The War in the Ukraine

kokole said:

$4 million???

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1606423314532110341

Zelensky in his evening speech addressed the citizens of Russia via a warning.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1606425304481906689

Click to expand...

Genuine questions : Why hasn't Russia struck Zelensky yet? They have no problems striking targets in Kiev so how is Zelensky & Co. not only alive but gaining muscles (suggesting access to personalised Gyms/trainers, enough nutritional food and supplements)? This leads me to question whether Zelensky really is living in Kiev or operating from secretive NATO territory (most probably Poland) in a palace made to look exactly like the Ukrainian Presidential quarters?

Anlsvrthng said:

You say that loosing the 1% of the population as KIA and disabled is peanuts?

Click to expand...

In a war of survival, against their super-sized neighbor, almost a year-long war, and relative to the available number of military-age men. Yes, peanuts. NATO doesnt care about percentages, it just wants to fight Russia down to the last Ukrainian

Anlsvrthng said:

What is the size of the army now, two million maybe ? or three now ?

Click to expand...

That's not important. What's most important IMO is how big is the pool Ukraine can draw from to replenish their losses without collapsing. From what I am seeing, the number is easily 5+ million if Western funding continues.

Anlsvrthng said:

Are you serious ?Everyone tried to escape Ukraine prior of 2014, since 91, no one wants to live there, only raw force and lack of options keeping them in the trenches.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant. That's probably the same thing Putin was thinking and he triggered the war. I would suggest not repeating past mistakes.

People don't want to be there you say. Maybe its true, maybe its not. In reality though, Ukraine now has 25 million inside. Any immigrant to the West is mostly women, children and elderly, leaving the males to stay in Ukraine

Anlsvrthng said:

They have to keep units everywhere around the perimeter, so compared to the size of the army the left reserves is not so big, considering that there is a NEED for working infrastructure, without rail, roads, electricty it is not possible to move armor

Click to expand...

Is Russia inflicting 400k casualties per month? If not then the reserves are ok, they can be trained and then sent to the frontline where they will have a baptism of fire (yeah, many casualties).

As for infrastructure, that's why Ukraine can't sent all of its military-age men to the army. I would say with Western funding, they can probably draw a max 40%. That's 5+ million men.

Anlsvrthng said:

And finally, the whole calculation is based on that you ahve million whom willing to die for Uncle Sam. For what benefit ?

Click to expand...

No. What they see, hear, and being told, and from social pressure, is that they fight for the survival of their country, families, children, women, elderly. You know, the usual propaganda

That they actually fight for the US we of course know about it. For them though, they think that they fight for their country lol. Just a matter of perspective

Anlsvrthng said:

Mate, if Russia really wants to speed up the grinds they can start to bomb cities, and kill the possible recruits. Like as happened in Germany during the WW2

Click to expand...

Not that dramatic stuff, but if (I don't have good memory) you were here when this clown war and the thread started, I said something similar of how to conduct the war from day 1 when the war started. So don't complain to me, you and I know to who to point the finger to blame for this.

That they don't do this now is probably because the West would utilise its soft power outrage machine to drown Russia diplomatically

Anlsvrthng said:

And they have nuclear bombs, means the speed of the destruction of Ukrainan manpower is only matter of urgency, not lack of means

Click to expand...

Same as above reason. PR and optics

Anlsvrthng said:

And they have nuclear bombs, means the speed of the destruction of Ukrainan manpower is only matter of urgency, not lack of means.

Click to expand...

If Russia ever use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, it will open the road to a global nuclear arms race that cannot be stopped. I'll be surprised if they won't be absolutely isolated by everyone in that case lest it encourages Japan, South Korea and even Taiwan to acquire nuclear weapons in defense, not to mention all the Eastern European states that will suddenly want to acquire strategic deterrence against Russia.

FairAndUnbiased said:

Will it really end at the negotiating table?

Click to expand...

Yes? Putin thinks all armed conflicts end on the negotiation table one way or another.

