Well it countered a equal number of Ukrainian drones in return. Honestly drones achieve alot even if any one does nothing itself. The shere quantity of them cause formations to be split. Defences to be abandoned armour to held back. Frontal assault suicidal as any form of suprise is almost impossible to achieve. And the pts levels of soldiers is probably going to be thru the roof. The stress and danger levels are basically like WW1 trench warfare as from all reports dosnt matter were you go you hear drones overhead
The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread
rsemmes
Active Member
Really?
Do you remember what you said? I posted a snip to remind you what you said, you can always click to expand...
I posted:
"Zelenski is quite happy to keep himself "in the fight", after Robotine, after Kursk and for the next 3 years (talking to Tusk). To achieve what exactly, that is what I wonder. After Robotine and Kursk, he is going to get what?"
And then you go with "puppet state"?
I am talking about two failed military operations, what military solutions is Ukraine trying to implement when its situation is getting worse? Instead of keeping himself in the fight, he should be working to seat at the table right now (like... yesterday) and get as much as he can from his benefactors to achieve the better (actual) terms possible. Those are going to be worse now, in Istanbul, Putin was ready to return all of the south of the Dnieper area; I think it's too late for that now.
"Thats why they fight, even though they are losing ground. They don't want to be Russian."
The Torygraph: "100.000 young Ukrainians left the country in two months"
They don't want to fight. Zelenski already had that (not a Belarus-South) in Istanbul. Terms, not "maximalist initial positions"; what you actually get when you sign an agreement.
rsemmes
Active Member
Trying to what?
It is not about the "moral considerations", it is about the hypocrisy about those moral considerations. Ukraine blew up a dam, we point our finger at Russia for blowing up a dam.
See the difference?
rsemmes
Active Member
You saw the "broad terms" right?Well, in that case, the RU army should be in Kiev tomorrow.
The Istanbul terms were far worse.
Highlights:
RU keeps what it has
RU get those parts of territories it doesnt have, but claims (Donetsk, etc)
UKR is contractually obligated to never join NATO
UKR disarms
All sanctions against RU are lifted
These are not peace terms, they are surrender terms. Czechoslovakia 1938, again.
What can UKR do about it ? Kill enough Russians to make a difference (difficult). Do enough damage to the RU economy to make a difference (not as tough).
The west should enable UKR to defend itself, to put an end to Putins expansionist dreams. Just like we helped Nationalist China in 1941, South Korea in 1950, Britain in 1940, western Europe in the cold war, etc etc.
I don't think giving back 'South of the Dnieper' is "worse". (I may be wrong.)
Again, "We shouldn't confuse the initial statements with the actual terms of a peace agreement."
I guess that in your 1938, US is Poland, taking minerals instead of Teschen. No moral consideration, just facts.
Can Ukraine get enough Ukrainians killed (and out of the country) to achieve the collapse of Ukraine? We'll see in 3 years. How much damage can Ukraine take? How much money is Ukraine going to get? It does not depend on Ukraine.
Like the West should have helped Iraq from the US invasion? Should have helped Iran for the Iraqi invasion? Again, no moral considerations, just interests. Sorry, facts.
rsemmes
Active Member
You do realize that Ukraine is at the receiving end, right? Not us, not Putin.
A long way to any "death warrant" and, anyway, do you know if Trump is going to sign his "death warrant" over Ukraine? Are we, on our own? Do you see only one "death warrant", only one possibility? Care to explain to us what is that "death warrant" exactly. How long is going to take and if there's going to be any escalation?
(Just to remind you, I posted: "Reaction could mean many things." Meaning, I don't know what, but I know Putin will decide what, not Zelenski.)
Do you know who would replace Putin? Do you know what that leader would do?
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #13,086
Another great example of the inherent unreliability of Russian official sources. They claim they've taken Sadovoye. If you take a look a the map, between Kurilovka and Sadovoye, this absolutely could be operational encirclement for Ukrainian forces on the eastern shore of the Oskol. However... no independent confirmation exists, and this appears to be fictional. Making things extra curious, this is an entirely probably direction for future Russian assaults meaning it's possible this becomes true in coming days and weeks. It just isn't now.
t.me
EDIT: On a curious sidenote, Russian forces are one small village away from cutting the MSR into Gulyaypole from the north. They do of course have the road along the front line westward, though it's not safe, and there are rural roads by which it's possible to get north-east, but they're in much worse condition. After the road is cut, I suspect we will see Russian forces push south-west from the Yanchur river line, and eventually close in on Gulyaypole. It's entirely plausible that the village will fall before the end of the year, putting the new front line somewhere around the Gaychur river line. The offensive has little immediate strategic significance, but if it continues in the same manner, it will reach the eastern outskirts of Zaporozhye some time in the middle of next year. Meanwhile it will be interesting to see if Ukraine can build a new major defense line along the Volchya river, since the current push if firmly south of it, or if they choose another location further north. Certainly construction work this close to the front lines would be difficult.
