The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread
Deus Ex Machina
New Member
He still thinks he can win? Why wouldn't he? Russia is slowly advancing and Ukraine is getting exhausted. Logic dictates that the more Ukraine relies on forcibly mobilised soldiers (and fewer), the less staunch the resistance will be. The ukrainian armed forces are sacrificing a lot to restrict the russian advance and give their politicians and their allies(?) the time to make progress. But what have they achieved all these years?
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #12,963
I think it's shocking anyone would be surprised by those two bits above. Of course Russia isn't going to accept a ceasefire for some sanctions relief. It would be a strategic dead end for them. And of course they think they can win, if by win we mean "pummel Ukraine into submission".
If there were not any forcibly mobilised soldiers by either side this war would be over morale issue's on both sides with desertion on both sides appear significant , there are a number of reports that Russia pays bonuses to its officers for every bit of land they seize the cost in men and material immaterial ,the significant advantage the Russians had in artillery which Russia was claimed to be the largest user of such in the world gave it an eight to one advantage heavy losses to such have reportedly brought this down to on occasion only able present parity to Ukraine, barrel life of artillery is not indefinite and the usage of material left out in the open for fifty years or so must bring its own challenges making it fit for purpose and suggests very high losses .
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
So Putin to travel to Hungary, supposedly. I wonder how he is going to get there.
My take is that this is not going to happen. Putin will say to Trump that the Euros are sabotaging his plan and yada yada. Which is not far from reality, to be fair.
(Funny how this did not apply to Netanyahu flying over the EU air space)
Of course, there is also a possibility of Putin flying to Budapest, nothing happening, and the Euros saying to Trump “you see, we told you so”. Really weird stuff, if you think about it.
My take is that this is not going to happen. Putin will say to Trump that the Euros are sabotaging his plan and yada yada. Which is not far from reality, to be fair.
(Funny how this did not apply to Netanyahu flying over the EU air space)
Of course, there is also a possibility of Putin flying to Budapest, nothing happening, and the Euros saying to Trump “you see, we told you so”. Really weird stuff, if you think about it.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #12,966
The Pokrovsk cauldron seems to be closing. Russian forces have contested the road to Grishino, and are in the center of Rodinskoe. They've also crept up to the southern half of Mirnograd, which is connected to the northern part by a thin middle. Russian forces are also advancing inside Pokrovsk itself and now everything south of the rail road is either Russian or contested. Novopavlovka has also fallen (the one that's the suburb of Pokrovsk, not the one to the west), suggesting Gnatovka and Rog are next. It seems Russian forces intend to cut the cauldron into several pieces, separating Mirnograd in two, and cutting Pokrovsk off from Mirnograd.
In other areas, the situation around Krasniy Liman continues to deteriorate with some sources even reporting Russian advance elements entering the outskirts of the town, though confirmation is lacking, and the closest consolidated Russian positions are several kms away. Russian forces continue to snip off pieces north and south of Seversk. In that area I suspect the fall of Dronovka and Russian forces entering the hills north-west of Seversk will precede the fall of the town itself, at least that would be a logical approach. And in Kupyansk the deep pocket is gone with Ukrainian forces withdrawn into the south-western part of town. There are reports of Ukrainian counter-attacks but nothing on any results.
In other areas, the situation around Krasniy Liman continues to deteriorate with some sources even reporting Russian advance elements entering the outskirts of the town, though confirmation is lacking, and the closest consolidated Russian positions are several kms away. Russian forces continue to snip off pieces north and south of Seversk. In that area I suspect the fall of Dronovka and Russian forces entering the hills north-west of Seversk will precede the fall of the town itself, at least that would be a logical approach. And in Kupyansk the deep pocket is gone with Ukrainian forces withdrawn into the south-western part of town. There are reports of Ukrainian counter-attacks but nothing on any results.
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
As discussed previously:
The wake-up call was harshest for Zelensky. The Ukrainian delegation came to Washington projecting confidence that President Trump would endorse their plan to go back on the offensive and provide Kyiv with long-range Tomahawk missiles that would allow Ukraine to strike deeper into Russian territory. Trump declined both requests. He said that he hoped the war could be ended without the use of Tomahawks, made no new commitments of military aid, and called on Zelensky to instead make a deal that would bring peace.
