As a mediocre chess player who has beaten far better players
So you're Russia in this? Assuming both parts of your statement are accurate*, what that tells me is that you might beat the 'far better player' sometimes, but mostly you won't. Otherwise you wouldn't be 'mediocre' and they wouldn't be 'far better'
*as in false modesty, I'm not saying you're lying!
I read Martin slightly differently. I think he's saying that this is such a strong position that even a mediocre player knows how to win from here...
As a mediocre chess player who has beaten far better players
So you're Russia in this? Assuming both parts of your statement are accurate*, what that tells me is that you might beat the 'far better player' sometimes, but mostly you won't. Otherwise you wouldn't be 'mediocre' and they wouldn't be 'far better'
*as in false modesty, I'm not saying you're lying!
Of course you're not, and why would I. It's happened twice. I used maskirovka. I knew they knew that they were good. So I played worse than I usually do, deliberately. They took the bait. I took them. So they weren't as good as they thought. Shocked the hell out them.
One possible motive for Ukraine to invade Russian territory in Kursk is to be able to exchange it for Ukrainian lands held by Russia in peace talks.
Besides, it was obvious with current Russian incursions into Ukraine, and operations to defend them, there had to be a soft underbelly somewhere along other parts of the border. Now Russia will be forced to reposition its forces in Ukraine.
I hope the Kursk incursion can expand. It might get Russia to the peace table.
Ukraine need to be careful and not be sucked too far into Russia. Is Russia trying to trap the Ukrainian forces inside Russia and then eliminate them at their leisure?
It could be a bit like 1943 Kursk in reverse.
How so?
Russia is trying, successfully, to irreversibly conquer east Ukraine. It just got easier.
I am not making predictions here. I just want Ukraine to be careful
Understood as it's a Ukrainian salient in Kursk, and they can be pinched off, which the Germans failed to do in '43 in the biggest battle in history.
I don't think that's the risk at all. Ukraine is using the seasoned 82nd and 95th air assault brigades, among 15,000 troops, from the eastern front west to north of Donetsk city. As a mediocre chess player who has beaten far better players, I'd let them. Where are they going to go? And I'd just keep grinding west to north of Donetsk in particular.
Again, strategically Ukraine's incursion is mostly irrelevant at the moment. Unless they start disrupting the Russian war effort. However, psychologically it's really bad for Putin.
I disagree. It's a gift. He is robust. The Russians lost time and time again when they were winning in WWII. That's how they won. Stalin's absolute power only ended with a stroke eight years later.
One possible motive for Ukraine to invade Russian territory in Kursk is to be able to exchange it for Ukrainian lands held by Russia in peace talks.
Besides, it was obvious with current Russian incursions into Ukraine, and operations to defend them, there had to be a soft underbelly somewhere along other parts of the border. Now Russia will be forced to reposition its forces in Ukraine.
I hope the Kursk incursion can expand. It might get Russia to the peace table.
Ukraine need to be careful and not be sucked too far into Russia. Is Russia trying to trap the Ukrainian forces inside Russia and then eliminate them at their leisure?
It could be a bit like 1943 Kursk in reverse.
How so?
Russia is trying, successfully, to irreversibly conquer east Ukraine. It just got easier.
I am not making predictions here. I just want Ukraine to be careful
Understood as it's a Ukrainian salient in Kursk, and they can be pinched off, which the Germans failed to do in '43 in the biggest battle in history.
I don't think that's the risk at all. Ukraine is using the seasoned 82nd and 95th air assault brigades, among 15,000 troops, from the eastern front west to north of Donetsk city. As a mediocre chess player who has beaten far better players, I'd let them. Where are they going to go? And I'd just keep grinding west to north of Donetsk in particular.
Again, strategically Ukraine's incursion is mostly irrelevant at the moment. Unless they start disrupting the Russian war effort. However, psychologically it's really bad for Putin.
I disagree. It's a gift. He is robust. The Russians lost time and time again when they were winning in WWII. That's how they won. Stalin's absolute power only ended with a stroke eight years later.
But, it's not 1941. You're appearing to commit the classic mistake of military planners - fighting the last war, not the current one.
This joke is circulating on the 'net, I think it covers it nicely.
Vladimir Putin summons Stalin’s ghost. ‘Comrade Stalin!’ asks Putin. ‘German tanks are in Kursk again. I need your advice.’ Stalin’s ghost ponders before answering. ‘Do what I did. Get hold of as much American military aid as you can, and make sure to send in the Ukrainians at the vanguard of your army.’
One possible motive for Ukraine to invade Russian territory in Kursk is to be able to exchange it for Ukrainian lands held by Russia in peace talks.
Besides, it was obvious with current Russian incursions into Ukraine, and operations to defend them, there had to be a soft underbelly somewhere along other parts of the border. Now Russia will be forced to reposition its forces in Ukraine.
I hope the Kursk incursion can expand. It might get Russia to the peace table.
Ukraine need to be careful and not be sucked too far into Russia. Is Russia trying to trap the Ukrainian forces inside Russia and then eliminate them at their leisure?
It could be a bit like 1943 Kursk in reverse.
How so?
Russia is trying, successfully, to irreversibly conquer east Ukraine. It just got easier.
I am not making predictions here. I just want Ukraine to be careful
Understood as it's a Ukrainian salient in Kursk, and they can be pinched off, which the Germans failed to do in '43 in the biggest battle in history.
I don't think that's the risk at all. Ukraine is using the seasoned 82nd and 95th air assault brigades, among 15,000 troops, from the eastern front west to north of Donetsk city. As a mediocre chess player who has beaten far better players, I'd let them. Where are they going to go? And I'd just keep grinding west to north of Donetsk in particular.
Again, strategically Ukraine's incursion is mostly irrelevant at the moment. Unless they start disrupting the Russian war effort. However, psychologically it's really bad for Putin.
I disagree. It's a gift. He is robust. The Russians lost time and time again when they were winning in WWII. That's how they won. Stalin's absolute power only ended with a stroke eight years later.
But, it's not 1941. You're appearing to commit the classic mistake of military planners - fighting the last war, not the current one.
