Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

maniak said:
Watching this russian soldier getting life in prison, is this a good strategy for ukraine while the war is still ongoing? Won't the russians do similar things to captured russian soldiers?
Click to expand...
Im not sure Russia is capturing its own soldiers - though I guess that could explain their performance to date?

Also if anybody is guilty of war crimes regardless of which side they are on then they should face justice
 
TMDaines said:
And most of that was tactically conceded by Ukraine to take up superior defensive positions, i.e. it wasn't ground out. That was possibly a Ukrainian mistake.

Click to expand...


With the exception of various uncontested areas in the south, the map and timeline appears to show the Russian invasion going in reverse. Or perhaps we're only getting one side of the story from the totalitarian, propagandist western media ?
 
Raoul said:
With the exception of various uncontested areas in the south, the map and timeline appears to show the Russian invasion going in reverse. Or perhaps we're only getting one side of the story from the totalitarian, propagandist western media ?
Click to expand...
A lot of what Ukraine took back in the north was also tactically conceded though, when it became clear to Russia that they weren't go to advance any further and holding said ground would come at too high a price. Both sides have struggled to advance where both sides have committed forces. Unfortunately, the fighting is in Ukraine though, so both sides aren't staking equally. It's difficult to have any concept of Ukraine winning this. As long as Russia is more than happy to throw its minorities into the meat grinder to occupy Ukraine, they may well make an acceptable trade.
 
maniak said:
Watching this russian soldier getting life in prison, is this a good strategy for ukraine while the war is still ongoing? Won't the russians do similar things to captured russian soldiers?
Click to expand...

I don't know if "life" actually means "for life" in the Ukrainian penal code. But the fact that he pleaded guilty and expressed regret ought to have given him some leniency (but still a long prison sentence, obviously).

It is a good strategy to conduct trials while the war is ongoing. Russian soldiers need to know that there are consequences for their actions.
 
TMDaines said:
A lot of what Ukraine took back in the north was also tactically conceded though, when it became clear to Russia that they weren't go to advance any further and holding said ground would come at too high a price. Both sides have struggled to advance where both sides have committed forces. Unfortunately, the fighting is in Ukraine though, so both sides aren't staking equally. It's difficult to have any concept of Ukraine winning this. As long as Russia is more than happy to throw its minorities into the meat grinder to occupy Ukraine, they may well make an acceptable trade.
Click to expand...

Sure, Putin conceded the north because he realized he couldn't win there and wanted to spare himself the international humiliation of not being able to take Kyiv. He took a break to move troops to the east and south only to be repelled out of Kharkiv. He finally got Mariupol after the remaining Ukrainians agreed to leave the steel plant. So all things said, he has a patch of land in the south with little to no chance of getting Odesa. The same thing that happened in the north and Kharkiv will probably happen around Kherson as soon as the Ukrainians reorient their efforts in the south with fresh NATO weapons.
 
maniak said:
Watching this russian soldier getting life in prison, is this a good strategy for ukraine while the war is still ongoing? Won't the russians do similar things to captured russian soldiers?
Click to expand...
It certainly won't influence Russian judicial system (I assume that you've meant captured Ukrainian soldiers?). Or even the "international tribunal" that probably will try Azov soldiers (it seems like the trial will happen on DNR's ground, which means that death penalty is also an option).

The only chance for captured POW is prisoner exchange, not a lighter sentence.
 
Raoul said:
Sure, Putin conceded the north because he realized he couldn't win there and wanted to spare himself the international humiliation of not being able to take Kyiv. He took a break to move troops to the east and south only to be repelled out of Kharkiv. He finally got Mariupol after the remaining Ukrainians agreed to leave the steel plant. So all things said, he has a patch of land in the south with little to no chance of getting Odesa. The same thing that happened in the north and Kharkiv will probably happen around Kherson as soon as the Ukrainians reorient their efforts in the south with fresh NATO weapons.
Click to expand...
I hope so, but I'm more sober on a lot of this than some of you are. My fear, literally since the first week or ten days of the invasion as I posted here, was that Russia wouldn't gain that much more territory and instead would take a small amount in the south, then just bed in. That would be a big loss for Ukraine, even if they hold Odesa and some of the coast. Right now, I'm not convinced Ukraine will be able to liberate Kherson and wipe out the other Russian gains along the south cost and in Donbas.
 
