Jump to content

War In Ukraine


Recommended Posts

59 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Meh...once again we see that Libbies are incapable of appreciating comedy.

Not true.  Anyone reading your posts in this thread obviously appreciates comedy…until you actually try to be funny.  ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-war-bakhmut-prigozhin-1.6833207

Russian Wagner Group leader says his troops will pull out of Ukraine's Bakhmut in days

Prigozhin said they would withdraw on May 10 — ending their involvement in the longest and bloodiest battle of the war — because of heavy losses and inadequate ammunition supplies. He asked defence chiefs to insert regular army troops in their place.

 

WOW - that's a surprise turn. That's a pretty strong political statement.

That puts Russia in a very awkward position if Zelenzky launches his spring offensive soon.  The russians will have to pull troops from elsewhere to deal with bakhmut and weaken other areas or give up on taking the city fully and pull back, possibly losing the ground they've gained.

The timing couldn't be much worse for russia. Prigozhin clearly wanted to send a message to someone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The timing couldn't be much worse for russia. Prigozhin clearly wanted to send a message to someone.

Prigozhin is a media whore and is doing everything he can for attention in the Russian information space.  Saying you are leaving Bakhmut and actually leaving are very different things, and I wonder how much leash he actually has to make these decisions for Wagner.  

To me this just looks like more smoke-and-mirrors and internal Russian politiking.  The blame goes around and around and Putin's favor lands on the latest guy who hasn't failed (yet), while the musical chairs of Russian command continues.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Prigozhin is a media whore and is doing everything he can for attention in the Russian information space.  Saying you are leaving Bakhmut and actually leaving are very different things, and I wonder how much leash he actually has to make these decisions for Wagner.  

To me this just looks like more smoke-and-mirrors and internal Russian politiking.  The blame goes around and around and Putin's favor lands on the latest guy who hasn't failed (yet), while the musical chairs of Russian command continues.  

That has something of the ring of truth to it. I kind of expect he will pull out and the ensuing disaster will fall on the heads of the 'regular' army but while i'm well versed in military matters in general i'm not nearly as knowledgeable about the Russian political landscape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think he can pull out.  Wagner has multiple-division strength operating in and around Bakhmut, and unilaterally leaving would end the Wagner "charter" in Russia.  Mercenary companies are technically illegal, and Prighozin is tolerated and/or encouraged only on account that he's been able to provide fodder for high-intensity combat in the theatre.  

Unilaterally leaving would be akin to desertion, and if he did do that it would be a disaster all-around as you say. 

Blaming the regular army for the failures in Russia is tolerated because it takes the blame off of Putin, whose fault this really is.  That's why we keep seeing all of these command shuffles, and the hilarious rotation of dupes generals being paraded to take the fall for his miscalculations.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/3/2023 at 8:57 PM, CdnFox said:

Yeah  One of those rare times we agree pretty much 100 percent. This just doesn't make sense, and if it was an ukraine attack they'd probably own it.  But - it sounds like complete horsehockey.

It was just some harmless fireworks over Moscow. Why would any nation want to commit something so trivial? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Ukrainians are saying that while Prighozin threatens to leave, Wagner is actually piling troops into Bakhmut to try and complete it's capture before their May victory day. 

I could be wrong, but this just smells like amateur psy-ops, and mostly for the Russian audience.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

The Ukrainians are saying that while Prighozin threatens to leave, Wagner is actually piling troops into Bakhmut to try and complete it's capture before their May victory day. 

I could be wrong, but this just smells like amateur psy-ops, and mostly for the Russian audience.  

it's stunning what the Russians are willing to sacrifice to take Bakhmut

it is a crossroads

but if you follow those roads, it just leads the Russians into other brutal slogs even worse than Bakhmut

at Sloviansk and Kramatorsk

if Bakhmut is this hard to take, much bigger cities are not going to be easier

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Moonbox said:

I don't think he can pull out.  Wagner has multiple-division strength operating in and around Bakhmut, and unilaterally leaving would end the Wagner "charter" in Russia.  Mercenary companies are technically illegal, and Prighozin is tolerated and/or encouraged only on account that he's been able to provide fodder for high-intensity combat in the theatre.  

Unilaterally leaving would be akin to desertion, and if he did do that it would be a disaster all-around as you say. 

Blaming the regular army for the failures in Russia is tolerated because it takes the blame off of Putin, whose fault this really is.  That's why we keep seeing all of these command shuffles, and the hilarious rotation of dupes generals being paraded to take the fall for his miscalculations.  

On this particular topic you clearly have more knowledge than i do - sounds like an interesting show down then.

So - you suspect (reading between the lines and totally putting words in your mouth) it'll be wagner's position that they are being forced to leave by the military's bad behavior and refusal to supply them but MAYBE they could stay if (condition condition condition) ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/5/2023 at 4:23 PM, Moonbox said:

I think it’s just psy-ops within the Russian information space - scapegoating, setting conditions to justify anticipated future failures/embarrassments, and to jockey for influence. 