Excellent. I'm sure I am. But am I wrong? Dangerous I know up against your prodigious intellect and military science. @alienfromzog (most amusing, truly) agrees with me after all, except in proposing that Putin is affected negatively. He's having the time of his life. Am I wrong to say that he must ignore and spin the Kursk diversion whilst concentrating on Donetsk? Or breaking out in Zaporizhzhia?
One possible motive for Ukraine to invade Russian territory in Kursk is to be able to exchange it for Ukrainian lands held by Russia in peace talks.
Besides, it was obvious with current Russian incursions into Ukraine, and operations to defend them, there had to be a soft underbelly somewhere along other parts of the border. Now Russia will be forced to reposition its forces in Ukraine.
I hope the Kursk incursion can expand. It might get Russia to the peace table.
Ukraine need to be careful and not be sucked too far into Russia. Is Russia trying to trap the Ukrainian forces inside Russia and then eliminate them at their leisure?
It could be a bit like 1943 Kursk in reverse.
How so?
Russia is trying, successfully, to irreversibly conquer east Ukraine. It just got easier.
I am not making predictions here. I just want Ukraine to be careful
Understood as it's a Ukrainian salient in Kursk, and they can be pinched off, which the Germans failed to do in '43 in the biggest battle in history.
I don't think that's the risk at all. Ukraine is using the seasoned 82nd and 95th air assault brigades, among 15,000 troops, from the eastern front west to north of Donetsk city. As a mediocre chess player who has beaten far better players, I'd let them. Where are they going to go? And I'd just keep grinding west to north of Donetsk in particular.
Again, strategically Ukraine's incursion is mostly irrelevant at the moment. Unless they start disrupting the Russian war effort. However, psychologically it's really bad for Putin.
I disagree. It's a gift. He is robust. The Russians lost time and time again when they were winning in WWII. That's how they won. Stalin's absolute power only ended with a stroke eight years later.
But, it's not 1941. You're appearing to commit the classic mistake of military planners - fighting the last war, not the current one.
Excellent. I'm sure I am. But am I wrong? Dangerous I know up against your prodigious intellect and military science. @alienfromzog (most amusing, truly) agrees with me after all, except in proposing that Putin is affected negatively. He's having the time of his life. Am I wrong to say that he must ignore and spin the Kursk diversion whilst concentrating on Donetsk? Or breaking out in Zaporizhzhia?
Yes, but will he?
Is he psychologically capable of doing so? Even in Russia, stories get out, can he afford to?
One possible motive for Ukraine to invade Russian territory in Kursk is to be able to exchange it for Ukrainian lands held by Russia in peace talks.
Besides, it was obvious with current Russian incursions into Ukraine, and operations to defend them, there had to be a soft underbelly somewhere along other parts of the border. Now Russia will be forced to reposition its forces in Ukraine.
I hope the Kursk incursion can expand. It might get Russia to the peace table.
Ukraine need to be careful and not be sucked too far into Russia. Is Russia trying to trap the Ukrainian forces inside Russia and then eliminate them at their leisure?
It could be a bit like 1943 Kursk in reverse.
How so?
Russia is trying, successfully, to irreversibly conquer east Ukraine. It just got easier.
I am not making predictions here. I just want Ukraine to be careful
Understood as it's a Ukrainian salient in Kursk, and they can be pinched off, which the Germans failed to do in '43 in the biggest battle in history.
I don't think that's the risk at all. Ukraine is using the seasoned 82nd and 95th air assault brigades, among 15,000 troops, from the eastern front west to north of Donetsk city. As a mediocre chess player who has beaten far better players, I'd let them. Where are they going to go? And I'd just keep grinding west to north of Donetsk in particular.
Again, strategically Ukraine's incursion is mostly irrelevant at the moment. Unless they start disrupting the Russian war effort. However, psychologically it's really bad for Putin.
I disagree. It's a gift. He is robust. The Russians lost time and time again when they were winning in WWII. That's how they won. Stalin's absolute power only ended with a stroke eight years later.
But, it's not 1941. You're appearing to commit the classic mistake of military planners - fighting the last war, not the current one.
Excellent. I'm sure I am. But am I wrong? Dangerous I know up against your prodigious intellect and military science. @alienfromzog (most amusing, truly) agrees with me after all, except in proposing that Putin is affected negatively. He's having the time of his life. Am I wrong to say that he must ignore and spin the Kursk diversion whilst concentrating on Donetsk? Or breaking out in Zaporizhzhia?
Yes, but will he?
Is he psychologically capable of doing so? Even in Russia, stories get out, can he afford to?
He is until he isn't. He can afford it until he can't. No sign, apart from a very dangerous TV broadcast reported at 10:10 BST on the same link. Dangerous for Karen Shakhnazarov that is, not Putin. Others have made such comments over 2 & 1/2 years.
Warfare is not chess. In chess nothing matters beyond the end of the game. There's no such thing a a pyrrhic victory; you gain nothing by conserving your pieces for the next game.
War is different.
Warfare is not chess. In chess nothing matters beyond the end of the game. There's no such thing a a pyrrhic victory; you gain nothing by conserving your pieces for the next game.
War is different.
Only the final victory can't be Pyrrhic. Even so, 'nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won', Wellington. And Putin isn't conserving his pieces. Zelenskyy is.
One possible motive for Ukraine to invade Russian territory in Kursk is to be able to exchange it for Ukrainian lands held by Russia in peace talks.
Besides, it was obvious with current Russian incursions into Ukraine, and operations to defend them, there had to be a soft underbelly somewhere along other parts of the border. Now Russia will be forced to reposition its forces in Ukraine.
I hope the Kursk incursion can expand. It might get Russia to the peace table.
Ukraine need to be careful and not be sucked too far into Russia. Is Russia trying to trap the Ukrainian forces inside Russia and then eliminate them at their leisure?
It could be a bit like 1943 Kursk in reverse.
How so?
Russia is trying, successfully, to irreversibly conquer east Ukraine. It just got easier.
I am not making predictions here. I just want Ukraine to be careful
Understood as it's a Ukrainian salient in Kursk, and they can be pinched off, which the Germans failed to do in '43 in the biggest battle in history.
