7mo ago

Russia lacks 'numbers for strategic breakthrough' in Ukraine: NATO

www.euronews.com Russia lacks 'numbers for strategic breakthrough' in Ukraine: NATO

Moscow says it will keep pushing its offensive in Ukraine, though NATO doubts Russia has the resources to make a significant breakthrough.

Moscow says it will keep pushing its offensive in Ukraine, though NATO doubts Russia has the resources to make a significant breakthrough.

NATO’s top military officer has said Russia’s armed forces are incapable of any major advance.

“The Russians don’t have the numbers necessary to do a strategic breakthrough,” NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe Christopher Cavoli told reporters on Thursday.

“More to the point, they don’t have the skill and the capability to do it; to operate at the scale necessary to exploit any breakthrough to strategic advantage,” the general said.

You're viewing a single thread.

78 comments

What a minute, didn't NATO say that Russia is trying to conquer all of Europe, and attack NATO countries, yet it doesn't have the numbers for a significant breakthrough in Ukraine. Something's fishy going on with this statement.... The psychological operations continue.
- I dont think its unreasonable to assume that the Russian military command genuinely believed the they were a lot stronger than they actually were when this started. Just based on what news I've been following, it seems like its very common for Russian officers to lie to their superiors about how strong their units are for the sake of looking good.
  
  Not a Russia simp, I've been watching this war with some interest, and I've got a friend whose only hobby at this point is following this war.
  If you look at how much Russian military ops have changed across almost every consideration over the course of the war, it's really a stark difference between where they are today and where they were two years ago. It's pretty clear Russia totally bunglefucked the opening maneuvers in the war. They've had to learn a lot of lessons and learn them hard, and they're still learning them, but they are learning. I definitely think that Russia really did expect this was going to be a cakewalk, and that they were going to force Kiev into negotiations or else kill Zelenskyy in the first week. I can't be 100% sure what the Russian military leadership was expecting, but I seriously doubt it was this.
  
  They're learning a lot at the top level but the bottom level are more untrained than they have ever been. most new soldiers are given a week of "training" a rusty old rifle with and handful of ammunition and are sent to the front.
  Their professional army is gone.
  Their tank stocks are severely depleted
  They can't fly their air force anywhere near the front for fear of it being shot down.
  Their losses in the last couple weeks carving about 10 square km of kharkiv have been dizzying. Ukraine was reporting almost 1600 russians removed from the battlefield the other day and that was just for that day
  
  I feel it's been common knowledge since after the first month of the war that Russia has miscalculated significantly. They sent in paratroopers, some of the most time consuming and most expensive soldiers to train, into Kyiv where they were summarily killed or captured with no support. Other units ran out of ammo and fuel, with soldiers indicating they weren't expecting to invade.
  Every day this war lasts is a spit in the face to Putin and his shitty planning.
  
  My buddy is on the side of the Russians in all this (we've agreed to disagree) and even he admits that the Hostomel airport wasn't anything else but a disaster. But it did give us one of the funniest moments in the whole war (so far), when a war journalist approached a Russian soldier to ask when he thought the Russians would be arriving.
  
  Just curious, what the heck does your good friend say to justify the Russian invasion? (Edit: apparent stroke when I first wrote this)
  
  So, he feels that the Nazi gangs in East Ukraine were engaging in ethnic cleansing against Russian speakers / Russian nationals that was more or less state sanctioned by the state showing they weren't interested in doing anything about it. He fully believes Russia's stated purpose in all this is to seize control of East Ukraine in order to stop the Nazis.
  Imo, there's clear enough evidence that there's a Nazi problem in Ukraine. What isn't clear to me is why that's a reason for Russia to expand its territory (spoiler alert: it's an excuse, obviously. Russia also has a Nazi problem, like a lot of other countries. The northern hemisphere is working through some shit ATM.)
  
  Russian officer: See that tank we have 15 more in storage.
  Russian general: can I see them?
  RO: ah well you see there are logistical concerns and we have to make an appointment with the guy.....
  
  I dont think its unreasonable to assume that the Russian military command genuinely believed the they were a lot stronger than they actually were when this started. Just based on what news I’ve been following, it seems like its very common for Russian officers to lie to their superiors about how strong their units are for the sake of looking good.
  Russia isn't part of NATO. Why is NATO contradicting itself with a narrative that Putin is out to conquer Europe, bring back the USSR, and claim here, it is too weak to do so on this front?
  
