"Retired Russian Colonel suprising analysis" Topic

This retired Russian Colonel despite some interuptions telling it like it is. Suprising for the Putin cheerleaders we usually hear from

YouTube link

That was beautiful (the dumb Russian chick aside)

That woman kept interrupting with statements and questions that were unrelated to what he was saying or going off in a different direction from what he was trying to say.

The only surprising thing about this was he was allowed to say it. They must be starting to soften the public opinion to swallow a defeat.

> They must be starting to soften the public opinion to swallow a defeat.

This, absolutely this.

They still need a lot of scapegoats.

And of course they will claim 'Nazism' in Ukraine already is defeated, since they 'defeated' the Azov Regiment in Mariupol.
Poor guys, great fighter.
Not like that russian rabble soldateska.

The russians are denaturing their 'elite' paratrooper with mercenaries!
Come on, couldn't have been too 'elite'.

Damn it I wanted to hear the Russian colonel and his analysis. It seems Russia suffers from the same problem the West does, dingbat media darlings conducting interviews on subjects they know nothing about…

"They still need a lot of scapegoats."

Who will they put on the list?

Colonel is good. He said everything right and to the point. However, the TV presenter at the end of the video also said everything correctly. Russia no longer has any other choice.
After the victory, Putin's regime will need to be removed.

And this colonel speaks for a long time and you can easily find his speeches and articles (alas – mostly in Russian).

So no one in Russia closes their mouth.
There are also retired General Ivashov, Colonel Kvachkov, Colonel FSB Girkin (Strelkov, who was the first Minister of Defense of the DPR and fought against Ukrainian troops in 2014) who just as directly, publicly and without embellishment point to the mistakes and miscalculations of the Russian command. These are the most famous specialists at the moment. Many of these people are invited to television or other media, where they can publicly express their point of view without any problems.
Your idea of ​​the difficulty of expressing one's thoughts in Russia is greatly distorted. No one is persecuted for personal opinion in Russia. Only for calls for a change of power in an unconstitutional way.

link

link

link

link

The video appears to have been hijacked. It lasts about 2 seconds and then there is a still ad for something. Then it's over….

Odd.
The OP link is only 27 seconds long when I get to YouTube and there is c 3 secs of interview.
Am I doing something wrong or has someone decided it was unacceptable?

[Sorry PzGeneral – I was scribbling while you posted. Same thing]

Definitely been cut to only 27 secs – Youtube hacked?

Interesting, thank you.

Infowars in action!

It strikes me he's not necessarily against the war but how it's being waged and not being won fast enough.

He's right about the potential for Ukrainian conscription in terms of numbers. More difficult to determine the depth of resilience in the face of combat. He mentions the need for them to be trained.

Just as the 'loss of Ukrainian unit morale' is Russian propaganda so is the 'die to a man' Ukrainian Government version. They made it illegal for military age men to leave Ukraine very early on. Not something you need to do if you know everyone is literally dying to fight.

I'd love to hear what he thinks has been going on in the Russian armed forces in this conflict and why they are using so few of their resources (I don't mean NBC assets).

The comment on not taking information tranquilisers was funny and probably a timely reminder for everyone involved. Never believe your own propaganda.

"However, the TV presenter at the end of the video also said everything correctly. Russia no longer has any other choice."

It's too bad that people believe that. There are other choices even if they aren't seen as palatable. More likely that statement is more a statement on the failure of imagination or moral courage or both to accept the unpalatable. Sometimes defeat leads to a better long term outcome – arguably true for Germany and Japan in WWII.

Perhaps it's time for Russia to seriously consider Gogol's question…

"Rus, whither are you speeding to? Answer me. No answer."

Source: link

Certainly Russian mobilization or use of nuclear weapons have considerable risk to both Putin's regime and the war spreading into Russia proper.

It must be kept in mind that despite Russia stating that this is "existential to Russia" for the Ukraine the are facing a tangible and imminent existential threat. This explains the asymmetry in mobilization – in fact, this is how small nations win wars against large nations (e.g., Vietnam vs USA).

Some in Russians Military leadership have seen what damage Putin has done to the Russian military, people and standing in the world. This it appears is coming back to haunt Putin little by little. As long as the Russia military and people allow this tragedy/war crimes to continue. Russia will remain a pariah to the free world.

Destroying Russia's military to the point of it being unable to do such attacks, etc., … Should be the USA's/NATO's, etc., priority. Making the free world safe from such a threat.

Frankly as many of us know. Russia has been a threat to the West since the end of WWII. As we see it continues to be a threat. And needs to be "defanged". By the Ukrainians with NATO, etc. support.

Certainly Russian mobilization or use of nuclear weapons have considerable risk to both Putin's regime and the war spreading into Russia proper.

You'd hope both sides would dig out those old files tucked away from the 1980s that said 'Don't do this- or else' and that some people remember what MAD stands for.

"Your idea of ​​the difficulty of expressing one's thoughts in Russia is greatly distorted. No one is persecuted for personal opinion in Russia. Only for calls for a change of power in an unconstitutional way."

