Maybe Wagner is being put in Belarus to keep Lukashenko in line.
Maybe Wagner is being put in Belarus to keep Lukashenko in line.
No need for weird conspiracies, if that were the case. They would just send Wagner to Belarus to "help."
I think after 16 months, it is fairly safe to say the Russian leadership is not playing 4D chess, it's more like Candyland.
aircooled said:More on the situation. A similar situation of course occurred after the somewhat well known attempt to kill Hitler with the suitcase bomb (e.g. Tom Cruise movie Valkyrie). There was a purge of those involved, which included the rather famous, and very competent German general Rommel, who was allowed to commit suicide rather than face trial (and disgrace for him and his family).
Russian sources speculated that Wagner’s rebellion is already having widespread impacts on the Russian command structure. A prominent Russian milblogger claimed that Wagner’s rebellion has prompted “large-scale purges” among the command cadre of the Russian armed forces and that the Russian MoD is currently undergoing a “crash test” for loyalty.[7] The milblogger claimed that the Russian Federal Protective Service (FSO) is conducting a review of the Russian military leadership as well as the individual unit commanders.[8] The milblogger claimed that Russian officials are using the MoD’s “indecisiveness” in suppressing the rebellion and “support for paramilitary companies (PMCs)” as pretexts to remove “objectionable” personnel from their positions. The milblogger notably claimed that Russian Airborne Forces (VDV) commander and rumored deputy theater commander Colonel General Mikhail Teplinsky assumed responsibilities as overall theater commander in Ukraine from Chief of the General Staff and current overall theater commander Army General Valery Gerasimov on an unspecified date, but likely after the rebellion. The milblogger emphasized that Gerasimov will retain his post as Chief of the General Staff but will no longer have responsibilities for Russian operations in Ukraine. Another Russian source claimed that an “atmosphere of suspicion has enveloped the General Staff” and that affiliates of Gerasimov are accused of indecision and failure while the affiliates of deputy commander of the joint grouping of forces in Ukraine Army General Sergei Surovikin are accused of complicity in the rebellion.[9] The sources publishing these speculations have largely been accurate in previous reporting on Russian command changes, although the ongoing disruption to human networks and the severe potential consequences related to Prigozhin’s armed rebellion may affect these sources’ accuracy. ISW cannot confirm any of these speculations about the command changes at this time, but it is evident that the armed rebellion is continuing to have substantial ramifications in the information space.
At this point, large scale purges of the military command staff might actually result in improvements for the Russian army. The current leadership has obviously proven incapable of fielding and commanding an effective army and military campaign. The next tier of officers have been engaged in high intensity combat for a year plus and just due to human nature will have cultivated skills and experence in combat that their clacified higher ups dont have.
In reply to JY_Rat :
Or it could be the exact opposite, as you know that you must do exactly what vlad says or you are dead.
given that they have already implemented shooting anyone who falls back, someone high will keep that in place. Which means any leader who can do an effective fall back will not last long.
I think it's overly simplistic to suggest that the Russian political and military command structure is operating on a level of infantile incompetence. Similarly, suggesting that purging the current military leadership will solve the command problem ignores the political, structural, and social limitations involved in a limited conflict.
The Russian leadership is dealing with a difficult set of problems. Yes, they are overwhelmingly of their own making, but they are still problems to be addressed. They are being forced to try to answer questions that are not dissimilar to those the US leadership faced in, say, 1966 in Vietnam, or the French in the same country in 1947. Put yourself in their position, but neutralize the situation by making it hypothetical:
You are a member of the military high command of a Great Power currently engaged in a war with a smaller power. Your nation's objectives in the war are limited, and your opponent presents no existential threat to your nation. In spite of overwhelming military advantages, your initial efforts in the first year of the conflict did not produce the desired results, and in fact have failed badly, resulting in the necessity of committing far more resources to the war than initially intended. This has produced mounting political and social opposition to the conflict both in your country and among other states. Worse, your opponent has secured substantial support from other states, including your largest Great Power rival, which has materially affected the outcome and shows no sign of stopping.
The leader of your nation has convened a council meeting to plan the next phase of the conflict. Though unspoken, you are aware that the leader views terminating the conflict in the current circumstances politically unacceptable. Beyond that, however, all options, military and political, are on the table. Each member of the meeting will present their plan for how the nation should proceed toward a result that achieves at least some of the desired pre-war outcomes without severely damaging the nation's economy, its political structure, or its social stability.
