And as long as the Russians can pull out the numbers, it will be difficult for the UKR.Svatove/Kreminna is the axis that should see the next Ukrainian success. But obviously it is much more difficult to break through against massive numbers during the winter.
And as long as the Russians can pull out the numbers, it will be difficult for the UKR.
People talk about untrained troops etc but literally that's how they won against a much more modern and trained troops anyway in WWII? I mean it can still be done now and they are doing alright in that sense right now. The UKR troops performed against all odds but hardly a modern army themselves with most of their professional soldiers are long gone.
I think you’re viewing this war incorrectly. The Ukrainians have the advantage of interior lines and the knowledge that they can pick and choose the area and time of any offensive they need to fight. The Russians began this war by invading Ukraine and have to win it by conquering Ukraine. They have extended lines and political pressure on them to continue their stalled advances at whatever cost.The way I see is all Russians have to do is keep the defensive line on those territories and they can do it for very long. It will be on the UKR to do offensive.
Even if they are, Russian military training, quite frankly, sucks. Even if they are getting trained, it will be to a level that is slightly above shitty. The “best units” in the Russian Army proved how poorly trained they were in the opening stages of the war.That is assuming that Russians are not getting trained right now. All the evidence are pointing that they sent tons of untrained troops to plug and gain some (minimal) territories which they achieved while training some reserve to a good level to do another major offensive. All these were being done while halting a major UKR counter offensive in the north. And they will pull out more numbers soon.
Weekly missile attacks are not going to break Ukraine’s resolve to defend their homeland in the same way that the Blitz didn’t break Britain.Then there are weekly missiles attack which they are getting more creative with the missiles which were supposed to be out of stock months ago or something like that.
So their large number didn't play a part?Largely thanks to millions of tonnes of Western supplies. Allies win wars.
Yep, Russia hasn't won a major war in the last 150 years, except WW2, and that was a bloodbath, only enabled by US industry support.Largely thanks to millions of tonnes of Western supplies. Allies win wars.
That is literally not what happened. The Soviet Union held an absurd material advantage over the Germans by 1943 due to their own industrial might and due to Lend-Lease.People talk about untrained troops etc but literally that's how they won against a much more modern and trained troops anyway in WWII?
Interesting.That is literally not what happened. The Soviet Union held an absurd material advantage over the Germans due to their own industrial might and due to Lend-Lease after 1943.
Besides that, the elastic defense / defense in depth that Ukraine is now using was what broke the back of the Wehrmacht in Barbarossa.
When I say you go over the top for no reason, you need to look no further than “getting trained to a good level” with all the officers dead or in Ukraine, you’re deluded.The way I see is all Russians have to do is keep the defensive line on those territories and they can do it for very long. It will be on the UKR to do offensive.
That is assuming that Russians are not getting trained right now. All the evidence are pointing that they sent tons of untrained troops to plug and gain some (minimal) territories which they achieved while training some reserve to a good level to do another major offensive. All these were being done while halting a major UKR counter offensive in the north. And they will pull out more numbers soon.
Then there are weekly missiles attack which they are getting more creative with the missiles which were supposed to be out of stock months ago or something like that.
Relatively, obviously.When I say you go over the top for no reason, you need to look no further than “getting trained to a good level” with all the officers dead or in Ukraine, you’re deluded.
Of course, if you write it that way, the UKR have all the advantages.I think you’re viewing this war incorrectly. The Ukrainians have the advantage of interior lines and the knowledge that they can pick and choose the area and time of any offensive they need to fight. The Russians began this war by invading Ukraine and have to win it by conquering Ukraine. They have extended lines and political pressure on them to continue their stalled advances at whatever cost.
Even if they are, Russian military training, quite frankly, sucks. Even if they are getting trained, it will be to a level that is slightly above shitty. The “best units” in the Russian Army proved how poorly trained they were in the opening stages of the war.
In the meantime, Ukrainian forces were prior to the war, and are currently, being trained NATO.
Weekly missile attacks are not going to break Ukraine’s resolve to defend their homeland in the same way that the Blitz didn’t break Britain.
So their large number didn't play a part?
Even half a year of standard Russian training is a joke as they don’t tend to do anything useful bar some housekeeping jobs apart from firing one or two magazines worth of ammunition during the whole training. In these conditions with most of the working equipment and professional soldiers in Ukraine, it will be much worse, better than nothing but only just given the amount of corruption and incompetence within their ranks. Not to mention that during their training most days they’ll be getting fecked up with cheap vodka, so by the time they arrive some will barely function physically from all the drinking and drugs.Relatively, obviously.
