Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2022-2024 Russo-Ukrainian War

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Despite Ukraine's advances, Russia says mobilisation is not on the agenda

    LONDON, Sept 13 (Reuters) - The Kremlin said on Tuesday there was no discussion of a nationwide mobilisation to bolster its forces in Ukraine, despite growing pressure to do so after Russia suffered one of its worst defeats in nearly seven months of war.

    "At the moment no, there is no discussion of this," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said when asked for the second day running if Russia would mobilise its reserves after being driven out of almost all of Kharkiv region in northeast Ukraine.

    On Monday, Russian media quoted Mikhail Sheremet, a State Duma deputy from the ruling United Russia party, as saying "full mobilisation" was necessary for victory.

    On Tuesday, Communist Party leader Gennady Zyuganov said in a statement on the party's website: "Most of all, we need maximum mobilisation of our strength and resources" in order to win what he called a "war" against the United States, Europe and NATO.

    Russia describes its actions in Ukraine as a "special military operation", and critics who call it a war or an invasion have been prosecuted under laws passed earlier this year against discrediting the armed forces or spreading false news about them.

    Asked about criticism of the military leadership by nationalist commentators who have demanded mobilisation, Peskov said it was an example of "pluralism" and that Russians as a whole continue to support President Vladimir Putin.

    "Russians support the president, and this is confirmed by the mood of the people ... The people are consolidated around the decisions of the head of state," he said.

    "As for other points of view, critical points of view, as long as they remain within the law, this is pluralism, but the line is very, very thin, one must be very careful here", he added.

    So far Putin has not resorted to mobilising Russia's reserves, who number around 2 million men with military service within the past five years.

    To do so would constitute an admission that what he has cast as a limited military mission is in fact a full-scale war that is going badly for Russia.

    Military commentators ordinarily supportive of the campaign reacted with fury after Russia's Defence Ministry on Saturday said it was abandoning the Kharkiv region in a "regrouping" after the lightning Ukrainian counteroffensive last week. Many have suggested for months that only a full-scale nationwide mobilisation could rectify the situation.

    On Sept. 2, before the Ukrainian counteroffensive began, Igor Girkin, a former Russian security services officer who led the original separatist insurgency in east Ukraine in 2014, wrote on Telegram that mobilisation is Russia's "last chance" at victory in Ukraine. (Reporting by Reuters; editing by Mark Trevelyan)
    ____________

    Uh huh...sure.

    But who knows, Peskov might actually be telling the truth...but only because to mobilize would mean potentially ghastly consequences for Putin and the Kremlin.
    “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

    Comment


    • Originally posted by astralis View Post

      according to the Ukrainians they achieved a 8:1 force superiority against the Russians in their Kharkiv attack -- it's probably higher now that the Russian defenses have collapsed.
      Just wanted to correct this - it was Vitaly Ganchev, the Russian installed head of the occupied parts of the Kharkiv region who said this, not the Ukrainians themselves.
      "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

      Comment


      • Parts? Well why not I mean throwing units in piecemeal has worked so well for them so far. Here's a radical idea. How about the Russians consider transferring the 3rd Corps as a cohesive force to that part of the front they consider most critical. It may require some reorganization so that the greenest or most under strength units are pinched out and left behind or merged etc but at least you'd have a formation staffed with officers (particularly senior officers) who have worked together for some months.
        Last edited by Monash; 14 Sep 22,, 02:07.
        If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by astralis View Post
          Russian video of their attempt to take out a Ukrainian vehicle with a ATGM. the guys in the vehicle must have had some brown pants to clean up afterwards, geez.

          https://twitter.com/hejtas/status/1569719101521551362
          Was that a target even worth wasting an ATGM on?
          If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Monash View Post
            Parts? Well why not I mean throwing units in piecemeal has worked so well for them so far. Here's a radical idea. How about the Russians consider transferring the 3rd Corps as a cohesive force to that part of the front they consider most critical. It may require some reorganization so that greenest or most under strength units were pinched out and left behind but at least you'd have a formation staffed with officers (particularly senior officers) who have worked together for some months.
            Actually, they've been doing that but you've got the wrong echelon. They've been throwing Combined Arms Armies (Corps level HQ) commanding BTGs into the fight. What they need is division and brigade/regiment HQs back into the Chain-of-Command. I still can't wrap my head around the fact that a BTG is nomally 400 men. Those numbers were our fucked up peacekeeping days and it still didn't worked. We learned to pump that number up to 600 and a Battle Group to be 1000-1200 strong.

            And I also can't wrap my head around why the hell are CAA Generals running around doing the jobs of Colonels?
            Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 14 Sep 22,, 00:16.
            Chimo

            Comment


            • Another 83 pieces of equipment captured or destroyed today. Roughly 10% of all Russian total equipment losses were incurred in the last week:

              (Taken in total, the combat vehicle losses are representative of 8 battalions or 2.6 brigades)
              TANK: 102 (8.5 companies or 2+ battalions)
              IFV: 108 (9 companies or 2+ battalions)
              APC: 86 (7.1 companies 2- battalions)
              ARTILLERY: 66 (11 batteries or 2- arty battalions)

              https://twitter.com/livfaustdiejung/...fL0eRd2UbTL9xA

              There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

              Comment


              • Bet the Ukrainians now wished somehow that they didn't need to blow up all those depots.
                Chimo

                Comment


                • Russian troops abandoning Melitopol now?

