Russian special military operation in Ukraine #39

This is why i wonder about the strategy. Even if Ukraine only has 20 million in population left , netting out the males is still a lot of cannon fodder. Russia has to systematically disrupt this process. Hit govt buildings , paralize the state.

Looks to me like they've been sparing the regions where the biggest Nazis and idealogues are from, and conscripting the suckers in the east and center instead.

Or maybe they mean to fill those new brigades near Lvov with foreign volunteers. Who knows.

So we are into second year of a war.

Ukraine is still standing and will fight even if country is ruined economically and 14 millions of its people are displaced.

Costs on Russian side too are huge - no matter how much manpower and equipment is sent into the battle it is not enough. Not one strategic goal so far Russia was able to complete.

Ukraine is now strategic partner of Western military alliances - in my eyes no one could predict that development 1 year ago.

So we are into second year of a war.

Ukraine is still standing and will fight even if country is ruined economically and 14 millions of its people are displaced.

Costs on Russian side too are huge - no matter how much manpower and equipment is sent into the battle it is not enough. Not one strategic goal so far Russia was able to complete.

What you are doing is attempting to portray the 'costs' on the Ukrainian and Russian side as roughly equal, but in fact no comparison can be made.

The Ukraine is still standing because it's an existential war for it, or rather its Western curators have made the war into such for it, much as they made it into one for Russia too. Russia for that reason would also be standing were it to take the same level of losses as the Ukraine has - but the very fact is that the costs so far for Russia have been a tiny fraction of those for the Ukraine. And lower in fact than for Europe.

The Ukraine's economy has been destroyed, while the Russian one carries on as if not only there was no war on, but basically having recovered all its COVID losses and in a phase of increasing growth. The European ones meanwhile slide further into recession.

As for strategic goals and manpower - it's a marathon, not a sprint. Here too Russia's losses are only a fraction of the Ukraine's, albeit significant in and of themselves, don't mean to suggest otherwise. NATO meanwhile has had to send half their reserve armory, including almost all their Soviet-built weaponry, and several thousand mercs, with nothing to show for it.
Russia is successfully replacing equipment losses with new production, the Ukraine is unable to and NATO is still arguing about how to do it, but without actually doing it.

Ukraine is now strategic partner of Western military alliances - in my eyes no one could predict that development 1 year ago.

The Ukraine being a strategic partner of Western military alliances is not only something that could have been predicted, and not only something that was an absolute fact not even a year ago, but already 8 years ago - but in fact is the main reason for the war itself.
So your statement is nonsensical here too.
Go join another forum, you're wasting your time here.

When fantasizing about russia taking odessa or lvov is sent to the bollocks thread

Odessa is not "fantasizing". It is a need, also to solve the issue with transnistria.

Lvov must be demilitarized, together with at least half of Romania, Slovacchia and Poland

After the end of this, there should be a change in the costitution of Poland, Romania, Baltic countries, etc, where it is explicitly written that no foreign bases are allowed and no foreign military and equipment, including from US, NATO and other EU countries, are allowed

First let russia take maryinka. Baby steps.

On the topic of the risk of use of nuclear weaponry we see lots of columns from people analyzing the situation and being afraid it deteriorates . I actually tend to believe the risk decreased compared to the start of the conflict.

Looking back at Russian doctrine, Russia will only use these weapons if attacked by nuclear weapons or if the use of conventional weapons puts the existence of Russia at risk. But frankly the risk of conventional weapons being able to have that kind of impact has significantly decreased to pretty much zero. NATO is weak, Europe is weak. They lack significant armor, artillery, airpower, ammunition and troop readiness is below par. There is absolutely zero risk of any significant conventional impact.

Let's say some mentally unstable person decides to fire a few missiles on one or multiple Russian cities (they already do in the Donbass) and it would still not warrant the use of nuclear weapons. It's about whether those missiles pose a direct risk for Russia's existence and they are not. They are an inconvenience and nothing more.

