Ukrainian War Developments

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lapin

Junior Member
Registered Member
The 'Daily Mail' is a right-wing British tabloid that's far from being a reliable source, but

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"EXCLUSIVE: Former Russian UN diplomat is NEO-NAZI leader who defaced New York with death's head logo and posted photos
of himself performing Nazi salute - as Putin claims Russia is 'de-Nazifying Ukraine"

"Kirill Kolchin was based at the Russian Mission to the United Nations from the summer of 2019 until February 2020
Kolchin boasts about his neo-Nazi links, describing himself on his Instagram page as a supporter of 'OSS' - Old School Skins"

"A man who appeared to be Kolchin was photographed making a Nazi salute in an image posted to the Old School Skins
account on
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
- a Neo Nazi group which Kolchin promotes on his own page."
 

Abominable

Major
Registered Member
More bizarre scenes at the UNSC. After blocking Russia's attempt to discuss the Bucha fake war crimes it's addressed in today's scheduled meeting. More virtue signalling from the usual suspects. It's very interesting that America didn't mention Bucha specifically, they just condemn Russian war crimes in general. The Pentagon earlier said that they couldn't be sure that Russia was behind the killings in Bucha. I'm sure America knows that it was an MI6 operation and don't want anything to do with it, because Russia isn't Syria. In the end it's Russia that is the one calling for the killings to be investigated independently. China didn't say much, just not to draw any conclusions and calling for peace. India backed up Russia by calling for an independent investigation, yet this is somehow being portrayed as India condemning Russia in western media.

Then for some reason Zelensky, who is not a representative to the UNSC, is allowed to address the assembly. His speech is weird even by Ukrainian standards, first comparing the war he helped start to WW2. He also asks for Russia to be expelled from the UNSC, or failing that for the UNSC to be disbanded. Like that will ever happen. The US later says that it won't support that, even though that was what they were attempting to do at the start of the war. It seems like they've given up on that front.

The more this carries on, the worst it's becoming for America and NATO. Someone earlier compared it to the Douma incident, I think it's more like a Suez Crisis for America. Even Russians don't consider themselves a superpower anymore, but they are able to completely upstage and embarass America and the whole of NATO.
 

Abominable

Major
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Does anyone know the story about the political situation they mentioned near the end?
Basically, people in Russia are starting to become very unhappy with the way Putin is fighting this war. He's being far too "soft". Southfront are a military site so they're a bit biased, but there's definitely seems to have been a shift in how the war is seen.
 

Lapin

Junior Member
Registered Member
How many of them are asking for China to mediate what they claim to be an existential struggle? How many are asking for aid?

Thought so.
The tireless dishonesty of some fanatical pro-Russian writers here can hardly be exaggerated
I ALREADY pointed out in this forum that the European Union has suggested that China mediate.
Again,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"Russia’s war on Ukraine: ‘It has to be China’ as mediator, EU foreign policy chief says"​

"EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell has spoken out strongly in favour of China mediating in Russia’s war against
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.
“There is no alternative. We [Europeans] cannot be the mediators, that is clear … And it cannot be the US either. Who else?
It has to be China, I trust in that,” Borrell said in an interview with the Spanish newspaper El Mundo."

In response to my earlier post, several writers here rejected that suggestion, ridiculing it as nothing more than a Western trap.
 

Coalescence

Senior Member
Registered Member
In response to my earlier post, several writers here rejected that suggestion, ridiculing it as nothing more than a Western trap.
Because it is a Western trap. US and EU wants to make China involved in this crisis, to embarrass China in the global stage as a weak power that don't have influence and after the talks subsequently "failed", they would pressure China as to why they don't do more like sanctioning or cutting ties with Russia. Its also very telling as well as Russia is trying to not get China involved, by denying or keeping quiet about accusations of China being involved in the war.
 

Phead128

Captain
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
@Lapin

For anyone saying you are 'anti-China' for the slightest criticism of Russia, just know you are not alone.

I have 16-years of anti-US comments on Sinodefence, but some of the Russophiles call me 'pro-US shill, anti-China' for the slightest criticism of Russia.

You can't fix stupid. I suggest just pointing out the absurdity of Russian propaganda, rather than repeating 'Don't go to war'. Most of us are living vicariously through Russia smacking US, because China is too reluctant to be this forceful against US. So it's not like we love blood/gore/conquest, but the idea of US getting put in it's place is what excites most people here. China get spit on, but doesn't fight back. We are living life (vicariously) through Russia squash the US, it's impossible to change this since this is a military forum.
 

