[iTNerd]

Originally Posted by FrozeninTime

For me big question is if Yuri Andropov (head of KGB) and his gang of Politburo members were architect of Soviet invasion of Afghanistan then who is the real architect of Ukraine invasion?

Nikolai Patrushev, the secretary, Security Council. According to Western intels, he is the one that made Putin move towards to more extreme position on Ukraine war and the Nazism theory.

Finnish President tells Russia 'You caused this' as he signs security pact with UK.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhLNBxpo8zY

With neutral countries such as Sweden and Finland are on the verge of joining NATO, it goes on to show how awfully the war in Ukraine has gone so wrong for Russian's interest.

[vishnurp99]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

And my 2 paisa --From the point of view of any self respecting army with pretensions of effectiveness even 0.5% of its force refusing to even get deployed to a battle zone is a sign of grave crises. Because for every 1 soldier who actually refuses there are a dozen already thinking of it as a serious option.

Dear V.Narayan - No disagreement with you there . My point was that we don't know what percentage of Russian service men are refusing to deploy. If it's an isolated case, then there is no point in talking about it like it is a macro trend. I am pretty sure that there will always be some people in any professional army who feel that they are stuck in the wrong place or who don't want to deploy to a battle zone.

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

It applies both ways. Anyone saying Russia has achieved its objectives of the war and can therefore now call it a ceasefire is as over influenced by Russia centric media as you are accusing others of being pro-west. This war will now last till USA & NATO decide they want it to - not a good thing at all - I don't like their immature, vengeful, unstatesmanlike approach but for now it is where the war is headed. Russia has completely lost the handle of being able to declare a ceasefire.

I would like to clarify my point since I may have been misunderstood. I believe that Russia has been focused on two things - Getting Donbas & protecting Crimea via land bridge and access to fresh water supplies - hence Kherson. Just because Russia has managed to get territory doesn't mean that they will able to hold it.They will need to destroy/surround the Ukranian forces in eastern front of Donbas or there has to be a surrender. Essentially this is the same script from Mariopol. So I think the ceasefire is basically based on how much damage Ukraine can sustain or how long they can hold on. Unless USA & NATO can get Russia to escalate the war through provocations so that Russia hits a NATO state (maybe Poland), their ability to influence the war is limited unless they put boots on the ground in Ukraine. Biden has clearly said that boots will not be put on the ground in Ukraine.

Originally Posted by vishnurp99

From a neutral Indian lens, outlets like NYT, Guardian & Sky have lost so much credibility now on the topic of Russia Ukraine conflict that it's difficult to take anything that they say at face value.

This was not intended as a blanket statement covering all topics. On the topic of Russia/Ukraine + NATO war (military, financial, political), It's difficult to take anything the above outlets say at face value.

[goacom]

Originally Posted by vishnurp99

I would like to clarify my point since I may have been misunderstood. I believe that Russia has been focused on two things - Getting Donbas & protecting Crimea via land bridge and access to fresh water supplies - hence Kherson. Just because Russia has managed to get territory doesn't mean that they will able to hold it.They will need to destroy/surround the Ukranian forces in eastern front of Donbas or there has to be a surrender. Essentially this is the same script from Mariopol. So I think the ceasefire is basically based on how much damage Ukraine can sustain or how long they can hold on. Unless USA & NATO can get Russia to escalate the war through provocations so that Russia hits a NATO state (maybe Poland), their ability to influence the war is limited unless they put boots on the ground in Ukraine. Biden has clearly said that boots will not be put on the ground in Ukraine.

The Russians goals have continued to shrink. They initially hoped to topple the government via its attack on Kiev. They failed.

Their current goal is as you state, the land bridge to Crimea (which the already have), with the added intention of taking over the entire southern coast line, including Odessa. This would have made Ukraine an economic rump state that would have no way efficient way to export its products. This is unlikely now.

Finally, their third objective was to take over the Donbass. While they have occupied much of it, they are only partially successful and have not made any significant progress in the last three weeks. It seems unlikely that they will make any progress here either.

