*** Official Putin Started Shootin' Thread ***

[MadMojoMonkey]

I feel like you missed this part, ong.

OK, so even 1 is problematic, so what gives? Why are a nation of non Nazi supporters allowing these 100 - 200 Nazis to stand as national heroes?
Azov battalion defended Mariupol in 2014 and since against Russian aggression and invasion. They repelled the Russian advances on Mariupol in 2014 when Crimea was annexed by Russia. They fought with patriotism and success to defend their country and its people then. The Azov defense of Mariupol this year was major news for weeks on end. They ultimately lost the city, but their fight was courageous and forced pyrrhic victories on the Russians, amplifying the casualties of the invaders.

It's complicated. It's fucking complicated, even.

You and I may hate Nazis, but if our lives were literally saved by 1, we might have a more layered and complicated view of that particular Nazi.


Context matters.

You're acting like you can boil down a person's entire being into "Do they support Nazis?" without allowing for a nuanced answer.

And Poop asked a very good question: Is the moral position to not support Ukraine because of the existence of Azov so important to you that you can turn a blind eye to the actual torture and execution of people - including children - and the bombing of civilian infrastructure to deliberately cause people to freeze to death in the winter and the kidnapping and deportation of thousands of Ukrainian children?

Is your stance against Nazism so strong that you can ignore the actual harm being done based on your fear of the potential harm that a couple hundred Nazis can do?

Serious question.

[OngBonga]

You're acting like you can boil down a person's entire being into "Do they support Nazis?" without allowing for a nuanced answer.

I'm sorry but it feels like we're forgetting that Nazis were responsible for the worst genocide in history.

Anyone who supports Nazis supports genocide. That's an unavoidable fact. There's no nuance there.

Is the moral position to not support Ukraine because of the existence of Azov so important to you that you can turn a blind eye to the actual torture and execution of people - including children - and the bombing of civilian infrastructure to deliberately cause people to freeze to death in the winter and the kidnapping and deportation of thousands of Ukrainian children?

If we can prove Russia are committing war crimes, then we take that through the correct legal channels, which means sanctions and international arrest warrants. Oh and precisely the same is true of Ukraine, who are also reportedly torturing people - including children - and attempting to drive Russian speaking people out of Eastern Ukraine, with no regard for how cold they are this winter.

This isn't good vs evil.

Is your stance against Nazism so strong that you can ignore the actual harm being done based on your fear of the potential harm that a couple hundred Nazis can do?

We have an opportunity here to put massive pressure on Ukraine to rid their institutions of Nazis. If they won't, then we sit by and do nothing, they are not allies. If they do, then we can call them allies and maybe even talk about NATO.

We're not taking this opportunity. Instead we're turning a blind eye and even sending them money and weapons. That tells the world that the West considers Russia to be a more serious threat than Nazis. This is contrary to what history has taught us.

There are more than a couple of hundred Nazis in Ukraine. There's probably more than that in the UK.

[OngBonga]

We're talking about 100 - 200 people when we talk about the Azov Nazis.

This is their logo.

azov.jpg

It's called a Wolfsangel. Like the Swastika, this emblem predates Nazi times, but was appropriated by the Nazis. The Azov deny they use this emblem as a nod to Nazi ideology, but I'm going to just outright call them liars.

They might well be war heroes in Ukraine. That doesn't mean they are good guys, and it doesn't mean we should be supporting a nation state that recognises them as legitimate militants.

I'm not sure if I believe the figure of 100-200 given their logo is very similar to a Nazi symbol. I'm not really sure why someone who doesn't approve of Nazi ideology would associate themselves with this group. I would expect it to be much closer to 100%, if not precisely.

So everyone's corrupt...

Again, this doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye. And I'm certainly not going to support corruption based on the premise that war is worse. War is a hugely corrupt economy in itself.

[OngBonga]

I mean, if I create a militant group and use a rotated swastika as the emblem, I don't think I'd be saying "only 20% of us max are Nazis, we're not a Nazi group." If I didn't want to be associated with Nazis, I wouldn't use their insignia, and I'd expel from the group anyone who is a Nazi.

If you use Nazi emblems and provide a safe haven for Nazis, you're a Nazi group.

[oskar]

this just in:
https://time.com/person-of-the-year-...ymyr-zelensky/

[Poopadoop]

this just in:
https://time.com/person-of-the-year-...ymyr-zelensky/

Meh, Stalin and Hitler were both MoY before. So were Rudy Guiliani and Mark Zuckerberg.

Z man is obviously cut from a different cloth from those ones, but I wouldn't think PoY is necessarily a moral endorsement.

[OngBonga]

I would hope you can at least see why I strongly oppose these kind of groups. War is bad, and Putin is an asshole. That's all very well and good, but Putin isn't worse than Hitler.

A Nazi police chief asking for a list of Jews should ring alarm bells. There should be a great deal of concern about such a development. It should be international news, rather than someone saying something stupid at a party. Those who supported Hitler before his crimes became clear, or those that allied with him for their own national security interests, it's a great source of historical shame. Try talking to Finns about their support for the Nazis in WWII. It's a national embarrassment. You can even argue they had no choice, but they're still ashamed of it. Rightly so.

We're not learning from history. Nazi ideology belongs in the bin of history. There is no excuse for clinging on to such an ideology. Thinking that Putin is worse and therefore Nazi groups are tolerable is a grave mistake.