What is your plan?
In reply to 02Pilot :
Under those circumstances, battlefield results are secondary to making sure you're not the next person to fall out a window, so blamescaping is pretty much the only logical option, and hoping you do it better than everyone else.
In reply to eastsideTim :
You have to stick within the boundaries of the hypothetical, not impose specific conditions. Clearly, each situation is unique and has circumstances that individuals will take into account, but trying to consider all of them renders the exercise pointless.
While we're on the hypothetical... Would Belarus be able to use the nuclear weapons that have supposedly been delivered to them independently of Russia? If so, would that be sufficient leverage against Russia should Lukashenko/Wagner decide to team up and break with Putin?
02Pilot said:The leader of your nation has convened a council meeting to plan the next phase of the conflict. Though unspoken, you are aware that the leader views terminating the conflict in the current circumstances politically unacceptable. Beyond that, however, all options, military and political, are on the table. Each member of the meeting will present their plan for how the nation should proceed toward a result that achieves at least some of the desired pre-war outcomes without severely damaging the nation's economy, its political structure, or its social stability.
What is your plan?
It looks to me like any weapon system in the current Russian arsenal that is sophisticated in any way is suspect due to theft/corruption of critical components by leadership. There is insufficient funds to pay for complex contemporary systems. My hope would be to avoid "severely damaging" the social stability by
1. using the largest mobilization possible
2. while that mobilization is happening, draw as many tanks/artillery tubes/aircraft as possible from mothball and bring them to operational status
3. acquire as much ammunition as possible for those weapons from any source possible
4. as soon as manpower/weapons/supplies are adequate, launch a massive wave assault and ignore casualties, per previous Russian doctrine. The hope is the West will run out of political spine/$ before you run out of bodies. Sounds a lot like the infamous Japanese "one decisive battle" fixation in WWII, but beyond that, I got nothin'...
The balance between unwavering loyalty and competence has long been a problem with Russia. My Finnish heritage takes pride in the damage they inflicted upon the Russians in the Winter War of 1939/40. But a big part of Russia's failure was that their leadership had been purged of the best and brightest in favor of the obedient and loyal.
Edit: There's a lot of great images from that conflict, but one of my favorites is below. How does one not admire the efforts of soldiers in a war defined by snipers and middle-aged soldiers using slingshots to launch grenades!
02Pilot said:I think it's overly simplistic to suggest that the Russian political and military command structure is operating on a level of infantile incompetence. Similarly, suggesting that purging the current military leadership will solve the command problem ignores the political, structural, and social limitations involved in a limited conflict.
The Russian leadership is dealing with a difficult set of problems. Yes, they are overwhelmingly of their own making, but they are still problems to be addressed. They are being forced to try to answer questions that are not dissimilar to those the US leadership faced in, say, 1966 in Vietnam, or the French in the same country in 1947. Put yourself in their position, but neutralize the situation by making it hypothetical:
You are a member of the military high command of a Great Power currently engaged in a war with a smaller power. Your nation's objectives in the war are limited, and your opponent presents no existential threat to your nation. In spite of overwhelming military advantages, your initial efforts in the first year of the conflict did not produce the desired results, and in fact have failed badly, resulting in the necessity of committing far more resources to the war than initially intended. This has produced mounting political and social opposition to the conflict both in your country and among other states. Worse, your opponent has secured substantial support from other states, including your largest Great Power rival, which has materially affected the outcome and shows no sign of stopping.
The leader of your nation has convened a council meeting to plan the next phase of the conflict. Though unspoken, you are aware that the leader views terminating the conflict in the current circumstances politically unacceptable. Beyond that, however, all options, military and political, are on the table. Each member of the meeting will present their plan for how the nation should proceed toward a result that achieves at least some of the desired pre-war outcomes without severely damaging the nation's economy, its political structure, or its social stability.
What is your plan?
Taking everything aside, keeping in mind prior to the Ukraine War, Gerasimov was crowing about the modernization of the Russian military. They had completed a successful campaign in Syria and Gerasimov was making noises about how the revamped Russian military was a force to be reckoned with. Observers all throughout the globe considered the Russian military to be a 'near peer' competitor to the US military. Nowadays no one can say that with a straight face.
The following deficiencies have little to do with geopolitics and more to do with corruption and incompetence endemic to Russian bureacracy:
- inability to maintain even basic COMSEC
- total inability to coordinate air support for ground elements
-logistics failures at every level
-catastrophic failures of command and control
These are the basics that a military that claims to be a 1st rate military must demonstrate mastery of.