Getting trained for two months would be better than two weeks, no?
Some of the movements and operations exactly replicate what has happened 80 years before in the same places.Interesting.
Okay. Let me make this a bit clear again.Of course it did, the entire country was mobilised to fight for their very existence, which is a far cry from whatever kind of war they are currently engaging. General mobilisation might just be the end of Putin, although he appears to be setting the stage putting very visible AA units around Moscow. They likely still wouldn't have prevailed without the lend lease. Based on all the analysis I've heard, he might be able to somehow convince another 500k men to go fight for him, but effectively equipping and supplying them is a whole other matter.
It does not matter as I have replied to others here.Even half a year of standard Russian training is a joke as they don’t tend to do anything useful bar some housekeeping jobs apart from firing one or two magazines worth of ammunition during the whole training. In these conditions with most of the working equipment and professional soldiers in Ukraine, it will be much worse, better than nothing but only just given the amount of corruption and incompetence within their ranks. Not to mention that during their training most days they’ll be getting fecked up with cheap vodka, so by the time they arrive some will barely function physically from all the drinking and drugs.
And follow it up with suggesing bombing urban areas as retribution. There is no bombing urban areas without civilian casualties, if you drop bombs into cities there will be civilian casualties.
If Ukraine started doing what you suggest they would become exatly what they are described as in Russian propaganda. They need to be better then that or the support in the west will go away very quickly, no country wants their weapons used to kill civilians.
Who told you exactly that the Russian have lost far more? All the western intelligence recently hinted that the causalities are very much comparable while withholding the real causalities of the UKR for obvious reasons. Even if the Russians are losing twice as much as the UKR, look at their population.
And the Russians may have limited capacity to replenish troops and weapons but they are using tons of missiles which were produced very lately, plugging holes in their frontline while gaining lands lately. Now, the UKR are preparing to resist the Russians offensive while not being able to make their own to regain some territories.
The initiatives are very much coming from the Russians. That's after people here talked about how they would be on the backfoot for months. The reality here is that the Russians adapted and seemed to be dedicating the momentum here.
The UKR does NOT have limitless resources from the west. I am not sure how people are not taking consideration of the fatigue that the UKR are having or will have very soon.
I don't think I am the one who is consuming anyone's propaganda too much here. Not to mentioned how I pointed out the Bekhmut was very important for both sides weeks ago while everyone was saying it was useless. Well, it was so useless that there were reports of UKR losing triple digits of men daily defending it because according to some western intelligence that if the UKR loses it, it will be harder for them to defend the cities around behind that line. And the Russians are gaining some foothold there little by little with their army of convicts.
None of the (respectable) report says exactly that. I am sure the reports you were looking at showed that the Russians KIA are now over 100k. The respected ( I hope) Western intelligent agencies reports didn't say anything close to it. Even if you take the figure of 180,000 and 1: 3 ratio is right, their KIA would be far below what we read online.Practically all reports say so. We are almost one year after the invasion and Russia controls less territory than after the first week of the invasion. Winter stopped all warfronts, even Bahkmut were Wagner has been months throwing everything they have and haven't been able to secure it. It's bad that Ukraine is having 100 a day losses, but Russia's apparently are 700-800 a day right now.
Initiative seems to have varied during the conflict, but to date none of the RA offensives have resulted in a significant breakthrough since the beggining of the war (maybe Severodonetsk/Lyschansk?). On the contrary, Ukraine actions so far have been more indirect (Kharkiv, Lyman, Izyum, Kherson) and more effective. By the way, the only big Ukranian city that Russia captured and retained during the conflict is Mariupol, which was esentially indefensible. Kiev, Kharkiv, Odesa, Zaporzhizhia and Kherson are in Ukraine's hands.
Okay, well, I’m not making it up. That’s the reality of the situation.Of course, if you write it that way, the UKR have all the advantages.
We already have seen them. Twice.How long do you think we will have to wait to see all those advantages will be used against the Russians in the battle field?
The bold part is what I am concerned because the West probably think that the situation was getting worse for the UKR. We hope it is not too late.
I am not saying the UKR are doing a bad job, the opposite in fact but I am not getting where some people are getting all the Russians are losing and going to lose soon etc stuff. I am asking and thinking if I am the only one who does not see it that way.
None of the (respectable) report says exactly that. I am sure the reports you were looking at showed that the Russians KIA are now over 100k. The respected ( I hope) Western intelligent agencies reports didn't say anything close to it. Even if you take the figure of 180,000 and 1: 3 ratio is right, their KIA would be far below what we read online.