[oskar]

I feel like what you're imagining is kind of like that joke from the recent Rick and Morty episode where Iron-Man Jerry goes to fight the Hitlers at the Hitler convention and ends up blowing up the entire planet and goes "damn I hope there wasn't anyone else on this planet" and it cuts to a news anchor going "...and there was no one else on the planet! Only Hitlers!"
But Ukraine is not a nation of 44 million Hitlers all planning their own holocaust. If it were you'd have a point, but there are many other Ukrainiens who have a right to their country.

[OngBonga]

The 44 million not-Hitlers should be making a lot more noise about Nazi police chiefs and militants.

This couldn't happen in the UK. Nazis exist here but they hide under rocks because they are not welcome in a civilised society.

How many Germans do you think were actually Nazis? How many of them knew and approved of what was happening? It starts with a minority, and it escalates though tolerance and ignorance.

[Poopadoop]

The 44 million not-Hitlers should be making a lot more noise about Nazi police chiefs and militants.

This couldn't happen in the UK. Nazis exist here but they hide under rocks because they are not welcome in a civilised society.

How many Germans do you think were actually Nazis? How many of them knew and approved of what was happening? It starts with a minority, and it escalates though tolerance and ignorance.

So your solution is to let Putin overrun Ukraine and incorporate it into Russia so he can weed out all the Nazis and replace them with Oligarchs?

If not, what is your actual objection to sending aid to Ukraine? Some of them are bad people? It's like we're going in circles here.

[OngBonga]

So your solution is to let Putin overrun Ukraine and incorporate it into Russia so he can weed out all the Nazis and replace them with Oligarchs?

Ukraine is not NATO. Unless we're going to intervene every time a non-NATO country gets attacked, then we sit it out.

If not, what is your actual objection to sending aid to Ukraine? Some of them are bad people? It's like we're going in circles here.

I'm not keen on damaging the UK economy by sending badly needed money to a corrupt regime. I'm also not keen on the global weapons trade, which is why I also oppose us sending weapons to Saudi Arabia. It makes us complicit in war crimes.

We can, and do, support Ukraine with sanctions against Russia. That hurts our economy, but it hurt Russia a lot more. It's an effective way to give Ukraine an edge without actually having to give them money and military hardware. We punish Russia without rewarding Ukraine. There's a solution.

Sending weapons is a dangerous game. Are we really willing to go to war with Russia over this? That's the message we're sending.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Anyone who supports Nazis supports genocide. That's an unavoidable fact. There's no nuance there.

I'm not trying to convince anyone to go easy on the Nazis.
I'm only saying that we have a cushy view from the outside of Nazism as a whole, whereas Ukrainian people have a conundrum on their hands. They hate Nazism, but a few specific Nazis have saved their lives. That's complicated.
My point is only that it's more complicated than the simple black and white you're trying to boil it down to.

***
Maybe it's a shitty investment to fight Putin in this way, but the economic analyses I've seen and shared indicate otherwise.

***
There are no legal channels to press accusations of war crimes against Russia.
You need an enforcing agency above the accused to press that. There is no enforcing agency that can force Russia to submit to these accusations.

[OngBonga]

They hate Nazism, but a few specific Nazis have saved their lives. That's complicated.

Ok, but if Fred West saved my life I'd say thanks but you're still a cunt for burying all those people under your patio.

My point is only that it's more complicated than the simple black and white you're trying to boil it down to.

Ok fair enough, nothing is black and white, but even if you can squeeze an iota of nuance out of me there's still no justifying supporting Nazis.

Maybe it's a shitty investment to fight Putin in this way, but the economic analyses I've seen and shared indicate otherwise.

The economic reality of war means that it's in our interests to engage in war. That's extremely problematic. It's not in my interests, or your interests. We're paying more for fuel and wheat. But it's certainly in the interests of those who have a vested interest in things like military hardware, weapons, ammo, construction, the list is endless.

There are no legal channels to press accusations of war crimes against Russia.
You need an enforcing agency above the accused to press that. There is no enforcing agency that can force Russia to submit to these accusations.

This is not completely true. We can't force Russia to submit to international courts and extradite suspects, but if we can get people out of Russia then they can be prosecuted. Many of those who were guilty of war crimes in Bosnia and Kosovo were tried. They were caught, they were tried. It takes time, but the political will tend to shift because in ten years or whatever Russia will want sanctions lifted. That's when those who committed war crimes will start looking over their shoulders.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Ok, but if Fred West saved my life I'd say thanks but you're still a cunt for burying all those people under your patio.

That's all I'm asking for.

Ok fair enough, nothing is black and white, but even if you can squeeze an iota of nuance out of me there's still no justifying supporting Nazis.

OK, but do we agree that supporting a nation is not identical to supporting the Nazis in that nation?

The reason we are *so* vehemently opposed to Nazis isn't just their ass-backward hate, but the scale of their atrocities.
We also hate the KKK, but the scale of their atrocities pales to WWII Nazis.
There were no atrocities on *that* scale in Ukraine prior to Feb 24 of this year.

The economic reality of war means that it's in our interests to engage in war. That's extremely problematic. It's not in my interests, or your interests. We're paying more for fuel and wheat. But it's certainly in the interests of those who have a vested interest in things like military hardware, weapons, ammo, construction, the list is endless.

True facts, there.

This is not completely true. We can't force Russia to submit to international courts and extradite suspects, but if we can get people out of Russia then they can be prosecuted. Many of those who were guilty of war crimes in Bosnia and Kosovo were tried. They were caught, they were tried. It takes time, but the political will tend to shift because in ten years or whatever Russia will want sanctions lifted. That's when those who committed war crimes will start looking over their shoulders.

