (what is now Belarus) or the Republic of Novgorod, which was pretty much annihilated by Ivan the Terrible ("Great" Novgorod has never been able to recover, it is nothing more but a small provincial town now).
(As a sidenote, a funny alternate history would have been if it had been Novgorod to unite the Russian lands. The Republic of Novgorod had a form of democracy, rather than the authoritarian system of Moscow. Russia would have likely been a very different place.)
As to calling "Russia" as "Moscow", in the modern day that makes no sense. "Russia" is short for the Russian Federation, which is how the SFSR decided to call itself after 1991. The Russian Federation is explicitly the federation of all Russians, not just of Moscow. It will anger a lot of Russians because most Russians aren't Muscovites, and Moscow isn't liked very much in many parts of the Russian Federation (I suspect St. Petersburg may actually declare war on Ukraine if this law is passed because of the huge insult ) Calling the RF as Moscow is like calling the USA as "Washington", and all American citizens as "Washingtonians".
Error 404: Interesting signature not found
2016/02/19 00:11:37
Subject: Re:Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
And explain that to a government which was trying to ban the Russian language in their country recently... Having been a puppet state to Moscow for a good while now its almost like the current government wants to distance themselves from that regime as much as possible.
Doing it in a dumbass way is moot of course in the current context of freakshow that is Ukrainian politics these days.
...I wonder if its the left which are pushing for this or the right, considering that the far right have ties to plenty of Russian groups. Probably just a bunch of politicians blowing up their chests in either case.
2016/02/22 09:10:27
Subject: Re:Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
The Russian paper tiger: A foreign volunteer in the Ukrainian Army’s view of Russian troops
February 15, 2016 by SOFREP 8 Commentsukrainian-sergeant-this-is-now-a-war-wit
This article was sent to SOFREP by an individual who served as a foreign volunteer in the Ukrainian Army for over a year. His views regarding the efficiency of the Russian Army are quite interesting, especially given the latest Putin-mania/Russian love that has spread through the Internet, depicting the Russians as an unstoppable force.
As a former professional soldier in my own country’s NATO army, I found myself embroiled in the conflict in Ukraine by my own choice in late July, 2014. While technically I was a “volunteer,” I viewed myself as a professional soldier serving in a foreign country’s armed forces. Far from trying to make this some kind of dramatic personal narrative, I will attempt to portray a picture of the Russian soldier from my own limited point of view—that of an opponent.
At this point, I’d like to sidetrack a bit so as to make some things more clear to the reader. The Ukrainian “volunteer battalions” should not be seen as militias or irregulars, but rather as a sort of “Rough Riders”-style unit, a unit formed by volunteers, yet armed and supplied by the Army and subjected to the regular command structure, having normal combat duties at the front line. The foreign volunteers themselves, again, should not be seen as the like of all these colorful characters that join the Marxist and Arab irregular militias in the Middle East, but rather like the Swedish volunteers during the Winter War, integrated normally within their unit and most of the time taking up a front-line role either in operations or training. The opposing forces can be divided easily in two parts: the bandits who initiated the rebellion and the Russian regulars who intervened later that same year.
The bandits, no matter what the pro-Western propaganda claims, were not mercenaries or Russian regulars posing as rebels. Many Russian nationals flocked to their banner from the onset of the rebellion out of pure patriotism. Of course there were exceptions, but these were just that—exceptions. That doesn’t mean that Russian military advisors or SOF units didn’t directly aid them in the beginning of the conflict. The military effectiveness of said bandit militias was horrendous.
The Russian regulars who eventually had to intervene when the bandits were on the verge of collapse changed the course of the war. These were conventional military units from the Russian Federation’s standing army. After the brief intervention, the regulars fell back to act mostly as QRFs and a general deterrent to any further big-scale offensives by the Ukrainian Army, leaving the bulk of the fighting again to the bandit militias. The fighting included “famous” battles such as the battle for the Donetsk airport, where the Ukrainians were quick to blame the “elite Russian units” for their own military forces’ failure, as they did for most of the conflict.