  Last time I checked, Ukraine was in fact part of Europe. It’s a bit strange, I know. So with that, maybe attacking Ukraine (again, part of Europe) is attacking Europe. Oh, and that answer should answer your whole “and is trying to bring back the USSR” piece of your question. If you’re gonna simp for Putin at least just own up to an unproved attack and a land grab, no need to dance around like it makes you morally superior.
  
  Paying attention to the quote I have of your statement
  I dont think its unreasonable to assume that the Russian military command genuinely believed the they were a lot stronger than they actually were when this started. Just based on what news I’ve been following, it seems like its very common for Russian officers to lie to their superiors about how strong their units are for the sake of looking good.
  
  Bad news, I’m not the person you’re quoting. I’m assuming your native tongue is Russian. Because you’re either very pro-Russia, or your tongue is at least in Putin’s asshole.
  
  Intelligence about state capabilities come, first and foremost, from the state itself.
  What are you confused about here? That foreign intelligence services believed Russian assessments of its own capabilities?
  Yes, the Russian grossly overestimated their capabilities. Yes, many foreign analysts agreed that the Russian military was powerful.
  This is ended up being less the case. But that doesn’t mean the Russian military isn’t dangerous or is completely incompetent and incapable of change.
  What’s your point?
  
  Probably better not to waste your time "debating" them, their goal is only to spread misinformation, and they won't argue in good faith.
  Better to just tag them as "shill," downvote, and move on.
  
  I like to provide links that prove when people are spouting bullshit so anyone who is less informed that stumbles upon the argument can see how blatantly wrong they are. I notice this guy got awful quiet once I proved Russian state media says insane threatening shit on the regular.
  
  I'm sure that's helpful. It's interesting to think that while the Kremlin's disinformation campaigns do trick a lot of people, they also end up educating a lot of people.
  
  I respectfully disagree.
  I take part in conversations not for their benefit, necessarily, but observers’ benefit. And one of the most effective ways of fighting propaganda is to shine a light on it.
  If you just delete every dissenting worldview without engaging, then it runs the risk of making the other positions more legitimate to others watching but not engaging, or gives fodder to the ideas that “we” in the more open parts of the world are just as bad as authoritarians at silencing dissent, which isn’t usually true.
  I’d agree if the other poster was only spamming ad hom attacks all over, but there’s enough logic laced in there that I find it’s worth discussing and trying to understand, if only to better understand where Russian disinformation is.
  
  Fair enough, well said.
  
  It’s possible to have aspirations beyond what your current capabilities are. Look at Benito Mussolini’s entire military history. Russian state media regularly makes claims that they will reconquer the Baltics and Poland. They even said they would nuke the North Sea to destroy Britain with a tidal wave. Are we supposed to just ignore what they say?
  
  It’s possible to have aspirations beyond what your current capabilities are. Look at Benito Mussolini’s entire military history. Russian state media regularly makes claims that they will reconquer the Baltics and Poland. They even said they would nuke the North Sea to destroy Britain with a tidal wave. Are we supposed to just ignore what they say?
  I am going to make a bet you can't back up your statements. NATO is too stupid to figure out the military strength of Russia and takes their word for it, instead?
  
  It’s not hard to find if you take your head out of the sand.
  Here’s one
  Here’s the nuclear tsunami threat
  Julia Davis is a good follow. She highlights the crazy shit that gets said on Russian state media.
  
  Because Russia has been gradually conquering territory, not all at once. They create puppet states and take over land, then regroup and rebuild before attacking again. There's a clear pattern of this with Georgia, Crimea, and now the whole of Ukraine. Each time prior, the international community wagged its finger and slapped sanctions. It's generally accepted now that enough is enough, and it ends here.
  It certainly doesn't help either that Russia has been funding far right parties throughout the West who try to lift sanctions against Russia.
  
  Because Putin trying and failing still results in genocide and millions dead, ya goof. A pyrrhic victory for the people trying to defend their home and defend their neighbors and loved ones is a helluva lot worse than if Russia never fucked with them in the first place.
  
  What their actions and intentions have been, and what they are actually capable of, are two different things. There is nothing contradictory here.
  