Bosnia and Kosovo - genocides

You're suggesting that we allow genocides to happen because 10 years later we can punish the perpetrators?
Not try to actively stop the genocide in the first place?
I kinda doubt that, actually.

So during WWII, your argument would be... let's just let this Hitler thing play out and see how it goes..? Maybe after he's taken all of mainland Europe, and just across the Channel from us banging on our door, then we'll ask him nicely to just not.
Doubt.

[OngBonga]

To be clear about what genocide is... it's a policy of systematic erasure of a group of people (nation, religion, ethnic group). The purpose is to eliminate this group from existence, not to simply drive them to another territory or to rule over them.

If there is hard evidence (not propaganda) that Russian policy is to indiscriminately kill any and all Ukrainians they encounter, with the ultimate goal of seizing their territory and eliminating Ukrainians completely, then we have a genocide.

If Russian policy is to seize Ukraine and rule over Ukrainians, that's not genocide.

[OngBonga]

OK, but do we agree that supporting a nation is not identical to supporting the Nazis in that nation?

Are we talking about personally supporting? Or our governments supporting?

When a government officially supports a nation that incorporates Nazi groups into their military, that's problematic. It's de facto support for Nazis whether we like it or not. It's like trying to have diplomatic relations with a country you don't recognise. You're de facto recognising them by having relations.

Nazi groups should be banned by any civilised country. If Ukraine formally ban Azov but turn a blind eye to their activities during times of war, that might be tolerable. But to recognise them as legitimate militants in the armed forces, this is not the kind of country we can formally be allied to. We certainly can't seriously consider them joining NATO under such circumstances.

The reason we are *so* vehemently opposed to Nazis isn't just their ass-backward hate, but the scale of their atrocities.

Without a doubt.

There were no atrocities on *that* scale in Ukraine prior to Feb 24 of this year.

There still aren't. What we're seeing right now is standard warfare. Bad things happen in war. I've talked in the past about a former acquaintance who beat a man to death with a gun in front of his child. This was shortly after he had to pick pieces of his friend up after an IED took out their convoy. Soldiers are normal people who are thrown into terrible situations, and many of them can't cope. So bad things happen. This isn't unique to Russia. Literally every military in the world that has sent soldiers into war has this problem.

The Holocaust was obviously very different. This is state policy, not broken soldiers doing terrible things. It's something we cannot allow to happen again.

You're suggesting that we allow genocides to happen because 10 years later we can punish the perpetrators?
Not try to actively stop the genocide in the first place?

Well we did intervene here. We didn't sit back and do nothing. But we still allowed it to happen before we responded. We just stopped it from getting worse.

If Russia are committing genocide, then we have a different conversation. That's a very powerful word that shouldn't be casually used to describe the shelling of a town. The British attack on Hamburg was not genocide, but it was very very brutal.

So during WWII, your argument would be... let's just let this Hitler thing play out and see how it goes..?

Well it's funny because it wasn't the atrocities that brought us into the war, it was the invasion of Poland. We were doing exactly that... seeing how it played out.

But again, if there's an actual genocide happening, it's a different conversation to an invasion.

[MadMojoMonkey]

8 nations are now saying it's genocide.
Many others are saying, "it has all the hallmarks of genocide, but we don't have enough information to say it crosses the line, yet."

The dominant rhetoric in Russia is that of genocide, though pundit rhetoric and political rhetoric are not often indicative of what's happening in military operations.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, at least put duck on the list of things it probably is.


Putin still threatening nukes every time Ukraine receives more foreign aid.

"Let me keep killing you or I'll kill you."
-Putin

[OngBonga]

I also don't believe Putin is going to use nukes. And certainly not strategic nukes.

idk if you're aware of the terms so to quickly define -

strategic nukes - the ones nobody ever wants to use, long range world enders.
tactical nukes - small nukes designed to achieve a battlefield objective.

Strategic nukes are off the table. Nobody wants to use them. That is guaranteed to get a nuclear reaction from NATO. One strategic nuke will quickly be followed by lots and it's game over.

Tactical nukes are different. Who knows how NATO responds to a battlefield nuke? Or China for that matter? This is a gamble Putin *might* take if he's losing the war, because it doesn't guarantee a nuclear response. But we enter uncharted territory, and strategic nukes might be on the table in this world. It could get to the point where one geopolitical incident could trigger it. We're a long way from there right now though. We're not going to have a strategic nuke exchange overnight. A tactical nuke is almost certainly going to be the first nuclear escalation, if it were to happen.

[OngBonga]

So with that in mind, anything Putin says that implies the UK, EU or USA are a nuclear target is nothing but sabre rattling. It's simply not going to happen before a severe battlefield escalation and a severe deterioration in geopolitical relations, even considering how bad they already are.

And if Putin were to press the button, it would be the last act of a madman. He knows it's suicide. He could just put a gun to his head and save humanity the horror. It at least goes through a man's mind before he nukes a major city, right? You think "do I really want to leave this legacy?".

Full scale global nuclear war doesn't really worry me, even in this geopolitical climate. Nobody wins, and everybody knows it. More chance that madman in Korea uses a strategic nuke, and even that is a near zero probability.

idk if anyone is mad enough to use a tactical nuke. If and when it happens it's a new world we're living in, that much is for sure.

[OngBonga]

There's probably that many nations who recognise Crimea as Russian. That doesn't really change the discussion about whether Crimea belongs to Russia.

I don't want to keep coming across as a Putin apologist but I think we should be careful about our language, just as Putin should be when he implies nuclear escalation. I don't believe that Russian policy is to exterminate Ukrainians, and I don't believe Russian soldiers would be willing to indiscriminately kill Ukrainians, except maybe in the case of collateral damage resulting from a clear military objective.

