Ominous, if accurate.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
Ominous, if accurate.
Turning the tables? I think an eventually retreating Russia and a demolished country is about the best they can hope for.
Not entirely. This says that Belarus is getting ready to deploy troops if such a decision was made. This suggests Russia might be starting to run low on some sort of manpower and would have to resort to its allies.
Let’s be honest, Lukashenko is a clown and Putin’s regime is the only reason he is still in power. He will do whatever he is told, even if in this case it is likely to end up costing him everything.
Four weeks ago, Putin invaded with the intention of taking over all of Ukraine, so not allowing him to win the war by taking the country or massive swaths of Ukrainian territory, would be tantamount to turning the tables imo. Both sides have obviously taken massive casualties in the process, but Putin's overall goal when he invaded hasn't remotely worked out as he may have expected.
The best they can hope for is liberating Crimea and defeating the separatists/ reaching an agreement to return the entire Donbas to Kyiv’s rule. Plus a clear path to join EU and maybe NATO.
Realistically Crimea and NATO membership seem to be a mere fantasy, but the rest is a reasonable goal, and they’ll only get there by resisting this invasion and repelling it.
The truth is that mistakes were made and the Minsk agreement should have led to a normalisation with the Donbas, giving the population there some sort of autonomy (like the status of Scotland in the UK), it would have deprived the Kremlin of the alibi they sold to their people to proceed with this invasion. I think it might still be possible to get an agreement like that with the separatists, it will be possible once Russia understand and accept they can’t get a military victory.
Yeah, in retrospect did he think he would conquer and hold Ukraine with 200,000 troops?
Hard to say. He's probably somewhat delusional after 2 years of COVID isolation atop his already somewhat paranoid state of mind. He obviously knows he fecked up and is looking for a way out without looking utterly impotent to those around him.
I'm just very wary of any narrative to be honest.
The idea that he is so powerful that his generals would let him march them off a ledge seems insane. Not impossible, at all, just insane.
Unless Russia collapses completely, Ukraine has no chance (in this conflict) of re-taking Crimea. Donbas might be different.
26,000 Russian casualties so far. No doubt the number is higher given unaccounted for soldiers.
The March 2nd number would obviously be far lower given that it was nearly 3 weeks ago. I've seen comments where analysts have been doubling or quadrupling Kremlin numbers to get to something closer to reality.
Of the 150k troops they sent into Ukraine, about 20 percent or either KIA or WIA, and of those still in theater, probably 80-90% suffer from poor morale and/or logistical problems.
I agree. If Russia digs in and defends the eastern Ukrainian areas that it already has or almost has under control (part of Donbas, coastal strip to the Crimea), then there is little Ukraine can do to get them out of there. And if Russia accompanies that by destroying key Ukrainian urban, military, and other infrastructure, then they won't need much from Ukraine anymore beyond a promise to stay out of NATO to make Ukraine stay irrelevant for a very long time (while they rebuild from the ruins).
From that perspective, reducing Kyiv to ruins actually does have a purpose for Russia, especially once they have accepted that they can't take it.
Mind boggling how close this is to the Ukrainian numbers for Russian casualties.
And the numbers themselves are horrible as well for the Russians.
People should remember that most invaders take territory at the start of a war because they knew it was going to happen and went all in on the preparations for it.
At the start all the experts seemed to align around the fact that Russia had six months to win this war or its ability to logistically sustain it will collapse. People scoffed at the thought the war might go on that long. They could still be correct but it is not a laughably outrageous thought.
People fixated on the Ukrainians not being able to take back captured areas are missing the point. They don't really have too, all they have to do is reduce the ability of Russia to sustain and resupply those units in their country from Russia.
You starve in a tank just as quickly as you starve in a house. Once you are paused due to supply issues you are easier to target and the supply routes are harder to defend in enemy territory. The operational pause becomes a stalemate which becomes exhaustion and capitulation. All can happen while you are sat on your backside waiting to start fighting again.
So far I wouldn't say any of the initial possible outcomes can be totally ruled out except for one. A quick Russian victory making the war worth it to Russia. That is obviously off the table now.
At the start all the experts seemed to align around the fact that Russia had six months to win this war or its ability to logistically sustain it will collapse. People scoffed at the thought the war might go on that long. They could still be correct but it is not a laughably outrageous thought.
People fixated on the Ukrainians not being able to take back captured areas are missing the point. They don't really have too, all they have to do is reduce the ability of Russia to sustain and resupply those units in their country from Russia.
You starve in a tank just as quickly as you starve in a house. Once you are paused due to supply issues you are easier to target and the supply routes are harder to defend in enemy territory. The operational pause becomes a stalemate which becomes exhaustion and capitulation. All can happen while you are sat on your backside waiting to start fighting again.
So far I wouldn't say any of the initial possible outcomes can be totally ruled out except for one. A quick Russian victory making the war worth it to Russia. That is obviously off the table now.
