Russian Tensions
- This topic has 5,149 replies, 37 voices, and was last updated 1 week, 3 days ago by
.
-
Posts
-
It is interesting that Vijay Prashad references Kerala since I have first-hand experience, having lived there for three years.
Compared with other Indian states I have visited, Kerala is socially progressive. Socialist? No. Marxist? No. Well-developed social services and welfare infracture on par with the developed world? Yes.
I happened to personally know the local leader of the CPI (M-L) for the district I lived in. He had no knowledge whatsoever of Marx. He was what Indians call a goonda. The purpose of his politics was about which faction controlled the alcohol distribution as Kerala is technically a dry state and the sale of liquor is strictly licensed, offering opportunities for bribery and corruption.
In India, politics is heavily communal – and communal isn’t as benign as it sounds – it is about sectarian differences. Kerala is a bit different because of the religious demographics, a mix of Hindu, Muslim, Christian and some Jains, it is more tolerant and women’s equality is probably the best in India
Slightly interesting angle in RT today on Zelensky’s long view[/url].
It is unlikely that President Vladimir Zelensky expects to win militarily. But it seems that he genuinely believes that he will succeed in turning Ukraine into something like Israel – a paramilitary state living with a sense of constant military threat.
Normally, I’d put health warnings on anyone invoking Israel in a debate, and I will raise a light flag here, since Zelensky himself is Jewish that a hostile author may be trying an anti-semitic tarry brush. That said, however, the basic logic is sound: a rump Ukraine permanently depended on foreign funds, serving as an advanced local outpost and permanently at war is not just a viable, indeed, likely outcome.
The only way for that not to happen would be complete occupation by Moscow, which would lead to Russia being bled by geurilla war for the rest of all our lives.
Now, to the article referenced in TS’s Youtube link (it saves time, btw, to reference articles, they can be skim read rather than listen to someone blather for an hour and a half).
Firstly, the source is a comment piece in the Telegraph, a conservative nationalist paper – its stance will be the need to protect UK defence and talk up arms production (looking at today’s papers, it does seem to have a different focus than the Times, which says Russia is losing 2,000 troops for every hundred yards).
Thus this seems a key quote from today:
One major fear is that governments are so keen to support Ukraine that they are “giving away everything”, the official added.
and
Business leaders want cast-iron guarantees of orders, for perhaps decades to come, before they agree to undertake the multimillion-pound work to transform their production lines to meet demands.
(The West’s cupboard may soon be bare as it arms Kyiv to the hilt; Analysis, Telegraph, 16/02/2023)
So, I’d take a little pinch of salt on all this, as the Telegraph avers, arms manufacturers want guaranteed sales to justify the investment in production:
The last time ammunition production lines were operating for “just-in time” supplies was over two decades ago when Western governments were fighting wars in the Middle East.
Logistical operations, supply chains and procurement were almost set up entirely to service that market.
It sounds to me that really, they arehttps://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/03/07/haggling/.
Nothing to say they can’t ramp up production, it’s just a matter of price.
BD “Scott Ritter said in February 2022 that Russia would not invade the Ukraine.”
TW – “Dunno where you got that from since he predicted the invasion in late 2021 after NATO rebuffed Moscow’s call to respect its security demands.”
Scott Ritter wrote “Despite the repeated Western warnings, Russia is highly unlikely to invade Ukraine” Published 31-01-22
In the same article, Ritter also wrote that “Russia will exploit US hypocrisy on spheres of influence and military alliances by ……. deploying a naval squadron to the Caribbean.”
I see no ships!
Just a quick question TW, do you stand by your assertion that the Ukrainian forces have suffered over 100,000 deaths?
Should we heed any predictions?
I recall that the majority of informed opinion believed that the war would be over in three days with the Ukrainian government fleeing Kiev, allowing a puppet pro-Russian government to be set up.
“It will all be over by Christmas”, said in 1914 by many on both sides of that particular conflict.
If the outcome of wars was so easily predictable, the likelihood is that far fewer of them would be fought, the losers would just give in without a fight.
“All you have to do is kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will crumble to the ground” said a certain ex corporal about Operation Barbarossa, another prediction that didn’t go too well.
“Just a quick question TW, do you stand by your assertion that the Ukrainian forces have suffered over 100,000 deaths?”
No, that was Ursula von der Leyen’s figure. I believe the number at least double that.
TW – “No, that was Ursula von der Leyen’s figure. I believe the number at least double that.”
So you are working on the basis of 200,000 deaths.
