Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

GlastonSpur said:
I very much doubt it. You can't claim to have annexed a country where the capital city and most of the country remains out of your hands, the bulk of the opposition forces remain intact, the opposition government remains in power, and weapons supporting them continue to flood into the country.

Russia may well occupy some of the East and South, but they would have to tie up large numbers of Russian troops permanently in order to keep it all. Those troops won't then be available to quell uprisings elsewhere, a lack made all the more significant by the personnel and equipment losses that Russia has already suffered and which will only increase day by day from here on.

In my view, this war - couple with the effect of sanctions - is going to leave Russia permanently weakened as a military force to a significant degree. We will look back and see pre-invasion Russia as being at the zenith of a military strength that will never be regained.
Click to expand...
Thats why they will need to fk up Kiev and the rest of the country as much as possible. It will take years for them to rebuild. Hospitals, power - all key infrastructure. They will lose the WEst and the South - so no access to the sea. They are already be severely fkd. How are they going to launch an offensive to take back Russian held territory especially since their citizens are in those territories? They cant just bomb the sht out of it like the Russians did.
 
GlastonSpur said:
How about the 60,000 Russian military personnel that will likely be out of action - dead, wounded, captured, surrendered or deserted - in another 3 weeks from now?
Click to expand...

Well, all the more reason that this talk of surrender is way too premature.

I am very sad for many of the Eastern Ukrainian cities who are properly fecked because of their geography, but every hole they make in the Russian army is a piece less for Kyiv and the West of Ukraine to deal with.

We can only hope that the sanctions make occupation too expensive for Russia after a few months/years. I can't imagine it will be cheap to maintain a military presence in a city with zero infrastructure.
 
11101 said:
The longer Russia stays bogged down not moving forward, the more likely Ukraine will be able to drive them back and actually beat them. Maintaining momentum is a huge deal for an invasion force.

In the last 2 weeks Russia has barely moved an inch. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that Ukraine will begin to launch successful counter attacks and force them into a retreat.
Click to expand...

I think the next 2-3 weeks will be key. If Putin because he thinks the Ukrainians are turning the tide, he could start using more hypersonics, thermobarics etc. If that doesn't do the trick, a false flag chemical attack (or even an overt chemical attack would seem to be in play). If all else fails, that only leaves tactical nukes. But I would imagine NATO would get militarily involved if it ever got to the WMD stage (including a chemical attack).
 
harms said:
Not really okay but at this point I’m heavily leaning towards it. Ideally it’s not going to be permanent but then nothing’s more permanent than temporary things. Most of my friends have left already, it’s really not a great environment for anyone who, well, can think and can’t compromise with his consciousness. I’ve already did enough protesting to justify a prison sentence under the new law — and even if we discount personal safety it’s simply soul-crushing to live inside something like this Russia. The Nazi Germany comparisons have been done to death already but there’s no better example.

Not to mention that my area of expertise is very much contrarian to the core ideas that lie underneath Putin’s regime and every day they keep reminding us that they’re not going to tolerate that anymore — if you teach contemporary art, critical theory etc. properly you can’t really avoid critically assessing the reality around you.

So yeah. I haven’t decided on it 100% but at this point I fear that I don’t have much choice on the matter, so I’m finishing all the unfinished business that I have here and then reassess the situation one last time.
Click to expand...
Sad to hear this, I wish you all the best! Hopefully you can get out safely to a place that welcomes you.
 
nimic said:
They'll lose territory and/or have to make concessions regarding Nato, "denazification", other stuff. Most wars in history don't result in the loser just ceasing to exist, though of course that does happen quite a lot too. That's not going to happen here, unless something drastically changes (and it could). Kyiv could definitely be captured, but Lviv won't be.
Click to expand...

Losing territory does not equate to having lost the war. There will be no "denazification", joining NATO was never on the cards in the first place, Kyiv will be not captured, Ukraine will not renounce ambitions to join the EU, and most of the Ukrainian military will remain intact.

The most likely short-term outcome is a stalemate. Russian unable to defeat Ukraine and remove the government, and Ukraine unable to take back occupied land in the east and south. The Russian troops close to Kyiv might stay for a while, but all the time they will suffer attrition on a daily basis and eventually will withdraw (if they can).
 
nimic said:
Yeah that seems overly optimistic. Ukraine is still going to lose this war.
Click to expand...
Russia won’t have the financial mussels to sustain this war long enough to achieve that normally inevitable victory. Ukraine only needs to resists for a few months and Russia will have to give up.