I think Anna Politkovskaya relatives would disagree with you.
L

"Destroying Russia's military to the point of it being unable to do such attacks, etc., … Should be the USA's/NATO's, etc., priority. Making the free world safe from such a threat."

Legion 4, I don't really agree, because…

1. Russia has immense energy and other natural resources which would allow it to rebuild its military. So such a solution would be temporary.

2. Russia has nuclear weapons – a lot of them. How would one "keep Russia down" before Russia resorted to using those weapons.

3. I sounds very much like the "de-militarization" plan for Ukraine articulated in various places (e.g., a periodic "winnowing") which, at least to me, is morally repugnant.

It's unlikely Russia will completely defeat Ukraine as long as Ukraine is backed by the Western military industrial complex to some degree. It's impossible that Ukraine will completely defeat Russia as that would mean invading Russia. So it will come down to some kind of negotiation after everyone is tired with the bloodletting and destruction. The question is how to get to that point with less bloodletting and destruction.

I didn't always have this view but I've come to a view that no country has any business for any reason to poke their nose into another country's affairs. I know horrible things can happen in some countries but foreign involvement more often than not makes things worse. Bit by bit people are becoming wary of "forever wars".

I don't really agree, because…

Again I said destroy … weaken or attrite would have been a better choice of words. I.e. so they won't have the ability to invade their neighbors again. Then become a productive member of the world … That may be a bit of wishful thinking …

@Legion 4,

No worries. I'm just being a wee bit difficult, but only a wee bit. :)

It seems to me that one way or another we will end up with:

1) A bitter, angry Ukrainian people distrustful and resentful of Russia – whether they are independent of Russia or not;
2) A bitter, angry Russian distrustful and resentful of the West; and
3) A West distrustful and suspicious of Russia – maybe bitter and angry depending on the blowback from sanctions.

Not a good place, but one from which we will have to build some kind of political structure which will enables us to co-exist somewhat peacefully.

And that may be a bit of wishful thinking too but I do think we'll get there. It's only a question of the pathway.

"We cannot negotiate with people who say what's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable."

Ha, ha, they already had a serious word with him:

Former Russian colonel contradicts earlier statements criticizing Russia's military operations in Ukraine

Ha, ha, they already had a serious word with him.

In the news today:
Former Russian colonel contradicts earlier statements criticizing Russia's military operations in Ukraine

The best possible outcome I hope happens.

1. Russia removes Putin from power.

2. New Russian government apologizes to Ukraine and blames everything on Putin. Offers to pay reparations to Ukraine for damage inflicted (Oligarchs can part with their billions to pay for this fiasco, they can earn the money back later…)

3. A full and comprehensive prisoner exchange to include civilians forcefully deported.

4. Russia removes its military from all of Ukraine to include the Crimea.

5. Russia goes on a PR campaign to get back into the good graces of the rest of the world, begs forgiveness and normal relations resume.

I'd add a couple of points

2a. The new government institutes proper media freedom and a truly independent judiciary.

6. "The West" start preemptively turning the screws on dictatorial regimes that promote false narratives to their people (see 2a) to underpin neo-Imperialist dreams/delusions. We now know it ends badly…

@Dragon Gunner,

Unfortunately there's a good chance that a regime that replaces Putin would be more radical. Such was the case in 1870 when a nationalist, republican government replaced Napoleon III's regime. I don't see any support base in Russia for a new regime that would seek to end the war. More likely that regime would be seen as defeatist and consequently it would be unstable. Would one want an unstable, major nuclear power?

I do think that Putin is pragmatic and I suspect he knows the gamble has been lost. Ultimately, I don't think his problem is ending the war in a way that can be sold to enough Russian as a "victory" so that he maintains power. His bigger problem is that the lost gamble destroys his longer strategic plan. More on that in a separate post.

@Legion 4, Finland joining NATO does far more to prevent a Russian invasion of its western neighbours than weakening the current, active Russian land forces. Again, more on that in a separate post.

No worries. I'm just being a wee bit difficult, but only a wee bit. :)

It seems to me that one way or another we will end up with:

1) A bitter, angry Ukrainian people distrustful and resentful of Russia – whether they are independent of Russia or not;
2) A bitter, angry Russian distrustful and resentful of the West; and
3) A West distrustful and suspicious of Russia – maybe bitter and angry depending on the blowback from sanctions.

Those all sound as possible outcomes. No matter what it will be a long time before the West will see normalized relations with Russia.

Finland joining NATO does far more to prevent a Russian invasion of its western neighbours than weakening the current, active Russian land forces.

But a weakened Russian military still goes a long way to show that want Putin did was wrong. And the Russians must consider their failures. And remain a pariah to the West and much of the world.

"But a weakened Russian military still goes a long way to show that want Putin did was wrong. And the Russians must consider their failures. And remain a pariah to the West and much of the world."

Agree…and funnily enough in the long term that might not be something that makes our western military industrial complex happy. A big, scary Russian military is good for their business, but there's still China. ;)