Trump’s position should have been expected. Despite all the talk about Tomahawks in Kyiv and in Washington, these missiles were never truly on the table for Ukraine. Not only does Kyiv have no way to launch the long-range missile, but US stockpiles are so constrained that the Pentagon would surely object to giving any up. Trump’s rhetoric around Tomahawks resembled his earlier warnings about harsher sanctions on Russia — a threat that he does not want to make good on.
And as I discussed before the 2023 counteroffensive, that being their last one:
Ukraine’s hopes of a new offensive were equally fantastical. US and European defence production and remaining stockpiles are too limited to support another offensive campaign. More importantly, Ukraine’s manpower shortages would make such an operation impossible.
unherd.com
Also, sounds like things went “well”:
Edit: Also of interest, Janis Kluge ran his own estimate for the Russian losses based on the RU budget and payouts. His results are close to those of Mediazona.
The wake-up call was harshest for Zelensky. The Ukrainian delegation came to Washington projecting confidence that President Trump would endorse their plan to go back on the offensive and provide Kyiv with long-range Tomahawk missiles that would allow Ukraine to strike deeper into Russian territory. Trump declined both requests. He said that he hoped the war could be ended without the use of Tomahawks, made no new commitments of military aid, and called on Zelensky to instead make a deal that would bring peace.
Trump’s position should have been expected. Despite all the talk about Tomahawks in Kyiv and in Washington, these missiles were never truly on the table for Ukraine. Not only does Kyiv have no way to launch the long-range missile, but US stockpiles are so constrained that the Pentagon would surely object to giving any up. Trump’s rhetoric around Tomahawks resembled his earlier warnings about harsher sanctions on Russia — a threat that he does not want to make good on.
And as I discussed before the 2023 counteroffensive, that being their last one:
Ukraine’s hopes of a new offensive were equally fantastical. US and European defence production and remaining stockpiles are too limited to support another offensive campaign. More importantly, Ukraine’s manpower shortages would make such an operation impossible.
Trump’s Tomahawk refusal could save Ukraine from false hope
It was a big week for President Donald Trump’s attempts to end the war in Ukraine. After a two-hour call with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, Trump met in the White House with Ukraine’s leader, Volodymyr Zelensky on Friday. Pundits are already busy trying to assess who came out ahead...
unherd.com
Also, sounds like things went “well”:
Edit: Also of interest, Janis Kluge ran his own estimate for the Russian losses based on the RU budget and payouts. His results are close to those of Mediazona.
Last edited:
Agree with alot of what you said would also like to makea few points without having to go back and quote everything lol
The history proves rich countries mostly win is somewhat out of context and wrong. Take the mongols for example dirt poor to start or Sparta and Athens Alexander or Fredric the great ect. My personal view is war mostly comes down to the will to fight provided the ability is there. Hence small countries defeating large ones
And that's a good into to my second point I don't think (and yes I said think) most people in the west feel threatened of a Russian invasion, n.a.t.o may spend more but I don't see a senecio were Russia does realistically decide to yolo it's fate on a invasion of Europe. I'm also assuming they know they are likely to lose that fight
It's more likely (tho not very likely right now) that it would be western action against Russia and that's were will comes in. Yes Russia is using incentives to keep up recruitment it's a external war something that I think is true as most societies have less support at least in terms of willing to actively fight in it for a war beyond there own boarders.
That would be different if the west started bombing Russia even if support was high in the west for action that doesnt mean it's high for personal involvement. Vietnam is a good example society by and large wanted to win against the Soviets and prevent there expansion (the reason for the war) but not actually be on involved in the war ultimately. It was to costly and for most definitely not worth dieing it wasn't even worth the chance they or someone they cared about dieing for. Hence the fact they could be anti war well also being anti Soviet as was the case in America at the time.
I think the same could be true in the west once the reality of a war came home in the form of body bages or black outs.