Genocide happens when ethnic people hate each other., and one has a significant dominance over the other. In this case, the genociders are motivated to kill by hatred. Before the war, Russian and Ukrainians considered themselves Slav brothers. I don't think you could find enough Russian soldiers willing to carry out a policy of genocide. There is no reason for a Russian to hate a Ukrainian just for being Ukrainian. The Russian solider knows the Ukrainian is defending his home.

The only way I can see genocide happening is if those carrying it out are unaware of the true objective, or that a small group of extreme loyalists to Putin are carrying out atrocities. Genocide is a policy, it's not an accident of war. You have to do more than show an atrocity happened, you have to show it was intended that way.

[Poopadoop]

Before the war, Russian and Ukrainians considered themselves Slav brothers.

Well, they didn't let that stop them from massacring Poles in WWII, so there's that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre

[OngBonga]

Well, they didn't let that stop them from massacring Poles in WWII, so there's that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre

Yeah their secret police (NKVD) carried these atrocities out, not regular Soviet soldiers. So you're actually supporting my argument. Only extreme loyalists could carry out genocide. Now does Putin have loyalists made of the same stuff Stalin had? Does Putin command the same respect and authority?

[Poopadoop]

Yeah their secret police (NKVD) carried these atrocities out, not regular Soviet soldiers. So you're actually supporting my argument. Only extreme loyalists could carry out genocide. Now does Putin have loyalists made of the same stuff Stalin had? Does Putin command the same respect and authority?

So the Holocaust wasn't a real genocide because it was mostly carried out by the SS and Gestapo, who were fiercely loyal to Hitler? I didn't know that it had to have unanimous approval among the population or it didn't count. Oh well, Holocaust happens...

It really doesn't matter which individuals are doing the genociding, if they're getting direction from the top and following it, or, if they're doing it on their own initiative and their superiors are just looking the other way, it amounts to the same thing.

How many Russian soldiers have been court-martialed for executing civilians? I'm guessing it's a number somewhere between zero and none.

[OngBonga]

Genocide is basically the worst of the war crimes. It's worse than ethnic cleansing because the intention here is simply to drive a population from a territory, usually by means of brute force but it's a step down from genocide where you're not even giving them a genuine chance to leave. Genocide, that's where you round up Jews, gays and anyone else you don't like, and gas them. That's not trying to drive a population away from a territory, that's a clear policy to exterminate people based purely on their identity.

Ethnic cleansing is something many people might be turning a blind eye to, if and when Ukraine retake Crimea and evict the Russian population. You might want to be careful what moral standards you set right now, because the side you support might well have to cross those lines too if they are to achieve their military objectives.

War is shit.

[CoccoBill]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_cr...ion_of_Ukraine

I think if they add some chemical or biological weapon use, they'll have the Geneva conventions covered.

[OngBonga]

So the Holocaust wasn't a real genocide because it was mostly carried out by the SS and Gestapo, who were fiercely loyal to Hitler?

That isn't what I said. You're jumping to conclusions here.

I'm suggesting Putin doesn't have the numbers to carry out a genocide even if he wanted to. Maybe I'm wrong, but for it to happen it requires a fiercely loyal militia, one that does not question orders no matter how grave they might be. I don't think Putin has that influence over enough people. Hitler did. Stalin did. Putin is not in the same discussion as these kind of people.

It really doesn't matter which individuals are doing the genociding, if they're getting direction from the top and following it, or, if they're doing it on their own initiative and their superiors are just looking the other way, it amounts to the same thing.

It does matter if they're getting direction from the top. That's a rather important aspect of determining whether it is policy.

Granted, those at the top "looking the other way" would indeed likely amount to genocide, if it were happening on a large enough scale.

How many Russian soldiers have been court-martialed for executing civilians? I'm guessing it's a number somewhere between zero and none.

You're falling into the trap here of believing that executing a civilian amounts to genocide. That's not what genocide is. Executing civilians in cold blood is certainly a war crime, but if the reason was, for argument's sake, that the invaders did not have the capacity to take prisoners and did not want to release military aged men, so they shot them... that's a terrible war crime, but it's not genocide. Genocide is when you eliminate any and all Ukrainians with no other military objective. Basically, it's killing people because you want to kill them, not because you want to win a battle or occupy a strategic territory.

This is why we should be careful about how the word genocide is used. It means something specific. If we start using the word genocide to mean ethnic cleansing or collateral casualties or individual war crimes then we need a new word to describe the policy of killing a group of people for the sole purpose of erasing them from existence.

And then that word gets misused.

[OngBonga]

I didn't say give him a pass though. I'm just saying don't throw inaccurate accusations at him for the sake of using powerful words. Nearly all wars have strategic or economic objectives, not ethnic objectives. Throwing the word genocide around casually like it's a broad term is a disservice to the victims of genocide. It's right that there's a word specifically for the attempted elimination of a people.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I agree that genocide is a big word, and that comparing and contrasting to other big words like "ethnic cleansing" and "war crimes" is exactly the conversation.

I also think that the public exposure of the horrors of war by the accessibility and technology of the modern press makes the conversation harder. War is horrific, but not all horror is genocide.

Which is why I noted that 8 nations are calling it genocide - maybe subtract 1 'cause 1 of the nations is Ukraine - conflict of interest.
Dozens of other nations are looking closely at what's going on and can only say, "From what limited information we have, it looks like genocide, but the fog of war is occluding a lot of information and we can't say for certain."