The limiting factor for continued hostilities is no longer Ukraine, but rather the amount of damage the Russians can take. After being pushed out of Kiev, they have since been pushed out of Kharkiv and now risk having part of their Northern supply lines to the central Donbass region being cut off.

If the Ukrainians continue to fight as effectively as they have so far and assuming they continue to get support from the west, which I think is a given, I would not be surprised to see a Russian collapse in a few months. Russian forces continue to be directed top down, with little understanding of the local conditions and is one reason why so many of their troops are in a state of mutiny. I'm sure most here heard about the Russian debacle last week at the Donets river crossing. This poorly planned offensive was intended to deliver Putin a victory for his May 9th speech. Instead it ended in disaster.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/2...officials-say/

Russia started this war with 120BTGs. It went down to as low as 85 BTGs after their Kiev disaster. Today it is back up to around 100, but many of these are not at full strength, and with less trained conscripts. I really dont see any path forward for the Russians. With Finland and Sweden due to join NATO, they have clearly gotten themselves surrounded!

Finland is a really interesting case. In 1939, Russia suffered a 10:1 loss ratio when it attacked Finland. Finland continues to have formidable armed forces. It has the largest artillery arsenal in Western Europe (something like 5x that of Ukraine!). It has an active army of 280K and has access to 600K reservists. Their building codes require that all large buildings have an underground bunker and is required to stock 6 months of food and fuel and u p to months worth critical medicines. If there is a war, there is enough underground accommodations for 70% of its entire population!!!! In other words, while Finland tried to have good relations with Russia for the past 70 years by avoiding joining with NATO, it was ready to fight any nation that invaded it. It is a fully militarized society.

Russia cut of electricity to Finland a few days ago in retaliation, but this will be more of a financial loss to Russia, as Sweden has sufficient capacity to replace the lost Russian electricity. Putin's Russia continues its pattern of self destructive behavior. Are we sure that Putin is not a secret CIA agent was was installed by the Americans to destroy Russia from within?

[vishnurp99]

Originally Posted by goacom

The Russians goals have continued to shrink. They initially hoped to topple the government via its attack on Kiev. They failed.
..... Are we sure that Putin is not a secret CIA agent was was installed by the Americans to destroy Russia from within?

@ Goacom - Clearly you believe that Russia is losing big time in Ukraine. Since you are so confident, I assume that you are following the war efforts quite closely. I have not been following the war effort closely because I don't trust the western sources on the war based on how far off they have been and I don't have any account on telegram - so no Russian sources really. I do look at rt.com and Global times occasionally just to see what the Russian side & the Chinese side are saying while I glance through NYT , Fox & Print (Indian source) pretty much every day to understand the different perspectives out there.

On Russian goals from the conflict, I don't think there are any mind readers out there. So nobody really knows what Putin and his cronies had in their mind. Biden & his media cronies at NYT or any other new organization definitely don't know. if you go by Putin's address on Feb 24, the goal of this military operation is around the safeguarding of Crimea and Donbas. Please find the English translation on the Kremlin's website.

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67843

Now I have also heard commentary from folks like Scott Ritter , Col Macgregor, GD Bakshi etc. intermittently but they do have a totally different understanding of what is going on from what you have said. By the way, I see the first two names as essentially western commentators and have credibility because they have been right on Iraq & Afghanistan earlier when they went against the mainstream opinion in the US.

I am really curious about one thing - What is your assessment of the end state of this conflict say by September/October of this year when winter will be starting? What would be the territorial occupation of Russia & Ukraine? Do you think Crimea, Kherson & Donbas will be with Russia? If it is, would you still stand by your contention that Russia has lost in the conflict?

[NH08]

It was predicted that Russian economy will be shattered due to sanctions by western powers. However, a look at its currency's value in dollar terms tells something else:



Pre-invasion it was around 75 per USD. Now, it is 65.