Military spending as a metric is somewhat deceptive if taken in absolute terms. It's how much bang for the buck you get that matters. As well as what bang how it's moved difficulty to produce\use ect. Ect. Ect
I do want to point out I'm not trying to be pro either side here (tho yes I have opinions). I'm just trying to point out what I conciter major factors here.
That is the historical accuracy of weath = victory is far from iron clad
The will to fight is often with the defender. a war you may want to win depends on the cost. A war that comes to you is a based on your willingness to surrender. Just a note here Ukraine not willing to accept Russian demands here despite the u.s desire to end the war is a good example of the kind of problems a coalition may face aswell as a example of the homefeild advantage in the face of the costs of war
And military spending translating to military power is alot more nuanced then how many $ you spend. Especially if you talking a coalition vs single state.
I'll also toss in as it's relivent battlefield experience not just for the troops industry and politics but for the population it matters alot I think. Now Russia is not Sparta or Rome by any means here but it is a society that has been exposed to war for some time and not broken same to be said of the Ukrainians. Any nation without said experience should at the very least respect and understand that they may be bitting off more then they can chew when they challenge a society that has proven it can withstand the pressure of sustained warfare. I'm mean on paper Afghanistan is a cake walk right? Right?...anyone?
Anyways long winded way of saying there's alot more to war then money and simplifying it to that as a reason for war, If that the point he's making is foolish. Besides that fennor covered the other points I would have made
Last edited:
personaldesas
Member
Since the industrial age, military power has been largely been a function of economic output, but you are right that they key question is how much of that one is willing to spend on military concerns or wars.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #12,970
I think this is a bit simplistic. Even in the industrial age, different societies have different levels of tolerance for defense spending sure. But also different systems allow more or less to be expended. A cohesive Soviet Union was able to endure far worse and come out victorious in the second world war than the discombobulated Russian Empire in the first world war. The patterns of corruption and war profiteering, as well as the consistent casual incompetence of various levels of the imperial government including the military made it so that resource were expended, but did not produce military power, or produced far less of it. And it wasn't just a case of backwardness or lack of technology. There were institutional problems. I would recommend Novikov-Priboy's "Tsushima" as a good example. And this can lead to complex situations. For example very large western economic resources are being converted into military power through the machinery of Ukraine's government apparatus. Is modern Ukraine more of a Soviet Union, very motivated, tightly run, able to endure horrible things but stay in the fight? Or is it more of a Russian Empire, chronically corrupt, consistently inept, and lacking the ability to effectively unify their own population? Of course the real answer is, they're neither. They're post-Soviet Ukraine, with their own set of circumstances. But it means we can simply say "more money = victory".
rsemmes
Active Member
"...Vietnam is a good example society by and large wanted to win against the Soviets and prevent there expansion (the reason for the war)" .
The reason for the Indochina War? Certainly not.
"Anyways long winded way of saying there's alot more to war then money and simplifying it to that as a reason for war".
Good point.
"Just a note here Ukraine not willing to accept Russian demands..."
Ukraine or Zelenski? What were the results of the last referendum on continuing the war to whatever consequences? Ukraine (population) has been a lot more exposed to war than Russia, still is.
"Especially if you talking a coalition vs single state."
Specially what little price that coalition is actually paying and how little it is willing to pay. Vietnam would be a good example of that, not to mention Algeria, a little war in a faraway country.
"Wealth" is a very important question in a P2P modern war, as it was in 1973. More so when no army, now, is the IDF.
In 1973, Israelis were flying back to Israel, what will to fight?
"More than they can chew..." People keep repeating that as if it meant anything. This is a limited war, for us and for Russia; and Ukraine doesn't have the means to make it bigger.
Even if there is a collapse in the Ukraine lines, I don't think Putin would do more than negotiate for an even stronger position. Should Zelenski try to avoid that now?
Yeah it was sold as to prevent the spread of communism if Viet Nam falls loas falls if loas falls ect. Was called the dominos theory iirc. It's not how we got it but it's why we stayed when the French left
Sorry I should have ment trumps peace proposals thus far that was my fault. Also again a good example of my point about will to fight vs money
As for referendum I don't trust all the reports that much I trust the effects on the battlefield Ukraine isn't in a good place but it's far from ready to roll over in my opinion same with Russia tho it's in a better spot as far as I can tell.