Enough with the intro. It was clear from the beginning that there was some sense of professional military leadership behind the bandits. During the assault of Marinka on the outskirts of Donetsk, on the 4th of August, with two infantry battalions and tank support, the meager opposing bandit forces had no chance of actually holding the city. Instead of going jihad on us, they did the sensible thing: placed mines, harassed us, and withdrew. While a sound plan operationally, they failed to be effective on the ground. While my squad approached a building that the enemy had been shooting from, we took cover in a small ditch. Six RPGs and 200 PΚΜ rounds later, we stormed the building. While the enemy was nowhere to be found, they had apparently called mortar fire on our position in the ditch, which only arrived an hour and a half later, when we were already inside the building.
Later that day, we attempted to attack a blockpost (fortified checkpoint) on the road from Marinka to Donetsk. The Ukrainian forces being nothing more than a Soviet relic back then, we advanced in columns of infantry behind a tank and a BMP through the single road of a village, a village that was not secured before, and, of course, with nobody advancing by the flanks at the same time. Obviously the enemy was not waiting for us at his blockpost, but had instead prepared an ambush inside the village. Despite only having 10-15 guys with small arms, they managed to rout an infantry column of 60 men with a T-64 and a BMP (although most of the credit for this success has to be claimed by the Ukrainians’ complete lack of radio communications).
My educated guess is that the ambushers were the same guys who had withdrawn from Marinka earlier in the day, since the only sensible course after securing the city was to destroy the enemy blockpost controlling the road. They were following a logical plan.
Despite the leadership that obviously existed at the higher echelons, the bandit infantry itself was horrible. People driving in the middle of a road trying to ambush an army column, only to get arrested in turn. People surrendering after the first tank barrage before the Army even approached. People emptying their magazines at 400 meters and then withdrawing. They were clearly not soldiers. Gradually (especially after the Russian intervention) the bandit forces grew better.
Tasked with defending the heights around the village of Shyrokina in the first days of September, we came under an intense artillery barrage on the morning of the fourth day. A probe by an enemy BMP was followed by a few mortar hits at the east of the village. At that time we couldn’t help joking that maybe they would have zeroed in on us by late afternoon. Less than seven minutes later, we were in our foxholes as the enemy artillery had zeroed in on us for a 200-meter radius. That artillery officer was no bandit. Upon that realization, Ukrainian morale plummeted and we fled three hours later.
I remember a two-day battle at the same village of Shyrokina in February, 2015. The Ukrainians had been occupying the village for four days, having secured it after a local counteroffensive, but they didn’t go so far as to even lay mines on the approaches or at least post anti-tank weapons. Russian regulars attacked the village in the early hours of February 14th following a day of skirmishes around it. They attacked in force after massing uncontested behind a tree line, moving across the open ground with tanks and infantry, simply ignoring any fire from our positions. They were inside the village fighting it out with the Ukrainians within minutes. In the chaos that followed, the Ukrainians initially collapsed. The running battle at the village degenerated into individuals trying to make it back to the heights at the entrance of the village where the Ukrainian tanks were dug in.
While the Russians were again following sound tactics (tanks and IFVs were blocking off the roads with infantry swarming in the buildings before moving on to the next road and repeating), their squad-level efficiency left much to be desired. In two cases that I know of, Ukrainian combatants trying to make it back found themselves suddenly face-to-face with an equally surprised Russian soldier. In both cases, the Russians went down, and as apparently nobody was following them, the hapless Ukrainians continued their flight to the tanks. Why were those Russian soldiers on their own? Where was the rest of their team?
The Russian squad-level command and control simply vanished during the running battle within the village. The Ukrainians had no squad-level command and control (or even a defensive plan) to start, with so no point comparing the two. Russian infantry attempted to establish itself at the biggest and sturdiest building in the village, but failed after being raked by the Ukrainian T-64s on those heights. The Russian tanks were too scared to go out from behind the buildings lest they become exposed to Ukrainian fire.
Later the same night, my team had to go back into the village in an effort to find two MIAs. As we were going down a road, unsure of where the Russian positions were, the dogs in the village started barking (typical). Immediately, a hail of fire followed. The bullets hit randomly around us, so we didn’t even bother taking cover. It was clear they had no idea where we were and, being edgy and fearful of the night, they simply shot at the sound of the dogs. My guess is that post was manned by bandits, as the regulars probably withdrew after the morning assault.
