The Ukraine war thread

[Mik]

35 days? Quite a lot, I should think.

[George K]

US basic training is 10 weeks. I imagine at least half of that is learning "how to soldier."

Yeah, 5 weeks might be OK.

[Renauda]

Whatever it is, 35 days more training, care and attention than any conscripted Russian grunt after a year of national service gets.

[Mik]

It's specific training on the weaponry they will be using and tactics for them. Like Renauda said, far greater than Russian grunts.

[Renauda]

@Mik

It’s safe assume that these Ukrainian troops have already been “blooded” and have thus learned a practical degree of technical and combat savvy.

[Mik]

I should think so.

[George K]

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/2/21/qa-dr-pavel-felgenhauer-russia-ukraine-war

Some of the comments:
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Al Jazeera spoke to Pavel Felgenhauer, a Russian defence analyst who served as a senior research officer in the Soviet Academy of Sciences.

Al Jazeera: Why do you think an escalation is imminent?

Pavel Felgenhauer: We cannot totally predict everything. But I believe that an escalation right now is imminent. An escalation in the fighting; everyone is talking about a Russian offensive. Western military commanders in Brussels are also talking about how the Ukrainians should go on the offensive.

Al Jazeera: Isn’t Russia faring better than expected? Doesn’t the economy seem to be stable even after strict sanctions?

Felgenhauer: Russia, of course right now, has very serious financial problems with a deficit that’s being financed by printing money. It has problems on the battlefield at the same time.

I don’t see how this can continue in the present pattern for a long time. It’s like football, you never know what’s going to happen actually on the battlefield. There’s a well-known saying that “Russia is never a strong as your fear”, as we see during this year, but “Russia is also never as weak as you hope”. So you can’t just write off Russia. The intensity of the fighting is too high for it to be maintained for long.

Al Jazeera: If it is such a drag, why did Russian President Vladimir Putin go to war?

Felgenhauer: There was a military reason — to prevent Western missiles appearing in Ukraine for a direct strike on Moscow.

There was a geopolitical reason — to reunite the Russian people, assuming that Ukrainians are Russian people, and to defy the West and actually undermine Western unity.

Also, to cause friction within the Western alliance and also establish a new multipolar world.

Al Jazeera: So what went wrong for Russia?

Felgenhauer: The Russian military turned out to be not as strong as not only the West believes, but its own leadership believes. It’s not ready for modern warfare.

The Ukrainians are much better, they were better prepared organisationally and in terms of command and control, in terms of command personnel, and then they got better weapons than the Russians.

The Russian military has been isolated for more than 100 years from world tendencies in war-making. They are still living in the world of tanks, believing that if you mass enough, victory falls into your lap.

Al Jazeera: Do you believe that this conflict will come to its end soon?

Felgenhauer: I believe it will end this year.

They tried talks in March, then meetings in Istanbul, which hinted that they’re moving towards some kind of an agreement. But Russia and Ukraine were miles apart.

Ukraine was more or less ready to agree in February 2022. Now Ukrainians say they want more and Russia also says it wants more. So again, two sides are miles apart.

[Mik]

Problematic polarization between Russia and Ukraine notwithstanding, it’s a hopeful assessment.

[Renauda]

@Mik

Check out my link with Stephen Kotkin’s analysis in the Bolton thread. A decidedly more sober assessment.

[Mik]

My concern is what does Putin do if and when his conventional forces are exhausted and no victory in sight.

[Renauda]

@Mik

That might prove to be the opportunity for a position of strength diplomatic solution imposing an armistice on both sides. That is more or less Kotkin’s solution in the link.

[Mik]

Only had time to listen to half of it. He was talking about that when I had to leave. He made great points about it being a war of attrition and that we are not ramping up production. A mistake in my book.

[Renauda]

@Mik

I agree, Kotkin makes a lot of sense regarding it being a war of attrition and just what that means to all parties. You’ll see how he ties everything together later on when he adds China into the mix of his analysis.

[Mik]

Massively ramping up production would be a much bigger message than a trip to Kiev. I’m not dissing the trip, I just think that action would have spoken louder.

[Renauda]

I wager that all NATO members will soon have no choice other than to ramp up their military production and allocate fiscal resources into defence and security.

Will be a hard pill for the federal and even provincial governments in this country to have to swallow.

[Jolly]

Guns or butter.

[Mik]

@Renauda said in The Ukraine war thread:

I wager that all NATO members will soon have no choice other than to ramp up their military production and allocate fiscal resources into defence and security.

Will be a hard pill for the federal and even provincial governments in this country to have to swallow.

God, I hope they will.

[Renauda]

@Jolly

Constitutionally in this country guns are a federal responsibility and butter is a provincial responsibility. I see no problem provided both are willing to cut duplication and waste.

I wish it were as simple in practice as the constitution defines it.

[George K]

[Renauda]

https://globalnews.ca/news/9505763/ukrainian-flag-paint-road-russian-embassy-london/amp/