What you or I think isn't relevant. What the political leaders of the world think is relevant. We control no forces. They do.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Russia is now head of the UN Security Council.

[Poopadoop]

Mutiny against Rootin' Tootin'?

https://news.sky.com/story/vladimir-...eason-12908739

[CoccoBill]

https://twitter.com/emilkastehelmi/s...49619799138305

Seems like this has been in the plans for months. If Prigozhin has secured some allies in the military or Rosgvardiya, this might get really interesting.

[CoccoBill]

https://twitter.com/i/status/1672548098277621761

[Poopadoop]

Coup cancelled. Nothing to see here. Back to work everybody.

Well, that was weird.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Prigozhin didn't get to where he is in life by being suicidal or stupid. This apparent coup attempt seemed to be both.
It doesn't add up.

My best guess is that behind the scenes, the military brass was talking shit with him. He may have thought or been led to believe that if he did make a push against the MOD, that the top brass would back him, but that didn't happen. So he had to back down.
Even that doesn't feel right, though.


Rumors that Shoigu is "under house arrest" after the coup under allegations of theft of military funding.
Huh.

It'll probably be years before we get anything approaching a true evaluation of the motivations in this event.

[Poopadoop]

Yeah the only thing that makes any kind of sense is that Prighozin thought more would join him. Then when they didn't he basically said "well, I can still cause some shit but if you pay me off I'll just leave." And then Rootin' said "Deal," and that was that.

[MadMojoMonkey]

What if Shoigu was playing Prigozhin all along?

Shoigu had certain people in the MoD encourage Prigozhin's ire, support Prig. in words. Then tell Prig. that if he makes the first move, they'll follow through. Obv. they do not. Prig. is left high and dry.

The rivalry between Shoigu and Prigozhin is well known.

If Shoigu convinced Prigozhin that Prig. had insiders willing to mutiny against Shoigu, but those insiders didn't actually exist... that is the best explanation I've pulled out of my ass, yet.

[OngBonga]

But to turn his troops toward Moscow? C'mon. That's suicide.

I would have agreed with this before he seemingly marched on Moscow and didn't die. The Kremlin responded by telling people not to go to work, instead of sending the army out to greet the approaching convoy. Any strong regime would respond to such a threat with immediate force. That didn't happen. So for whatever reason they were unable to deal with this threat.

This Wagner group are apparently 50k strong, which isn't huge by state standards. It's a very large private army but miniscule compared to Russia's. And Wagner are deployed around the world. So why didn't Russia respond with force? Are their military resources so stretched that they couldn't deal a simple convoy? That suggests they haven't got much fighting left in them in Ukraine. Is Prigozhin influential enough and Putin weak enough that Putin was concerned that his forces would disobey him or even defect to Wagner? That suggests a revolution is inevitable.

There's really no way that Putin emerges from this looking like the strong leader he was viewed as before.

[Poopadoop]

This Wagner group are apparently 50k strong, which isn't huge by state standards. It's a very large private army but miniscule compared to Russia's.

It's a big problem if it suddenly turns up in your rear though.

Russia can't just pull 100k out of the front lines to deal with some rogue dude, unless they want Ukrainian troops in Moscow too. Even if it has reserves, chances are they're spread around the country and it's going to be very hard to concentrate them, especially in three days. Reserves in central Asia and Siberia are out of the equation, it's basically whoever is sitting around the Moscow area and is kitted up with ammo and fuel, etc..

[OngBonga]

so the whole thing was either orchestrated

I'm always deeply suspicious of Russia (and the West) when big news events on this kind play out. But I'm really struggling to see how this in any way benefits Putin. So I can't see how it's orchestrated with his approval. This doesn't feel like a false flag.

[Poopadoop]

I'm always deeply suspicious of Russia (and the West) when big news events on this kind play out. But I'm really struggling to see how this in any way benefits Putin. So I can't see how it's orchestrated with his approval. This doesn't feel like a false flag.

If it was orchestrated by anyone it was the West. CIA has some deep pockets. It's possible Putin just outbid them.

[CoccoBill]

I'm always deeply suspicious of Russia (and the West) when big news events on this kind play out. But I'm really struggling to see how this in any way benefits Putin. So I can't see how it's orchestrated with his approval. This doesn't feel like a false flag.

Not orchestrated by Putin, but the siloviks or whoever is planning to oust him. All of this made Putin look weak, and certainly didn't benefit him in any way I can see. Seems like no one is happy with Putin anymore, everybody either wants a peaceful resolution to the war or an all out mobilization.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The problem is that we know the legitimacy of Putin's "guarantees" of safety. Those people happen to fall out of windows or very publicly die of poisoning, though the source takes months to reveal, if it ever comes out.

IDK... nothing about this makes sense.

It feels impossible that it could be such a petty thing as the surface statements make it out to be. I mean, it's certainly understandable if Prigozhin's troops are being attacked by the Russian troops, that he'd be fully pissed off out of his mind about that. But to turn his troops toward Moscow? C'mon. That's suicide. There's only 1 way that works and it's with the support of the Russian military. A decent majority if not all of it. But immediately, a Russian General is public saying Prigozhin's move is playing into the hands of "the West" and tells him that Russians Should not fight Russians.

*shrug*

Such a weird, gripping moment in this crazy war.

[OngBonga]

Trust me to go on holiday when the most interesting thing to happen in ages happens. I read the odd article but couldn't do any poking about to get an idea of what was really happening.

