War in Ukraine

Well, off-duty Russian soldiers aren't fighting in Ukraine, off-duty Russian soldiers are covertly training the rebel army under official orders. Former, discharged Russian soldiers are fighting in Ukraine on their own volition, the ones that are no longer part of the army.

I think we are seriously misunderstanding each other here. Can we actually start over? What was your original point?

BTW, there's a post I made recently about Russian soldiers in Donbass, you should read it.

Oh, I see! You confuse actual volunteers with fake "volunteers!" Let me tell you about them in a bit more detail.

The off-duty Russian soldiers that go to Ukraine are all "volunteers," i.e. what they do they do on the orders of the higher-ups. The Russian forces in Ukraine are composed of troops from many different units, you see, which are chosen on actual voluntary basis, officially removed from active duty and covertly sent to Novorossiya to provide training and other non-military assistance to the rebels. This way, if those soldiers are captured or otherwise revealed, Russia will always be able to say that they are just mavericks who went to Ukraine on their own volition and broke the military code of conduct or something like this in the process, just like what you said would happen if off-duty British soldiers went to fight Assad. If any actual Russian mavericks try to actually get to Ukraine while actually off-duty to actually fight there, they will be prosecuted.

Now, the actual Russian soldier volunteers I mentioned who actually fight for Novorossiya cannot really be called soldiers, because they have been officially discharged from the Russian army. They are veterans, essentially. Some of these veterans, like Motorola, are volunteers, some are mercenaries, like Babai, but none of them are in any kind of service any more. The most extreme cases are people who officially resigned from the Russian army in order to join the Novorossiyan army, because if they did so while only off active duty, they would've been prosecuted.

edited 7th Mar '15 2:05:26 PM by KnitTie

Doesn't hold up. Why do we get a SUDDEN increase in the competence and professionalism of the rebels during the decisive engagements? Why do we get dead/captured Russian soldiers that were definitely not there for training?

As for Ukraine as a whole - a lot of the negatives were carried over from Yanukovych's times. Donbass hated Kyiv since the Orange Revolution, it was a matter of time, thd economy would have collapsed one way or the other. As for the freedom of speech, the attempts to restrict it are pathetic compared to Yanik's times.

That's a very interesting theory but, alas, a wrong one. The rebels don't suddenly grow more competent during all the decisive operations - just look at the recent offensive, where the Novorossiyan forces completely ran out of juice after taking the airport and weren't able to achieve any strategic or even operational gains both in pushing the frontline away from Donetsk and in encircling the Debaltsevo bulge, despite those gains being vital to their goals and strategy, until they got lucky and managed to break into Vuhlehirsk/Uglegorsk when it was left practically undefended by the AFU. So, if anything, I'd say that the rebel success is defined by the failures of the Ukrainian command much more than it is defined by their own skills and training, as both the Airport and Vuhlehirsk/Uglegorsk were examples of stunning incompetence on part of Muzhenko and co., while the blunder-free commanding during the defence of Piski, Avdiivka and Svitlodarsk managed to stop the rebel advance dead in its tracks despite them throwing everything they've got there.

As for the dead and captured Russian soldiers, where? There was that bunch of paratroopers back in Summer, but that's it.

edited 7th Mar '15 8:36:36 PM by KnitTie

I agree. Effective command and control has been lacking on both sides of the conflict. Its not like there was any moves of strategic genius on the battle of Debaltseve by the rebels. Anyone could see what was happening. The rebels did prove they have gotten better at coordinating offensive operations (as well as the operating with the militias of both republics). On the ground both sides are fairly evenly matched with perhaps greater Ukrainian firepower and better morale for the rebel army.

The lack of coordination between combat units by Ukrainian army was seen pretty clearly by the counter attack on the airport which had units making independent attacks on rebel positions. Mostly successful attacks mind you but because they were unsupported they were cut-off and defeated by the rebels.

Similarly Azov's offensive in the south which succeed to in overrunning the undermanned rebel pickets in the villages east of Mariupol was unable to hold on to their gains once the garrison out of Novoazovs'k entered the engagement due to lack of artillery and fire support which was available in Mariupol's army units.

In the mean time Russia has been providing the rebels with better communication equipment and training. They aren't sending troops across the border like they did in August (though apparently the army will give you a discharge and encouragement if you want to go to Ukraine) but they are almost certainly involved with higher level command strategy.

The simple fact is the rebels are becoming a better and better offensive force through experience and increasingly new equipment and supplies from Russia while the Ukrainian army due to an influx of newly trained conscripts, poor leadership both military and political and increasingly poor morale(through defeats and the already mention new conscripts) is degrading to less and less effective static force.

I would actually disagree with you on the Ukrainian army there - it is also becoming better, just as the rebels are, due to the efforts of foreign military instructors and hard-gained combat experience of its field commanders.

For the uninitiated, what is meant by "troops across the border in August" in the post above is the only time the Russian army fought in this conflict. It was a covert ops to prevent the collapse of the rebels' army (at that time, composed primarily of various disparate, uncoordinated and frequently squabbling groups of untrained militia), which amounted to a series of hit-and-run attacks on the frontlines of the advancing Ukrainian army that managed to successfully rob it of momentum and led to what is called nowadays the "Illovaysk catastrophe."

edited 7th Mar '15 10:05:27 PM by KnitTie

Its not. It has effective individual units that are getting better yes but compared to their opponents they are getting worse. The rebels have improved far more then the government troops. They don't have to rely on direct Russian intervention anymore.

But the leadership is still failing(making he same mistakes in fact) on the Strategic and operational scale whatever improves on the tactical level.