Significant things may be happening.
Ukrainian Defense forces have partial success in advance at Levadne – Pryutne, Mala Tokmachka - Ocheretuvate, Pryvillya - Zaliznyanske
Of note is Ocheretuvate. I have put an arrow in the map below of what that represents. If the Ukrainians are anywhere near there, they have made significant advances.
We will see. This would mean they have penetrated two significant defensive lines. Certainly more to come.
The map that indicated this is shown at bottom (it just does not show a lot of detail in towns or fortifications)
Parker with too many Projects said:While we're on the hypothetical... Would Belarus be able to use the nuclear weapons that have supposedly been delivered to them independently of Russia? If so, would that be sufficient leverage against Russia should Lukashenko/Wagner decide to team up and break with Putin?
I can pretty much assure you (I don't actually know), the operation of those systems is entirely under Russian control.
stroker said:02Pilot said:The leader of your nation has convened a council meeting to plan the next phase of the conflict. Though unspoken, you are aware that the leader views terminating the conflict in the current circumstances politically unacceptable. Beyond that, however, all options, military and political, are on the table. Each member of the meeting will present their plan for how the nation should proceed toward a result that achieves at least some of the desired pre-war outcomes without severely damaging the nation's economy, its political structure, or its social stability.
What is your plan?
It looks to me like any weapon system in the current Russian arsenal that is sophisticated in any way is suspect due to theft/corruption of critical components by leadership. There is insufficient funds to pay for complex contemporary systems. My hope would be to avoid "severely damaging" the social stability by
1. using the largest mobilization possible
2. while that mobilization is happening, draw as many tanks/artillery tubes/aircraft as possible from mothball and bring them to operational status
3. acquire as much ammunition as possible for those weapons from any source possible
4. as soon as manpower/weapons/supplies are adequate, launch a massive wave assault and ignore casualties, per previous Russian doctrine. The hope is the West will run out of political spine/$ before you run out of bodies. Sounds a lot like the infamous Japanese "one decisive battle" fixation in WWII, but beyond that, I got nothin'...
I see how you arrived at your conclusion, I sure don't see any other option. After all, we've been watching exactly that for the last year.
02Pilot said:In reply to aircooled :
The motives are different: the Germans involved wanted to end what they saw as a failed and impossible war effort, while the Russians think Putin isn't going hard enough to win.
I expect Putin's housecleaning to result in less open internal dissent from the milblogger community, as well as nationalist radicals like Alexander Dugin who have been calling for an intensified war effort.
So you think Wagner troops risked their lives to attack Moscow because they couldn't risk their lives well enough in Ukraine?
I just have a hard time believing that.
The Kremlin saying "stop acting out, we've got this" then integrating Wagner troops into normalized units seems strange. Prigozhin being kept at arm's length doesn't surpise me. He wanted to lead the charge. Putin had others who wanted that role.
Is that what's going on here? Russian military branches aren't cooperating without their leadership getting promotion? "The airforce will not commit resources to this operation unless the airforce has leadership over other ground units". Was Priqozhin another one of those military leaders who basically said "I'm not going to commit my resources unless I can control what other units are doing."
If that's the case, him being a plant in Belarus makes me wonder if we won't see a coup there. That'd be a great way to earn a leadership roll alongside Putin. Control (someone elses) entire military, and sacrifice them on behalf of your former employer.
Ran across an article about an Anonymous-like Russian hacking collective that's sprung up, attacking targets opposed to the invasion:
Floating Doc (Forum Supporter) said:stroker said:02Pilot said:The leader of your nation has convened a council meeting to plan the next phase of the conflict. Though unspoken, you are aware that the leader views terminating the conflict in the current circumstances politically unacceptable. Beyond that, however, all options, military and political, are on the table. Each member of the meeting will present their plan for how the nation should proceed toward a result that achieves at least some of the desired pre-war outcomes without severely damaging the nation's economy, its political structure, or its social stability.
What is your plan?