  Ah yes, the narrative NATO has been skilfully spreading via... checks notes ... Russian state TV...
  
  geography. The current borders of Russia dont have enough natural barriers to secure from land invasion with their troop level. if they could expand to reach more natural barriers then they can defend the remaining barriers. this strategy hasnt changed in ages. its becoming more obvious that russia cant achieve this with what they currently have on their own. if say north korea and/or china and others pitch in, the math changes.
- Trying to and able to are two different things.
  
  If you don't have the capacity, then you can't. How do you know they are "trying"? NATO said Russia is a threat to NATO and the US says Russia is a threat to national security. This statement seems to indicate that NATO is crossing their own lies. It is a contradiction, one of many coming out of NATO.
  
  It's really not that complicated. Russia today lacks the forces. Russia in two years, after the economy is pushed further into wartime measures and further mobilization of troops, may not.
  I don't recall NATO officials ever saying Russia was going to attack the Baltics tomorrow.
  
  This is exactly what's happened over the last few decades too. They take Georgia, then they wait and resupply. They take Crimea and launch a war in Eastern Ukraine, then wait and resupply. They thought they could take the entirety of Ukraine and repeat the pattern, but they've overplayed their hand.
  
  Russia is a threat to NATO member states, not NATO. NATO is aware of how easily it can stomp the Russian military, and so do all the NATO members.
  What’s worrisome is how close some NATO members are to Russia, a country that has made its willingness to invade other countries based on made up justifications very well known, and actively sows disunity propaganda and actively influences politics on other countries, explicitly as acts of hybrid war (as in, based on state war fighting doctrine).
  It’s also very clearly able to undertake large scale war, which its neighbors don’t necessarily have.
  I don’t know exactly what you’re arguing here… that Russia actually isn’t a threat to NATO? Or are you seeking some kind of “gotcha” moment when people acknowledge that Russia is both dangerous, but not as fierce as analysts initially expected? Maybe you can clarify what you mean by “NATO lies,” for starters?
  
  Russia has said multiple times that they are a threat to NATO. Pretending otherwise is as childish as pretending this isn't a proxy war between NATO and Russia.
  If you're going to defend Russia, at least try not to contradict Russia.
- Clown account.
- Something’s fishy going on with this statement
  It's not difficult to understand. The SACEUR doesn't speak for NATO as an organization and in fact the idea that Christopher Cavoli is "NATO’s top military officer" would come as quite a surprise to his boss Admiral Rob Bauer the Chair of the NATO Military Committee.
  Admiral Bauer, unlike Cavoli, actually does speak for NATO.
  What does Admiral Bauer have to say? His statements are the official ones, not the just opinion of an Officer.
- If they win in Ukraine it will bolster their military strength, war chest, and public support in Russia.
  Then they'll attack their next victims when they've had time to prepare.
- Yikes, just looked at your profile. A supporter of both capitalism and authoritarianism?
  I've never seen anyone so eager to tell the world that they are Neutral Evil.
- I do not see contradiction in those statements. Plus, if they can do 50 miles per year, sooner or later they will conquer Ukraine, then Baltic states, then Moldova and Poland and so on…
  
  Poland is a NATO member, so no, they're not touching Poland. If they do it's WWIII.
  
  So are the Baltic states. So what?
  
  As long as there is no Manchurian president in the US, we have Article 5. If surplus hardware from the 80s and 100 Bradleys have done what they have done imagine what 1000 Bradleys hundreds of we'll supplied and maintained Abrahams, Leos and Challengers can do when supported by the good ATACMS, Tomahawks and of course hundreds of F16s, F22s and F35s. There is no need for nuclear weapons, NATO can curb stomp Russia in traditional warfare. You need one breakthrough and then Prigozhin showed what defenses you can expect once you get past the front. Or Ukraine with their kamikaze Cessnas.
  
  And for all their bravado "Poland is next" (see Medvedev for instance) they shit their pants and were soooo ready to cooperate when a missile fell on Polish soil and killed a farmer. Turned out to be a failed Ukrainian S300, but once Article 5 was even a remote possibility we all saw their real thoughts.
  
  I don't know, I think Poland is in a "I wish a removed would" mood. They could have it handled before the rest of the world even has a chance to respond lmao
  (More seriously though, yeah you're right. I'm mostly joking around)
  
  Didn't they just buy a shitload of HIMARS too?

78 comments