Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

Syrski not popular, it seems. This was the guy credited for the Kharkiv offensive?

 
Rajma said:
We might have US-less NATO in the near future given the political processes in the country, it’s not an unlikely scenario. NATO without the full US backing will be tested for sure by the regime in moscow at some point if Ukraine loses, no doubt about that. Imagine occupied Ukraine /Belarus with Hungary falling completely into the Kremlin hands, you also have allied Serbs. The picture will look very bleak for Europe. Russia is now investing and will be (for foreseeable future) into the military production on war time terms, while Europe refuses to up its game when it comes to military production, it has been almost 2 years of active hot war in Europe and we’re still incapable of delivering more than a few thousand shells per month in total in something as basic as artillery shells.

Click to expand...


Great nation of Serbia completely surrounded by NATO countries will for sure pivot the odds toward Russia conquering the entire Europe. If Montenegro joins too, Europe is in real trouble.
 
Raoul said:
Illustrative of how far the mindset has fallen for that sort of thing to be well received.
Click to expand...
Bear in mind that’s moscow were we supposed to expect some level of decency, and what goes on outside? Be my guest…
 
Some interesting data from Mediazona on their track of Russian casualties they were able to confirm. (doesn't matter whether you think they undercount or inflate the numbers, it's the trend that's interesting).

The grand Ukrainian offensive basically didn't register.

https://en.zona.media/article/2022/05/20/casualties_eng

So, we can completely dispense with the claims that 'Ukraine may not be advancing, but they are significantly weakening Russian forces with artillery, that just seems pretty much made up.

White House / Pentagon has two alternatives, either sue for peace and bring an end to the conflict, or escalate the war effort and face the Russian forces head on.
 
Suedesi said:
So, we can completely dispense with the claims that 'Ukraine may not be advancing, but they are significantly weakening Russian forces with artillery, that just seems pretty much made up.
Click to expand...
I don't think so. The beginning of the Ukrainian offensive roughly started at the same time some Russian offensive actions ended (Bakhmut!), so a similar level of dead Russians over time shouldn't be surprising.

But the nature of the deaths changed. Ukraine attacked lightly manned but heavily mined fortifications, and they did that under heavy Russian artillery fire. So they started hunting Russian artillery. So while I can't prove that I believe just from following the battlefield news that there actually was a shift towards more dead artillerists and less dead infanterists.

Which still is significant because it hurts more to kill some trained artillerist and his howitzer than some mobilised guys holding AKs
 
Suedesi said:
Some interesting data from Mediazona on their track of Russian casualties they were able to confirm. (doesn't matter whether you think they undercount or inflate the numbers, it's the trend that's interesting).

The grand Ukrainian offensive basically didn't register.

https://en.zona.media/article/2022/05/20/casualties_eng

So, we can completely dispense with the claims that 'Ukraine may not be advancing, but they are significantly weakening Russian forces with artillery, that just seems pretty much made up.

White House / Pentagon has two alternatives, either sue for peace and bring an end to the conflict, or escalate the war effort and face the Russian forces head on.
Click to expand...
How did you even arrive at this conclusion? We’re talking static and likely most of the time unmanned batteries in the fields that got picked out in huge numbers as evident by the visual confirmations by OSINT community.

Secondly, why would US need to face the Russian forces head on? They can simply provide much more in terms of jets, tanks, ifvs, long-range capabilities to the Ukrainian armed forces without any necessity to touch the ground, what are you even talking about.

What you don’t get is that you won’t end this conflict by pleading peace? Doesn’t history already proven you wrong on this one several times? If we acted more harshly after initial occupation back in 2014 this wouldn’t have happened but instead politicians looked for peace when Putin aims have never changed and never will unless he’s defeated on the battlefield.
 
Rajma said:
How did you even arrive at this conclusion? We’re talking static and likely most of the time unmanned batteries in the fields that got picked out in huge numbers as evident by the visual confirmations by OSINT community.

Secondly, why would US need to face the Russian forces head on? They can simply provide much more in terms of jets, tanks, ifvs, long-range capabilities to the Ukrainian armed forces without any necessity to touch the ground, what are you even talking about.

What you don’t get is that you won’t end this conflict by pleading peace? Doesn’t history already proven you wrong on this one several times? If we acted more harshly after initial occupation back in 2014 this wouldn’t have happened but instead politicians looked for peace when Putin aims have never changed and never will unless he’s defeated on the battlefield.
Click to expand...
Don't dignify them with that much of a response.
 
nimic said:
I wouldn't worry, eventually they just put you on ignore anyway. It's an inevitable goal for any CE journeyman.

Edit: I should say, they claim to put you on ignore. In reality I'm pretty sure they grit their teeth and read your replies anyway.
Click to expand...
Concerning
 
Why bother with using Ukrainian SF in Sudan? Shouldn't they be used in...you know, Ukraine?

Kyiv Post has exclusively obtained two videos purporting to show Ukrainian special forces operators hunting mercenaries employed by the Kremlin’s Wagner Group in Sudan.