I don't think that's the risk at all. Ukraine is using the seasoned 82nd and 95th air assault brigades, among 15,000 troops, from the eastern front west to north of Donetsk city. As a mediocre chess player who has beaten far better players, I'd let them. Where are they going to go? And I'd just keep grinding west to north of Donetsk in particular.
Again, strategically Ukraine's incursion is mostly irrelevant at the moment. Unless they start disrupting the Russian war effort. However, psychologically it's really bad for Putin.
I disagree. It's a gift. He is robust. The Russians lost time and time again when they were winning in WWII. That's how they won. Stalin's absolute power only ended with a stroke eight years later.
But, it's not 1941. You're appearing to commit the classic mistake of military planners - fighting the last war, not the current one.
Russia did not fight in WW2, the Soviet Union did. Russia is only the former Russian Soviet Federated Soviet Republic. It comprised 51% of the USSR's population. The Two countries are not the same.
One possible motive for Ukraine to invade Russian territory in Kursk is to be able to exchange it for Ukrainian lands held by Russia in peace talks.
Besides, it was obvious with current Russian incursions into Ukraine, and operations to defend them, there had to be a soft underbelly somewhere along other parts of the border. Now Russia will be forced to reposition its forces in Ukraine.
I hope the Kursk incursion can expand. It might get Russia to the peace table.
Ukraine need to be careful and not be sucked too far into Russia. Is Russia trying to trap the Ukrainian forces inside Russia and then eliminate them at their leisure?
It could be a bit like 1943 Kursk in reverse.
How so?
Russia is trying, successfully, to irreversibly conquer east Ukraine. It just got easier.
I am not making predictions here. I just want Ukraine to be careful
Understood as it's a Ukrainian salient in Kursk, and they can be pinched off, which the Germans failed to do in '43 in the biggest battle in history.
I don't think that's the risk at all. Ukraine is using the seasoned 82nd and 95th air assault brigades, among 15,000 troops, from the eastern front west to north of Donetsk city. As a mediocre chess player who has beaten far better players, I'd let them. Where are they going to go? And I'd just keep grinding west to north of Donetsk in particular.
Again, strategically Ukraine's incursion is mostly irrelevant at the moment. Unless they start disrupting the Russian war effort. However, psychologically it's really bad for Putin.
I disagree. It's a gift. He is robust. The Russians lost time and time again when they were winning in WWII. That's how they won. Stalin's absolute power only ended with a stroke eight years later.
But, it's not 1941. You're appearing to commit the classic mistake of military planners - fighting the last war, not the current one.
Russia did not fight in WW2, the Soviet Union did. Russia is only the former Russian Soviet Federated Soviet Republic. It comprised 51% of the USSR's population. The Two countries are not the same.
OK. The Soviets lost time and time again when they were winning in WWII. That's how they won. Georgian Stalin's absolute power only ended with a stroke eight years later. Commanded absolutely from Moscow. Russia.
One possible motive for Ukraine to invade Russian territory in Kursk is to be able to exchange it for Ukrainian lands held by Russia in peace talks.
Besides, it was obvious with current Russian incursions into Ukraine, and operations to defend them, there had to be a soft underbelly somewhere along other parts of the border. Now Russia will be forced to reposition its forces in Ukraine.
I hope the Kursk incursion can expand. It might get Russia to the peace table.
Ukraine need to be careful and not be sucked too far into Russia. Is Russia trying to trap the Ukrainian forces inside Russia and then eliminate them at their leisure?
It could be a bit like 1943 Kursk in reverse.
How so?
Russia is trying, successfully, to irreversibly conquer east Ukraine. It just got easier.
I am not making predictions here. I just want Ukraine to be careful
Understood as it's a Ukrainian salient in Kursk, and they can be pinched off, which the Germans failed to do in '43 in the biggest battle in history.
I don't think that's the risk at all. Ukraine is using the seasoned 82nd and 95th air assault brigades, among 15,000 troops, from the eastern front west to north of Donetsk city. As a mediocre chess player who has beaten far better players, I'd let them. Where are they going to go? And I'd just keep grinding west to north of Donetsk in particular.
Again, strategically Ukraine's incursion is mostly irrelevant at the moment. Unless they start disrupting the Russian war effort. However, psychologically it's really bad for Putin.
I disagree. It's a gift. He is robust. The Russians lost time and time again when they were winning in WWII. That's how they won. Stalin's absolute power only ended with a stroke eight years later.
But, it's not 1941. You're appearing to commit the classic mistake of military planners - fighting the last war, not the current one.
Russia did not fight in WW2, the Soviet Union did. Russia is only the former Russian Soviet Federated Soviet Republic. It comprised 51% of the USSR's population. The Two countries are not the same.
Indeed. The population number there is particularly important. I am not a Russian expert but everything I've read suggests that much like how the English will equate Britain with England when it suits us, the Russians have a big WWII foundational myth about Russia holding out alone against the Nazi invaders despite near-catastrophic losses - all for the love of Mother Russia. It would not remotely surprise me to discover that so much of what Russia claims as its own was actually Ukrainian or Latvian or Kazakhstanian etc....
That's not to deny for one moment that The Soviets suffered massive losses - more than the other allies.
That's not to deny for one moment that The Soviets suffered massive losses - more than the other allies.
AFZ
Though you can hold a candle up there to the massive stoicism of the people living under Soviet rule at the time.
Very mainstream school of thought that if Stalin had just shot all his generals and given command of Soviet forces to the Western Allies, the war would still have been won, and multiple million Soviet wouldn't have been killed by their own state's dreadfulness at fighting wars. Fighting to the last man is the cheap and easy option when you're confident you've got enough people to guarantee the last man's one of yours.
Millions of Soviet deaths were utterly unnecessary - even though fighting the war itself was.
In 1940, the Soviet population is estimated at 194 million. Of which, 110 million were Russian or 57%.
The Soviets suffered incredible casualty numbers in the war - thought to be around 27 million killed in total. (About a quarter of the population was killed or wounded!) The majority were civilians. In terms of military losses, there were 8.7 million. Two-thirds were Russian (5.7 m) with the next biggest group being - yes - obviously - Ukrainian casualties: 1.3m or 15%.