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by NH08

It was predicted that Russian economy will be shattered due to sanctions by western powers. However, a look at its currency's value in dollar terms tells something else:

Attachment 2307891

Pre-invasion it was around 75 per USD. Now, it is 65.

Currency value can be manipulated and they can’t keep propping up their currency artificially forever, so a better indicator would be economic growth rate. Russia’s own predictions indicate that their economy will shrink by 12%! For comparison, the Indian economy shrank by an unprecedented 7.7% in 2020 and we are just about coming out of the aftereffects of that.

https://youtu.be/Vdx07VkJqfA

[AZT]

Originally Posted by NH08

However, a look at its currency's value in dollar terms tells something else:

This is misleading. What Russia actually did is force exporters to trade 80% of its euros and dollars into rubles at a discount. That creates a huge artificial demand for rubles.
Russia also restricted currency trades. People who wanted out of the ruble could not get out.



In addition, Russia Banned Foreigners From Selling Russia Stocks. This was back in March but just shows how they did everything they could for the optics of currency rate.

The economy is still in shambles and will remain for years, there's only so much employment the Natural Gas and Oil sectors can provide. Long term global plans for weaning off Russian Gas are a bigger blow. It's easier said than done though but Russia has lost a lot of good will.

[goacom]

Originally Posted by vishnurp99

@ Goacom - Clearly you believe that Russia is losing big time in Ukraine. Since you are so confident, I assume that you are following the war efforts quite closely. I have not been following the war effort closely because I don't trust the western sources on the war based on how far off they have been and I don't have any account on telegram - so no Russian sources really. I do look at rt.com and Global times occasionally just to see what the Russian side & the Chinese side are saying while I glance through NYT , Fox & Print (Indian source) pretty much every day to understand the different perspectives out there.

You seem to be suggesting that all the western media regurgitates the official party line. There is more than just the NYT. Fox News is the most popular news source in the US and it is typically in opposition to the NYT. Some of its staff are even sympathetic to Putin, the rightwing and nationalists in general. The Wall Street Journal is another media source that is typically in opposition to the NYT. However, even here, the reports of Russia's failures are clear.

Originally Posted by vishnurp99

I am really curious about one thing - What is your assessment of the end state of this conflict say by September/October of this year when winter will be starting? What would be the territorial occupation of Russia & Ukraine? Do you think Crimea, Kherson & Donbas will be with Russia? If it is, would you still stand by your contention that Russia has lost in the conflict?

It is very likely that the Crimea, Kherson and Donbas will be in Russian hands even towards the end of the year. However, given the size and military disparity between Russia and Ukraine, the expectation was that Kiev would fall within days and that most of Ukraine would be occupied within weeks. Given that context it surely does look like a defeat for Russia.
Now, true, depending upon whose side one is on, it could be argued that Russia has gotten some of its objectives. However, this has come at the cost of a massive hit to its economy that will take time to show. Furthermore, Ukraine and the west is unlike to cease hostilities so long as Russia continues to occupy Ukrainian territory which will mean substantial military losses for Russia. The Ukranians will also suffer massive losses, but they are fighting for survival and are willing to fight to the end (like in Azovstal). They also have an unlimited supply of weapons that will be continue to inflict damage to the Russians. The story is not over yet and it may be months or years before the war ends. Can the Russian military and economy sustain such an extended battle? This is not the same Russia of 1940, where Russia had a female fertility rate of 6 (versus a declining population now), not to mention a much more smaller and isolated economy now.

Originally Posted by NH08

It was predicted that Russian economy will be shattered due to sanctions by western powers. However, a look at its currency's value in dollar terms tells something else:

Attachment 2307891

Pre-invasion it was around 75 per USD. Now, it is 65.

This is a bogus metric that has been achieved by restricting the free conversion of Rubles in the open market. If you are so confident of this, I have Russian friends who will gladly give you 75Rubles for your US$. Unfortunately, for them, the black market rate is ~200Rubles to the US$. I will be happy to assist you to convert your US$ to Rubles @75 commission free. However, before we proceed, please confirm to me that you are not a Nigerian Prince who wants to give away his money.