So the only risk left, is the US or any of the partners pressing the nuclear button first. I have some serious doubts on US nuclear readiness - given the overall state of their infrastructure and the previously exposed internal sabotage by top generals on launch code access - and doing so would cause them to become a global pariah. And that, is the last thing they need right now given their financial and sociological state which is rapidly deteriorating.

I believe this will continue to be a process of attrition. The Western coalition will try to win time in order to speed up their industry; producing and shipping more weapons and ammunition and they will send untrained and unprepared men taken from the streets into the grinder - as a human shield - just to slow down Russian advancements as much as they can.

For the Russian side, it's maybe wiser to not advance too fast and first create strong defensive perimeters on strategically important locations; high ground, well covered, logistically important, etc. bring in armor and solid air defenses and shorten the logistic lines to the frontline as much as possible.

flamming_python wrote:What you are doing is attempting to portray the 'costs' on the Ukrainian and Russian side as roughly equal, but in fact no comparison can be made.

The Ukraine is still standing because it's an existential war for it, or rather its Western curators have made the war into such for it, much as they made it into one for Russia too. Russia for that reason would also be standing were it to take the same level of losses as the Ukraine has - but the very fact is that the costs so far for Russia have been a tiny fraction of those for the Ukraine. And lower in fact than for Europe.

The Ukraine's economy has been destroyed, while the Russian one carries on as if not only there was no war on, but basically having recovered all its COVID losses and in a phase of increasing growth. The European ones meanwhile slide further into recession.

As for strategic goals and manpower - it's a marathon, not a sprint. Here too Russia's losses are only a fraction of the Ukraine's, albeit significant in and of themselves, don't mean to suggest otherwise. NATO meanwhile has had to send half their reserve armory, including almost all their Soviet-built weaponry, and several thousand mercs, with nothing to show for it.
Russia is successfully replacing equipment losses with new production, the Ukraine is unable to and NATO is still arguing about how to do it, but without actually doing it.

Well yes Russia is aiming for marathon - it has no other options. Originally plan was to crush Ukraine in a couple of months and install pro Russian government and finish it - did not go well.
Statement that Russian losses are not so big are based on what? Russian side is hiding their losses even more compared to Ukraine. Neither losses of people nor equipment are public. You hide numbers when they are not good, nothing to speculate there, Ukraine is doing that - but Russia too, it is the same reason for acting like that - both have huge losses.

Regarding NATO - that organization is dinosaurs from another era. It is not functional nor it has clear purpose or strength for some time now. Nor it is really dangerous to Russia - for years. We see that some countries in NATO are quite big supporters of Russia (Hungary, Turkey). We see that some non NATO countries are more involved in support to Ukraine like Sweden. We see that some East European countries like Poland, Romania and Baltics do not give a dam to NATO - they know organization is not functional. Only security guarantee for them can be given by US, not NATO. So NATO is only cover story for official Russia, like it is some mythical monster that is supposed to destroy Russia. But it can not even produce enough ammunition for its own defense let alone to support Ukraine lol. So no, NATO is not real reason for this war; if anything this war clearly clarified that and exposed all weaknesses of NATO publicly.

flamming_python wrote:The Ukraine being a strategic partner of Western military alliances is not only something that could have been predicted, and not only something that was an absolute fact not even a year ago, but already 8 years ago - but in fact is the main reason for the war itself.

For Ukraine it was always issue that it was too close geographically and culturally to Russia, so NATO was never able seriously to bridge that gap and incorporate it into its own structures. But Russia was not able to crush that country in time window of few months. Now west has to respond. Ukraine still has many restrictions on strategic weaponry that has longer ranges, more payload etc... but as war continues those restrictions will melt too. Again it was up to Russia to do quickly the job and make a peace - it did not happen. No one in Kyiv will ever again listen to what Moscow has to say. For them - Russia crossed line of no return.

flamming_python wrote:Go join another forum, you're wasting your time here.

You are not serious, it is good to have balanced and sometime opposing views, talking with people that all have the same opinion is boring in my eyes.