The next day we launched a counterattack that ended in a fiasco. Simply ignoring contact by small arms fire on our left, our BMP turned right at a small road, with our horde following it blindly. It was met within 50 meters by a Russian T-64 with infantry support. The tank missed its mark three times and, skipping the literary details, it was enough for our horde to dissipate and find cover. During the flight, the Russians didn’t make any attempt to press their advantage. Still too afraid of those tanks up on the heights. Both sides were oblivious to the fact that there was a ceasefire in effect since 0000 hours that day.
The months that followed were marked by skirmishing in and around that village. Toward the end of May, we took up doing small raids on the enemy positions. On an approach toward an enemy trench, due to the chronic failure of Ukrainian communications and planning, we had to hold our position for more than two hours while only about 100 meters from the enemy. As was bound to happen, the Russians eventually caught wind of something going on. Instead of opening fire at random as they had done many times before, they called in reinforcements and woke up their mortar crews. An enemy element came to a building as close as 30 meters from us. Yet they waited.
When the firing eventually commenced, we managed to keep the guys at the near building suppressed with small-arms fire and the guys in the trench equally suppressed with our PΚΜ. It took them mere seconds to start firing back, though, from the moment the machine gunner ceased fire to pull back, missing him only by inches. This was a stark contrast from two months earlier when they were strafing at barking dogs. The days of bandits emptying their magazines at 400 meters were apparently over.
I could go on and on about how in many recon missions we believed the Russians were much more vigilant and prepared than they actually were, how even in daylight they seemed to ignore obvious approaches, how they strafed random tree lines at night “just to be sure,” etc., but I think the reader has gotten the picture by now. The fault generally lies with the individual soldier himself, rather than the officer’s planning. But what would you expect from an army whose “special forces” propagandistic displays of capabilities rely on acrobatics and fancy martial arts? A good Western army regiment would be enough to win this war on its own.
To summarize, I hold the Russian soldier inferior in all regards to the soldiers of first-class NATO armies. His squad-level efficiency is no better than the Argentines in the Falklands War, and his professionalism only makes a dim appearance when his officers are around. Yet he is capable of aggressive actions, and characteristically of the Slavic race, he is generally not a coward. Despite the Russian Army reform after the Chechen Wars, which has been hailed so much by various “military analysts,” I am not sure if the average “contract soldier” is better trained than the average conscript soldier in the old Soviet Army. While the Ukrainians I am serving with certainly cannot be held up as an example for Russian military efficiency, they, sharing much of the same culture with their erstwhile Russian friends, go a long way toward being compared with a warrior culture based on professionalism, the kind evident in many Western soldiers.
The Russian paper tiger: A foreign volunteer in the Ukrainian Army’s view of Russian troops
February 15, 2016 by SOFREP 8 Commentsukrainian-sergeant-this-is-now-a-war-wit
This article was sent to SOFREP by an individual who served as a foreign volunteer in the Ukrainian Army for over a year. His views regarding the efficiency of the Russian Army are quite interesting, especially given the latest Putin-mania/Russian love that has spread through the Internet, depicting the Russians as an unstoppable force.
As a former professional soldier in my own country’s NATO army, I found myself embroiled in the conflict in Ukraine by my own choice in late July, 2014. While technically I was a “volunteer,” I viewed myself as a professional soldier serving in a foreign country’s armed forces. Far from trying to make this some kind of dramatic personal narrative, I will attempt to portray a picture of the Russian soldier from my own limited point of view—that of an opponent.
At this point, I’d like to sidetrack a bit so as to make some things more clear to the reader. The Ukrainian “volunteer battalions” should not be seen as militias or irregulars, but rather as a sort of “Rough Riders”-style unit, a unit formed by volunteers, yet armed and supplied by the Army and subjected to the regular command structure, having normal combat duties at the front line. The foreign volunteers themselves, again, should not be seen as the like of all these colorful characters that join the Marxist and Arab irregular militias in the Middle East, but rather like the Swedish volunteers during the Winter War, integrated normally within their unit and most of the time taking up a front-line role either in operations or training. The opposing forces can be divided easily in two parts: the bandits who initiated the rebellion and the Russian regulars who intervened later that same year.
The bandits, no matter what the pro-Western propaganda claims, were not mercenaries or Russian regulars posing as rebels. Many Russian nationals flocked to their banner from the onset of the rebellion out of pure patriotism. Of course there were exceptions, but these were just that—exceptions. That doesn’t mean that Russian military advisors or SOF units didn’t directly aid them in the beginning of the conflict. The military effectiveness of said bandit militias was horrendous.