I keep wondering whether some Russian oligarch may have a dacha in the region Ukraine is invading. Putin is highly paranoid because he knows there are people around him who don't like him. He needs the support of the oligarchs. They don't care about him but they do care about money. If Ukraine can make the war expensive for the oligarchs, Putin might lose power.
I keep wondering whether some Russian oligarch may have a dacha in the region Ukraine is invading. Putin is highly paranoid because he knows there are people around him who don't like him. He needs the support of the oligarchs. They don't care about him but they do care about money. If Ukraine can make the war expensive for the oligarchs, Putin might lose power.
That's always been the case. Which is one of the reasons that sanctions and asset seizures make a lot of sense. In recent years Putin has been incredibly ruthless with any oligarch who didn't tow the line. That's always a one-way street for a despot. You just have to keep upping the ante and killing more and more. Eventually one will defeat you.... Please God, soon!
One possible motive for Ukraine to invade Russian territory in Kursk is to be able to exchange it for Ukrainian lands held by Russia in peace talks.
Besides, it was obvious with current Russian incursions into Ukraine, and operations to defend them, there had to be a soft underbelly somewhere along other parts of the border. Now Russia will be forced to reposition its forces in Ukraine.
I hope the Kursk incursion can expand. It might get Russia to the peace table.
Ukraine need to be careful and not be sucked too far into Russia. Is Russia trying to trap the Ukrainian forces inside Russia and then eliminate them at their leisure?
It could be a bit like 1943 Kursk in reverse.
How so?
Russia is trying, successfully, to irreversibly conquer east Ukraine. It just got easier.
I am not making predictions here. I just want Ukraine to be careful
Understood as it's a Ukrainian salient in Kursk, and they can be pinched off, which the Germans failed to do in '43 in the biggest battle in history.
I don't think that's the risk at all. Ukraine is using the seasoned 82nd and 95th air assault brigades, among 15,000 troops, from the eastern front west to north of Donetsk city. As a mediocre chess player who has beaten far better players, I'd let them. Where are they going to go? And I'd just keep grinding west to north of Donetsk in particular.
Again, strategically Ukraine's incursion is mostly irrelevant at the moment. Unless they start disrupting the Russian war effort. However, psychologically it's really bad for Putin.
I disagree. It's a gift. He is robust. The Russians lost time and time again when they were winning in WWII. That's how they won. Stalin's absolute power only ended with a stroke eight years later.
But, it's not 1941. You're appearing to commit the classic mistake of military planners - fighting the last war, not the current one.
Russia did not fight in WW2, the Soviet Union did. Russia is only the former Russian Soviet Federated Soviet Republic. It comprised 51% of the USSR's population. The Two countries are not the same.
OK. The Soviets lost time and time again when they were winning in WWII. That's how they won. Georgian Stalin's absolute power only ended with a stroke eight years later. Commanded absolutely from Moscow. Russia.
That is also a misrepresentation of the Eastern Front. 1941-42 was horrendous and the Soviet Army was shattered. Belarus and Ukraine were overrun with the Germans getting to Moscow and Stalingrad. However, at this point the Soviet Army replaced its generalship with competent men, particularly Zhuko, Rokososvky, Vatutin, Konev and Vasillevsky.
Stalingrad wasn't won through attrition in the city, it was won through envelopment by Operation Uranus. The Soviets deliberately withheld forces front the city itself in preference to Operation Mars, which pinched off the German Army. They Germans were then besieged and starved.
The grand offensives which moved the Frontline were very concentrated in 1943 and 44 moving the Frontline from Kursk to west of Warsaw and capturing Romania;
1) The Dniepr- Carpatho Offensiv across Ukraine and the liberation of Kiev, 1943
2) Operation Bagration 1944, undertaken 2 weeks after D-Day in Normandy (on purpose) through Belarus. This was the biggest advance and shattered the German Army in the east.
3) The offensive through Romania, 1944.
Berlin was taken in 1945.
Zhukov by 1943 was openly disdainful of generals who relied on blood instead of planning. He thought it was wasteful and futile.
What you are doing, Martin is conflating the losses of the Rzhev Meatgrinder of 1942 with 1944 and mixing in post-war apologetics from German generals in American employ. Their accounts are extremely biased, self-serving and deceptive and have tainted the history and historiography of WW2 for decades.
2) Operation Bagration 1944, undertaken 2 weeks after D-Day in Normandy (on purpose) through Belarus. This was the biggest advance and shattered the German Army in the east.
Absolutely - and massively helped by 20,000 trucks and something like half a million jeeps which the Allies got through to the Soviets so that they had some transport to do it with.
It's really tiring to have to deal with all the 'Russia won WW2 and they're military superheroes' stuff from certain quarters in this thread (obviously not you) without any of the nuance about how. The word 'allies' was used for a reason.
I am hearing of a huge surrender of Russian soldiers in the Kursk region after their commanders abandoned them,
Great way to run a war, Putin.
And how does Business Insider and nobody else know?
@stetson. I'm reiterating 'common knowledge' of Russian defeats at the hands of Manstein in particular in '43. Like the Third Battle of Kharkov. I believe there were others. It will take me a while. If I'm overstating that case you will say.
I'm well aware of how charmed Britain and America were by German generals, and participated in their whitewashing of Jewish blood in particular. Particularly Manstein.
(Pedantic comment: I believe it's "toe the line" not "tow the line".)
Good point.
Well made.
As to the wider point. It remains the case that Russia is nowhere near achieving its strategic aim. It cannot conquer Ukraine nor force the government to toe the Moscow line by intimidation. It has reduces its influence in the rest of Eastern Europe because whilst the various states fear Putin's moral decision-making they are a lot less worried about the Red Army and know that they have a decent chance of rebuffing them.
In the meantime, Ukraine is achieving its strategic aim. It is keeping the Russian forces at bay long enough for the combination of internal and external pressures to force a Russian withdrawal. The danger for Ukraine is that their ability to do this is dependent on foreign aid and some of these 'friends' are going a bit wobbly on them.
I think it makes a lot of sense to look at these most recent developments in that context.
I think it makes a lot of sense to look at these most recent developments in that context.
AFZ
Also it's hotting up on both sides because at least one of them had priced in a Trump victory. Now that's looking at the very least less of a foregone conclusion....
