UKRAINE-KRIEG: "Macht aus militärischer Sicht wenig Sinn für Russland diesen Konflikt fortzusetzen"

many topics we have to discuss,

milit

ary economist Markus Kolb joined us from Zurich, I greet you cordially, hello Berlin, greetings, let's start for days, so Russia is trying to weave a narrative after Ukraine wants to complete the call dirty bomb or briefly Before that, why did

milit

ary experts doubt this narrative from the beginning? Well, it fits the usual Russian approach: you accuse others of what you are planning, so we just saw the footage. As for what the Russians have improvised, which can really only be described as amateur, it is also very significant that this has been spread through the Russian Foreign Ministry and on all social channels.

This demonstrates not only a certain military desperation. That exists among the Russians because they obviously have something more than this fear campaign that they then try. There is nothing left to drive, but it also shows you that this is the usual preparation for a flag operation, which means that you are trying to visit Ukraine, but now you also have to see that Russia has already received warnings, which is why this morning the example of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of India that if possible nuclear weapons or nucleotides should not be used in this conflict, which is why there are already voices that clearly advise Russia.

Don't do that The US defense also answered questions today and said that we have no indication that Russia has radioactive substances. Radioactive material or weapons that are trying to be used here, so I think it's another propaganda ploy that I'm mainly aiming against. better and less against Ukraine, but I will ask you a thousand times how wrong it was done if these published images actually show a smoke detector from Slovenia. Images from 12 years ago, so if that's true, then it's absolutely amateurish, the Russians want to win parts of a war here, so from the Russian point of view, if you look at it like that, what's behind it?

How can you make it public like this before the world public? Yes. They see it from a Western perspective, from the perspective of an authoritarian regime, it doesn't matter how well the propaganda is done, but that the regime determines the truth and people have to believe it, even if it is amateurish. So there is some cynicism behind this. It doesn't matter if it's the truth or not. It matters that this truth is disseminated by official organizations. They still see a bit of the remnants of old Soviet culture in this thought, the Wiki Silo, to which Putin also belongs, no matter who is in possession of it. the truth, but depends on who dictates how the truth should be interpreted; that is a perspective that we in the West are not used to and we just laugh at it, but of course this campaign is also directed internally, so it was also spread among the population on Russian state television and after 20 other state televisions, are so indoctrinated that they are now probably indifferent to such things and still want to watch an incredible amount of things.

Don't even laugh at that, the situation is of course too serious for that. Let's look at Ukraine, which he says has now stationed or reinforced parts of its army in the north, near Belarus. How do you estimate the probability or danger of a Russian attack? Russian attack, wouldn't it be like that if they were actually attached troops, i.e. Berlus troops would use their local forces to perhaps initiate diversionary maneuvers, so at least that's the Russian imagination? I honestly believe that Lukashenka is the only dictator of Belarus. he is too smart for such actions because if you look at the age and material posture state of the Belarusians then such an attempt would be too suicidal, it would be the fall of his regime but of course the threat still works.

From a military point of view, you can't just ignore it because theoretically it could be possible, so you have to station at least certain defensive troops there and I think that's the idea of ​​the Russians, so to speak, to force Ukraine to join forces in the north and northeast with these forces and then somewhere else on the front that does not necessarily correspond to military reality, those who are declining and increasingly without logistics and without fuel are the Russians, not Ukraine, so I would consider it So. quite improbable maneuvers and in reality simply misleading. Russia specifically warns now about shooting down American satellites or they say we could do it because they provide the Ukrainian military with important data, especially for reconnaissance, and that is the case.

There may be a new area of. ​Conflict outside of this war on Ukrainian territory. I don't believe it. I would like to refer again and again to article 51 of the UN map, which gives all states in the world the right to help a state that is attacked in violation. of international law, like Ukraine, with all kinds of weapons, including weapons, and weapons, of course, also include weapons in the information space. So also the provision of information or tactical information about the development of the battle or about the movement of the enemy. So I would say it is certainly not a justified claim from an international law perspective.

It must be said that Russia is technically capable, so at least they believe that and, according to Western analysts, they did it in 2017 or 18, as far as possible. I remember, with an old Russian satellite. So they did not throw it out of orbit into the sea in a planned way, as is usually done, but rather they shot it down with a laser and with planned shocks, as was understood at the time. rather as provocations, it was probably more of a technological demonstration. However, if the Russians were stupid enough to do that to US satellites, it would most likely provoke a backlash from the US, especially if they were stupid enough to do this. with military reconnaissance satellites, I would say propaganda first, the usual high tones, but if you really do it, you can imagine that it would result in a decisive reaction from the US and I think that is what Russia is doing the least it can be allowed at this time.

At that time, let's take another look at the current events in Ukraine, where can the Russians still make profits from your point of view? And you are a military economist, how many soldiers does Russia still have? Autumn and winter are approaching and there are? obviously major personnel problems, so they cannot register any profits. The only Russian offensive we briefly saw in your photographs took place in recent weeks south and southeast of the town of Bakhmut, but it is not so much about regular Russian troops. They are mainly the Pregorian mercenary army, that is, Wagner's troops that are attacking there, but all the advances that Wagner's troop has made have been intercepted by the Ukrainians since September and that is the only situation on the entire front in which Russia still has some local Initiative On all other fronts, Russia is now on the defensive.

We briefly saw footage from Kaison where the remaining troops still here west of the Snapper are digging in at the moment, meaning they are not taking any active action. but it can't do anything either and right now Ukraine is simply doing what we are doing with the fire. We have seen tanker trains both in Donbass and in the restaurant. They are destroying Russian logistics as they have done everywhere. throughout the course of the war, which means that at the end there will be troops that will basically run out of supplies, out of fuel, and then little by little they will be annihilated or fought.

Nepper or Nibro are pressed when wondering how much they have left. Most Western analysts now assume that the original invasion force that entered in February has been largely put out of action, so if we assume a reasonably realistic number of 60,000 deaths in action, then the calculations can be made about three times for those wounded in action and . Otherwise, logistically it is no longer efficient, soon we will be perhaps 180,000 and that corresponds almost exactly to the entire force that entered in February, which of course also explains why Russia simply has to mobilize. Now one thinks that personal is not the same as personal. , the people who come now have no training or maybe they have been shooting something with the rifle for a day.

They have no equipment or have to purchase it themselves, meaning that the operational value of this replacement force is close to zero. and that gives an idea of ​​what will happen this winter, especially if these troops do not have winter uniforms. From a military point of view, in my opinion, it makes little sense for Russia to even introduce this conflict. But it's not about actors here either. It is absolutely necessary to act rationally and militarily and then they will have to blame themselves for the consequences of this action. I would like to thank the military economist Markus Keup and.

Many greetings to Zurich. Have a nice evening.