The War in Europe

If you could help me out, which of those references says the majority of Russia's 280,000 man standing army are 1-year conscripts? That was the part that didn't make sense to me. 1 year is enough to provide basic training but not much else. I find it hard to believe that an effective army could be mostly soldiers with less than 1 year of service. An effective fighting force of mostly very green privates? Just doesn't sound possible.Your reference Explainer on Russian Conscription, Reserve, and Mobilization | Institute for the Study of War did say that about 260,000 conscripts are drafted each year, and if the total size of the military is a million, and if the standing army part of it is 280,000, then the only way that army could be mostly conscripts is if almost all conscripts went to the army and almost none to the other branches. Since that makes no sense I conclude it it could not be true.I did find this at What the use of Russian conscripts tells us about the war in Ukraine – POLITICO, and it's consistent with your source:

quote:

---

Currently, most estimates hold that approximately 25 percent of the Russian military is made up of conscripts, with the number varying within each military service and between unit types.

---

Something in the 25% range makes a lot more sense to me, with moderately higher percentages in fighting units.--Percy

Read the quote from Hitchens in my signature.
Link to your sources. Still waiting for a source on the oil claims.
Seems weird that you know exactly what Putin is thinking. Surprised US intelligence hasn't contacted you yet.

of course if it doesn't make sense to you it can't be true, way to sound like a creationist Percy well your problem is you're confusing quality with effectiveness. The russians have always favored quantity over quality. 30 disposable conscripts can be as effective as 1 highly trained soldier, you just need to be willing to throw them into the meat grinder.Ukraine update: Stink, stank, stunk. The Russian military has always been awful I'll admit to hyperbole in my initial post. Still 25% is a large chunk, do you think any western military has 25% of it's force composed of soldiers who have have just barely learned the difference between their ass and a hole in the ground?

We are well long into the “watch for disinformation” phase of this conflict. And, my view, we seem to be getting better at it. The spidey senses are tingling all over the net all over the world. LNA was probably not alone in his efforts and was probably not alone in getting stomped.What’s fascinating to me is that we can sit by, study the various media feeds, spidey-sense away suspected bad actors and the Fox-level propaganda and get a good look at what is happening behind the fog. In my old media boggled mind the technology has surpassed magic. The detail of events is so vivid and set for verification that independent sources appear in short order while lies are quickly identified and exposed.Humanity is seeing, feeling and reacting in societies everywhere, almost instantly, to a free flow of constant real-time information. And it is that reaction that has changed the politics of this war in ways I can appreciate and support.We are facing a lot of propaganda, hate speech and scum-sucker’s opinions but when I step back and look at the net and the depth of the new technologies and how they have changed this war I have to sing praises to the First Amendment and the world-wide manifestation of Free Speech. A free web.Tzar Vladimir the Condemned is trying real hard but no one can hide from this thing. The monster conscious world-wide web. www.humanity-all-of-us.netSecond Amendment be damned! Up the First!Yes, stomping on LNA was OUR expression of free speech. We can't put him in jail but we can stomp on his head for the lies. Up Your First!Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

A suggestion. I was just attempting to use logic, common sense and general knowledge of the way the world works. A better response might be to try finding fault with it, or find information that shows my thinking wrong.I don't think there are many to whom it would make sense that Russia's standing army, anyone's standing army, is mostly green conscripts. If you think the claim makes sense please explain how. Obviously greater numbers can help compensate for poor training and equipment, but I think you pulled the 30-to-1 conscripts-to-highly-trained-soldier ratio out of the air. A significant problem in all armies is that green recruits tend to become overwhelmed or panic or react in unproductive ways under fire. The presence of veteran soldiers whose example and leadership they can follow helps a great deal.I don't know what people with actual military experience would say, but it would be my guess that a unit consisting solely or mostly of conscripts would be useless under fire the first few times. I have a vague recollection of a while back reading how in some battle an army was forced to send unit after unit of green conscripts into action, and they were all virtually wiped out and made no contribution. A lot of that going around in this thread. The 25% figure is overall for Russia's military. As I said in my previous message, I think the percent of conscripts in Russian army fighting units is higher. I can only guess at the figure, but I'll guess 35% conscripts. So the question becomes what is the average percentage of conscripts in the fighting units of western armies. Let me see if I can find a Google search that uncovers any information...Well, I found this from a year ago, Conscripts’ share in Russian Army declines to 30%, says lawmaker, so now we know that as of a year ago the Russian army was 30% conscripts. Of course that's only if you believe figures provided by Russia. The estimates of outside experts might be more trustworthy, even though they're looking in from the outside.And I found this from 2020, The Best or Worst of Both Worlds?:

quote:

---

Russia currently fields an active-duty military of just under 1 million men. Of this force, approximately 260,000 are conscripts and 410,000 are contract soldiers (kontraktniki). The shortened 12-month conscript term provides at most five months of utilization time for these servicemen. Conscripts remain about a quarter of the force even in elite commando (spetsnaz) units.

---

The figure of "about a quarter" is close enough to the 30% figure from the other webpage to give us some confidence.By the way, I would view skeptically the higher estimates of Russian deaths in Ukraine, such as the 15,500 number. That would be a mortality rate above 10%, kind of hard to believe. Only 10% of US soldiers were killed on Iwo Jima, and that was considered horrific. 11% of allied troops died in the Battle of Normandy, also horrific. The 10% death rate of Russian soldiers in Ukraine should be viewed skeptically until confirmed by reliable data, which we may never have since this is Russia we're talking about.There are many news reports coming out of Ukraine these days about the incompetence of the Russian military, and I think it would be wise to treat these reports skeptically, or at least with caution. Yes, Russia has had difficulty achieving its military goals in Ukraine, but that doesn't mean that their army is a bunch of inept bumblers. It's easy to cast aspersions, it's much more difficult to gather trusted data to back it up.The US has a volunteer army, so you can't find figures for conscripts because they're all enlistees, but I did see one mention that during the Vietnam war when we still had the draft that it was at least 30%.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar

I'll ignore the obfuscation and just summarize. Paraphrasing what you said, "It would be suicide for Russia to attack a NATO country" is not in any way the same thing as "It would be catastrophic for both countries." "WW3" is not an "oops". There's nothing wrong with saying "WW3". Where you went wrong was attempting Roman numerals and using 1's instead of I's.Anyway, now you're changing your answer. Originally you never mentioned WW3, and since you're calling it suicide it looks like you're assuming WW3 must be nuclear. When someone presents an argument that's as wrong as asserting one equals zero, then that merits a hard no. You argued that Russia invading a NATO member would force NATO to attack Russia. If you can explain why NATO would be *forced* to attack Russia, meaning had no choice but to attack Russia, then I'll withdraw the hard no. For now I maintain my original position, that whether to attack Russia would be a strategic and tactical decision based upon the specifics of the situation and the present and future defensive requirements of the invaded NATO country. It definitely is not a case of, paraphrasing, "Russia invaded a NATO country, therefore NATO must attack Russia." No part of Ukraine's defense of itself has entailed attacking Russia, at least so far, so what are you seeing different in Estonia?Perhaps you're thinking of a scenario where Russia sets up an artillery battery on its side of the border from which it bombards Estonia, and that taking out the artillery battery would constitute an attack on Russia. I guess you could look at it that way, but it seems like a defensive measure. It's fine if you'd prefer not to discuss Russia's expansionistic plans and how they make it critical that Ukraine not fall. Gee, you can't even commiserate about the old days around here. We agree that Putin has a problem, and we both hope he doesn't survive politically, but I disagree with you about the likelihood of his political demise. Are you saying it will not survive as a political entity? Or just that it's going to go through some very tough economic times? Russia is a vast country of enormous resources, Putin still controls how they are used, and he's a ruthless absolute dictator. No one suggested that Putin could walk into a NATO territory, but as long as he remains in power he will continue to be a nuisance, at a minimum. He can still influence minority Russian populations in other countries, manipulate social media, produce propaganda, hack the computers of foreign businesses and governments, etc. And he's got that nuclear button that seems to carry such great sway with some. How do you see this happening? Russia is no longer a democracy. Consider the election shenanigans that Trump is still arguing took place here. In Russia they happen for real, so Putin can never lose an election. That leaves only some kind of coup to remove Putin from power. Is that what you think will happen? I guess it's possible. Or is there something else you're thinking of?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