"All armed conflicts end one way or another with some kind of negotiations on the diplomatic track,"
-

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

"Sooner or later, any parties in a state of conflict sit down and make an agreement. The sooner this realization comes to those who oppose us, the better. We have never given up on this."
-

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

So no, Putin does not believe in endless protracted war of attrition to induce "collapse" (whatever this means), he is still aiming for a negotiated settlement and war of limited objectives. I predict the moment Donbass is liberated, he will unilaterally declare an end to S.M.O. and mobilization, and transition to a low-level intensity conflict while trying to negotiate a ceasefire.

generalmeng said:

I wouldn't over emphasis the importance of HIMARS. HIMARS are just MLRS, with accurate GPS guidance. Russia have those too, they are call BM30 andTornado MLRS, I believe the Russian range is 50? to 200km? HIMAR range is like 80 to 90km? I mean, maybe HIMARS can be accurate to like 1 to 2 meters, while the Russian rockets are only accurate (GLONASS) to maybe 10-20 meters? I wasn't able to find reliable data on the CES of Russian rockets.

HIMAR have about 100kg or less explosive, this is a decent amount of explosive. while the Russian have warhead of 250kg. With a more accurate weapon, you can use a smaller warhead. Less accuracy need bigger warhead. All in all, Russian MLRS are designed to do achieve the same or similar end result as nato MLRS. Whether it's with more accurate shots, or bigger boom.

If Ukraine is destroying Russia with 40 or less HIMAR. What about the over 100 long range MLRS Russians have? They just sit and look pretty?

Click to expand...

Apparently Russia had just 20 Tornado-S systems at the start of the war:

Russians are starting to lose ground in Bakhmut.
There's many videos going around of a bunch of dead Russian soldiers in Bakhmut with one sector having 19 dead just today but I won't be posting it since there's no point unless I get called out that what I'm saying is false.

I don't get it where are all the Russian tanks and other armored vehicles? Why aren't blitzing Bakhmut since it seems the hotspot of this Ukraine war is Bakhmut and Kreminna which they are also losing ground. Why are T-90M's going to Belarus and not Bakhmut front? Doesn't make sense.

Phead128 said:

I predict the moment Donbass is liberated, he will unilaterally declare an end to S.M.O. and mobilization, and transition to a low-level intensity conflict while trying to negotiate a ceasefire.

Click to expand...

Why would the US do this favour to Russia? If I am in the US' strategic office planning department (or whatever it is called), I am dragging this war for another 5 years at least (ideally 2030). If I also heard that Putin now suddenly wanted a ceasefire out of the blue, I would laugh him out of the door

Let him waste a decade fighting with Ukraine first to completely destroy Russia economically and then we can talk about a ceasefire if he wants. This would be my thinking

---

In real life, Putin's best diplomatic option is to convince France and Germany to back him up. However, I wouldn't bet on these vassals to resist against their emperor

Overbom said:

Why would the US do this favour to Russia? If I am in the US' strategic office planning department (or whatever it is called), I am dragging this war for another 5 years at least (ideally 2030). If I also heard that Putin now suddenly wanted a ceasefire out of the blue, I would laugh him out of the door

Let him waste a decade fighting with Ukraine first to completely destroy Russia economically and then we can talk about a ceasefire if he wants. This would be my thinking

---

In real life, Putin's best diplomatic option is to convince France and Germany to back him up. However, I wouldn't bet on these vassals to resist against their emperor

Click to expand...

War has to have a climax of some sort before 2024 US Prez elections. By summer of 2023 if it still looks the same (stalemate) with US cash still pouring in the current administration will settle for some sort of negotiations. Summer 2023 is campaign season and Ukraine better be gaining back a lot of their lost land by then.

FriedButter said:

From the German POV yes but what about the Soviet POV? Didn’t they also hold the city (specially the West Bank) no matter the cost as well?

Click to expand...

That was a mistake. Stalin also refused to evacuate 400k civilians even when given the chance because he thought that it would make the local garrison more motivated to fight.

Overbom said:

NATO's primary goal is to weaken Russia. Expanding NATO serves to constrict Russia's strategic space.