The Russian regulars who eventually had to intervene when the bandits were on the verge of collapse changed the course of the war. These were conventional military units from the Russian Federation’s standing army. After the brief intervention, the regulars fell back to act mostly as QRFs and a general deterrent to any further big-scale offensives by the Ukrainian Army, leaving the bulk of the fighting again to the bandit militias. The fighting included “famous” battles such as the battle for the Donetsk airport, where the Ukrainians were quick to blame the “elite Russian units” for their own military forces’ failure, as they did for most of the conflict.
Enough with the intro. It was clear from the beginning that there was some sense of professional military leadership behind the bandits. During the assault of Marinka on the outskirts of Donetsk, on the 4th of August, with two infantry battalions and tank support, the meager opposing bandit forces had no chance of actually holding the city. Instead of going jihad on us, they did the sensible thing: placed mines, harassed us, and withdrew. While a sound plan operationally, they failed to be effective on the ground. While my squad approached a building that the enemy had been shooting from, we took cover in a small ditch. Six RPGs and 200 PΚΜ rounds later, we stormed the building. While the enemy was nowhere to be found, they had apparently called mortar fire on our position in the ditch, which only arrived an hour and a half later, when we were already inside the building.
Later that day, we attempted to attack a blockpost (fortified checkpoint) on the road from Marinka to Donetsk. The Ukrainian forces being nothing more than a Soviet relic back then, we advanced in columns of infantry behind a tank and a BMP through the single road of a village, a village that was not secured before, and, of course, with nobody advancing by the flanks at the same time. Obviously the enemy was not waiting for us at his blockpost, but had instead prepared an ambush inside the village. Despite only having 10-15 guys with small arms, they managed to rout an infantry column of 60 men with a T-64 and a BMP (although most of the credit for this success has to be claimed by the Ukrainians’ complete lack of radio communications).
My educated guess is that the ambushers were the same guys who had withdrawn from Marinka earlier in the day, since the only sensible course after securing the city was to destroy the enemy blockpost controlling the road. They were following a logical plan.
Despite the leadership that obviously existed at the higher echelons, the bandit infantry itself was horrible. People driving in the middle of a road trying to ambush an army column, only to get arrested in turn. People surrendering after the first tank barrage before the Army even approached. People emptying their magazines at 400 meters and then withdrawing. They were clearly not soldiers. Gradually (especially after the Russian intervention) the bandit forces grew better.
Tasked with defending the heights around the village of Shyrokina in the first days of September, we came under an intense artillery barrage on the morning of the fourth day. A probe by an enemy BMP was followed by a few mortar hits at the east of the village. At that time we couldn’t help joking that maybe they would have zeroed in on us by late afternoon. Less than seven minutes later, we were in our foxholes as the enemy artillery had zeroed in on us for a 200-meter radius. That artillery officer was no bandit. Upon that realization, Ukrainian morale plummeted and we fled three hours later.
I remember a two-day battle at the same village of Shyrokina in February, 2015. The Ukrainians had been occupying the village for four days, having secured it after a local counteroffensive, but they didn’t go so far as to even lay mines on the approaches or at least post anti-tank weapons. Russian regulars attacked the village in the early hours of February 14th following a day of skirmishes around it. They attacked in force after massing uncontested behind a tree line, moving across the open ground with tanks and infantry, simply ignoring any fire from our positions. They were inside the village fighting it out with the Ukrainians within minutes. In the chaos that followed, the Ukrainians initially collapsed. The running battle at the village degenerated into individuals trying to make it back to the heights at the entrance of the village where the Ukrainian tanks were dug in.
While the Russians were again following sound tactics (tanks and IFVs were blocking off the roads with infantry swarming in the buildings before moving on to the next road and repeating), their squad-level efficiency left much to be desired. In two cases that I know of, Ukrainian combatants trying to make it back found themselves suddenly face-to-face with an equally surprised Russian soldier. In both cases, the Russians went down, and as apparently nobody was following them, the hapless Ukrainians continued their flight to the tanks. Why were those Russian soldiers on their own? Where was the rest of their team?
