KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
Prelude to my thoughts below:
I think the numbers are consistent with the SBU public statements, RU budget analysis by Janis Kluge (I would have to dig up his last report on it, but I think I posted one or two here previously?), as well as other sources. That’s not really interesting.
Rubio declared not that long ago that Russians had sustained 60,000 dead in July alone, which I cited earlier, which was a ridiculous statement. To note, UA daily reports for the past long while indicate the lowest Russian losses in, pretty much, years (on average): if not that long ago they indicated 2,000+ daily RU losses (dead and wounded, I presume), these losses rarely break 900 nowadays, according to their reports. But that is also not very interesting and kicking a dead horse all over again.
I want to bring the attention to (or ask?) the following. While, in my opinion, ISW showed their incompetence numerous times over during this conflict, which I discussed on one or two occasions previously, a whole bunch of people are making this same statement: Russia (here they say Kremlin, in other cases it is Putin) is not interested in ending its war on Ukraine. What the hell does it even mean? The same is true for statements of others that Ukraine/Zelensky/whatever is not interested in ending the war. We call these people analysts, but it is hard to reconcile their thought process with reason. The implication is that the conflict is to last indefinitely? Funny enough, some provide a nonsensical reasoning that Putin wants an indefinite war due to him being afraid of all these veterans coming back home, economy collapsing because it is now tuned to the “war machine” he created (while also saying that the economy is going to collapse due to this “war machine”).
In the same sentence, however, they also say that Russia is committed to achieving its goals on the battlefield. So is it not interested in ending the war or is interested in achieving its goals? These two are separate but very tightly connected things. Would they prefer to end the war by achieving their goals via negotiations? Absolutely. Are they willing to stop the war at this time without achieving their goals? Looks like that would be a no. So it would probably be more appropriate to say that Russia is still interested in achieving its goals and is willing to continue the war in order to do so. I believe there is a huge distinction here: their wording suggests that Russia is simply waging the war for the sake of waging the war, while in reality there are objectives they are looking to achieve in order to end the war. I believe this is problematic, but this “reasoning” has been prevalent for a very long time.
They go even more berserk by suggesting in yet the same sentence that Russia may be preparing for a conflict with NATO. It’s a hell of a sentence!
If the reports they are citing are true and Russia is creating reserves form their new hires since July, we are looking at 90K troops in the rear, training, by the end of September (they would still be rotated in and out of Ukraine, in my opinion, likely to least intensive parts of the frontline). In the context of the “coalition of the willing” allegedly prepared to send their troops to Ukraine once a ceasefire that isn’t going to happen takes place, this is more of the signalling I talked about in the other thread. How many troops can the willing send to Ukraine? 10K? 20K? More? Remember that the number would probably have to be multiplied by three to account for the personnel availability for such a mission (those in Ukraine, those rotated out and resting, and those prepared and rotated in). If the report is true, Russia is saying that they have or will have more troops available than the “willing” can dream of at this point in time. This is in addition to the ability of sending hundreds/thousands of Geran UAVs to the bordering states, absolute majority of which would very likely not be intercepted at this point in time. Of course, there is also a stockpile of various missiles that they reportedly produce over what they use, in addition to armour, and mainly tanks, that is allegedly being produced in hundreds and not used on the battlefield. I don’t see how one can read it other than conventional deterrence. Ukraine is probably taking notes as well since this is where these alleged forces would be heavily used if things suddenly fall apart.
Anyway, I think their analysis (in that sentence in particular) is, at best, wrong. Russia is trying to show, yet again, but in the explicit terms now where the red line lies. Imperial, security, or whatever other reasons. I mainly take issue with various officials from various countries pushing the exact same narrative as ISW and whether they actually believe it.
I think the numbers are consistent with the SBU public statements, RU budget analysis by Janis Kluge (I would have to dig up his last report on it, but I think I posted one or two here previously?), as well as other sources. That’s not really interesting.
Rubio declared not that long ago that Russians had sustained 60,000 dead in July alone, which I cited earlier, which was a ridiculous statement. To note, UA daily reports for the past long while indicate the lowest Russian losses in, pretty much, years (on average): if not that long ago they indicated 2,000+ daily RU losses (dead and wounded, I presume), these losses rarely break 900 nowadays, according to their reports. But that is also not very interesting and kicking a dead horse all over again.
I want to bring the attention to (or ask?) the following. While, in my opinion, ISW showed their incompetence numerous times over during this conflict, which I discussed on one or two occasions previously, a whole bunch of people are making this same statement: Russia (here they say Kremlin, in other cases it is Putin) is not interested in ending its war on Ukraine. What the hell does it even mean? The same is true for statements of others that Ukraine/Zelensky/whatever is not interested in ending the war. We call these people analysts, but it is hard to reconcile their thought process with reason. The implication is that the conflict is to last indefinitely? Funny enough, some provide a nonsensical reasoning that Putin wants an indefinite war due to him being afraid of all these veterans coming back home, economy collapsing because it is now tuned to the “war machine” he created (while also saying that the economy is going to collapse due to this “war machine”).
In the same sentence, however, they also say that Russia is committed to achieving its goals on the battlefield. So is it not interested in ending the war or is interested in achieving its goals? These two are separate but very tightly connected things. Would they prefer to end the war by achieving their goals via negotiations? Absolutely. Are they willing to stop the war at this time without achieving their goals? Looks like that would be a no. So it would probably be more appropriate to say that Russia is still interested in achieving its goals and is willing to continue the war in order to do so. I believe there is a huge distinction here: their wording suggests that Russia is simply waging the war for the sake of waging the war, while in reality there are objectives they are looking to achieve in order to end the war. I believe this is problematic, but this “reasoning” has been prevalent for a very long time.
They go even more berserk by suggesting in yet the same sentence that Russia may be preparing for a conflict with NATO. It’s a hell of a sentence!
If the reports they are citing are true and Russia is creating reserves form their new hires since July, we are looking at 90K troops in the rear, training, by the end of September (they would still be rotated in and out of Ukraine, in my opinion, likely to least intensive parts of the frontline). In the context of the “coalition of the willing” allegedly prepared to send their troops to Ukraine once a ceasefire that isn’t going to happen takes place, this is more of the signalling I talked about in the other thread. How many troops can the willing send to Ukraine? 10K? 20K? More? Remember that the number would probably have to be multiplied by three to account for the personnel availability for such a mission (those in Ukraine, those rotated out and resting, and those prepared and rotated in). If the report is true, Russia is saying that they have or will have more troops available than the “willing” can dream of at this point in time. This is in addition to the ability of sending hundreds/thousands of Geran UAVs to the bordering states, absolute majority of which would very likely not be intercepted at this point in time. Of course, there is also a stockpile of various missiles that they reportedly produce over what they use, in addition to armour, and mainly tanks, that is allegedly being produced in hundreds and not used on the battlefield. I don’t see how one can read it other than conventional deterrence. Ukraine is probably taking notes as well since this is where these alleged forces would be heavily used if things suddenly fall apart.
Anyway, I think their analysis (in that sentence in particular) is, at best, wrong. Russia is trying to show, yet again, but in the explicit terms now where the red line lies. Imperial, security, or whatever other reasons. I mainly take issue with various officials from various countries pushing the exact same narrative as ISW and whether they actually believe it.