It's really hard to discuss stuff with you if you're going to nit-pit your way through the trivia of the spelling of country names, grammatical usages and the correct forms of 111/III and 3.This is just a guess, but I reckon that in each case you understood the actual meaning. It's generally considered rude and patronising to quibble about such things when they don't detract to the substance of the article. We're not writing theses here. And you, of course, are the sole judge of whether an argument is the equivalent of 1=0?I don't suppose you could consider the possibility that you may be wrong or may have have misunderstood in that autistic way of yours? (If you actually are autistic please say and I will be far more careful with my replies. So far I have assumed a little intelligent tolerance.) I have explained this several times now. NATO has promised that an attack on anyone of it members is an attack on all of them - and you have agreed - because, of course, it's a simple fact.Just so you get the idea, lets say that the Ukraine had been a NATO member can you imagine ANY scenario where NATO would not physically retaliate by attacking Russia? (I do worry that in your literalism you will be thinking that NATO will be attacking Russia in Ukraine, which is not the same as attacking Russians in Russia? And that the former will not require the latter?) You ARE trying to distinguish between an attack on Russia and an attack on Russians! My god you're naive.The only reason Ukraine is under long range bombardment is because they haven't got control of the air. Ukraine are begging for NATO help there and NATO won't give it because they know it would immediately escalate from a prescribed local conflict into WW3.III,111.But the very first act of any direct NATO action behalf of a NATO country under attack would be to take out Russian radar and ground to air missile sites, control centres and off-shore naval assets implicated in the Russian offences - wherever they're located. That's why Putin would never put boots in a NATO country, it would be world war and suicide. We both have opinions about the future - that's fine. You're confusing geologically large, with economically large. It has the economy of Spain and it spends - from memory 11% of its GDP on arms. It's a poor, backward economy based of commodities - oil and gas - that are becoming terribly unfashionable. Sure. But he's over - unless we get careless and ... Which it the only reason this isn't over now. You bet your life it does - this is one statement that you can take quite literally.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

sure, where do you think all those tanks the ukrainian farmers are harvesting are coming from? Do you think it is experienced troops who are simply walking away from their vehicles and leaving them for the U forces to capture?

This is Igor.

​

Every morning Igor goes for a stroll through the nearby forest.

​

Today, Igor found a Russian Army 9K330 Tor SAM system abandoned in the forest.

​

Now Igor owns a $20 million SAM system.

​

Congratulations Igor. pic.twitter.com/5pyyFTKqCP

— Oryx (@oryxspioenkop) March 10, 2022

yes the 40 mile long traffic jam was a sign of a competent military.

1,300 Wagner mercenaries sent from Libya to help Russian forces in Ukraine

quote:

---

Some 1,300 mercenaries of the Russian private contractor Wagner Group have been moved from Libya to Ukraine to fight alongside Russian forces, according to a Libyan security analyst.

​

“There were 2,200 Wagner militants in Libya. Russia has withdrawn 1,300 and left just 900 here,” Adel Abdel-Kafi, a military and security expert, told Anadolu Agency.

​

He said Wagner paramilitaries were removed from their posts along a highway linking the areas of Sirte and Jafra in central Libya.

​

Abdel-Kafi said the Wagner Group is increasingly relying on fighters from African nations and continues to recruit people from Mali, Chad and Sudan.

​

The Wagner Group has been in Libya since October 2018 to support the forces of warlord Khalifa Haftar, who has been fighting Libya’s legitimate government for control of the North African country, according to the UN.

​

This is not the first claim about Wagner involvement in Russia’s war on Ukraine, which started on Feb. 24 and has now entered its second month.

​

Just days after the war began, Ihor Ostash, Ukraine’s ambassador to Lebanon, accused Russia of sending 400 Wagner mercenaries to Kyiv to assassinate political leaders and other top officials.

​

The group has also been targeted in the raft of sanctions imposed on Russia by Western countries.