2) Operation Bagration 1944, undertaken 2 weeks after D-Day in Normandy (on purpose) through Belarus. This was the biggest advance and shattered the German Army in the east.
Absolutely - and massively helped by 20,000 trucks and something like half a million jeeps which the Allies got through to the Soviets so that they had some transport to do it with.
It's really tiring to have to deal with all the 'Russia won WW2 and they're military superheroes' stuff from certain quarters in this thread (obviously not you) without any of the nuance about how. The word 'allies' was used for a reason.
Marshal Grigory Zhukov was surprisingly candid about Lend-Lease in his autobiography. It wasn't just the Jeeps, it was the Trucks (the classic Kaytusha rocket launcher image is actually mounted on an American Studebaker), tanks (the Soviets loved the Sherman), planes and even exploives and gunpowder. All of those iconic artillery barrages were due to lend-lease explosives, according to Zhukov. The Soviet Union needed help after its industrialized core was overrun and factory evacuations could only do so much.
I think it makes a lot of sense to look at these most recent developments in that context.
AFZ
Also it's hotting up on both sides because at least one of them had priced in a Trump victory. Now that's looking at the very least less of a foregone conclusion....
I am hearing of a huge surrender of Russian soldiers in the Kursk region after their commanders abandoned them,
Great way to run a war, Putin.
And how does Business Insider and nobody else know?
@stetson. I'm reiterating 'common knowledge' of Russian defeats at the hands of Manstein in particular in '43. Like the Third Battle of Kharkov. I believe there were others. It will take me a while. If I'm overstating that case you will say.
I'm well aware of how charmed Britain and America were by German generals, and participated in their whitewashing of Jewish blood in particular. Particularly Manstein.
You're getting closer. Manstein himself was an extensive and deliberate revisionist. Third Kharkov was a tactical win but part of a strategic defeat for the Germans. It set up the Battlle of Kursk which the Soviets won, after which the Soviet Army went on its series of offensives. It was one of the last German victories before the tide turned.
I am hearing of a huge surrender of Russian soldiers in the Kursk region after their commanders abandoned them,
Great way to run a war, Putin.
And how does Business Insider and nobody else know?
@stetson. I'm reiterating 'common knowledge' of Russian defeats at the hands of Manstein in particular in '43. Like the Third Battle of Kharkov. I believe there were others. It will take me a while. If I'm overstating that case you will say.
I'm well aware of how charmed Britain and America were by German generals, and participated in their whitewashing of Jewish blood in particular. Particularly Manstein.
I do not take Business Insider for its word. In reality, it seems to be parroting Ukrainian Propaganda. That's why I couched the report subjectively.
But there are other examples of how Russian commanders have abandoned their troops.
The Russian military structure places high value on command and control. If the command structure breaks, Russian soldiers do not seem to know what to do, other than try to save their own lives (surrender is such a good option, in that regard).
On the other hand, the western military works from more at a company level, where options are available should the unit be disconnected from command. If the company knows and understands the objective, they will work towards that objective. There is a certain buy in to achieving the goal that is often missing from a Russian unit. Yes, surrender is an option, but it is of last resort.
@Gramps49. So your hearing is subjective. Russian commanders are obviously abandoning their troops at normal, sustainable levels and it's working just fine for them in Donetsk.
I am hearing of a huge surrender of Russian soldiers in the Kursk region after their commanders abandoned them,
Great way to run a war, Putin.
And how does Business Insider and nobody else know?
@stetson. I'm reiterating 'common knowledge' of Russian defeats at the hands of Manstein in particular in '43. Like the Third Battle of Kharkov. I believe there were others. It will take me a while. If I'm overstating that case you will say.
I'm well aware of how charmed Britain and America were by German generals, and participated in their whitewashing of Jewish blood in particular. Particularly Manstein.
I do not take Business Insider for its word. In reality, it seems to be parroting Ukrainian Propaganda. That's why I couched the report subjectively.
But there are other examples of how Russian commanders have abandoned their troops.
The Russian military structure places high value on command and control. If the command structure breaks, Russian soldiers do not seem to know what to do, other than try to save their own lives (surrender is such a good option, in that regard).
On the other hand, the western military works from more at a company level, where options are available should the unit be disconnected from command. If the company knows and understands the objective, they will work towards that objective. There is a certain buy in to achieving the goal that is often missing from a Russian unit. Yes, surrender is an option, but it is of last resort.
And the Germans are one on from the West - NCOs commanding units that in Britain would at least have an officer of some sort. Horses for courses really.
The Beeb said at 10pm that Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin is, of course, listening to me. There is no sign of any Russian troops being moved from the east. The diversion has doubly failed. Except in creating a thousand square kilometre bargaining chip against one hundred and sixty one thousand and growing. Pokrovsk - a vital hub - next. Especially now that its defenders are in Kursk. And in creating a very impressive, to Western military buffs, morale boosting, demonstration of combined arms. Mr. Putin could not give a shit. I'm no armchair Clausewitz me, but as I said over a year ago, on this thread, in response to the absurd hubris of the title, no chance.
Once again with this assertion which is completely at odds with what we know of Mr Putin. It's perfectly reasonable to argue that he shouldn't care but it's more than a stretch to state that he doesn't.
Once again with this assertion which is completely at odds with what we know of Mr Putin. It's perfectly reasonable to argue that he shouldn't care but it's more than a stretch to state that he doesn't.
AFZ
Of course. But that's how he'll spin it to himself, surely? He'll transmute his shock, impotent rage and shame with Machiavellian cunning. He obviously already has. He's called Zelenskyy's bluff by virtually ignoring it. A bit of bluster. His generals will be nodding with grim mouthed determination all the way down inside. Ukraine is going to lose a much bigger chunk of Donetsk when Pokrovsk, already evacuating, inevitably falls. He's going to the Dnipro. My eyes get hot with the nobility of Ukraine's forlorn courage.
Your thinking, then, Martin54 is that the Kursk operation is Ukraine;s Ardennes offensive?
The Russian soldiers who surrendered are clearly unfamiliar with Solzhenytsin's account of how Stalin treated returned Russian POW's after WWII.
Your thinking, then, Martin54 is that the Kursk operation is Ukraine;s Ardennes offensive?