If you can't expand NATO to Ukraine, which btw I always thought was a ridiculous idea, then surely bleeding Russia dry on the Ukraine war is surely the best thing that happened to NATO since the Soviet Union's dissolution

As for economic damage inflicted to NATO, that's certainly true. But it is an acceptable price for them to pay for such an once or so opportunity in a century where your enemy so badly miscalculates and is now stuck in a years-long quagmire

Its all about if the advantages outweigh the disadvantages

Click to expand...

It would be a mutual weakening of both Russia and NATO. That is a favor to China.

Overbom said:

In a war of survival, against their super-sized neighbor, almost a year-long war, and relative to the available number of military-age men. Yes, peanuts. NATO doesnt care about percentages, it just wants to fight Russia down to the last Ukrainian


That's not important. What's most important IMO is how big is the pool Ukraine can draw from to replenish their losses without collapsing. From what I am seeing, the number is easily 5+ million if Western funding continues.


Irrelevant. That's probably the same thing Putin was thinking and he triggered the war. I would suggest not repeating past mistakes.

People don't want to be there you say. Maybe its true, maybe its not. In reality though, Ukraine now has 25 million inside. Any immigrant to the West is mostly women, children and elderly, leaving the males to stay in Ukraine



Is Russia inflicting 400k casualties per month? If not then the reserves are ok, they can be trained and then sent to the frontline where they will have a baptism of fire (yeah, many casualties).

As for infrastructure, that's why Ukraine can't sent all of its military-age men to the army. I would say with Western funding, they can probably draw a max 40%. That's 5+ million men.


No. What they see, hear, and being told, and from social pressure, is that they fight for the survival of their country, families, children, women, elderly. You know, the usual propaganda

That they actually fight for the US we of course know about it. For them though, they think that they fight for their country lol. Just a matter of perspective


Not that dramatic stuff, but if (I don't have good memory) you were here when this clown war and the thread started, I said something similar of how to conduct the war from day 1 when the war started. So don't complain to me, you and I know to who to point the finger to blame for this.

That they don't do this now is probably because the West would utilise its soft power outrage machine to drown Russia diplomatically



Same as above reason. PR and optics

Click to expand...

40% mobilization of the male population is utterly insane. Even in WW2, US and Imperial Japan mobilized around 5-9%. Germany mobilized 31%, but that was at the end due to desperation, and with a massive population of slaves that Ukraine doesn't have.


Mobilizing a large portion of the population is temporary. Without people working civilian jobs to keep the economy running, the country collapses or has to outsource the very expensive prospect of running a civilian economy - in this case to NATO.

Phead128 said:

Yes? Putin thinks all armed conflicts end on the negotiation table one way or another.




So no, Putin does not believe in endless protracted war of attrition to induce "collapse" (whatever this means), he is still aiming for a negotiated settlement and war of limited objectives. I predict the moment Donbass is liberated, he will unilaterally declare an end to S.M.O. and mobilization, and transition to a low-level intensity conflict while trying to negotiate a ceasefire.

Click to expand...

As long as Ukraine has the physical capability to fight, they will not go to the table no matter what Putin declares, so only collapse - defined here as the incapability for further fighting - will stop them.

Putin may want them to be at the table but their terms are his head and they haven't changed those terms.

SolarWarden said:

Russians are starting to lose ground in Bakhmut.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1606982873445457921

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1607104798678974464

There's many videos going around of a bunch of dead Russian soldiers in Bakhmut with one sector having 19 dead just today but I won't be posting it since there's no point unless I get called out that what I'm saying is false.

I don't get it where are all the Russian tanks and other armored vehicles? Why aren't blitzing Bakhmut since it seems the hotspot of this Ukraine war is Bakhmut and Kreminna which they are also losing ground. Why are T-90M's going to Belarus and not Bakhmut front? Doesn't make sense.

Click to expand...

You can’t expect Russia to make sense at this point. People used to believe they would eliminate the entire ukr military in a week at the beginning. Now however we still see footage of ukr frogfoots and mig-29s. They don’t seem to have the logistical capability that the US had during the gulf or iraq, they can’t fight a war well, even next door.