The first batch of Polish Leopard 2s has arrived in Ukraine.

@WarMonitors
Intense fighting in the direction of Avdiika this afternoon.
Notable thing is the heavy use of jets and attack helicopters, which is unlike most of the battles we’ve seen before in this area. i

Well yes Russia is aiming for marathon - it has no other options. Originally plan was to crush Ukraine in a couple of months and install pro Russian government and finish it - did not go well.
Statement that Russian losses are not so big are based on what? Russian side is hiding their losses even more compared to Ukraine. Neither losses of people nor equipment are public. You hide numbers when they are not good, nothing to speculate there, Ukraine is doing that - but Russia too, it is the same reason for acting like that - both have huge losses.

Regarding NATO - that organization is dinosaurs from another era. It is not functional nor it has clear purpose or strength for some time now. Nor it is really dangerous to Russia - for years. We see that some countries in NATO are quite big supporters of Russia (Hungary, Turkey). We see that some non NATO countries are more involved in support to Ukraine like Sweden. We see that some East European countries like Poland, Romania and Baltics do not give a dam to NATO - they know organization is not functional. Only security guarantee for them can be given by US, not NATO. So NATO is only cover story for official Russia, like it is some mythical monster that is supposed to destroy Russia. But it can not even produce enough ammunition for its own defense let alone to support Ukraine lol. So no, NATO is not real reason for this war; if anything this war clearly clarified that and exposed all weaknesses of NATO publicly.

That was the plan, and indeed it would have been delivered upon were it not for NATO going all in on this conflict, promising Kiev unlimited arms, resources, mercenary support, and keeping its employees paid and state structures functioning artificially through virtual money infusions.

But since NATO did go all in, so now the battle is against NATO. There's a reason why the later is refusing to back down and ready to engage in nuclear war rather than lose in the Ukraine.
Russia's job is to manage these threats, work to split the alliance, prevent escalation, and neutralize all enemy units on Ukrainian territory, though in such a way so as to preserve its own manpower and its own defenses in case NATO does decide to send expeditionary forces.

For Ukraine it was always issue that it was too close geographically and culturally to Russia, so NATO was never able seriously to bridge that gap and incorporate it into its own structures. But Russia was not able to crush that country in time window of few months. Now west has to respond. Ukraine still has many restrictions on strategic weaponry that has longer ranges, more payload etc... but as war continues those restrictions will melt too. Again it was up to Russia to do quickly the job and make a peace - it did not happen. No one in Kyiv will ever again listen to what Moscow has to say. For them - Russia crossed line of no return.

The West was always going to respond and was responding from before the war. That indeed was the whole reason they did everything to provoke Russia into a war. Several new military bases of Britain and the US were opening. Yaroriv was training 1-2 bridages of Ukrainian troops a year. Western mercs and arms supplies flooded into the country well in advance of the Russian invasion.

True, they thought that Russia would be able to occupy east and central Ukraine rapidly, and that they would move into western Ukraine while organizing an insurgency in the part of the Ukraine held by Russia. And that this would basically work, especially as the economic sanctions would be biting Russia and increasing domestic unrest there and thus tolerance for casualties.
Russia decided upon a different strategy. One that increases the strain on NATO arms supplies while keeping Russia closer to its own borders, but at the cost of having to face a larger Ukrainian mobilization pool and having artillery and missiles be close enough to threaten its own territory.

As for the line of no return - well once again, they were willing to discuss terms in March and April. It was NATO (Washington more accurately) which interfered in the discussions, per the Turks, former Israeli PM and Jeffrey Sachs; they all claimed the same thing.
But let's say they're not willing to discuss terms from now on. Well sucks to be them. I'm fairly confident someone will crop up in the end though. Right now the kool-aid of imminent Russian defeat and isolation is still wearing off.

You are not serious, it is good to have balanced and sometime opposing views, talking with people that all have the same opinion is boring in my eyes.

I have no problem with that but then come up with something original, as otherwise it seems we're rehashing the same discussion over and over and over again.