It's really very strange because it seems to me that the Kremlin was genuinely worried. If a private army can cause such concern in Moscow then imagine what the rest of the world must be thinking. Any state actor must be thinking Russia is far weaker than they realised.

This is actually very dangerous. It seems that the only strength Russia has is it's nuclear arsenal. And consider that Prigozhin is complaining about Putin's unwillingness to use tactical nukes.

Believe me, we don't want these guys succeeding in overthrowing Putin. I know everyone loves to hate him, but he's far more measured than the likes of Prigozhin and that nutcase in charge of Belarus.

This does feel like a fatal blow to the current regime, Putin seemed completely unable to deal with a domestic threat and that will only embolden those who wish to remove him.

What replaces the current regime is critical. It could be a lot worse than what we have. Putin has not used a nuke yet. So long as that remains the case, he deserves some respect. It seems like he understands the geopolitical consequences of using tactical nukes and isn't prone to fits of rage. His successor might not be so intelligent and restrained.

[CoccoBill]

Usually the best way to interpret what the Russians are saying is to not believe a word.

400 vehicles including tanks and maybe 5000 soldiers drove like 700km pretty much uninterrupted, taking control of 2 major cities on the way, including one that hosts a military command center where the chief of the armed forces that Prigozhin had a beef with was at just a couple hours before. No resistance, apart from I guess one helicopter that they shot down on the way. No matter in what kind of disarray the army is, that shouldn't happen, so the whole thing was either orchestrated or at the bare minimum Prigozhyn had allies within the army allowing them the roadtrip.

Orchestrated by whom is a good question, but can't help but wonder if this was partly or completely just a sham to identify the more mutinous parties around the country and guide them near open windows. One really worrying aspect is that Prigozhyn also got access to a nuclear weapon storage facility in Voronezh. Some genius might be thinking if it's Wagner that blows up a tactical nuke in Ukraine, no one can blame Russia for it.

[Poopadoop]

roadtrip.

lolz

[MadMojoMonkey]

I mean... Russia doesn't really have air superiority in Ukraine. Presumably they do over their own land.

If it came to a firefight between Wagner and the Russian Air Force, I'm confident the AF would win handily. Taking out a low-flying, up-close aircraft like a helicopter is 1 thing. Taking out a high altitude bomber that doesn't need to be within many miles of you to hit you is a different story altogether.


Re Prigozhyn is alive... sure... but for how long? Putin's political rivals have a habit of falling out of windows or drinking the wrong tea... sometimes months after they thought they were beyond his reach.

Re Putin looks bad... yah. Even though Wagner was directed at the MoD and not necessarily Moscow proper, it's a challenge to Putin's ability to control Russians. Russian leaderships tends to revolve around at least the plausible appearance of being run with an iron fist.

[Poopadoop]

If it came to a firefight between Wagner and the Russian Air Force, I'm confident the AF would win handily.

Dunno. If the RAF could neutralise 50k troops in three days I think they would have beat Ukraine by now. They're not 'Murica, you know.

[OngBonga]

Dunno. If the RAF could neutralise 50k troops in three days I think they would have beat Ukraine by now. They're not 'Murica, you know.

If an army is making a predictable journey by land then it's surely very easy for a competent air force to eliminate them, no matter how many troops we're talking about. It's like stamping on ants.

[Poopadoop]

If an army is making a predictable journey by land then it's surely very easy for a competent air force to eliminate them, no matter how many troops we're talking about. It's like stamping on ants.

It managed to get from Rostov to Voronezh barely touched by the RAF.

[OngBonga]

It managed to get from Rostov to Voronezh barely touched by the RAF.

Well then the RAF didn't try.

[oskar]

Probably only "orchestrated" in the sense that it went down almost exactly as planned. The Wagner Group was about to lose some autonomy to the Defense Ministry (I don't know any details) and Prigozhin was not having it, so he did a little Russian Ballet around Moscow in a show of force and then fucked off to Belarus. Putin clearly can't be happy about it and Prigozhin may well suffer a tragic window related accident shortly.
He was clearly unhappy being involved with the Ukraine war and would have much rather spent his days wearing jorts around Africa while doing a little war crimes and sipping mojitos.

[Poopadoop]

wearing jorts

I love wearing jorts!

[Poopadoop]

Holy shit that's actually a word. I thought it was Oskar speaking Germglish. Sorry Oskar I underestimated you.

[OngBonga]

I would have thought that Ukraine's army is a great deal more powerful than Wagner, even without Western weapons.

So what happens if Ukraine abandons the front line and deploys nearly all of its troops on a march to Moscow? Are Russia going to keep their troops in Ukraine while the capital comes under attack? Most certainly not.

Russia looks weaker now that it has since the Soviet Union collapsed.

[Poopadoop]

So what happens if Ukraine abandons the front line and deploys nearly all of its troops on a march to Moscow?

Yeah, that's not really a practical plan. For one, the Russians are already between them and Moscow. For another, if Ukraine give up their whole country to take Moscow, where are they going to get their supplies from? That would end the war quickly alright, just not in the way you imagine.

[OngBonga]

Yeah, that's not really a practical plan. For one, the Russians are already between them and Moscow. For another, if Ukraine give up their whole country to take Moscow, where are they going to get their supplies from? That would end the war quickly alright, just not in the way you imagine.

Well yeah obviously if you deploy literally all of your resources to such a mission then it's stupid, but it could reasonably become a military objective to deploy a large invading force, if a private army of 25k can cause soiled trousers in the Kremlin.

They will at least be having conversations of this nature in Ukrainian war rooms.