                  Comment


                  • A Russian Army collapse? Good God! I'm worried what's going to happen next in Russia.
                    Chimo

                    Comment


                    • OOE Reply,

                      Colonel, as I see it, three things 1.) Your article was dated Sept. 9 but, 2.) the Russian MoD announcement didn't occur until Sept. 12 and, 3.) most everything out of their mouths so far has been a lie so why would this be any different? The source (Russian MoD) is untrustworthy.

                      Still, as Monash indicates it's not a coherently configured force as intended anyway. Instead, selected units (likely those ostensibly "ready") and some of those reinforcements got whacked coming down from Belgorod. Evidently they're still fighting in Lyman. If so, I'd break contact, leave them with the nearest address where they can surrender, beg them not to illegally hunt and get my azz up to Svatove...or Kremmina

                      https://twitter.com/ChuckPfarrer/sta...683009/photo/1

                      Supposedly bypassed pockets around Izyum and Lyman and east along the Siverskiy Donets to Lyschansk. Otherwise, there's no coherent defense along the Oskil river and the Ukrainians have blown past that to the doorstep of an unoccupied Svatove. Kremmina is also shown in Ukrainian hands. That opens the highway north to Svatove and south to Sievierodonetsk/Lyschansk

                      "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                      "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                      Comment


                      • Steve,

                        The site is Ukrainian and I assumed to be open source Ukrainian intel. AFAIC, it's flag waving. The much vaunted 3AC is in the field and the difference is ... same shit, different bowl.
                        Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 14 Sep 22,, 02:00.
                        Chimo

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by S2 View Post
                          OOE Reply,

                          Colonel, as I see it, three things 1.) Your article was dated Sept. 9 but, 2.) the Russian MoD announcement didn't occur until Sept. 12 and, 3.) most everything out of their mouths so far has been a lie so why would this be any different? The source (Russian MoD) is untrustworthy.

                          Still, as Monash indicates ...
                          Its long past time for the 'big reveal'... drum roll please! Its Alan (Al).
                          Last edited by Monash; 14 Sep 22,, 02:24.
                          If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                            Actually, they've been doing that but you've got the wrong echelon. They've been throwing Combined Arms Armies (Corps level HQ) commanding BTGs into the fight. What they need is division and brigade/regiment HQs back into the Chain-of-Command. I still can't wrap my head around the fact that a BTG is nomally 400 men. Those numbers were our fucked up peacekeeping days and it still didn't worked. We learned to pump that number up to 600 and a Battle Group to be 1000-1200 strong.

                            And I also can't wrap my head around why the hell are CAA Generals running around doing the jobs of Colonels?
                            I always thought the force structure adopted by Russia (comparatively small combat units with a really top heavy command structure) wasn't so much dictated by tactical considerations and capabilities but by rather simply out of sheer necessity. The cause? The almost lack of a professional NCO corps. I suspect it's simply impossible for Russia to organize formations larger than a BTG because they don't have the veteran NCO's needed to fill out the chain of command. Officers have to run everything. (And we all know how that happens when you let officers 'run things', it's not their forte.)

                            It also explains I think why Ukraine keeps capturing senior officers (Colonels and Generals) in job lot's. That kind of top heavy operational structure effectively 'pushes' your command staff forward towards the front lines. Frankly given everything that's happened? Even if Russia stepped back reorganized, reequipped and tried this invasion again in 5 or 10 years time? I don't see the results changing (much). Russian ground forces are screwed until they people their NCO's.
                            Last edited by Monash; 14 Sep 22,, 02:27.
                            If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Monash View Post
                              I always thought the force structure adopted by Russia (small combat units with a really top heavy command structure ) wasn't so much dictated by tactical considerations and capabilities but by rather simply out of sheer necessity. The cause? The almost lack of a professional NCO corps. Its imply impossible for Russia to organize formation larger than a BTG because they don't have the veteran NCO's to run large formations. Officers have to do 'everything. (And we all know how that happens when you let officers 'run things', it's not their forte.)
                              Historically, armies have fought well without a professional NCM. The Russians being one of them and they WERE a good army. But be that as it may, the answer was and is simple. Downsize. Instead of having 100 understrength BTGs, have 50 flushed out ones. Of course, you have 50 LCols without a job. But you have 16 full Cols and 5 MGen and 1 LGen.
                              Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 14 Sep 22,, 02:27.
                              Chimo

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                                Historically, armies have fought well without a professional NCM. The Russians being one of them and they WERE a good army. But be that as it may, the answer was and is simple. Downsize. Instead of having 100 understrength BTGs, have 50 flushed out ones. Of course, you have 50 LCols without a job. But you have 16 full Cols and 5 MGen and 1 LGen.
                                Given the history involved? I suspect success in those circumstances simply lay in 'learning by doing' or perhaps more correctly ' learning by (not) dieing'. If you lived in a period of prolonged or at least regular warfare your armed forces gain expertise though combat. Your NCOs and junior officers have all most likely seen the elephant.

                                Compare that to modern Russia which hasn't fought a real ground war in how long?
                                If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X