@WarMonitors
“Push the borders of threats to our country as far as possible, even if these are the borders of Poland” — Medvedev

China is calling for a ceasefire not because they love a fellow autocrat like NATO, nor do they like Russia. China wants to harm India because India is importing billions of dollars worth of Russian crude oil, fertilizers and rolled steel.

China hates the idea of cheap materials finding its way to India. Also Russian military equipment finds its way into India, something China also doesn't like.

China can now swoop in, try to be the ally the Russians want and then pluck every square centimeter of Russian soil for every bit of raw materials they can find as a thank you for saving Russia.

The Ukrainian pollster "Rating Group" published some statistics.

17% of all Ukrainians queried say they lost "a loved one" so far, up from 9% in their previous survey last July. So that's indicative of a fairly consistent casualty rate. It is also an indication of high casualties in general, of course, if nearly 1/5th of the population says they lost one.

Contrast this with Russia, the population still appears unphazed to me. Nobody I know has lost anyone they know, and that's not a huge sample, but still. Social society remains fairly calm too, no major upsets.

Anyway...

The Chinese "peace plan" that was published today, while quite sound objectively speaking contains some definite no-can-do's for the Kiev regime and its backers (ending unilateral sanctions, agreeing to demilitarization of large swathes of Ukraine), so it was probably never meant to be seriously considered. Perhaps China just wanted to throw it out there, watch it get rejected, and now China can move forward supporting Russia more overtly with a "clean conscience".

Immediately after the above hit the news, there's been some oddly specific information floated about Chinese drones being sold to Russia (companies involved, types, numbers), and of local production being set up. Coincidence?

China's position has never changed. They said from the beginning they prefer peace. Obviously calling for a ceasefire while half of Donetsk is still occupied by Ukraine is somewhat humiliating for Russia, but c'est la vie. They want stable relations with Europe and cheap resources from Russia, and so far they are getting it.

Notable thing is the heavy use of jets and attack helicopters, which is unlike most of the battles we’ve seen before in this area. wrote:

Perhaps they are exploiting the holes in the AFU AD. Airpower is great for several things, they weight of ordinance it can deliver is hard to replicate with artillery, it can hit further behind the line of contact and you have much more flexibility in delivering the strike. Artillery - hammer blows. Air power - sledge hammer blows.

Our source reports that all operators, gunners, etc. for "Himars" are foreigners (Poles, Lithuanians, Latvians, Romanians).
Ukrainian troops are engaged only in the protection and escort of toys. In some cases, they give the right to "steer" the machine.
The same situation will be for the new Leopard tanks, where the crews will be foreign. Ukrainians will be given the right to manage old modifications.
https://t.me/legitimniy/14848

As was posted already and was easily predicted a week ago

“Today, Polish Leopards have already reached Ukraine”: Minister of National Defense of Poland Blaszczak at a meeting of the National Security Council of Poland.

The Brian Berletics of the world always say that this equipment will take weeks or months to train on , ship and put into service. When really , the Anglo axis makes political theater out of it , to get Russia complacent.

I think it's fairly obvious that the tanks are commanded by Polish or Nato officers. And Ukrainian gunners and drivers have been trained months ago already. Maybe it's worse. If they even bothered with that. Maybe some will be fully fitted with nato crews. Finding suicidal Nato soldiers doesn't seem to be a problem.

Not that they will make a big difference. But it is yet another red line crossed and a sign of total disregard for Russia's nuclear deterrent. Which Russia spent soooooo much money on. Pull right out of START and test nuclear weapons now !

@NWEWarReports
So far no big news out of Ukraine, it seems possible the Wagner Mercenaries captured Yahidne (a small village near Bakhmut) but they have been present there for a few days. No news of a new offensive, Ukraine does report heavy artillery barrages on the border towns.

---

clear mines?

Because it is cheaper to do it on the front (or close behind it).

@arrow
Bring these tanks to the front, capture these, rate them, @Leningrad 1941 Tiger I