TMDaines said:
I hope so, but I'm more sober on a lot of this than some of you are. My fear, literally since the first week or ten days of the invasion as I posted here, was that Russia wouldn't gain that much more territory and instead would take a small amount in the south, then just bed in. That would be a big loss for Ukraine, even if they hold Odesa and some of the coast. Right now, I'm not convinced Ukraine will be able to liberate Kherson and wipe out the other Russian gains along the south cost and in Donbas.
Click to expand...

I don't think the conditions are right for them to entrench themselves in places in Kherson given that the people clearly don't want them there and Ukrainian side are likely to launch a massive offensive in the south once they rearm. There's little the Russians will be able to do when fighting both the local population and a highly armed Ukrainian military.
 
Raoul said:
Click to expand...

Like father like son. Soldiers are stealing washing machines, their superiors are stealing tons of grain.

TMDaines said:
I hope so, but I'm more sober on a lot of this than some of you are. My fear, literally since the first week or ten days of the invasion as I posted here, was that Russia wouldn't gain that much more territory and instead would take a small amount in the south, then just bed in. That would be a big loss for Ukraine, even if they hold Odesa and some of the coast. Right now, I'm not convinced Ukraine will be able to liberate Kherson and wipe out the other Russian gains along the south cost and in Donbas.
Click to expand...
The grim thing is that both armies seem to be doing much, much better at defending than they are at offensive actions. And it looks like Russia is doing much better tactically now than they did at the very beginning (although it's hard not to). My only hope at this point is that the internal system will eventually crumble under the immense pressure — when common folk will recognise just how costly this war had been to them, both financially and in terms of very literal human lives.
 
TMDaines said:
A lot of what Ukraine took back in the north was also tactically conceded though, when it became clear to Russia that they weren't go to advance any further and holding said ground would come at too high a price. Both sides have struggled to advance where both sides have committed forces.
Click to expand...

Totally different types of "tactically conceding".

Ukraine conceded the south bank of the Dnipro river without putting up any resistance. Same for protecting the border with Belarus on the north. The Russians took Kherson without any resistance. Ukrainians set up their resistance around Kyiv and Mykolaiv. They conceded land but protected lives where they felt they couldn't realistically defend territory (rightly or wrongly).

By contrast, Russia committed huge forces to the North campaign and only "tactically conceded" there after a bloody 6-week effort to siege Kyiv where they took in huge casualties. That's more of a defeat than "tactically conceding" to be honest. Not in the war, but in the battle for sure.

TMDaines said:
Unfortunately, the fighting is in Ukraine though, so both sides aren't staking equally. It's difficult to have any concept of Ukraine winning this. As long as Russia is more than happy to throw its minorities into the meat grinder to occupy Ukraine, they may well make an acceptable trade.
Click to expand...

I agree. It's tough to say Ukraine is winning while cities are getting pulverised, civilians are dying and domestic grain production is blockaded by the Russian fleet.
 
Last edited:
Carolina Red said:
As opposed to?
Click to expand...

Waiting for the end of the war when normally pows are let go.
sun_tzu said:
Im not sure Russia is capturing its own soldiers - though I guess that could explain their performance to date?

Also if anybody is guilty of war crimes regardless of which side they are on then they should face justice
Click to expand...

Obviously I meant ukranians. I'm questioning the timing, nothing else. It may cause some of their own soldiers captured unnecessary reprisal.
harms said:
It certainly won't influence Russian judicial system (I assume that you've meant captured Ukrainian soldiers?). Or even the "international tribunal" that probably will try Azov soldiers (it seems like the trial will happen on DNR's ground, which means that death penalty is also an option).

The only chance for captured POW is prisoner exchange, not a lighter sentence.
Click to expand...

I meant ukranians of course. My point is that they may now say these aren't pows, they're war criminals and give them heavy sentences instead of being exchanged or released at the end of the war.
Eurotrash said:
It is a good strategy to conduct trials while the war is ongoing. Russian soldiers need to know that there are consequences for their actions.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I just fear it will lead to unfair "revenge" on ukrainian pows.
 
maniak said:
I meant ukranians of course. My point is that they may now say these aren't pows, they're war criminals and give them heavy sentences instead of being exchanged or released at the end of the war.
Click to expand...
This is what they’re going to do anyway, at least according to how the things look at the moment. Although there haven’t been any open trials yet (Azov’s soldiers are probably going to be the first).
 
Carolina Red said:
And why would you let that guy go?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't. Surely at the end of the war a distinction would be made between pows and criminals. But handing out life sentences while the war is ongoing, russians will probably start doing the same in retaliation.