The only way Russia can win this war is if China starts bankrolling the war in order to disrupt the West. While it might make sense for China to see the West hurting, they would suffer just as much. And we go back to a new Cold War, China loses most of the financial benefits they get from trading with us. That will result in a quick decline in the living standards, Nobody knows how long the Chinese regime survives the uprisings that could result from that. Is the Kremlin’s regime really worth the risk for XI? I genuinely doubt it.
 
nimic said:
Ukraine's military is great at defending, but I just don't see them being able to seriously threaten with any large scale offensive.
Click to expand...

Do they need a large scale offensive? They only need to push Russia back a few kms from the cities, get them out of range of artillery, then it's all but over for Russia. Russia is not going to sit and hold a few fields on the border. They don't need to chase them all the way back to Moscow.

Plus Russia's military is not unlimited, both in manpower and financing. Intelligence updates suggest they're getting low on both.
 
GlastonSpur said:
Losing territory does not equate to having lost the war. There will be no "denazification", joining NATO was never on the cards in the first place, Kyiv will be not captured, Ukraine will not renounce ambitions to join the EU, and most of the Ukrainian military will remain intact.

The most likely short-term outcome is a stalemate. Russian unable to defeat Ukraine and remove the government, and Ukraine unable to take back occupied land in the east and south. The Russian troops close to Kyiv might stay for a while, but all the time they will suffer attrition on a daily basis and eventually will withdraw (if they can).
Click to expand...

Losing territory is like the textbook definition of having lost the war. The Russians are obviously not going to accomplish all of their objectives, but that doesn't mean the Ukrainians win. A limited loss can still be counted as success, but it's still a loss if parts of Ukraine become not Ukraine.
 
UpWithRivers said:
Thats why they will need to fk up Kiev and the rest of the country as much as possible. It will take years for them to rebuild. Hospitals, power - all key infrastructure. They will lose the WEst and the South - so no access to the sea. They are already be severely fkd. How are they going to launch an offensive to take back Russian held territory especially since their citizens are in those territories? They cant just bomb the sht out of it like the Russians did.
Click to expand...

They won't be able to for as long as large numbers of Russian troops remain there. But there's the rub - how long will Russia be able to keep large numbers of troops there without needing to shift them elsewhere to cope with - for example - a pro-Western coup in Byelorussia, or an uprising in any number of ex-Soviet places that no longer wish to be under Putin's thumb, or Japan getting aggressive about disputed islands in the far east, or the Syrian regime needing further help?
 
nimic said:
Losing territory is like the textbook definition of having lost the war. The Russians are obviously not going to accomplish all of their objectives, but that doesn't mean the Ukrainians win. A limited loss can still be counted as success, but it's still a loss if parts of Ukraine become not Ukraine.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid it isn't. The USSR lost vast swathes of territory to the Nazi invasion during WWII, but guess who didn't lose the war.
 
Last edited:
To address what I think was discussed a bit on Friday or over the weekend, Michael Kofman (analyst specializing on the Russian military) thinks that Russia has committed maybe 30-40% of its total ground forces to this war, but those committed (and that have taken losses) include a lot of their best units. What they have not committed is on average worse than what has gone so far.

Podcast: https://warontherocks.com/2022/03/i...ussia-revising-its-war-aims-amidst-attrition/
 
GlastonSpur said:
I'm afraid it isn't. The USSR last vast swathes of territory to the Nazi invasion during WWII, but guess who didn't lose the war.
Click to expand...
To be fair you have to look at the situation when the war ends. Temporary loss of territory that can be reclaimed later is losing battles, but not the war.

Germany lost the war, lost territories and never got them back, and even to this day we did not completely clarify our border issues with the Netherlands (regarding parts if the North Sea).
 
GlastonSpur said:
I'm afraid it isn't. The USSR lost vast swathes of territory to the Nazi invasion during WWII, but guess who didn't lose the war.
Click to expand...
You're definitely in the wrong here.

If Ukraine loses territory, this means they've lost the war. Now the Russians might not achieve all their objectives but that's not relevant in this case.