Given that the estimate of deaths to seriously wounded ratio varies between 1:3 and up to 1:6 (because of the development of better battlefield medicine and anti biotics, the ratio of wounded to deaths has increased substantially oer time, the 1:3 ratio was the figure from WW2 so it is likely to be closer to the higher estimate), however if we go with a conservative estimate of say 1:4 that would give a figure of 200,000 dead and 800,000 seriously wounded but surviving.
Let’s look at the figures in the light of the fact that no estimate of the number of Ukrainian armed forces by either the West or by Russia has exceeded a number of 500,000 Ukrainian troops being involved in the whole war (the Russian estimate is far less).
Let us, for argument’s sake, use the highest estimate of total Ukrainian troop numbers of 500,000 given by the US, which is likely to be an exaggeration. And if we then look at the tooth to tail ratio as it is known in the military (the ratio betwen active troops and their logistical tail) we will find that this ratio has varied between 1:2.6 for WW1, 1:4.3 for WW2 up to 1:8.9 for the Gulf War and then use a conservative estimate of 1:4 the total of your figures, we would have an estimated ratio of 100,000 front line troops to 400,000 logistical troops.
This would mean that your estimate of 200,000 number would claim that 75,000 more troops had been killed than had ever served at the front line! (some logistical troops would have been killed, but your figures would give a minimum ratio of front line troops to logistical troops of 5:3, which is clearly ludicrous).
Not only that if 200,000 troops had been killed, of the remainng 300,000 survivors (Maximum US estimate), all of them had been seriously wounded, nearly three times each!!!
“This would mean that your estimate of 200,000 number would claim that 75,000 more troops had been killed than had ever served at the front line!”
A fair point. But you are presuming a high number of wounded. From the sources I listen to that is not the case. Shocking numbers of the wounded are dying in situ because they’re unable to be evacuated. This would account for the higher number of deaths.
BD – “This would mean that your estimate of 200,000 number would claim that 75,000 more troops had been killed than had ever served at the front line!”
TW – “A fair point. But you are presuming a high number of wounded. From the sources I listen to that is not the case. Shocking numbers of the wounded are dying in situ because they’re unable to be evacuated. This would account for the higher number of deaths.”
I was referring to the number of deaths to front line troops. This was not a reference in any way to the wounded. You estimate 200,000 troop deaths. Even using the highest number of estimated Ukrainian troops during the whole conflict (500,000) and using a tooth to tail ratio which is less than any other modern war(as explained above). This would give a maximum of 125,000 front line troops (by Russian Estimates far less). This would mean that 75,000 soldiers were killed over and above the number that had ever served on the front line.
This in no way relates to the number of wounded.
This is an interesting situation. If the Putin regime justifies its imperialist annexation of the Donbas etc on the grounds that the local inhabitants wanted it, how would it respond to an attempt by one part of Russia – in this case, Siberia – to secede from Moscow rule if a majority of the citizens of Siberia wanted it? Surely, it would be a clear case of double standards if it refused them the right to do so?
I don’t know how serious is this drive toward “Siberian independence” and it is of little consequence or interest, anyway. All nationalism is a load of utter claptrap whether it is Ukrainian nationalism or Russian nationalism or British nationalism. But it is significant – is it not? – that in Russia´s case, these independence referendums are not binding, “and may be illegal under a law against challenging Russia’s “territorial integrity”. ” What does that tell you?
“ratio of 100,000 front line troops to 400,000 logistical troops.”
I must admit I only skimmed your post before replying. Alone, there were 100,000 far right militia at the beginning of the conflict. I fundamentally disagree with your calculations. Your estimates of frontline troops are off the scales wrong.
According to Wagner’s head Yevgeny Prigozhin’s forecast the imminent fall of Bakhmut won’t happen until perhaps as late as April.
He is laying the blame for the delay on the Russian military bureaucracy in his continued criticism of their conduct of the war.
An invitation to a false flag operation?
“I’m also ready to wage war, alongside the Russians, from the territory of Belarus. But only if someone – even a single soldier – enters our territory from there with weapons to kill my people.” – Alexander Lukashenko
Coincidental to BD’s posts on casualty figures, the British MOD released its estimates of Russian lives lost and wounded.
175-200,000 casualties of which 40-60,000 KIA, caused mostly by artillery and it has a relatively high ratio of deaths to wounded due to rudimentary medical units.
For the Wagner mercenaries, it is one in every two soldiers wounded or KIA.
We can imagine it is much the same figures for the Ukrainian army.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.