It looks to me like any weapon system in the current Russian arsenal that is sophisticated in any way is suspect due to theft/corruption of critical components by leadership. There is insufficient funds to pay for complex contemporary systems. My hope would be to avoid "severely damaging" the social stability by
1. using the largest mobilization possible
2. while that mobilization is happening, draw as many tanks/artillery tubes/aircraft as possible from mothball and bring them to operational status
3. acquire as much ammunition as possible for those weapons from any source possible
4. as soon as manpower/weapons/supplies are adequate, launch a massive wave assault and ignore casualties, per previous Russian doctrine. The hope is the West will run out of political spine/$ before you run out of bodies. Sounds a lot like the infamous Japanese "one decisive battle" fixation in WWII, but beyond that, I got nothin'...
I see how you arrived at your conclusion, I sure don't see any other option. After all, we've been watching exactly that for the last year.
The German tried that ( trench warfare with massed assaults ) during WW1 it didn't work any better than it did in America's civil war.
By WW 2 blitzkrieg worked so well for Germany that every military learned from that.
By the end of WW2 Russia had good enough tanks and planes that massive numbers overwhelmed Germany.
Russia no longer has the population, or equipment to do that again and their people will simply be chewed up.
10-1 loss and Ukraine wins less than 3-4 to 1 and Ukraine loses.
Wawaweewa, Russia recruiting Kazakhs into deadly search for elementary school hiding secret nazi base, not very nice!
https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/russia-ukraine-war-news-06-30-23/h_7129cae0df2ad520dca2205e95cb855c
No timeline given but is this where they turn on Putin?
Assassination attempt.
In reply to 02Pilot :
One thing no one ever seems to consider (including world leaders) is that a large conventional military isn't designed for this style of war. It's why nearly every war since WW2 has been an utter failure. Armies are always built to win past wars not the ones they are fighting or the ones of the future.
Amazing how many Russians are falling out of windows.
MSN.com: Young Russian bank VP plunges to her death from Moscow apartment window: report
"Some two dozen Russian officials and oligarchs died under mysterious circumstances in 2022 alone, The Atlantic reported — while naming the trend “Sudden Russian Death Syndrome.”"
In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :
That's definitely a real problem but I don't think it applies so much in this conflict, the Ukraine invasion is one of the most WW2-like conflicts since WW2, in that relatively large conventional militaries are engaged in heavily mechanized and fairly conventional warfare against each other (WW2 wasn't totally conventional either...), rather than a large conventional military going up against a small group that has nothing heavier than "technical" pickups and runs on guerilla tactics and war crimes.
I do often joke that the US military appears to be designed to single-handedly put a stop to a 2nd outbreak of WW2, by occupying the entire planet if necessary.
Ukraine is beginning to prepare for potential conflict termination scenarios that fall far short of liberating all claimed territory. While the plan outlined below is in direct contradiction to Zelensky's rhetoric, and will probably face some resistance internally as a result, it is also a lot more realistic and achievable. It accounts for a failure to be granted NATO membership in the short term (if at all) and leverages Ukrainian strengths and Russian weaknesses effectively. The big question remaining, of course, is whether Russia will accept terms that leave it in an exposed position. Naturally, that will depend on how the current offensive proceeds and how badly the Russians are damaged as a result. Ironically, this may encourage resistance to granting Ukraine NATO accession in the West, as Russia will likely be more inclined to agree to terms that keep NATO out of Ukraine (which is how the Russians see it), even if it means a loss of territorial control in places.
Per the Washington Post on DCI Burns briefing in Kyiv:
In preparation for the fall, Zelensky and top aides have begun thinking about how Kyiv can force an end to the fighting on terms that are acceptable to Russia and the Ukrainian people, who have been subjected to a year and a half of violence, forced displacement, atrocities, and food and electricity shortages.
In an ideal scenario favored by Kyiv, Ukraine’s military would gain leverage over Russia by advancing troops and powerful weapons to the edge of Ukraine’s boundary with Crimea — holding hostage the peninsula that is home to Russia’s prized Black Sea Fleet.
...
In agreeing not to take Crimea by force, Kyiv would then demand that Russia accept whatever security guarantees Ukraine can secure from the West, said Ukrainian officials.
Obtaining those guarantees, however, has been a tall order.
The Zelensky government has pushed hard for the United States and Europe to make firm commitments on Ukraine’s accession to NATO and the European Union — but the U.S. and Western European governments remain cold to the idea, more interested in offering pledges of long-term security assistance instead of the expansion of NATO, which risks a direct conflict with Russia.
Full article here: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/cia-director-on-secret-trip-to-ukraine-hears-plan-for-war-s-endgame/ar-AA1dhlSJ
In reply to 02Pilot :
What are the chances of a Korean armistice type thing happening?
You'll need to log in to post.