The Russian soldiers who surrendered are clearly unfamiliar with Solzhenytsin's account of how Stalin treated returned Russian POW's after WWII.
Er, the Ardennes was the greatest failure of the British, of anyone, in WW2. So no. The Germans couldn't believe their luck. What with RAF reconnaissance flying over them in broad daylight. For a week. And reporting it. A few trees and telegraph poles would have stopped the Wehrmacht in the west. Kursk is more like one of the Russians', sorry, Soviets', '43-44 feints. But their's worked.
I think Vladimir Vladimirovich is a bit softer than Joseph Vissarionovich.
Then clearly you misunderstand Stalin, Martin and greatly misunderstand the Battle of Salingrad. Stalingrad is remembered for its bitter urban fighting but that is NOT what won the battle. The Soviet Army deliberately only fed in troops piecemeal and told General Chuikov to hold on. He held but only by the skin of his teeth. Then Soviet Army executed Operation Uranus and completed an envelopment of Stalingrad, turning it from a linear front into an isolated cauldron. By the end of the battle, the Soviet Army in the city was pushed back to the landing docks on the Volga River and nearly annihilated but relief came from outside the city.
The German Army, starved of supplies (it needed 750 tons per day) withered and was rolled over.
Calling Operation Uranus a meat-wave reduced one of the finest examples of miliary planning and implementation combined with judicious manoeuvre by the Soviet Army into a simple frontal assault.
Stalin learned his lesson in 1941 and let his generals command thereafter.
i think we're at cross purposes Martin54. I meant Hitler's failed counterstroke against the Allies post-Normandy.
Doh! Of course. The Battle of the Bulge and all that. Aka the '44 winter* Ardennes Offensive... Hmmm. Still don't see the parallel.
*The first in 187 years since the Battle of Leuthen: An overwhelming defeat of the Austrian Army in one of the major battles of the 18th Century fought on 5th December 1757.
I was thinking of the intention of throwing an opponent with superior resources off-balance, and wondering whether Zelensky and his generals are being equally over-ambitious. The Ukrainians seem to want to disrupt the Russians' supply lines; Hitler I believe wanted to stop the Allies taking Antwerp. But I believe. of the two, Zelensky is better in touch with reality.
I was thinking of the intention of throwing an opponent with superior resources off-balance, and wondering whether Zelensky and his generals are being equally over-ambitious. The Ukrainians seem to want to disrupt the Russians' supply lines; Hitler I believe wanted to stop the Allies taking Antwerp. But I believe. of the two, Zelensky is better in touch with reality.
Agreed. If Zelenskyy thought that his incursion could do more than marginally disrupt supply, he'd be wrong. It might relieve the threat to Kharkov. But can have no discernible effect on the inexorable conquest of Donetsk.
Impact on the war inside Ukraine is going to depend on how Putin responds. If he decides to just conquer the east of Ukraine, and then deal with the enclave of Ukrainian forces in Kursk, then it won't make much difference.
If Putin feels compelled by politics to liberate Kursk then that could impact the advances within Ukraine. He'll either need to pull experienced troops from Ukraine, with their equipment. Or, he'll need to send in poorly equipped raw conscripts into a blood bath.
Impact on the war inside Ukraine is going to depend on how Putin responds. If he decides to just conquer the east of Ukraine, and then deal with the enclave of Ukrainian forces in Kursk, then it won't make much difference.
If Putin feels compelled by politics to liberate Kursk then that could impact the advances within Ukraine. He'll either need to pull experienced troops from Ukraine, with their equipment. Or, he'll need to send in poorly equipped raw conscripts into a blood bath.
Surely he'd only feel so compelled if there was sustained reaction on social media, TV and ultimately the streets? Which there can not be. He doesn't even seem to be compelled to be relatively honest in that a virtually harmless occupation of a tiny fragment of Russia should not detract from the ongoing rolling victory in the east, and Kharkiv soon to be permanently in range of bombardment.
Impact on the war inside Ukraine is going to depend on how Putin responds. If he decides to just conquer the east of Ukraine, and then deal with the enclave of Ukrainian forces in Kursk, then it won't make much difference.
If Putin feels compelled by politics to liberate Kursk then that could impact the advances within Ukraine. He'll either need to pull experienced troops from Ukraine, with their equipment. Or, he'll need to send in poorly equipped raw conscripts into a blood bath.
The problem here is what it means for Russia to “liberate Kursk”. The parts of Ukraine that have been “liberated” by Russia are mostly uninhabitable wastelands because of that liberation. If Putin feels “compelled by politics” to liberate Kursk the manner of that liberation might actually intensify political pressure.
Washington is in effect blocking Britain from allowing Kyiv to fire Storm Shadow missiles inside Russia, amid fears in the Biden administration of an escalation in the Ukraine war.
As pressure grows on the West to relax its rules around the use of long range weapons, Britain is waiting for US approval before it gives the Ukrainians the green light. However, the request went into the system more than a month ago and officials are still waiting, a UK government source said.
They said their understanding was that the topic was effectively “stuck in their system”. A second UK government source confirmed that “discussions were still ongoing around Storm Shadow with allies” and a third defence source described it as “routine US process”.
It is understood that although the UK wants to give Ukraine the freedom to do what they want with the long-range weapon, it requires consensus from allies, including the US, France and a third undisclosed Nato country. A government source stressed that the UK was not blaming the US for any delay, adding that such policy changes took time.
There seems to be a lot of behind the scenes stuff going on here. This may very well be a partial explanation for Ukraine's Kursk offensive. If the Ukrainians feel the need to attack Russian positions beyond the reach of the weapon systems they're allowed to fire into Russia, an obvious solution is to move the front line until those positions are in range of the available systems. It also serves as a very clear object lesson in the hollowness of "escalation management" as a consideration in making these kinds of determinations. Ukrainian troops are occupying part of Russia, yet Russia has not escalated the war in any noticeable way.
There's also the fact that this story is appearing in print at all. Someone must have gotten tired of the Biden administration's dithering on this subject. This leak is most likely intended to force Washington's hand on this matter.
I agree. There aren't any 'red lines" left. Further, in the perverse logic of nuclear weapons the main job of preventing nuclear war was always carried by Mutually-Assured Destruction, never by "de-escalation".