Apparently the casualties of DNR and LNR troops are not counted by the RU MoD, but even excluding those:
Fired? More like woodchipped.
So, if the cited Komsomolskaya Pravda figures are true, so far the Russians have 26,000 killed or injured. This apparently excludes DNR and LNR troop losses. It also excludes those captured, surrendered, or deserted.
If we round it up to 30,000 now out of action to take account of these latter, that's an average rate of close to 10,000 per week. So in another month it could rise to 70,000. I don't see how Russia can sustain their invasion for too much longer.
If we round it up to 30,000 now out of action to take account of these latter, that's an average rate of close to 10,000 per week. So in another month it could rise to 70,000. I don't see how Russia can sustain their invasion for too much longer.
The problem with talking about winners and losers here is that the war is only being fought in the defender’s country and they have nothing staked on them winning it that they otherwise wouldn’t have had without the war.
The war can go terribly for Russia, they can pay a high cost for it, they can be somewhat embarrassed, yet they will still likely achieve the minimum of their war goals, which is to further hamstring, partition and impede the Westernisation and democratisation of an independent Ukraine.
This is what I feared would have happen less than a week into the war, when people were getting a bit giddy about Russia’s underwhelming performance. They never needed to take that more territory to subject Ukraine to severe castration. They can occupy the coast to the Black Sea and Sea of Azov and then just bed down there, whilst committing what are essentially terrorist acts on targets within range under the guise of “war”.
That’s not a win for Ukraine, but there was virtually no way for Ukraine to win this. How do you win against terrorists, who are willing to sacrifice their economic strength and lives of their citizens to damage your country?
The only long term win for Ukraine here is Putin causing the Russian state to self-destruct, potentially given them better security in the future with a more benign leader. That’s by no means certain either.
If it's genuine, as apparently it is, then it's more signs of unrest within the Russian military - I reckon that information has been deliberately leaked.
If the Russian army really tries to attack Odessa head-on from the sea, oh boy, Omaha Beach would look like a sandbox compared to that.
I wouldn't say a need for a large scale offensive, but I think the best way to put a quick end to the war would be the Ukrainian army drawing the bulk of the Russian force in a very vulnerable area where the latter can be picked off and pounded until being forced to surrender. One big battle to cripple and humiliate the invading army beyond repair. That is the key moment that decided the fate of the Indochina War with a massive French defeat in 1954.
Don't ever talk about de-Nazifying anything ever again after this, cnuty Vlad.
Indeed, there are no traditional victories against nuclear powers, only political change at best (unlikely, and the other side can't push too hard for it as it could be seen as an existential threat and therefore lead to nuclear escalation), and unsatisfactory agreements at worst (discounting scenarios of defeat).
Russia can't be cut off from resupply routes in the east, as their conquered territories on that side directly borden on Russia itself or the sea.
Only if the war goes on as-is. If Russia dig in at their conquered areas and otherwise mostly focus on artillery attacks, the rate at which they lose soldiers could drop significantly.
The Russians don't have the resources to continue fighting much longer, much less hold any existing territory inside Ukraine. The Ukrainians and NATO know this, which is why they aren't likely to capitulate to any Russian demands. If anything, they are incentivized to double down and fight harder because they see a clear strategy to winning the standoff.
Or the rate could rise significantly, as ever more sophisticated weapons pour into Ukraine.
Being on the defensive is a significant advantage in terms of minimizing casualties, as long as not under air or artillery attack.
Any estimates of Ukrainian casualties?
Yet again US intelligence is absolutely spot on, as they have been with everything in this war. They must have some brilliant sources in the Kremlin.
US estimate 2,000-4,000 killed by 9 March
Ukrainian Government state 1,300 killed by 12 March
Slipped in an extra phone # into the "Top advisors" Whatsapp group
Putin will never admit defeat. I hope I’m wrong, but I can see him dropping a nuke on a city to force them into a surrender.
Does that include civilians?
I was reading about the Yom Kippur war and this quote by Golda Meir caught my eye:
No doubt the Ukrainians were thinking among the same lines when they were being provoked in the Donbas, before the actual invasion. This was in a PBS article on February 23rd.
No doubt the Ukrainians were thinking among the same lines when they were being provoked in the Donbas, before the actual invasion. This was in a PBS article on February 23rd.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/r...ine-military-aggressions-as-a-pretext-for-war
No, military only.
Civilian:
Ukrainian Government - 3,000 killed by 16 March in Mariupol & Karkhiv only
UN - 925 killed by 20 March
I say the source named Spinnaker in Tom Clancy's novels is a real thing, to keep the back channels open in hopes of staving off disaster.
But what if Russia decide that it's enough (for example because they acknowledge they won't gain much more), and limit themselves to defending the Donbas and coasta; strip to the Crimea on the one hand, and bombing/shelling cities to weaken Ukraine on the other. Ukraine would have to switch to attacking the Russians to do something about that. Do they have the materials and capacity to do that? And wouldn't it reserve the rate of loss of life?
Wasn’t it Cardinal?