Two or three battalions apparently. A significant number were sent to Luhansk due the weaker unity of their militias. There was less evidence for direct engagement Donetsk. Most sources put the militias on the front line with heavy Russian artillery and leadership support.

edited 7th Mar '15 11:32:10 PM by sayting

Two or three battalions now or back in Summer?

Back in Summer. Remember thats as a formation. A full Russian motorized rifle battalion is very different beast then the local battalions some which are barely a reinforced company. No doubt there was a equal number in support and advisory roles as well.

Thats based on a number of local sources but also the NATO estimate as well.

edited 8th Mar '15 1:02:25 AM by sayting

Well, forgive me for not trusting the NATO/UN estimates. They have been wildly off the mark more often than not, completely failing to notice actual Russian troop and vehicle columns and then inventing them out of thin air at a completely different time and place. And don't even get me started on how that organisation counts casualties. 6000 dead people my ass. No, of course they put the "casualties are likely to be much higher" weasel phrase in every report they publish, but come on, do you honestly think that they don't expect that number to not be treated as an accurate assessment by the MSM?

Also, again, for the uninitiated, the above Russian intervention in Ukraine is a completely open secret in Russia, with the government taking absolutely no steps to suppress it. There was even an actual, non fake-filled interview with one of the Russian troops in Novorossiya.

edited 8th Mar '15 10:31:41 AM by KnitTie

Why don't you post some supposedly reliable casualty statistics that you consider to be much more factual than the UN and NATO ones?

It should be noted that foreign military "advisers", "special technicians", "adjutants", "liaisons", and "instructors" historically have served in front-line combat roles besides doing their self-declared missions of training and guiding a beleaguered fighting force. Hell, the US Army's contingent of several thousand troops in Indochina in 1972 were all branded as "advisers" despite the entire world and the domestic public knowing otherwise. Likewise, Warsaw Pact and Cuban personnel saw combat serving from within the MPLA during the Angolan Civil War.

That being said, it can be easily assumed with logic that the GRU and the SVR have people getting their hands dirty on the ground with the rebels just as the CIA Special Activities Division and the British SIS do on the Ukrainian side. Because Poland can be said to be the most adamant NATO country aiding Ukraine, we can safely count on the Agencja Wywiadu proably having boots on the ground in the same vein.

The German Bundesabsolutelyunpronounceableintelligenceservice has said some time ago that the total number of dead in that conflict amounts to about 50000, which everyone I know who has first-hand experience of that war says is a much more truthful number than 6000.

As for the direct involvement of foreign secret services, well, we've already seen direct and indirect Russian involement, and there is a whole slew of evidence that the AFU nowadays are reinforced with a number of Polish, Georgian, British and American mercenaries (the latter from Academi, i.e. Blackwater), arms and supplies, so it honestly wouldn't surprise me if, eventually, it turns out that all this NATO involvement was much more hands-on than previously announced. Of course, NATO isn't going to admit that any time soon, because it would put serious strain on its propaganda party line of "evil Russia vs. Ukraine," but then again, there was Korea and there was Vietnam, and we all know how it went there...

edited 8th Mar '15 7:54:31 PM by KnitTie

I hadn't heard of evidence turning up, care to share?

You technically just cited a NATO statistic right there.

Sources?

Well, in the Russian internet, there are plenty of stuff like this and like this, I am fairly sure other resident Russians here would be happy to present you with a much more thorough collection of "incriminating" photos and videos while I am in the uni.

edited 9th Mar '15 12:46:48 AM by KnitTie

You do know that volunteers from other countries fight on both sides? Myself included (technically)? So that a video of one English-language fighter is not even proof of mercenaries, even less so Academi?

As for the weaponry - that's true, though practically everything sold is old, written-off equipment.

@Shinra, from a page back - that's the point, one against two/three here, and I can't even browse to corroborate my statements with links.

edited 9th Mar '15 2:22:00 AM by Emuran

There is a lot of misleading information put out there on Russian involvement in Ukraine but 2000 soldiers during the August offensive seems to be supported by the facts on the ground unlike proclamations of 9000 during the most recent one.

edited 9th Mar '15 2:51:38 AM by sayting

There was actually a minor scandal in the UK about sending Saxon armored trucks to Ukraine - in a pre-Maydan deal, incidentally - because they're so shit. On the other hand, a shit armored truck is better than a good walk.

edited 9th Mar '15 3:08:31 AM by Achaemenid

Rather odd really, since all they were designed to be were cheap, simple, armoured troop carriers for use by re-enforcements against the Warsaw Pact.

Here Richard Dannatt says they are shit, for example.

Depends what Ukraine use them for. They were taken out of service because they weren't well-enough protected against IEDs and anti-armor fire for counter-insurgency work in Iraq and Afghanistan. If Ukraine uses them in their intended role - ie, as a "battle taxi" to get troops to and from the front, then they might be slightly less bad. Their armor will keep out small arms and shell splinters, which is plenty for what they were designed to do. It really depends if Ukraine is able to use them for their intended role.

Of course, as a Cold War vehicle, the Saxon was designed with a fight against the Russians in mind - its amusing that its last hurrah will be finally doing the job it was designed for.

edited 9th Mar '15 3:27:10 AM by Achaemenid

They're ok for the purpose they were built for, ie battle taxis, as are most 'under protected' apcs (bmp-1,m113, Bradly and bmp-2 to an extent). Its just that most modern militaries have stopped building Infantry support vehicles which are especially needed in urban fighting and IF Vs have been used to fill the gap.

Though using them today is pretty daring as they don't even protect against 7.62mm rounds.

edited 9th Mar '15 4:28:33 AM by sayting

If I remember correctly, we lost a good part of the Saxons at Debaltseve. It was a pretty serious uproar - "we lost some of our best weaponry!"

Might as well melt down scrapped T-64s into slabs and put them on trucks. Better investment and you recycle!