Particularly when a nuclear power goes rogue like Rusdia did, there isn't much room for negotiation left.
The first time a Storm Shadow is launched in to Russia, I will hold my breath. Even though they can't get far without manned air support. How can Russia escalate conventionally to that 'provocation'?
Comments
I read Martin slightly differently. I think he's saying that this is such a strong position that even a mediocre player knows how to win from here...
Happy to be corrected if I've got that wrong.
Of course you're not, and why would I. It's happened twice. I used maskirovka. I knew they knew that they were good. So I played worse than I usually do, deliberately. They took the bait. I took them. So they weren't as good as they thought. Shocked the hell out them.
I disagree. It's a gift. He is robust. The Russians lost time and time again when they were winning in WWII. That's how they won. Stalin's absolute power only ended with a stroke eight years later.
This joke is circulating on the 'net, I think it covers it nicely.
AFZ
Excellent. I'm sure I am. But am I wrong? Dangerous I know up against your prodigious intellect and military science. @alienfromzog (most amusing, truly) agrees with me after all, except in proposing that Putin is affected negatively. He's having the time of his life. Am I wrong to say that he must ignore and spin the Kursk diversion whilst concentrating on Donetsk? Or breaking out in Zaporizhzhia?
Yes, but will he?
Is he psychologically capable of doing so? Even in Russia, stories get out, can he afford to?
One of the very regions I described.
He is until he isn't. He can afford it until he can't. No sign, apart from a very dangerous TV broadcast reported at 10:10 BST on the same link. Dangerous for Karen Shakhnazarov that is, not Putin. Others have made such comments over 2 & 1/2 years.
Spin, spin, spin in power.
War is different.
Only the final victory can't be Pyrrhic. Even so, 'nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won', Wellington. And Putin isn't conserving his pieces. Zelenskyy is.
Russia did not fight in WW2, the Soviet Union did. Russia is only the former Russian Soviet Federated Soviet Republic. It comprised 51% of the USSR's population. The Two countries are not the same.
OK. The Soviets lost time and time again when they were winning in WWII. That's how they won. Georgian Stalin's absolute power only ended with a stroke eight years later. Commanded absolutely from Moscow. Russia.
Indeed. The population number there is particularly important. I am not a Russian expert but everything I've read suggests that much like how the English will equate Britain with England when it suits us, the Russians have a big WWII foundational myth about Russia holding out alone against the Nazi invaders despite near-catastrophic losses - all for the love of Mother Russia. It would not remotely surprise me to discover that so much of what Russia claims as its own was actually Ukrainian or Latvian or Kazakhstanian etc....
That's not to deny for one moment that The Soviets suffered massive losses - more than the other allies.
AFZ
Though you can hold a candle up there to the massive stoicism of the people living under Soviet rule at the time.
Very mainstream school of thought that if Stalin had just shot all his generals and given command of Soviet forces to the Western Allies, the war would still have been won, and multiple million Soviet wouldn't have been killed by their own state's dreadfulness at fighting wars. Fighting to the last man is the cheap and easy option when you're confident you've got enough people to guarantee the last man's one of yours.
Millions of Soviet deaths were utterly unnecessary - even though fighting the war itself was.
In 1940, the Soviet population is estimated at 194 million. Of which, 110 million were Russian or 57%.
The Soviets suffered incredible casualty numbers in the war - thought to be around 27 million killed in total. (About a quarter of the population was killed or wounded!) The majority were civilians. In terms of military losses, there were 8.7 million. Two-thirds were Russian (5.7 m) with the next biggest group being - yes - obviously - Ukrainian casualties: 1.3m or 15%.
AFZ
Sources:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1260522/soviet-and-russian-population-1940-1950/
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldhistory2/chapter/casualties-of-world-war-ii/#:~:text=The largest portion of military,the final battles in Germany.
That's always been the case. Which is one of the reasons that sanctions and asset seizures make a lot of sense. In recent years Putin has been incredibly ruthless with any oligarch who didn't tow the line. That's always a one-way street for a despot. You just have to keep upping the ante and killing more and more. Eventually one will defeat you.... Please God, soon!
Great way to run a war, Putin.
That is also a misrepresentation of the Eastern Front. 1941-42 was horrendous and the Soviet Army was shattered. Belarus and Ukraine were overrun with the Germans getting to Moscow and Stalingrad. However, at this point the Soviet Army replaced its generalship with competent men, particularly Zhuko, Rokososvky, Vatutin, Konev and Vasillevsky.
Stalingrad wasn't won through attrition in the city, it was won through envelopment by Operation Uranus. The Soviets deliberately withheld forces front the city itself in preference to Operation Mars, which pinched off the German Army. They Germans were then besieged and starved.
The grand offensives which moved the Frontline were very concentrated in 1943 and 44 moving the Frontline from Kursk to west of Warsaw and capturing Romania;
1) The Dniepr- Carpatho Offensiv across Ukraine and the liberation of Kiev, 1943
2) Operation Bagration 1944, undertaken 2 weeks after D-Day in Normandy (on purpose) through Belarus. This was the biggest advance and shattered the German Army in the east.
3) The offensive through Romania, 1944.
Berlin was taken in 1945.
Zhukov by 1943 was openly disdainful of generals who relied on blood instead of planning. He thought it was wasteful and futile.
What you are doing, Martin is conflating the losses of the Rzhev Meatgrinder of 1942 with 1944 and mixing in post-war apologetics from German generals in American employ. Their accounts are extremely biased, self-serving and deceptive and have tainted the history and historiography of WW2 for decades.
Absolutely - and massively helped by 20,000 trucks and something like half a million jeeps which the Allies got through to the Soviets so that they had some transport to do it with.
It's really tiring to have to deal with all the 'Russia won WW2 and they're military superheroes' stuff from certain quarters in this thread (obviously not you) without any of the nuance about how. The word 'allies' was used for a reason.
And how does Business Insider and nobody else know?
@stetson. I'm reiterating 'common knowledge' of Russian defeats at the hands of Manstein in particular in '43. Like the Third Battle of Kharkov. I believe there were others. It will take me a while. If I'm overstating that case you will say.