[ValarMorghulis]

I don't what how and who played their hands correctly but the below news isn't exactly good for Russia (I think, with my very limited understanding of this topic). Someone in the US govt. must be celebrating.

Sweden to follow Finland in applying to join Nato after governing party drops opposition
‘Historic’ move announced hours after neighbour Finland said it intends to apply to join bloc

Link

[download2live]

Originally Posted by ValarMorghulis

Someone in the US govt. must be celebrating.

US yes. Europe maybe.

Russia can't be wished away given it's massive size and the nuclear weapons it has. Unlike US Europe has Russia as it neighbor and it will remain that way.

Amid this conflict China is the only winner.

[Foxbat]

Originally Posted by goacom

Finland continues to have formidable armed forces. It has the largest artillery arsenal in Western Europe (something like 5x that of Ukraine!). It has an active army of 280K and has access to 600K reservists.

Can you please share where you got this information?

I don't think Finland has more than 800 active artillery units. They must be more powerful and modern as they are of western origin compared to old cold war Russian units.

However I just checked and its seems seems 70% of their artillery is actually from the Soviet Union :
The most numerous weapon is the 122 mm howitzer 2A18 (471 units) which is Soviet howitzer that first entered service in 1960.



Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ield_artillery

Ukraine began the war with 1,800 artillery pieces assigned to 25 active line brigades, five separate artillery brigades and reserve and territorial formations.

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidax...h=2df23ec33b48

Are you trying to say Ukraine lost 1,600 artillery pieces in the ongoing conflict and is left with only 160 so Finland has 5x of Ukraine(800) artillery pieces?

[14000rpm]

Originally Posted by Foxbat

I don't think Finland has more than 800 active artillery units. They must be more powerful and modern as they are of western origin compared to old cold war Russian units.

However I just checked and its seems seems 70% of their artillery is actually from the Soviet Union :
The most numerous weapon is the 122 mm howitzer 2A18 (471 units) which is Soviet howitzer that first entered service in 1960.

Wikipedia data is outdated & incorrect. I checked with a reliable source - somebody who worked at Purchase in the Finnish Army. For obvious reasons the accurate data is kept off public records as I'm told. I do have some correct (and latest) facts but I was told to keep it off public platforms. So, that's that.

[V.Narayan]

Through the 45 years of the cold war Russian & NATO forces eyeballed each other on a daily basis in the air and at sea. Literally on a daily basis. The arms race the two sides pursued was like nothing we see today. Occasionally aircraft on either side got shot down. Occasionally ships or more often submarines got damaged by trailing each other too closely. On more than one occasion submarines would creep into enemy coastal waters to spy. Through all that Finland and Sweden stayed neutral and kept themselves well armed enough to deter an attack by the USSR. The reason for this was significantly influenced by the fact that at least since 1953 onwards the USSR was not ruled by one supreme dictator but by the Presidium (like our Cabinet of Ministers) and the Soviet parliament called the Supreme Soviet. For all its faults and regardless of Western propaganda the system had a reasonable inner party democracy especially since 1953 (Stalin's death). So the Swedish & Finnish knew that decisions were not made by one singular supremo like Kim Jong Un but by a system with checks and balances.

What has happened now, in my assessment (and I might be wrong) is that the Russian State is being run by one man and one man alone. Even at the height of his power Stalin was careful not to let that happen. The Russian State today is probably run by Putin and the FSB. A little bit like in Pakistan the Army is the state. One man no matter how brilliant and how much of a spymaster or chess master can imbibe all the knowledge, nuances, understanding the shades of grey to run a vast nation. And that is why Sweden & Finland who stood neutral through 45 difficult years (1946 to 1991) now want to join NATO - because Russian policy is being determined by one man and his whims and not by a council of wise men albeit your enemy.