EDIT2: Perhaps I spoke too soon, multiple maps now show a Russian breakout south of Kupyansk on the right shore. None have Sadovoye in Russian hands, and there's a crossing south of Kupyansk-Uzlovoy to Osinovoe which still allows for a path out, but the situation for Ukrainian forces on the right shore of the Oskol is bad.
Colonelcassad
МО РФ сообщило об освобождении поселка Садовое к югу (!) от окраин Купянска. Ситуация в районе города продолжает развиваться неблагоприятно для ВСУ.
t.me
EDIT: On a curious sidenote, Russian forces are one small village away from cutting the MSR into Gulyaypole from the north. They do of course have the road along the front line westward, though it's not safe, and there are rural roads by which it's possible to get north-east, but they're in much worse condition. After the road is cut, I suspect we will see Russian forces push south-west from the Yanchur river line, and eventually close in on Gulyaypole. It's entirely plausible that the village will fall before the end of the year, putting the new front line somewhere around the Gaychur river line. The offensive has little immediate strategic significance, but if it continues in the same manner, it will reach the eastern outskirts of Zaporozhye some time in the middle of next year. Meanwhile it will be interesting to see if Ukraine can build a new major defense line along the Volchya river, since the current push if firmly south of it, or if they choose another location further north. Certainly construction work this close to the front lines would be difficult.
EDIT2: Perhaps I spoke too soon, multiple maps now show a Russian breakout south of Kupyansk on the right shore. None have Sadovoye in Russian hands, and there's a crossing south of Kupyansk-Uzlovoy to Osinovoe which still allows for a path out, but the situation for Ukrainian forces on the right shore of the Oskol is bad.
Last edited:
vikingatespam
Well-Known Member
Not being a "puppet state" (as in Belarus) is the goal of the UKR fight. How is this unclear ?
The entire RU invasion is a failed military operation. Its 3 years late, running a ghastly body count, is a total political failure, and is driving the RU economy into the ground.
The RU have to yet to offer realistic terms.
Thus the weapon shipments to UKR. More damage to the RU economy. Thats how you get a better seat at the table.
Except that 1) they are not worse than the 2022 Istanbul talks (see my previous link I provided), and 2) Putin did not offer to return any meaningful territory. RU is still in its maximalist claims. UKR is trying to outlast RU and/or Putin.
...and 700,000 or so Russians left RU. That does not mean collectively RU does not want to fight.
Clearly, they do want to fight. Otherwise, RU would of won this war years ago.
An agreement ? With RU ? Im sure that carries as much weight as the last agreement RU signed with UKR.
vikingatespam
Well-Known Member
You actually think UKR blew up the Kakhovka Dam ? The one under RU control ?
Comrade rsemmes, maybe you should read a little less form the RU MOD.
Destruction of the Kakhovka Dam - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
"On 28 May an aerial photo was taken of a car that appeared to be loaded with explosives, in the form of large barrels and a land mine, parked on the top of the dam."
"On 30 May 2023, less than a week before the dam breach, the Russian government decreed that in occupied Ukraine, "Until 1 January 2028, technical investigations shall not be carried out into accidents at hazardous production facilities and accidents at hydraulic structures that occurred as a result of military operations, sabotage and acts of terrorism."
vikingatespam
Well-Known Member
Those were the broad terms.
Nice cope. Those were the RU terms offered. Blame Putin for that.
What minerals has the US taken from UKR ? Please let us know in the space below:
---
---
Possibly less than that. This war has brought so many surprises, its very hard to say.
Ask the Ukrainians, they can decide to stop fighting tomorrow. Its up to them, and if they decide, than so be it.
Your pretend care for UKR lives are "crocodile tears".
Facts ? Iraq ? Iran ? What are you going on about ? No context, no clarity, no point.
vikingatespam
Well-Known Member
Simply put, RU is taking hits too, and in places of great sensitivity. Can UKR out last RU ? Hard to tell. Maybe/Maybe-not. They seem to think so.
Once again, your formatting is deficient. You need to start with the request to explain the term "death warrant". (Is English your native language ?)
In context, it means that Putin using nuclear weapons would mean his own death. A global nuclear war has no winners, and even a limited strike (lets say, a tac-nuke on Kiev) would have vast negative military, economic and political fallout (see what I did there ?).
Good question. Answer: it doesnt matter, as there is no clear successor. I have read several articles from native Russians, and there is no one clear Crown Prince to the throne. I suspect that Putins death, under the current situation would lead to political in-fighting, and possibly a low-level civil war, which is likely to cause a pull back of RU army units. Even if one person assumes the mantle of power, they can take a cold, hard look at the costs of continuing the war vs. the payoffs. In that case, the easiest solution is to blame Putin for everything, and make peace, quickly.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #13,091
Ukraine avoided this fate when they defeated Russia's initial invasion. They have terms now that would in principle allow them to remain independent and not be a Russian puppet state. Maybe once negotiations start in earnest, something in the details will prevent that, but what we have now is a deal that makes Ukraine neutral and demilitarized. Nothing about political subservience to Russia. I guess the question is, do we trust to political guarantees provided by western partners, and are those partners willing to give guarantees. If we do, and if they are, that should in theory prevent Russia from re-invading, and put Russia in front of some sort of major western military force if they do invade.