The point about society exposed to war stands for both countries
The coalition part vs a single state is a statement about both finances as many many duplicated systems both administrative and otherwise eat up alot of funding aswell as all the other problems a coalition in war faces
More then they can chew in context here means more they there willing to chew I guess I'm talking about the will to fight a war.
One cannot assume that a nation on the offence is willing to commit to total war as there often not. Well a nation on defence unless it's a peace deal they are willing to accept is much more commited to said war often making better use of more limited resources. Not saying weath to snt importantant but it's far far from the deciding factor. The will to fight being a major factor is something very often just disregard as unimportant yet history showed it to be critical is my over all point.
I get it's unpatriotic or wrong or whatever to say we're not willing to go all the way to achieve out goals when it comes to war but in all honesty those who don't make a sober judgment of there national will or that of the opponent often lose no matter how good the prospects look on paper
Look at Ukraine yes they have problems and dissent desertion is a issue, for years there units have been pushed back from stronghold to stronghold yet they hold there ground even in unwise pockets there is issues but to think that there isn't a large experienced groupwhos commitment to this war unquestionable. Is demonstrably false.
Or Russia sure they pay well but do they have to pay that much for recruitment? We don't know but we do know there army grows every year and despite the danger of being on the offence in small squads or on motorbikes in a drone filled environment they do it every day. Neither of these armies are groups you can sit back and say will roll over just because you can bring more firepower to bear against them. You can't reliablely ex cell war. That's what McNamara tried
Last edited:
rsemmes
Active Member
"...but it's why we stayed when the French left." Certainly not, and we all should know that by now. (Pentagon Papers.)
(Next your going to say that you you went to Iraq for the WMD...)
"Well a nation on defence unless it's a peace deal they are willing to accept is much more commited to said war often making better use of more limited resources."
No, you do better if you know how to do better. (Those with less limited resources tend to do better.)
No, again. If you hate your government you are not more committed just because you are defending; two different concepts (usually, they go together, but you could be just apathetic).
Defending a position, you have to take it, until you cannot take it anymore; the "will" is more about moving forward. Who is "moving forward" and what nation is "taking" more?
"The will to fight being a major factor is something very often just disregard..."
No, the other way around. If there is a will to fight, you have to smash your opponent, that is what History teaches. (Like two to one, I think N. said.)
Russians seems to be quite happy to fight for money, Ukrainians seems not be happy to be offered the opportunity to fight.
The point is that Ukraine is a lot more exposed to war than Russia, that goes against Ukraine.
"Those who don't make a sober judgment of there national will or that of the opponent..."
Exactly, the delusional Zelenski (at least now he is not ordering NATO to fight his war).
"Pero nada pueden bombas donde sobra corazon..." And the Tooth Fairy too.
First, you have to have weapons. Ukraine has no money and its will to fight seems to be... as strong as that of Russia? I'm afraid that the only "will to fight" that is going to improve is that of Zelenski.
(A song from the Spanish Civil War, "Hearts will defeat bombs".)
The reasoning for the Vietnam war is quite well documented your free to have any opinion you like on it there was in truth more the one reason as is true in most cases for the aggressor. Also as I said it was sold as such to the people to get them to fight and support the war and when that no longer motivated them to participate or even support the war the war effort collapsed. Will was the deciding factor not resources the American people no longer wanted to fight in Vietnam. And couldn't be convinced otherwise anymore. Or the way wasn't found if you prefer regardless of the political leadership's interests. Or the resources at America's disposal.
also America was still decidedly anti communist after the war still motivated to resist communism just not on the battlefield of a far away place. I'm sure if somehow Vietnam was invading the u.s.a there would have been more support. This is my point these factors are what is missing in the article not just missing but actually ignored in preference of output metrics and inevitably assumptions because of them
I'm saying the same thing there resources are more limited....
I never said those who don't want to fight are commited to fighting there obviously not. I said there is a large group who is commited to the fighting both of those statements are true one does not preclude the other. Remember even if Ukraine gets all it's territory back it will still have a civle war on its hands in regions that flat out want to be independent or join Russia over being in Ukraine and will fight rather then remain under the current government and laws. Something by the way you never hear mentioned but would be foolish to ignore if your goal is resorting Ukraine not just pushing Russia back..