Well looks like you called it, at least mostly. They got promised more gear and ammo and so they're "changing their minds" and not going anywhere. So - smoke and mirrors as you say to get what he wants and make someone else look bad for the current failures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't think I'd be proven right this quickly.  

One thing that I always consider when it comes this dysfunctional mess of a country is that at the upper-echelons especially, none of them say much of anything without considering what Putin thinks.  When someone like Prigozhin rants against the MoD, he does so with Putin's (at least tacit) blessing. 

2 hours ago, Contrarian said:

He says that he was promised as much ammunition as he needs.

If all of that was a show, I am afraid after this war is over, you might find some twisted minds at Hollywood trying to bring him over as an actor, nice performance indeed, fumigating at the mouth. 

It's performative.  "As much ammunition as he needs" is not the same thing as "as much as he asks for".  

Russia is low on ammunition across the entire front.  Nothing has changed here, other than that Prighozin said some things, and then the MoD said some things in response.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Russia is low on ammunition across the entire front.  Nothing has changed here, other than that Prighozin said some things, and then the MoD said some things in response.  

 

Yeah - but i guess Priggers has set himself up if there's any kind of failure, he can claim he didn't get the ammo he was PROMISED when he agreed to stay  so it's the MoD's fault.

Also, speaking on behalf of all dyslexics of the world, anyone with a name 'Prighozin' should be caught and shot now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yeah - but i guess Priggers has set himself up if there's any kind of failure, he can claim he didn't get the ammo he was PROMISED when he agreed to stay  so it's the MoD's fault.

Exactly.  That's just how a top-down police state works, especially a media-savvy one like Russia.  I wrote a topic about it last year when the Ukrainians were driving the Red Army out of Kharkiv and Kherson:

https://repolitics.com/forums/topic/42546-russian-army-collapsing-the-unsurprising-failure-of-a-police-state/

The TLDR:  It's a regime built on lies and fear, flimsily built on the myth of Putin as a stronk and enlightened leader who never makes bad decisions and is only thwarted by corruption (which he obviously had nothing to do with) and Western intervention.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

Exactly.  That's just how a top-down police state works, especially a media-savvy one like Russia.  I wrote a topic about it last year when the Ukrainians were driving the Red Army out of Kharkiv and Kherson:

https://repolitics.com/forums/topic/42546-russian-army-collapsing-the-unsurprising-failure-of-a-police-state/

The TLDR:  It's a regime built on lies and fear, flimsily built on the myth of Putin as a stronk and enlightened leader who never makes bad decisions and is only thwarted by corruption (which he obviously had nothing to do with) and Western intervention.  

Well the same model worked very well for hitler, that's precisely how it was. But it can be a very bad way to run a war as it turns out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s a bad way of running anything, unless personal power is your objective.  There’s no question that a dictator can enact changes and get things done faster that a democracy, but the juice is not usually worth the squeeze.  

The myopic and self-defeating decision making processes of dictatorships almost invariably lead to disaster.  Hitler was very successful at taking over and rearming Germany, but they didn’t lose the war because of Hitler.  They lost the war because it was unwinnable, and it was Hitler (and friends) whose delusions and overconfidence led Germany into it.    
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

It’s a bad way of running anything, unless personal power is your objective.

yeah.... so, you've like  MET politicians before, right? :)  :)

32 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

 

The myopic and self-defeating decision making processes of dictatorships almost invariably lead to disaster.  Hitler was very successful at taking over and rearming Germany, but they didn’t lose the war because of Hitler.  They lost the war because it was unwinnable, and it was Hitler (and friends) whose delusions and overconfidence led Germany into it.   

I dunno. I coulda won it :) LOL

The war was winnable. There were a few things he did which were mistakes.  But as you say - with a myopic and tone deaf leadership model like that your'e bound to make some doozies

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

It’s a bad way of running anything, unless personal power is your objective.  There’s no question that a dictator can enact changes and get things done faster that a democracy, but the juice is not usually worth the squeeze.  

The myopic and self-defeating decision making processes of dictatorships almost invariably lead to disaster.  Hitler was very successful at taking over and rearming Germany, but they didn’t lose the war because of Hitler.  They lost the war because it was unwinnable, and it was Hitler (and friends) whose delusions and overconfidence led Germany into it.    
 

 

It was winnable, until he invaded the USSR and declared war on the US.

Edited by Aristides
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Aristides said:

It was winnable, until he invaded the USSR and declared war on the US.

Aren’t you acknowledging that it wasn’t winnable then, if starting the war with the opponent they had little chance of beating was what what made it unwinnable? 

Maybe Germany could have beaten the USSR on its own, but they couldn’t cross the Channel and deal with Britain so a war on two fronts was inevitable.  War with the Soviet Union was always the aim.  Hitler never wanted to fight Britain and, like Putin, thought he could just bully his eastern neighbours and the soft/decadent West would idly stand by.  

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,742
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    CrazyCanuck89
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • DACHSHUND went up a rank
      Rookie
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      First Post
    • aru earned a badge
      First Post
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • User earned a badge
      Posting Machine
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...