And we do NOT actually know how much UKR lost so far. If we don't then, how can we say confidently that the Russians are losing much more than the UKR? I can believe the equipment loss because the Russians simply had more. But it would be really difficult to estimate about the troop losses.
RA offensives did not have a significant breakthrough since the beginning? I mean they occupied about 15% of the UKR land right now. Nevermind about theirs. Let's worry about the UKR's. Right now, we see nothing of it while having in extremely difficult situation of defending the Bahkmut area.
I did not mean that you made it up. Just need to feel something positive about the current situation.Okay, well, I’m not making it up. That’s the reality of the situation.
We already have seen them. Twice.
1) the defeat of the initial invasion
2) the counter-attack that retook half of Russia’s gains
You had to read a few pages back. There were reports from either Norway or Demark and the U.S general Milley also said it a few times in the last few weeks. The EU woman quoted him saying that the UKR had about 100k causality about a month or so ago only to retract it because the UKR protested about it being their internal affair or something.Then bring one of the respectable reports that you quote so we can decide, since I'm not sure you are qualified to decide which ones are respectable and which aren't. But I'm curious, if the RA started an invasion with 200,000 forces one year ago, and six months ago asked for a reinforcement of 300,000 more to control a smaller area than the one they invaded initially, how much do you think their casualties were at that point? Do you think they have increased or decreased since then?
We can say confidently that the RA has lost more military than Ukraine because of military experts and military history that says that invaders do tend to have a higher casualties ratio than defenders, and because of the proxy that visibily destroyed military vehicles provide, and because of the amount of visual confirmation provided by both sides.
Russia ocuppied about 10% of Ukraine's territory 8 years before the war. Since March 1st their major offensives have been Kiev (failed), Kharkiv (failed), Mariupol (succeeded at enormous cost), Odesa (siege failed), Kherson (had to abandon it) and parts of Lugansk (most of which they controlled way before).
Milley talked about 100k casualties (meaning killed and wounded together), von der Leyen misquoted him by talking about 100k dead. That's why she retracted that statement.You had to read a few pages back. There were reports from either Norway or Demark and the U.S general Milley also said it a few times in the last few weeks. The EU woman quoted him saying the the UKR had about 100k causality about a month or so ago only to retract because the UKR protested about it being their internal affair or something.
We all would agree that the western aid are not as fast as it should. I will raise the point again that the war fatigue of the UKR forces will be real and there would be not much point training them and giving them modern weapons at that point. I am hoping it is not too late at this point.I agree with you. We don't really know what exactly is the condition of either the Russian or the Ukrainian forces. I am also worried about the constant missile attacks by the Russians. For almost a full year now, the Russians have been bombarding Ukraine with artillery and missiles and taking out important infrastructure like the electricity grid. This makes it harder for Ukrainians to function. The West should rush in more help, especially air defenses and long-range missiles to help Ukraine target the Russian military units that are causing them damage. The Ukrainians should be able to hit inside Russia, not to kill civilians, but to destroy the missile bases, the bombers etc. They have already done this on a very limited scale, but long-range missiles will probably help them a lot.
The point was that Milley said something like both losses were comparable which I quoted because I would think he would know a bit better than us. I doubt that both losses are really close myself but it is not as bad as the 100K Russian KIA information though.Milley talked about 100k casualties (meaning killed and wounded together), von der Leyen misquoted him by talking about 100k dead. That's why she retracted that statement.
You had to read a few pages back. There were reports from either Norway or Demark and the U.S general Milley also said it a few times in the last few weeks. The EU woman quoted him saying that the UKR had about 100k causality about a month or so ago only to retract it because the UKR protested about it being their internal affair or something.
If you are not sure that I am qualified to decide which ones are respectable, then what make you think what you read are more respectable? I am sure those military experts say those and the UKR did some offensives as well. Don't forget that. You asked the question about the causality. I think it makes more sense that I ask you that question. If you believe what you see online from some of those sources, the Russians probably don't even have enough troop to defend Moscow. 100k KIA and three time of that would give 400k causality altogether already. I mean come on.
Let's not pretend that the Russians and the whole world think that the UKR will be easy. There were only about 200k Russian troops for that initial offensive which is hardly enough for any type of invasion for the size of UKR. Since then and after a few defeats, the Russians adapted and stabilized their line which is a point that people seem to forget and keep on going about how they were defeated in the past. The situation now is a lot different for better or worse.
https://www.businessinsider.com/mil...well-over-100000-casualties-in-ukraine-2023-1Since you continue to return to the numbers discussion by bringing up numbers that I haven't mentioned, and refuse to bring the respectable reports (save for the debunked Von Der Leyen quote) and/or to answer my question about casualties, I'll assume you have no relevant data on the matter.