I did however say there historically tends to be alot more commitment to actually fighting (not just people who support the action). In a country being invaded then there is in the invading country at least in terms of population %. People have a tendency to defend there homes and way of life before they go out and pillage others.
You do have to break there will the question is what happens when your expectations are exceeded by there will? Do you even know the enemy or are you making assumptions? Is this war more important to your people then your foes independence is to them?
And zelenski asking allies for help is not at all irrational or unexpected there is a good argument to be made he had reasons to expect more support. His nation is also looking to be lossing this war. Even tho they don't look ready to give up just yet even if it looks like they should objectively...
And there in lies a major problem to those who discount will in warfare defiance isn't exactly a reasoned and objective thing If you refuse to look at it from there perspective but makes perfect sense if you do. It also doesn't always break when you think it should, that said the more you understand why a society fights the better you can combat it.
Last edited:
rsemmes
Active Member
Exactly, documents, the Pentagon Papers, since WW2. Not an "opinion", a day to day report of the business at hand.
"And zelenski asking allies for help is not at all irrational..."
Neither "allies" nor "asking", but we are certainly interested in keeping Ukraine "in the fight"; to the last Ukrainian soldier.
Your missing the point the reason the people fought was because of the communist threat. I specifically stated that why the people fought and why they stopped is the point here not the history of why the u.s invaded. Anyways we're off topic here this is about Russia and Ukraine.
That said I would say the e.u and u.s.a are most definitely allies of Ukraine I don't even know how one could argue against that. They fund the government the war effort and provide the political and economic pressure on Russia and even nations that trade with russia that Ukraine cannot do itself. And yes he's asking he may due it rudely but he's asking after all he has no actual way of forcing his alies to do anything beyond publicly embarrassment over there lack of support for Ukraine. Witch is is only effective because of the fact there publicly commited alies of.... Ukraine
Not that I disagree with the overall cynical behavior point but again a allince doesn't mean they serve Ukraine interests above there own just that they aid them in what for different reasons is a mutual goal. Ukraine would poorly represented if it's leadership didn't try to maximize that allince to there full benefit as you know there in a war with a much larger and powerfully state and need every resource they can get if as seams to be the case surrender isn't a palatable option.
Last edited:
rsemmes
Active Member
When did Spain signed an Alliance Treaty with Ukraine? What are the UK obligations in that Treaty or NATO obligations, for that matter? We do what we want when we want.
I would use use the term "Allies" for something more than playing together against someone.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #12,978
Unclear. I see regular adds for Russian military recruitment in Russian social media channels. Here's one from today on a pro-Russian mapper channel;
Новости СВО и Мира ©
Получите до 3 000 000 рублей за месяц от государства! ☎️По всем вопросам +7 966 147-65-08 Денис WhatsApp wa.me/+79661476508 У нас индивидуальное сопровождение и безопасность! Подъёмные от 3 000 000 ₽ ✔️Зарплата от 270 000 ₽ БИЛЕТЫ, ПИТАНИЕ И ПРОЖИВАНИЕ ОПЛАЧИВАЮТСЯ на весь период оформления...
t.me
My translation;
*FSIN is the penitentiary, MVD is the federal agency that handles all law enforcement
So this doesn't look like they're letting up on recruitment. You'll notice the money bonuses go well beyond the enlistment benefit. Salary has increased from ~205 to 270k in the past ~2 years, childcare payouts that are just cash, with likely no spending or minimal spending controls, and the ability to write off debts. If one was clever, one would soak up several mln rubles in loans and then enlist and write them off. For context a large (262 sq m) luxury condo in Voronezh Russia, a major city, costs about 10 mln rbls. A house in rural Voronezh region, but not too far from the nearest town runs ~3 mln rbls.
House & single-family home for sale in Voronezh
en.arkadia.com
Apartment & condo for sale in Voronezh
en.arkadia.com
I'm sure your aware countries can be allied outside a formal allince structure. But sure if it makes you feel better Ukraine has no allies.