If Ukraine loses its sea access, that'll destroy their economy and they'll ironically be pushed even further into the embrace of the West because their economy will be crippled.
 
nimic said:
Yes... because they got it back, and more. If the war had ended with the Germans occupying Ukraine, Belarus and the Caucasus, the USSR would have lost the war.
Click to expand...

I doubt that. The Normandy landings would still have occurred and Germany would still have been defeated from the West by Britain, America and allies, although it would have taken longer. Germany would have had to pull troops back from the East to try and defend the Western front, and then the USSR would have taken back all the lost territory.
 
spiriticon said:
Why are people so keen for Ukraine to surrender?

I reckon if Ukraine surrenders than Europe should surrender too. We may as well give Putin what he really wants in the long term, so we can avoid any future wars.

Fascist rule isn't all that bad really, right? I'm sure we'll all get used to it after a few years. We'll all be chanting 'Down with the smelly USA' and we'll enjoy being bussed to a celebration in London Londonsburg when our Motherland nukes New York
Click to expand...
The only people who seem to think Ukraine has the reasonable option of surrendering are those who pop up in the thread in complete ignorance of what is going on in both Russia and Ukraine now, and what has been happening for the last eight years.

I swear some treat this as if two bald men were fighting over a comb, as Argentina and the UK did over the Falklands or some other colonial dispute.

What percentage of those refugees in the rest of Europe do you think will want to, or will even be safe to, go back to whatever is left of Ukraine if it falls into Putin’s hands? Ukrainians aren’t all in here in some form of vanity.
 
Last edited:
GlastonSpur said:
I doubt that. The Normandy landings would still have occurred and Germany would still have been defeated from the West by Britain, America and allies, although it would have taken longer. Germany would have had to pull troops back from the East to try and defend the Western front, and then the USSR would have taken back all the lost territory.
Click to expand...

Then that means they didn't lose. The Normandy landings were possible because the Eastern Front had three times as many German divisions as were stationed in the west, and the ones in the east were by far the stronger and more experienced ones. But that's neither here nor there. This discussion is getting silly, and it's all semantics. Let's agree to disagree.
 
Rightnr said:
You're definitely in the wrong here.

If Ukraine loses territory, this means they've lost the war. Now the Russians might not achieve all their objectives but that's not relevant in this case.

If Ukraine loses its sea access, that'll destroy their economy and they'll ironically be pushed even further into the embrace of the West because their economy will be crippled.
Click to expand...

We'll just have to disagree. I don't see how a country that still has an intact military and government, still will control most of its own country, is still getting more weapons on a daily basis, and is still fighting, can be said to have lost the war.

A temporary stalemate well happen, and maybe last for several years, but a stalemate is not the same as having lost the war.
 
nimic said:
Yes... because they got it back, and more. If the war had ended with the Germans occupying Ukraine, Belarus and the Caucasus, the USSR would have lost the war.
Click to expand...
I think one imperfect (because of many many differences) analogy that the Ukrainians would be aiming at is the WWI armistice. German forces still held parts of France, Belgium and Luxembourg, but were militarily exhausted so opted to accept unfavorable peace terms despite having a net gain of territory.
 
MTF said:
I think one imperfect (because of many many differences) analogy that the Ukrainians would be aiming at is the WWI armistice. German forces still held parts of France, Belgium and Luxembourg, but were militarily exhausted so opted to accept unfavorable peace terms despite having a net gain of territory.
Click to expand...

If Putin is ousted, I can see something like this happening. He'd have to go, though.
 
Feels like we're not far away from Russia escalating beyond anything we've seen so far. All these takes about Ukraine winning are forgetting Russia are willing to go much further.

If Russia have no intention of lowering their demands and Ukraine won't then it seems inevitable. Presumably the world will watch on.
 
Losing sea access at Odesa is not so big a problem I think. I'm sure they could do a deal with Romania and Bulgaria to use their ports.
 
Smores said:
Feels like we're not far away from Russia escalating beyond anything we've seen so far. All these takes about Ukraine winning are forgetting Russia are willing to go much further.

If Russia have no intention of lowering their demands and Ukraine won't then it seems inevitable. Presumably the world will watch on.
Click to expand...