[OngBonga]

The only reason Wagner are disbanding and abandoning the mutiny is because they're Russian patriots. They are highly incentivised to negotiate, they want to avoid civil war as much as the leadership.

A foreign army has no such incentives.

Russia is a lame duck, from the perspective of any nation who feels their army is superior to Wagner, which is most of the world.

[OngBonga]

The plane they shot down was a command plane. That presumably means the loss of several high ranking officers. This should be unforgivable treason, but Putin is just accepting it as fair game. You wouldn't even spike this fucker's tea, you'd drag him to Moscow and put him to trial where he legally gets sentenced to death. But instead he's free to leave.

Are Wagner really that strong an army that a world superpower is afraid to engage them? Putin must be afraid that Wagner is more popular than he is. That's the only thing that makes sense. He fears that Russian armed forces will disobey and defect, that Russian civilians will support the revolution. No way could this private army do it alone, not if Russia really is a military power worthy of note.

[Poopadoop]

They will at least be having conversations of this nature in Ukrainian war rooms.

Ok, Monty.

Seriously I don't think you understand how war works. Ukraine is having to battle hard just to retake territory they lost last year. They're not in any position for a push on Moscow.

[OngBonga]

Not orchestrated by Putin, but the siloviks or whoever is planning to oust him.

Well I guess it's inevitable there are multiple internal forces working against Putin here.

If their plan was to simply make Putin look weak without actually initiating a full blown revolution, it's working, but it seems like a risky plan. They must have been certain that Putin was unable to respond properly in a timely manner.

[OngBonga]

Also poop, as mojo points out, they have air superiority in Russian territory. Not so much in Ukraine where they face entrenched air defences and western anti-aircraft weapons.

I don't doubt Wagner are tooled up and can take out aircraft, but surely Russia can completely overwhelm them for relatively few losses.

[OngBonga]

Re Prigozhyn is alive... sure... but for how long? Putin's political rivals have a habit of falling out of windows or drinking the wrong tea... sometimes months after they thought they were beyond his reach.

Most of Putin's political rivals don't have a private army the size of a small city. But your point about air superiority is right on the money. I was going to make the same point in response to poop's post but you beat me to it.

And while I can understand why isolated border cities can be easily seized without a timely response from Russia, here we're talking about panic in the capital. You would think Moscow is the hardest city in Russia to seize, that Putin would hold back enough reserves to at least protect his capital. But he instead told people not to go to work and maybe even fled to St Petersburg, something he denied doing but his plane was apparently tracked making the journey.

Don't get me wrong, if Putin gets the chance to defenestrate Prigozhyn it'll happen, but that might be a little more challenging than some random rich guy with a team of bodyguards.

Russian leaderships tends to revolve around at least the plausible appearance of being run with an iron fist.

This is an important point too. It's exposed Russia's iron fist as all bark and no bite. It's hard for him to explain to the Russian population how he didn't at least try to eliminate this mercenary group as they apparently advanced.

Prigozhyn has since claimed he wasn't marching on Moscow, but this seems like an obvious PR move to ease the pressure on Putin, possibly part of any deal that might or might not have happened.

It's such a strange story. It wouldn't surprise me if we were talking about some failed country where the government have no proper control, but this is Russia, supposedly a global superpower to challenge USA. Can you imagine this happening in USA? What do you suppose happens to a private army marching on Washington? They're not going to successfully flee to Mexico, on that I would bet real money on.

[OngBonga]

They shot down 6 helicopters and a plane while advancing towards Moscow. They seized a city and several towns. And they're being allowed to flee to Belarus, or even join the Russian armed forces, while Wagner hand over heavy weapons and officially disband.

This is absurd. People go to jail in Russia for speaking out against the war in Ukraine, but march on the capital and shoot down any military aircraft that you see and you can simply leave the country.

This must be the end for Putin. How can anyone fear him now? All it takes is unity. If Russia can't eliminate a private army marching on their capital, then revolution is inevitable.

[OngBonga]

Seriously I don't think you understand how war works.

Ok Colonel.

What I don't understand is how an army of 25K can march on Moscow without being wiped out by the air force.

I understand that it's very difficult to take large swathes of territory back from an occupying force, but it's not nearly so difficult to take out a convoy. That Russian convoy that moved in on Kyiv didn't fare too well.

Russia were basically impotent.

Maybe it's got more to do with will than means. Wagner are not just fighting for profit, they are actively securing Russian interests in Africa by force while giving the Russian state plausible deniability. By taking out the approaching convoy, they lose control of all their geopolitical interests in Africa. That would explain why Putin didn't act. The price he'd pay wasn't worth it, better to just look weak. If that's true he's showing remarkable restraint for someone we all consider to be a lunatic.

[Poopadoop]

Ok Colonel.

What I don't understand is how an army of 25K can march on Moscow without being wiped out by the air force.

Ukraine's lost about 150k men since the war began. That's over about 500 days, facing the entire RUS army and RUS air force. Works out to about 375 men a day.

So how can RUS destroy a convoy of (I guess it's 25k now, ok whatever) men in 3 days, or about 8000 men a day, using their air force alone, or to be more precise, the parts of it that aren't already busy fighting UA?

The column traveled halfway from Rostov to Moscow and the Russian AF did fuck all. That says about all you need to know about what they're capable of right now. Could they have dragged a few more planes away from the front and attacked the convoy with it as it drove from Voronezh to Moscow? Sure. Could they have made an appreciable dent in it? Unlikely. Very unlikely.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Ukraine's lost about 150k men since the war began. That's over about 500 days, facing the entire RUS army and RUS air force. Works out to about 375 men a day.