According to a source in Ukraine’s security and defense sector, an operation is currently ongoing to “clean up the Wagner PMC, their local terrorists and the Russian Federation's special services” in the African country.
Click to expand...
https://www.kyivpost.com/post/23722
 
Rajma said:
Special forces not that useful in the trench warfare is my guess.
Click to expand...

I imagine they also want to kill as many Wagner as possible for what they did to Ukraine's civi's. Every dead Wagner would be a morale boost, on top of that imagine being Russian and getting sent away from the front line but still get hunted down by the enemy. It'll do massive damage to morale.
 
RedSky said:
I imagine they also want to kill as many Wagner as possible for what they did to Ukraine's civi's. Every dead Wagner would be a morale boost, on top of that imagine being Russian and getting sent away from the front line but still get hunted down by the enemy. It'll do massive damage to morale.
Click to expand...

I imagine its more than than. If Russian troops are in Sudan, they are operating there for a reason. It will be in Ukraine's (and all our) interests to thwart what they are doing.
 
Simbo said:
I imagine its more than than. If Russian troops are in Sudan, they are operating there for a reason. It will be in Ukraine's (and all our) interests to thwart what they are doing.
Click to expand...

Probably making a lot of money there you'd imagine which would help their war effort. Disrupting it is less likely to earn them money and influence that could help them at home.
 
Suedesi said:
Some interesting data from Mediazona on their track of Russian casualties they were able to confirm. (doesn't matter whether you think they undercount or inflate the numbers, it's the trend that's interesting).
Click to expand...
They certainly undercount as they only count those deaths that they can confirm — as in, they have the literal list of names. Just fyi.
 
Real Name said:
Heard some rumours, seen some articles, sounds like bollocks.
Click to expand...

Yeah of course its bollocks but Russia will always win the (dis)information war.

Nothing has changed with the stance on this among the people that matter. Any peace deals that gives up territory would be catastrophic for Ukraine and Europe, giving up on the people living under occupation and pushing another inevitable crisis a few years down the line. Plus with the enormous gains Ukraine has made this year, there's no real pressure on Ukraine to seek peace, nothing that comes close to the disaster of the alternative.

What gains?
Defeat of black sea fleet and development of own naval warfare capability that is on track to isolate Crimea.
Development of own long range weaponry, converted neptunes, s-200, cheap mass produced long range drones.
All the new tanks and equipment we've not really seen engaged yet.
Replenished air-force imminent, not just the fact its more modern F-16's, Ukraine lost a lot of its air-force in the opening days and is desperate for a replenished fleet that will bring new options.
New arms manufacturing programs agreed with US partners and Rheinmetall on Ukrainian soil.
Massive air defence improvements.
Continued mass destruction of Russian equipment.
Continued deterioration of Russian economy.

Russian agents will of course highlight the low hanging fruit, low territorial changes and play on the hopes some people had of a "great summer offensive", calling it a failure. Meanwhile Ukraine is sat back bludgeoning Russian assaults. The fact Russia hasn't managed to collapse that bulge in the south despite their best efforts is quite telling.

Russia is not some bottomless pit of manpower and equipment, a myth perpetuated from WW2 when they were propped up by the US/UK and fighting for their homeland. They are now fighting for nothing and only have the mighty N. Korea to look to. Might take 5 years, but this only ends when Russia burns out. Ukraine has no choice but to fight on.
 
Last edited:
Simbo said:
Yeah of course its bollocks but Russia will always win the (dis)information war.

Nothing has changed with the stance on this among the people that matter. Any peace deals that gives up territory would be catastrophic for Ukraine and Europe, giving up on the people living under occupation and pushing another inevitable crisis a few years down the line. Plus with the enormous gains Ukraine has made this year, there's no real pressure on Ukraine to seek peace, nothing that comes close to the disaster of the alternative.

What gains?
Defeat of black sea fleet and development of own naval warfare capability that is on track to isolate Crimea.
Development of own long range weaponry, converted neptunes, s-200, cheap mass produced long range drones.
All the new tanks and equipment we've not really seen engaged yet.
Replenished air-force imminent, not just the fact its more modern F-16's, Ukraine lost a lot of its air-force in the opening days and is desperate for a replenished fleet that will bring new options.
New arms manufacturing programs agreed with US partners and Rheinmetall on Ukrainian soil.
Massive air defence improvements.
Continued mass destruction of Russian equipment.
Continued deterioration of Russian economy.

Russian agents will of course highlight the low hanging fruit, low territorial changes and play on the hopes some people had of a "great summer offensive", calling it a failure. Meanwhile Ukraine is sat back bludgeoning Russian assaults. The fact Russia hasn't managed to collapse that bulge in the south despite their best efforts is quite telling.