That's true, although the conventional wisdom amongst most analysts is they wouldn't be able to hold any Ukrainian cities if they were to "win" the war, which means the best thing they can hope for would be a long term frozen conflict through a protracted insurgency. That would of course favor the Ukrainians as well since the Russians are already now, running out of manpower, logistical capacity, and several other things required to control a country the size of Texas, especially amidst a fierce and well armed insurgency.
 
Who is Russia's top field commander in Ukraine? The US isn't sure.

The US has been unable to determine if Russia has designated a military commander responsible for leading the country's war in Ukraine, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter — something that current and former defense officials say is likely a key contributor to the apparent clumsiness and disorganization of the Russian assault.
Without a top, theater-wide commander on the ground in or near Ukraine, units from different Russian military districts operating in different parts of Ukraine appear to be competing for resources rather than coordinating their efforts, according to two US defense officials.
Units participating in different Russian offensives across Ukraine have failed to connect, these sources say, and in fact, appear to be acting independently with no overarching operational design.
Click to expand...
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/21/politics/us-russia-top-military-commander-ukraine-war/index.html
 


A thread on how Navalny’s team figured out that the yacht, Schaherazade, belongs to Putin. Everyone but the captain is Russian and are members of Putin’s secret service.
 
Sir Matt said:


A thread on how Navalny’s team figured out that the yacht, Schaherazade, belongs to Putin. Everyone but the captain is Russian and are members of Putin’s secret service.
Click to expand...


Looks like a pretty good place to house Ukrainian refugees.
 
GlastonSpur said:
They won't be able to for as long as large numbers of Russian troops remain there. But there's the rub - how long will Russia be able to keep large numbers of troops there without needing to shift them elsewhere to cope with - for example - a pro-Western coup in Byelorussia, or an uprising in any number of ex-Soviet places that no longer wish to be under Putin's thumb, or Japan getting aggressive about disputed islands in the far east, or the Syrian regime needing further help?
Click to expand...
They dont needs large numbers of troops. They just need good defensive position and defensive weaponry. If Ukraine attacks they just need to hold on until back up arrives, which is just over the border. Plus they will see them coming a mile off. Literally. And even if they do Russia will just launch another sht load of missiles at some hospital somewhere to teach them a lesson. It will be impossible without mass casualties of their own citizens. Once Russia takes a city it will be theirs for good unless they choose to move out
 
GlastonSpur said:
We'll just have to disagree. I don't see how a country that still has an intact military and government, still will control most of its own country, is still getting more weapons on a daily basis, and is still fighting, can be said to have lost the war.

A temporary stalemate well happen, and maybe last for several years, but a stalemate is not the same as having lost the war.
Click to expand...
We're talking about the end of the war, not the current state. Otherwise Germany can claim they won WWII two years in.
 
Last edited:
The BBC reports:

"The Russian invasion remains largely stalled across all their lines of advance, with troops not having moved any further towards Kyiv since last week, a US senior defence official has said.

The Russians have launched more than 1,100 missiles, but may be facing some “inventory issues”, the official said. Some missiles have failed to launch, some have failed to explode, the official added.

The US is unable to confirm or refute Russia’s claim that it used a hypersonic missile, the official said, adding it wasn’t clear why the missile would have been needed, but that the Russians may have been running low on precision guided missiles, or have wanted to send a message.

The official said there had been an increase in naval activity in the Black Sea, which was believed to include some shelling around the port of Odesa. But this did not mean an assault on the city was imminent, the official said."
 
UpWithRivers said:
They dont needs large numbers of troops. They just need good defensive position and defensive weaponry. If Ukraine attacks they just need to hold on until back up arrives, which is just over the border. Plus they will see them coming a mile off. Literally. And even if they do Russia will just launch another sht load of missiles at some hospital somewhere to teach them a lesson. It will be impossible without mass casualties of their own citizens. Once Russia takes a city it will be theirs for good unless they choose to move out
Click to expand...

There wouldn't be frontal assaults. Instead, it'd be endless hit-and-run attacks, assassinations, road-side bombs, guerrilla warfare, a surrounding hostile civilian population, drone attacks etc etc. To keep control of several large cities, many towns and villages, and the surrounding countryside, you need a lot of troops.
 
Rightnr said:
We're talking about the end of the war, not the current state. Otherwise Germany CA claim they won WWII two years in.
Click to expand...

The "end" of the war will be, at best for Russia, a stalemate. They have no chance of defeating Ukraine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.