It's been showed below, with posts from October and November. We're well into February and the discussion has moved to neighbour Vuhledar, which also isn't falling.
No, they aren't. If they were performing well the war would probably be over by now. They are also not only failing to gain territory right now, but have been failing to do so for months. In fact, after the first three weeks of the war they only had one net territory gain in already controlled Lugansk (the Popasna/Lyschansk/Severodonetsk area). On the meantime the UA regained the surroundings of Kharkiv, Yzium, Lyman, Kherson and the west bank of the Dnieper river.
No, it isn't, and you would have to bring reliable sources for that to make sense. Ukraine forces are regularly receiving NATO standard training and returning to the battlefront with that expertise (plus weaponry). Russian forces aren't. The key points of your argument of Russian gaining momentum are A) Bahkmut, where the forces are mercenaries that operate on their own or untrained/unequipped prisoners; and B) Numbers, which come from forces recruitment of untrained/unmotivated/undisciplined people who are then trained in the tradition of the Russian army (so very quickly, very poorly, and with corruption disrupting the process) and equipped with whatever is available (WW2 outfits in some reported cases). So no, they aren't about the same.
Now that we're on it, we should talk about your modus operandi of argument building. You're (albeit probably accidently) using one of the trademarks of the deceiver which is to hide the deceiving remark or "alternative fact" in between a group of reasonable, verifiable ones. So then we get statements like "Russian outnumbers Ukraine (truth), Ukraine needs more support (truth), the UA is as poorly equipped and trained as the RA (misleading), the UA is having as many casualties as the RA (deceiving), the war is going to be long (truth), Ukraine's allies must step up if they want to win (truth)". That, plus the constant repetition on those misleading remarks, makes for a very difficult and annoying reading (at least in my case).
On the war, I hope that past behaviour would be a good predictor of future behaviour, that the UA keeps getting the help it needs and keeps conducting secret and succesful operations, that the RA keeps making the mistakes that it had been making not only from the beginning of this invasion but from centuries of wars before, and that the spring will give us more information of what's what as (like most experts predicted) the winter has been mostly a stalemate.
Those posts did not say anything that I predicted the fall of Bekhmut in certain dates. Those posts were stating what was going on there.
The RA troops are doing as well as they can. I don't rate them much. So I did not expect them to capture the whole UA. But compared to what everyone's expectation was of being collapsed in a few weeks back in September, they have been doing pretty well for that expectation (based on a very low standard). They have caused the UA a lot of problems with both their offensive and defensive actions in the last few months. It may mean two things in general for me. One is that in this period, the UA troops are not up to par against poorly trained and equipped RA's troops. The other thing is that the UA's troops are not much better than the RA's troops at this moment due to a lack of necessary equipment. And I wanted to believe that the second was the most logical. It helps my assumption when the UA also kept asking for more and better equipment as their main weaponry is still from the Soviet era (I'm not sure where you got the idea that UA troops come back from training with NATO weaponry
regularly). You kept talking about how bad these RA troops in your posts. But, UA military might disagree with you on that. In a CNN Jan 25, 2023 article, "Wagner Group fighters have become the disposable infantry of the Russian offensive in eastern Ukraine, but a Ukrainian military intelligence document obtained by CNN sets out how effective they have been around the city of Bakhmut – and how difficult they are to fight against."
In November, US General Mark Milley stated that the UA's causalty was similar to the RA's. The 100k-120k estimated casualty figure for both sides (through November) was repeated again in the NYTimes article, which was linked a few posts ago. The Bakhmut defenses cost UA men in three-digit numbers a day, which came from their president awhile ago. I can't give you much more reliable than those. The UA army, just like the RA army, does not have many professional soldiers left, and most are volunteers ("With the exception of a small proportion of rear area troops, the AFU is practically an entirely all-volunteer force. Complaints of lingering Soviet mentality in field grade and higher officers, particularly in rear area units, are widespread.
Kyiv Post reporters visiting front line units have repeatedly heard soldiers and even junior officers argue that senior commanders in the AFU at times lack tactical skill or don’t really understand the situation on the front" - Kyiv post, Dec, 2022). The "West" is training some, and most of them are not back to UA yet. It would be hard for those UA volunteers who don't take a break from defending in the field to be much more highly trained than the RA's newly recruited troops. You can interpret the situation however you want, but I read that Zelensky having to come to the US and the "West" urging more heavy weapons meant everyone was aware of how dire the battlefields could become in the coming weeks or months for UA.
The last paragraph of your post is obviously what almost everyone hopes or talks about regarding this war. It does not mean it will happen or it is happening. You found my posts annoying because my arguments don't support what you want to hear? I can still want UA to win the war while pointing out that RA currently has the upper hand. There is a possibility that I think that UA may not win this war at all (Sorry if you find that annoying as well). When I say that UA is not winning the war, it means that they have 10 to 15% of their land occupied by RA while getting attacked by missiles every month.
But the main point of the post to which you responded was that I cautioned that the RA still may have the manpower and combat capacity to conduct spring offensives, despite almost everyone saying that it was not possible a few months ago, in the hope of making themselves feel better about the situation rather than trying to get more accurate information (alternative facts, you say?). But somehow, you called me out on the Bekhmut. Is it important when it falls or when I predict it will fall? If it fell, don't you think it would be very concerning for the UA because with all the highly trained and equipped troops (according to you), they could not defend against ill-trained and equipped drunkards or criminals? And the UA is dead set on not giving up that city, so you would think they are sending their best troops and equipment (as much as they have) there.
"Bielieskov, the research fellow, said the least-trained Russians go first to force the Ukrainians to open fire and expose the strengths and weaknesses of their defense.
More trained units or mercenaries from the Wagner Group, a private Russian military company
led by a rogue millionaire and known for its brutality, make up the rear guard, Bielieskov said.
Bielieskov said that Ukraine compensates for its lack of heavy equipment with people who are ready to stand to the last."
“
Manpower is less of a Russian problem and, in some ways, more of a Ukrainian problem, not only because the casualties are painful, but they’re often ... Ukraine’s best troops,” said Lawrence Freedman, a professor emeritus of war studies at King’s College London - APnews.