Russia is not some bottomless pit of manpower and equipment, a myth perpetuated from WW2 when they were propped up by the US/UK and fighting for their homeland. They are now fighting for nothing and only have the mighty N. Korea to look to. Might take 5 years, but this only ends when Russia burns out. Ukraine has no choice but to fight on.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Sounded like crap anyway, especially the part about Israel agression on Gaza being one of the reasons for the war in Ukraine to stop. Something in the sense weapons from USA and European coutnries will not go to Ukraine at the same rate.
 
Real Name said:
Thanks. Sounded like crap anyway, especially the part about Israel agression on Gaza being one of the reasons for the war in Ukraine to stop. Something in the sense weapons from USA and European coutnries will not go to Ukraine at the same rate.
Click to expand...
Well that thought has some merit. If Israel would require weapon deliveries from countries who also support Ukraine there could be a bottleneck. But as of now this scenario doesn't seem to happen. As it looks Israel is calmly making tabula Gaza and that's it, there seems to be no escalation beyond that.

At the beginning it wasn't clear if any Arab state or group would support Hamas in force, by now we know they prefer to just talk, but nobody wants to die for people they usually dislike themselves. Without that Israel doesn't have to fight a true army and everything needed for that can still be send to Ukraine.
 
stefan92 said:
Well that thought has some merit. If Israel would require weapon deliveries from countries who also support Ukraine there could be a bottleneck. But as of now this scenario doesn't seem to happen. As it looks Israel is calmly making tabula Gaza and that's it, there seems to be no escalation beyond that.

At the beginning it wasn't clear if any Arab state or group would support Hamas in force, by now we know they prefer to just talk, but nobody wants to die for people they usually dislike themselves. Without that Israel doesn't have to fight a true army and everything needed for that can still be send to Ukraine.
Click to expand...

Yeah there's a bit of a "watch this space" thing here I think as no doubt Russia will be doing everything in its power, in its Iranian influence, to push an escalation. The US did well to get ahead of that and give strong signals they would intervene if Iran/Hezbollah does.
 
Simbo said:
Yeah of course its bollocks but Russia will always win the (dis)information war.

Nothing has changed with the stance on this among the people that matter. Any peace deals that gives up territory would be catastrophic for Ukraine and Europe, giving up on the people living under occupation and pushing another inevitable crisis a few years down the line. Plus with the enormous gains Ukraine has made this year, there's no real pressure on Ukraine to seek peace, nothing that comes close to the disaster of the alternative.

What gains?
Defeat of black sea fleet and development of own naval warfare capability that is on track to isolate Crimea.
Development of own long range weaponry, converted neptunes, s-200, cheap mass produced long range drones.
All the new tanks and equipment we've not really seen engaged yet.
Replenished air-force imminent, not just the fact its more modern F-16's, Ukraine lost a lot of its air-force in the opening days and is desperate for a replenished fleet that will bring new options.
New arms manufacturing programs agreed with US partners and Rheinmetall on Ukrainian soil.
Massive air defence improvements.
Continued mass destruction of Russian equipment.
Continued deterioration of Russian economy.

Russian agents will of course highlight the low hanging fruit, low territorial changes and play on the hopes some people had of a "great summer offensive", calling it a failure. Meanwhile Ukraine is sat back bludgeoning Russian assaults. The fact Russia hasn't managed to collapse that bulge in the south despite their best efforts is quite telling.

Russia is not some bottomless pit of manpower and equipment, a myth perpetuated from WW2 when they were propped up by the US/UK and fighting for their homeland. They are now fighting for nothing and only have the mighty N. Korea to look to. Might take 5 years, but this only ends when Russia burns out. Ukraine has no choice but to fight on.
Click to expand...

Re your last paragraph- I think this is a common misconception which was perhaps true in the days of the Soviet Union, but not now. If you look at the demographics of Russia it has a massive bulge of people aged about 35-45. And a significant dip when it comes to the age group 18-30 (importantly the exact age range it takes it’s current cannon fodder from). To give you an extreme example there are a little over half as many 28 yr olds as there are 38 years olds. This could be (slowly) catastrophic for Russia. It already has a declining population, it needs the 18-30s to take the jobs of the older generation as they retire or die. There was already nowhere near enough to do that, and now they have to do without circa 250k dead or injured, and 250k on active service. And that’s not even considering the apparent 500k-1m people, largely young people, who have left the country.

Edit- some of the injured soldiers may return to the workforce, or to the army, so I may be counting some twice, though the point still stands.

Edit 2. You might be interested to know that the Soviet Union population peaked at 286m in 1989. Today its (Russia’s) population is 143m, exactly half.
 
‘I Am Dreaming It Will Stop’: A Deadlocked War Tests Ukrainian Morale

“Frustration is rising,” he said, including a sense that poor village boys are dying while civilians from wealthier families in the cities find ways to avoid conscription. Draft dodging is on the rise, as men hide to avoid receiving notices or try to bribe officials at local recruiting centers.

“We should be honest,” Anton Hrushetsky, the director of the Kyiv institute, said in an interview. “People are becoming pessimistic.”
Click to expand...
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/05/world/europe/ukraine-war-morale.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.