My impression is that Ukraine has been losing forces at a 100-150 a day average, and the RA at 250-300 a day (which has probably been increasing since Bahkmut). Considering that the war is now about 330 days long and the 2 or 3 to 1 WIA ratio, it's not far from what we've seen reported.
Okay. Let me make this a bit clear again.
The Russians sent untrained troops and convicts etc.
But were they able to achieve what they wanted to there? And, there was no sign of slowing down of whatever they are doing. So what are we actually feeling good about it, especially, the UKR themselves are hardly a modern army and have a much more inferior population while their lands are getting destroyed right now? It is what I am wondering myself.
Oh I was talking about ill equipped and trained troops in this war will still make a difference as Putin will keep throwing the number. As for Bakhmut, it will probably fall soon in the current situation.Sorry, you may be trying to be clear but you've lost me. If you talking about Bakhmut then no, they've not even come close to what they wanted to achieve. If WW2, then just stop comparing this whole thing to WW2, its not remotely a comparable situation.
Ahhh gotcha. Misread your comment. Apologies!I did not mean that you made it up. Just need to feel something positive about the current situation.
What you wrote made much more sense and something positive to look forward instead of reading how the Russian will run out of their resource next week for months.
You don't, unless of course you're fighting an insurgency in a city, which isn't on the table given that we are talking about inside Russia.
Yes they stablized their line but already lost a lot of ground in Kherson and before that in Harkiv region. Also they're pushing in Bakhmut but cant get through. Not to mention, as it was already mentioned, only big city they occupied is Mariupol.Let's not pretend that the Russians and the whole world didn't think that the UKR would be easy. There were only about 200k Russian troops for that initial offensive which is hardly enough for any type of invasion for the size of UKR. Since then and after a few defeats, the Russians adapted and stabilized their line which is a point that people seem to forget and keep on going about how they were defeated in the past. The situation now is a lot different for better or worse.
And that is the biggest problem for the Putin regime. The average Russian conscript is not going to have the same level of motivation no matter how much they brainwash them. Fighting to defend your homeland is not the same as fighting in a foreign country where the question "What am I doing here?" is more difficult to answer.Of course it did, the entire country was mobilised to fight for their very existence, which is a far cry from whatever kind of war they are currently engaging. General mobilisation might just be the end of Putin, although he appears to be setting the stage putting very visible AA units around Moscow... They likely still wouldn't have prevailed without the lend lease. Based on all the analysis I've heard, he might be able to somehow convince another 500k men to go fight for him, but effectively equipping and supplying them is a whole other matter.
Oh I was talking about ill equipped and trained troops in this war will still make a difference as Putin will keep throwing the number. As for Bakhmut, it will probably fall soon in the current situation.
" The belief in Washington is that Ukraine has spent considerable resources defending the city of Bakhmut but that there is a high possibility that the Russians will eventually push the Ukrainians out of that town, the official said." - Reuters.
“The Ukrainians are currently suffering huge losses near Bakhmut. The BND briefing informs about “three-digit numbers of casualties per day,” the report said.
According to German intelligence assessments, the entire line of Ukrainian defense would be affected if Bakhmut collapsed. The report further claimed that Russia is currently throwing soldiers like cannonballs because it is not concerned about its losses there.
British intelligence has already indicated that one of Ukraine’s two main supply lines to Bakhmut has been exposed to heavy artillery bombardment. " - eurasiantimes.
Germany has now received Poland’s official request to re-export Leopard tanks to Ukraine, Reuters reports Polish defence minister Mariusz Blaszczak said.
Scholz is on the clock now. I have no doubt that the Germans will end up authorizing other countries the re-export. Question is how long it will take to get that decision.Official request by Poland.
Oh I was talking about ill equipped and trained troops in this war will still make a difference as Putin will keep throwing the number. As for Bakhmut, it will probably fall soon in the current situation.
" The belief in Washington is that Ukraine has spent considerable resources defending the city of Bakhmut but that there is a high possibility that the Russians will eventually push the Ukrainians out of that town, the official said." - Reuters.
“The Ukrainians are currently suffering huge losses near Bakhmut. The BND briefing informs about “three-digit numbers of casualties per day,” the report said.
According to German intelligence assessments, the entire line of Ukrainian defense would be affected if Bakhmut collapsed. The report further claimed that Russia is currently throwing soldiers like cannonballs because it is not concerned about its losses there.
British intelligence has already indicated that one of Ukraine’s two main supply lines to Bakhmut has been exposed to heavy artillery bombardment. " - eurasiantimes.