The Russian squad-level command and control simply vanished during the running battle within the village. The Ukrainians had no squad-level command and control (or even a defensive plan) to start, with so no point comparing the two. Russian infantry attempted to establish itself at the biggest and sturdiest building in the village, but failed after being raked by the Ukrainian T-64s on those heights. The Russian tanks were too scared to go out from behind the buildings lest they become exposed to Ukrainian fire.
Later the same night, my team had to go back into the village in an effort to find two MIAs. As we were going down a road, unsure of where the Russian positions were, the dogs in the village started barking (typical). Immediately, a hail of fire followed. The bullets hit randomly around us, so we didn’t even bother taking cover. It was clear they had no idea where we were and, being edgy and fearful of the night, they simply shot at the sound of the dogs. My guess is that post was manned by bandits, as the regulars probably withdrew after the morning assault.
The next day we launched a counterattack that ended in a fiasco. Simply ignoring contact by small arms fire on our left, our BMP turned right at a small road, with our horde following it blindly. It was met within 50 meters by a Russian T-64 with infantry support. The tank missed its mark three times and, skipping the literary details, it was enough for our horde to dissipate and find cover. During the flight, the Russians didn’t make any attempt to press their advantage. Still too afraid of those tanks up on the heights. Both sides were oblivious to the fact that there was a ceasefire in effect since 0000 hours that day.
The months that followed were marked by skirmishing in and around that village. Toward the end of May, we took up doing small raids on the enemy positions. On an approach toward an enemy trench, due to the chronic failure of Ukrainian communications and planning, we had to hold our position for more than two hours while only about 100 meters from the enemy. As was bound to happen, the Russians eventually caught wind of something going on. Instead of opening fire at random as they had done many times before, they called in reinforcements and woke up their mortar crews. An enemy element came to a building as close as 30 meters from us. Yet they waited.
When the firing eventually commenced, we managed to keep the guys at the near building suppressed with small-arms fire and the guys in the trench equally suppressed with our PΚΜ. It took them mere seconds to start firing back, though, from the moment the machine gunner ceased fire to pull back, missing him only by inches. This was a stark contrast from two months earlier when they were strafing at barking dogs. The days of bandits emptying their magazines at 400 meters were apparently over.
I could go on and on about how in many recon missions we believed the Russians were much more vigilant and prepared than they actually were, how even in daylight they seemed to ignore obvious approaches, how they strafed random tree lines at night “just to be sure,” etc., but I think the reader has gotten the picture by now. The fault generally lies with the individual soldier himself, rather than the officer’s planning. But what would you expect from an army whose “special forces” propagandistic displays of capabilities rely on acrobatics and fancy martial arts? A good Western army regiment would be enough to win this war on its own.
To summarize, I hold the Russian soldier inferior in all regards to the soldiers of first-class NATO armies. His squad-level efficiency is no better than the Argentines in the Falklands War, and his professionalism only makes a dim appearance when his officers are around. Yet he is capable of aggressive actions, and characteristically of the Slavic race, he is generally not a coward. Despite the Russian Army reform after the Chechen Wars, which has been hailed so much by various “military analysts,” I am not sure if the average “contract soldier” is better trained than the average conscript soldier in the old Soviet Army. While the Ukrainians I am serving with certainly cannot be held up as an example for Russian military efficiency, they, sharing much of the same culture with their erstwhile Russian friends, go a long way toward being compared with a warrior culture based on professionalism, the kind evident in many Western soldiers.
Yeah, this is so totally legitimate... The article totally does not consist almost entirely of unproven assumptions, and guesses, not to mention things the author couldn't possibly know and the blatant racism. The tagline of the site it comes from even says: "News you can trust" As if a trustworthy news source would need to mention that... Now if you would excuse me, I have to go back to writing articles exactly like this one, except for the opposing side. Need to make money somehow... Long live the propaganda war!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/22 16:22:10
Error 404: Interesting signature not found
2016/02/22 16:59:55
Subject: Re:Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
It can get pretty complex too. One could be British and Scottish. They could also be Seneca and American. They could be Japanese and Ugandan even. I suppose that's where the word 'multinational comes into existence 
Mordant 92nd 'Acid Dogs'
The Lost and Damned
Inquisition
The article totally does not consist almost entirely of unproven assumptions, and guesses, not to mention things the author couldn't possibly know and the blatant racism.