---

"nit-pit"? You often lay down broad swathes of ambiguity in a manner of complete certainty. I often find myself very uncertain of your meaning. It's also rude to have so little respect for your audience that you make scant effort to get things right, be consistent, express yourself clearly and unambiguously, or take the time to understand what a reply actually said. This feels like distraction with false accusations to try to put people on the defensive. Gee, thanks. Oh, I feel so much better now.My own view of the discussion is that you're sloppy, ambiguous, inconsistent and even contradictory in the way you express your ideas, you don't like it when it's called to your attention by people who are trying to figure out your meaning, and so you become glib, sarcastic and insulting. You don't seem to realize that you're not the only one with feelings in this discussion.I'm sure I have my own discussion foibles, but I am trying to make a concerted effort to get things right, to support my arguments with evidence and information, and to understand the viewpoints of the other side. I don't feel I'm being extended the same courtesy. No, you haven't explained this several times now, because it's something we agreed on right out of the gate. It's NATO rule 5. You're changing your question now. This is the issue of consistency I mentioned earlier. This is not the same question. To this different question I of course have a different answer, though it's not really a serious question. Of course there are scenarios where NATO wouldn't attack Russia. Why do you think anyone would have trouble coming up with such scenarios. It's not like they'd be complicated, obscure or highly unlikely.And I still don't know what you mean by "attacking Russia." Do you mean invade Russia? Or do you just mean respond as necessary to repel the invasion? Something else? No worries, we're interpreting this simple English in the same way. Gee, thanks again.Anyway, that's incorrect. You seem to be making little effort to understand what I said. I thought it was pretty clear, so just look it over again. Maybe if you make a comment or two instead of casting yet another insult I'll see where the misunderstanding lies. This makes no sense. I have no idea whether Ukraine is under long range bombardment from Russia. My scenario involving a bombardment from Russia was a hypothetical involving Estonia. And you're back to suicide again and to stating things categorically. It makes no sense to go around on this again. No, I'm not. What did I say that made you think this? Should I have said "enormous natural resources"? What do you mean Putin is "over"? Out of power? The world is now on to him? Russia will no longer be a significant military power? Something else? This is an example of the ambiguity I mentioned earlier. You can decide it means whatever you like, then later complain that you've explained this "several times now." Then when I try to nail down your meaning you can call me names. I was alluding to Vindman's comments that I posted earlier, that Putin's playing on people's fears.--Percy

Russia and Ukraine prepare for in-person talks after Zelenskyy says he’s ready to discuss neutral status, reports a CNN headline. On Sunday Zelenskyy said he was ready to discuss neutral status as part of a Russian peace agreement. He also complained about the time it is taking NATO to deliver fighter jets, saying it has been nearly a month so far since they began working out how to do it.CNN also reports that Russia is trying to take more key roads and settlements that lead into Kyiv while also withdrawing from some towns, such as Slavutych, the town where Chernobyl employees live and taken just the previous day. Russian forces continue to rain missiles and aviation strikes on military targets. There doesn't appear to have been any significant change in the deployment of Russian forces.--Percy

You're not taking the discussion seriously. Have fun making jokes at the expense of the Russian military, but it's discourteous to make jokes and disparagements the sole content of a reply to someone who worked hard trying to add something to the discussion by investing an hour of his time researching troop numbers and conscript numbers for Russia and for western powers.If your position is that the Russian military are bumblers then make your case. You could start by explaining the apparent contradiction that they're incompetent yet can reduce cities to rubble and move around pretty much at will inside an invaded country. They've laid siege to all the major cities and many minor ones.It is truly embarrassing that a Russian convoy was bottled up outside of Kyiv, but during any war there will always be the invariable snafus. Pointing at the screwups and thinking it defines the Russian military is a serious mistake. It is a deadly and effective fighting force. Some argue that it isn't as deadly or effective as it could be, but that doesn't mean it isn't at all deadly or effective, that it is a joke.These kinds of attitudes are a dangerous threat to our support for Ukraine. If too many Americans come to believe that the Russian military is a joke that the Ukraine can handle without assistance, then it could become politically very difficult to provide support to Ukraine. Jokes are fine, they even often contain an element of truth or a key insight, but don't let them define your world or be the only way you inform yourself about the topic.--Percy

Just because a big monster goes around beating up on little girls, stomping on their sand castles, does not mean the monster isn't stupid, incompetent or drunk.If you have not seen the incompetence of the russian you aren't looking. Destructive power is not the measure. Mission success is. Here, the russian miserably fails.

You never responded to Message 489.You have a comic book view of the Russian military.--Percy

And you have a blind man's vision of the whole scenario.