Again, I have nothing against the whole thing (if he did it, lock him up) except the timing, which might bring unnecessary trouble for captured ukranians.
 
maniak said:
I wouldn't. Surely at the end of the war a distinction would be made between pows and criminals. But handing out life sentences while the war is ongoing, russians will probably start doing the same in retaliation.

Again, I have nothing against the whole thing (if he did it, lock him up) except the timing, which might bring unnecessary trouble for captured ukranians.
Click to expand...
Considering what we know the Russians have done to captured civilians, I’m not so sure I’d worry about this leading to a change in policy towards captured Ukrainian soldiers.
 
Carolina Red said:
Considering what we know the Russians have done to captured civilians, I’m not so sure I’d worry about this leading to a change in policy towards captured Ukrainian soldiers.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I guess civilians also need to see that something is being done to the criminals.
 
harms said:
Like father like son. Soldiers are stealing washing machines, their superiors are stealing tons of grain.


The grim thing is that both armies seem to be doing much, much better at defending than they are at offensive actions. And it looks like Russia is doing much better tactically now than they did at the very beginning (although it's hard not to). My only hope at this point is that the internal system will eventually crumble under the immense pressure — when common folk will recognise just how costly this war had been to them, both financially and in terms of very literal human lives.
Click to expand...

I would have thought when the Ukrainian counter attacks come they likely won't go directly for the cities, they'd be more likely to target the open ground between settlements using any new advanced weaponry / aerial kit they might have and try to encircle the cities. Same as the Russians but without ploughing troops into the meat grinder to score political points. Once the cities are surrounded they will be aiming to cut off their supply lines and force them to give up. Won't be pretty whatever happens - a lot of civilians will likely die anyway sadly.
 
I don't know if this has been discussed any time earlier, but there is now concrete evidence of Russia stealing stolen Ukrainian grain and the possibility of them shipping it off like pirates making profit on loot. Where are we in international discussions at the moment on how to deal with that problem? In any case, Putin is behaving like former Somali warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid, using hunger as a weapon.



Shameless cnut.
 
This upset the Russians who responded that Trump is also a fascist. Which is true! Which is why he lost the elections!


 
Here is an excellent interview of Prof. Timothy Snyder from March. He basically answers all the questions one might have about this war. I really don't see how anyone could disagree with anything he says.

 
frostbite said:
Here is an excellent interview of Prof. Timothy Snyder from March. He basically answers all the questions one might have about this war. I really don't see how anyone could disagree with anything he says.

Click to expand...



Really good interview, thank you for sharing.
 
Revan said:
Why on Earth would a major general fly in risky areas (although if I am not mistaken, MG is just one star general in Russian military, unlike in the US when they hold two stars)?
Click to expand...
Regardless, he should be coordinating ops from the ground not flying. Some desperate stuff.
 
The Firestarter said:
Regardless, he should be coordinating ops from the ground not flying. Some desperate stuff.
Click to expand...
Aye. I would have thought that even a colonel is too high to do such things. An 1-star ranking general, in the US, is someone who assists a higher-ranking general. I think that in the US, even a two-star general commands 10K or so people.

Even a colonel commands a thousand or so people. So why was this guy flying aircrafts?
 
Revan said:
Aye. I would have thought that even a colonel is too high to do such things. An 1-star ranking general, in the US, is someone who assists a higher-ranking general. I think that in the US, even a two-star general commands 10K or so people.

Even a colonel commands a thousand or so people. So why was this guy flying aircrafts?
Click to expand...
I think in the airforces it is a bit different than the army , it is usual for top pilots to be eg. colonels. Still, general is a bit too high. Except for places like Andrews AFB.
 
frostbite said:
Here is an excellent interview of Prof. Timothy Snyder from March. He basically answers all the questions one might have about this war. I really don't see how anyone could disagree with anything he says.

Click to expand...


Can't take him too seriously given his resemblance to Phil Thompson
 
Revan said:
Why on Earth would a major general fly in risky areas (although if I am not mistaken, MG is just one star general in Russian military, unlike in the US when they hold two stars)?
Click to expand...

He could fly around all he wants if Russia had air superiority. The fact that they don't (which is a massive fail on their part, but that's for another topic) suggests a combination of bravado and desperation.
 
The Firestarter said:
I think in the airforces it is a bit different than the army , it is usual for top pilots to be eg. colonels. Still, general is a bit too high. Except for places like Andrews AFB.
Click to expand...

It depends on who owns the skies. For instance in Iraq, US Generals flew around the country at will, in what would appear to civilians as private jets. Not having a SAM threat is a massive factor on whether or not high level people fly in war zones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.