If Finland & Sweden are allowed to join subject to Turkey's vote it follows naturally that Ukraine will become a part of NATO after this war.

That is also the reason India has more to worry about the China today under a "power hungry till I die" Xi Jinping than it ever had to under his predecessors.

A lot of folks write that the only winner here is China. I respectfully disagree. The two likely winners if both play their cards right are USA and India*. My sympathies for the Russian people who were our friends in times of need. Putin has not shown himself to be a friend of India to the same degree like earlier Soviet Premiers. This fact is often lost by some on this thread.

Originally Posted by FrozeninTime

Your assessment is spot on. It seems Putin, with his love for all things Soviet, has landed himself in another Afghanistan.

The Americans will make sure this becomes a slow burn Afghanistan for Putin. Ukraine could become a collateral damage to USA's determination to sort out Russia once and for all. <american emoji wearing cowboy hat shrugs shoulders>.The Chinese of course don't want that to happen because then it will leave them as the sole target of American ire. The worst thing for China is that earlier for 20 years it played a different card with Europe than the one with USA. That is why through the Trump era Europe remained significantly more pro-China than USA. But now that is not possible as NATO is more united than at any time since 1991 and both view China with a jaundiced eye.

It's hypothetical, but will this war benefit the Chinese arms industry as some of the latest Western weapons might have landed in Chinese hands through Russia?

The likelihood exists. Though there is a very very long journey for an intact weapon and its munition to be captured, then in the fog of war someone extricating it and shipping it to the appropriate central authority and from there it winding its way to China without Russia wanting to dismantle it first. It might be simpler for China to buy that weapon {say the Javelin anti-tank missile} from the black market through surreptitious means.

*I'm not saying this because I'm an Indian or out of any WhatsApp message jingoism.

[vishnurp99]

Originally Posted by goacom

You seem to be suggesting that all the western media regurgitates the official party line. There is more than just the NYT. Fox News is the most popular news source in the US and it is typically in opposition to the NYT. Some of its staff are even sympathetic to Putin, the rightwing and nationalists in general. The Wall Street Journal is another media source that is typically in opposition to the NYT. However, even here, the reports of Russia's failures are clear.

All of the US/western sources on the war have been horribly one sided. A job well done by US/NATO administration!. Just search for any news on Ukranian army losses/casualties and let me know what you find. All that you have is civilian deaths/civilian destruction but nothing on Ukranian army losses. Looks like no Ukrainian officers have died at all.

Originally Posted by goacom

It is very likely that the Crimea, Kherson and Donbas will be in Russian hands even towards the end of the year. However, given the size and military disparity between Russia and Ukraine, the expectation was that Kiev would fall within days and that most of Ukraine would be occupied within weeks. Given that context it surely does look like a defeat for Russia.

@ Goacom, Thank you for the clarification. I wanted to put across a contrary point of view. Please consider the rationale once.
When did we start believing that a 200K fighting force will quickly subdue ( in 3 flat days LOL ) a 260K Regular army which has been smarting from the loss of Crimea in 2014? Why do we forget that NATO has been training the Ukranians all this while? Why do we think that Russia wanted to capture Kiev with a 60-80K force when they left around 100K in Donbass?

I think we can all thank the free media for that. Putin should thank the American media in a way. They have convinced the world that the loss of Crimea, Kherson, Donbass & Mariupol etc. is actually a win or even a stalemate for Ukraine. I guess I am the only one who sees the irony in this situation.

Now coming to the economic situation, I don't know how things will pan out. I know that a lot of these banks like JP Morgan and Goldman suggested that Russian economy will go through a massive contraction. Guess what they are telling their clients now?
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/jpmor...25%20in%202022.

[Slick]

Ukraine army has reached Russian border near Kharkiv.

Mr President, We Made It

Courtesy NDTV & Twitter.

If this is true (as it is a video of soldiers declaring the above line) then the western media has not been off by a lot. Sure they are biased and hoping for Russia to lose but not completely off. In the coming days this should get fact checked.

- Slick