I never see stats about Ukrainian losses, only about Russian losses.
According to an infographic from this morning, Russian troop losses are over 225k.

Not that I'd trust any numbers during the conflict, but if Ukraine is killing 3:2, that might still not be enough to sustain against Russia.

The counter-offensive will presumably bring that ratio closer to unity. Military wisdom says the defender has the advantage when they've had months to prepare and fortify their positions.

[Poopadoop]

Not that I'd trust any numbers during the conflict, but if Ukraine is killing 3:2, that might still not be enough to sustain against Russia.

This is the worrying thing to me. Russia's history of how they war is that they field an army of moderate competence, are very wasteful of lives, but wear down their enemy with their nearly bottomless manpower.

In WWII for example, the German army was extremely competent (at least at a tactical level, they did have an amateur making up their strategy) and caused between 2-3x as many Russian casaulties as they suffered. But they couldn't sustain those losses whereas the Russians could. See you in Berlin.

[OngBonga]

I'd presume that Wagner doesn't have robust air defenses to stop a sortie of attack planes.

You'd have to be moving some serious military hardware, and a lot of it, to threaten Russia's air force on Russian territory. I just can't see it.

Putin basically bottled it. Probably with good reason.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Russian ground troops were ordered to stop Wagner's path, but they simply did not.
They were ordered to fight, but they did not.

Prigozhyn made a public statement about children being sent to stop trained military men, but that he would not order his men to attack children. Which is kinda fucked to hear from Mr. Warcrimes himself, but that was his public statement.

I didn't hear about the plane shot down, but the helicopters reportedly fired on Wagner before Wagner fired back... according to Wagner. Who knows what really happened, though.


The air superiority issue may not be appreciated by poopy. Or maybe by me.
The lack of air superiority in Ukraine means the RAF is hobbled, which in turn has dramatic negative effects on their ground troops' potential.
I'd presume that Wagner doesn't have robust air defenses to stop a sortie of attack planes. But I may be wrong.
Under the assumption, an air force would just stomp a ground force.


*shrug*
Maybe Putin didn't attack Wagner with the AF because the only problem with Wagner is Pirgozhyn. Once Prig. is out of the way, Putin may be expected to get thousands of new recruits to the Russian militaries... and those recruits already trained.

[Poopadoop]

The air superiority issue may not be appreciated by poopy. Or maybe by me.
The lack of air superiority in Ukraine means the RAF is hobbled, which in turn has dramatic negative effects on their ground troops' potential.
I'd presume that Wagner doesn't have robust air defenses to stop a sortie of attack planes. But I may be wrong.
Under the assumption, an air force would just stomp a ground force.

A powerful air force could seriously damage a ground force, but even it wouldn't wipe out a 25-50k size force in three days. In Iraq War 1, I very clearly recall the Allies having air superiority and precision bombers. They were bombing Iraqi ground forces for a month straight before the tankers even switched on their engines. They also blew up some infrastructure, but a significant part of their mission was to soften up the ground forces. Iraqi losses for the entire conflict were in the tens of thousands, so the math of doing 25k worth of damage in 3 days doesn't really add up.

And I doubt the Russian air force has that kind of strength sitting around waiting for someone to drive down the road to Moscow anyways. There's certainly no evidence they do, and what evidence that does exist strongly suggests they don't.

But let's imagine they did, and were just saving it for a surprise strike. The idea the Wagner Group would just be sitting ducks doesn't make sense either. Modern ground forces nowadays have surface-to-air missile capability as well as anti-air flak guns. They certainly did ok against those helicopters. And planes flying at a high altitude is not a guarantee that they can't be shot down. SAMs can hit planes at 30k feet easily.

[Poopadoop]

There's plenty of examples in history of a powerful air force attacking enemy ground forces with zero or negligible opposition from the enemy AF. The entire Western Front of WWII from 1944 onwards, Iraq1 and 2, Vietnam, Afganistan. In none of those did they deliver the kinds of casualty rates you guys are presuming Russia could deliver.

[OngBonga]

The maximum casualty rate of an air raid on ground troops is basically the same as however many people you can cram into a given area.

[Poopadoop]

Oh.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...sia-air-force/

[OngBonga]

(I guess it's 25k now, ok whatever)

Last figure I saw was 25k but I've seen 50k too, whatever is right.

So how can RUS destroy a convoy...

Locate it and strafe it. You at least stop it. You might not kill every last man but you slow down the advance considerably. That's assuming it's actually a convoy rather than covert troops sneaking around in civilian vehicles. But, considering they are capable of shooting down aircraft, I'm assuming it's a fairly overt advance; that is, the Russians shouldn't have a problem identifying them.

You're taking the figures that Russia can kill with planes on on open battlefield spanning hundreds of miles and using that as a baseline to estimate how many cars an air raid can take out.

The column traveled halfway from Rostov to Moscow and the Russian AF did fuck all. That says about all you need to know about what they're capable of right now.

It says Russia were unable to deploy the air force, for whatever reason, not that the air force was incapable of dealing with the threat.

Any competent air force can deal with a ground based convoy. It's like you don't understand how dominant an air force is over ground troops in the modern age. Big fucking bombs. The moor tooled up the ground force, the higher your planes go. Easy game.

Putin lacked the will to act with decisive force. He surely didn't lack the means. If he did, Russia are in big, big trouble.

[Poopadoop]

how many cars an air raid can take out.

Oh this changes everything. I thought they had tanks and other modern weapons. If they were driving up to Moscow in cars, sure yeah 50k casualties is reasonable.