I'm well aware of how charmed Britain and America were by German generals, and participated in their whitewashing of Jewish blood in particular. Particularly Manstein.
Good point.
Well made.
As to the wider point. It remains the case that Russia is nowhere near achieving its strategic aim. It cannot conquer Ukraine nor force the government to toe the Moscow line by intimidation. It has reduces its influence in the rest of Eastern Europe because whilst the various states fear Putin's moral decision-making they are a lot less worried about the Red Army and know that they have a decent chance of rebuffing them.
In the meantime, Ukraine is achieving its strategic aim. It is keeping the Russian forces at bay long enough for the combination of internal and external pressures to force a Russian withdrawal. The danger for Ukraine is that their ability to do this is dependent on foreign aid and some of these 'friends' are going a bit wobbly on them.
I think it makes a lot of sense to look at these most recent developments in that context.
AFZ
Also it's hotting up on both sides because at least one of them had priced in a Trump victory. Now that's looking at the very least less of a foregone conclusion....
Marshal Grigory Zhukov was surprisingly candid about Lend-Lease in his autobiography. It wasn't just the Jeeps, it was the Trucks (the classic Kaytusha rocket launcher image is actually mounted on an American Studebaker), tanks (the Soviets loved the Sherman), planes and even exploives and gunpowder. All of those iconic artillery barrages were due to lend-lease explosives, according to Zhukov. The Soviet Union needed help after its industrialized core was overrun and factory evacuations could only do so much.
Yes. 100% agree.
You're getting closer. Manstein himself was an extensive and deliberate revisionist. Third Kharkov was a tactical win but part of a strategic defeat for the Germans. It set up the Battlle of Kursk which the Soviets won, after which the Soviet Army went on its series of offensives. It was one of the last German victories before the tide turned.
I do not take Business Insider for its word. In reality, it seems to be parroting Ukrainian Propaganda. That's why I couched the report subjectively.
But there are other examples of how Russian commanders have abandoned their troops.
The Russian military structure places high value on command and control. If the command structure breaks, Russian soldiers do not seem to know what to do, other than try to save their own lives (surrender is such a good option, in that regard).
On the other hand, the western military works from more at a company level, where options are available should the unit be disconnected from command. If the company knows and understands the objective, they will work towards that objective. There is a certain buy in to achieving the goal that is often missing from a Russian unit. Yes, surrender is an option, but it is of last resort.
And the Germans are one on from the West - NCOs commanding units that in Britain would at least have an officer of some sort. Horses for courses really.
Once again with this assertion which is completely at odds with what we know of Mr Putin. It's perfectly reasonable to argue that he shouldn't care but it's more than a stretch to state that he doesn't.
AFZ
Of course. But that's how he'll spin it to himself, surely? He'll transmute his shock, impotent rage and shame with Machiavellian cunning. He obviously already has. He's called Zelenskyy's bluff by virtually ignoring it. A bit of bluster. His generals will be nodding with grim mouthed determination all the way down inside. Ukraine is going to lose a much bigger chunk of Donetsk when Pokrovsk, already evacuating, inevitably falls. He's going to the Dnipro. My eyes get hot with the nobility of Ukraine's forlorn courage.
The Russian soldiers who surrendered are clearly unfamiliar with Solzhenytsin's account of how Stalin treated returned Russian POW's after WWII.
Er, the Ardennes was the greatest failure of the British, of anyone, in WW2. So no. The Germans couldn't believe their luck. What with RAF reconnaissance flying over them in broad daylight. For a week. And reporting it. A few trees and telegraph poles would have stopped the Wehrmacht in the west. Kursk is more like one of the Russians', sorry, Soviets', '43-44 feints. But their's worked.
I think Vladimir Vladimirovich is a bit softer than Joseph Vissarionovich.
The German Army, starved of supplies (it needed 750 tons per day) withered and was rolled over.
Calling Operation Uranus a meat-wave reduced one of the finest examples of miliary planning and implementation combined with judicious manoeuvre by the Soviet Army into a simple frontal assault.
Stalin learned his lesson in 1941 and let his generals command thereafter.
Doh! Of course. The Battle of the Bulge and all that. Aka the '44 winter* Ardennes Offensive... Hmmm. Still don't see the parallel.
*The first in 187 years since the Battle of Leuthen: An overwhelming defeat of the Austrian Army in one of the major battles of the 18th Century fought on 5th December 1757.
Agreed. If Zelenskyy thought that his incursion could do more than marginally disrupt supply, he'd be wrong. It might relieve the threat to Kharkov. But can have no discernible effect on the inexorable conquest of Donetsk.
If Putin feels compelled by politics to liberate Kursk then that could impact the advances within Ukraine. He'll either need to pull experienced troops from Ukraine, with their equipment. Or, he'll need to send in poorly equipped raw conscripts into a blood bath.
https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-august-17-2024
Surely he'd only feel so compelled if there was sustained reaction on social media, TV and ultimately the streets? Which there can not be. He doesn't even seem to be compelled to be relatively honest in that a virtually harmless occupation of a tiny fragment of Russia should not detract from the ongoing rolling victory in the east, and Kharkiv soon to be permanently in range of bombardment.
The problem here is what it means for Russia to “liberate Kursk”. The parts of Ukraine that have been “liberated” by Russia are mostly uninhabitable wastelands because of that liberation. If Putin feels “compelled by politics” to liberate Kursk the manner of that liberation might actually intensify political pressure.
There seems to be a lot of behind the scenes stuff going on here. This may very well be a partial explanation for Ukraine's Kursk offensive. If the Ukrainians feel the need to attack Russian positions beyond the reach of the weapon systems they're allowed to fire into Russia, an obvious solution is to move the front line until those positions are in range of the available systems. It also serves as a very clear object lesson in the hollowness of "escalation management" as a consideration in making these kinds of determinations. Ukrainian troops are occupying part of Russia, yet Russia has not escalated the war in any noticeable way.
There's also the fact that this story is appearing in print at all. Someone must have gotten tired of the Biden administration's dithering on this subject. This leak is most likely intended to force Washington's hand on this matter.
Particularly when a nuclear power goes rogue like Rusdia did, there isn't much room for negotiation left.