The whole fight around now is around the disagreement of the two sides over what constitutes realistic terms. Ukraine has no way to retake any substantial amount of territory, and continues to lose more territory, yet as final peace terms they're not willing to accept any territory as lost. Russia wants Zaporozhye and Kherson, two large and very difficult to capture cities handed over without a fight because Russia said so. The difference currently lies somewhere in the middle. Certainly the rest of the Donbas is lost to Ukraine, it's only a matter of time. The question is, what next?
This makes sense in theory but hasn't worked out in practice. The Istanbul Accords involved returning all occupied territory to Ukraine minus Crimea and the LDNR statelets. The current peace offer requires giving up all of Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporozhye, and Kherson regions along their administrative borders. I think that if the war doesn't end, then after the fall of northern Donetsk region Russia will push into Kharkov region and at some point declare that annexed too. Massive western shipments haven't prevented the terms from getting worse in the past, and don't seem to be preventing a development of the conflict that leads to them getting worse in the future.
They're worse because Putin is no longer offering to return territory. To the best of my understanding the Istanbul Accords involved Ukraine recognizing the loss of Crimea and the LDNR rebel areas, with Russia returning all other areas to the Feb. '22 line. The deal they have now is substantively similar, except with worse territorial losses.
This is a bit misleading. Russia had a mass exodus in response to the mobilization. Many of those returned, and the exodus effectively stopped once it was clear the mobilization was over. Russia does suffer from the normal brain drain immigration but nothing particularly drastic. Ukraine currently has ~7 million people that fled to the EU, and the exodus is continuing. Ukraine also has people returning to live under Russian occupation. Even Ukrainian government sources recognize this and flag it as a problem. The dead giveaway about not wanting to fight comes from the fact that Russia can attract voluntary enlistments with financial inducements and Ukraine can't even get people to respect mobilization notices, and has to resort to press gangs to staff their armed forces. And Ukrainian desertions have gotten steadily worse and worse, a problem much worse then Russia's, who admittedly also has a desertion issue.
I think the situation is more complex. Ukraine is a country divided. There are Ukrainian citizens from places like Berdyansk and Melitopol' that left Russian occupation to enlist in the AFU and fight against Russia. There are people leaving Ukrainian held territory to go live under Russian occupation. Ukraine clearly had a patriotic surge of enlistments at the start of this war. They don't have one now. And Ukraine's population for the most part doens't want to live under Russia, but many are willing to if that's the less painful option. If they got a choice they would want Russia out. But if they don't have a choice, they're not ready to die to make it happen. If Ukrainian straight up didn't want to fight from the start, Russia would have won this war. But if Ukrainians on the whole wanted to keep fighting until victory, Russia wouldn't be steadily gaining ground right now.
At this point it's pretty clear Ukraine had no intention of keeping to the Minsk Accords and even some western actors have come out and admitted that those agreements were negotiated in bad faith. Rocks, glass houses, etc. Ukraine isn't going to win the fight on the ground unless something major changes. So the options are to fight until defeat, or to get some sort of agreement. I guess the unspoken third option is to fight a losing war in the hopes that something happens to change the course of events.
I'm reasonably confident he's pointing at the hypocrisy of crying about Russia blowing up a dam but mostly keeping quiet about Ukraine blowing up the Belgorod dam. Ukraine double-taps a civilian ambulance in Donetsk, and there's no outrage, but Russia hits one in Kherson and they're a terrorist state. This seems to be the main point he's making. Ukraine's behavior isn't substantively better than Russia's. Personally I'm of the opinion that it's substantively worse, minus the fact of the invasion itself.You actually think UKR blew up the Kakhovka Dam ? The one under RU control ?
Comrade rsemmes, maybe you should read a little less form the RU MOD.
:Destruction of the Kakhovka Dam - Wikipedia
"On 28 May an aerial photo was taken of a car that appeared to be loaded with explosives, in the form of large barrels and a land mine, parked on the top of the dam."
"On 30 May 2023, less than a week before the dam breach, the Russian government decreed that in occupied Ukraine, "Until 1 January 2028, technical investigations shall not be carried out into accidents at hazardous production facilities and accidents at hydraulic structures that occurred as a result of military operations, sabotage and acts of terrorism."
personaldesas
Member
Based on its historical experience, Ukraine has ample reason to question both Russia’s adherence to treaties and the West’s resolve in upholding security guarantees.
personaldesas
Member
It’d be an interesting question whether the situation would look different today had Western military aid been delivered earlier and in a more decisive manner. The incremental, hesitant approach always seemed to blunt its potential impact.
personaldesas
Member
Do we have a good understanding by now if this was a genuine offer, rather than a maneuver aimed at shaping perceptions or buying time?
personaldesas
Member
Which is why the information front, propaganda, morale, perceptionhas become such a key part of this war.
personaldesas
Member
What is that assessment based on? Are there specific sources or data comparing the two sides’ conduct?