FriedButter

Major
Registered Member

"Russia’s war on Ukraine: ‘It has to be China’ as mediator, EU foreign policy chief says"​

"EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell has spoken out strongly in favour of China mediating in Russia’s war against
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.
“There is no alternative. We [Europeans] cannot be the mediators, that is clear … And it cannot be the US either. Who else?
It has to be China, I trust in that,” Borrell said in an interview with the Spanish newspaper El Mundo."

In response to my earlier post, several writers here rejected that suggestion, ridiculing it as nothing more than a Western trap.

When today that the NATO chief is openly stating they are powerful enough to destroy every country in the world then how is this not a trap. NATO new Asia strategy announced just a while ago that targets China. Leading France presidential candidate has stated not to push Russia into China arms 3 months ago. The German Navy Chief said Berlin needed Russia against China half a year ago. Then you got US politicians saying they want to split Russia and China relations apart. This is such an obvious trap by the West in a poor attempt to sow discord with Russia/China relations.
 

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
T-72M1 and BMP-1...might as well send them MiG-17's from the museums too.
No kidding. These are Warsaw Pact degraded versions. Ukraine had loads of Soviet T-72Bs in storage.

T72B in the motorway encounter the Javelin or NLAW for that matter and it did not go well
The problem I have with comments like this is that Ukraine also has T-72B tanks in service. And most of the T-72B tanks operated by Russian aligned forces seem to be used by the Donbass separatists. Which are nowhere near that area.

I think his point was that the Ukrainians will have to try and prevent the envelopment maneuver the Russians will perform behind the entrenched positions in Donbass. Otherwise those forces will be surrounded and annihilated. The maneuver warfare part will take place outside settlements.
But Russia won't just be pushing from Donbass i.e. east. They will be pushing from the north and south at the same time.
So, no, they do not need to get around them when they already have passed Izium and Mariupol.

It's improbable that the Ukrainians will surrender and give up territory. The people running the show are nationalists, extremists. Their game plan is to escalate this to World War III. That's how they intend to win, when NATO joins the fight. The more likely scenarios for Russia are total defeat or constant decades-long war until Russia is totally exhausted (and possible regime change in Moscow) and Ukraine is totally destroyed.
Uh no. If Ukraine did try to go total war and Russia did have issues breaking them then Russia could just do a massive bombing campaign with their strategic bombers. Russia has roughly the same size strategic bomber fleet as the US. Roughly same number of Tu-95 as B-52, Tu-22M3 as B-1, and slightly less Tu-160 than B-2. But Tu-160 has like twice the payload of the B-2.

The chances of Ukraine signing anything that would give up even Crimea is very remote. They will fight to take it all back, and they will fight to the end. They will be constantly supplied by NATO so they're never going to run out of ammo or equipment.
Russia will never run out of ammo either. They might have issues with some supplies eventually. But at least bullets won't be an issue. Nor will diesel.

The numbers are in their favor as well, because the Russians are unwilling to draft more than the standard number of yearly conscripts.
The main objective is to destroy or displace the Ukrainian army in Donbass. It remains to be seen what the Russians will decide to do afterwards. But they made it clear that Ukraine becoming neutral is one of the objectives. If they insist of retaining that NATO aspirational clause in their constitution the Russians won't stop at that.

Russia is also going to bleed population almost as much as Ukraine as young people flee to avoid conscription and to seek better opportunities abroad. I would expect to see expanding colonies of Russian expats in places like Latin America, Central Asia and Southeast Asia.
Sure there will be Russian immigration. But I think you can't compare the situation of either. And Europe itself will see massive migration happen once energy costs and inflation spiral out of control.

So there is a report that Ukrainian forces are 20 km from Kherson ? I wonder. and there is other report that said Russia may pull out.
They have been there right since the beggining. They basically do artillery bombardments on the outkirts of Kherson every time they get out of Nikolayev. It remains to be seen what Russia will do about this. But they won't pull of Kherson. Not without a negotiated deal. Even with a deal I find it increasingly unlikely the Russians would pull out.

Kinda hard to believe, as Russia are said to set a new administration there. If the city fall back to Ukraine or abandoned, the city's inhabitatans may suffer reprisal or some of them would suffer reprisal for being considered "Pro Russians"
Yeah that is one reason why I think the Russians won't leave Kherson.

They were said to be mining a bridge across the Dnieper in Kherson a while ago. IMO it would be a mistake, but they know their capabilities more than we do. It's possible that Putin has decided he lost in March and he wants to end the war and all the stuff about focusing on Donbas is just cover for an orderly withdrawal back to pre-February 24th borders. In that case, a major humiliation and defeat for Russia.
Lol. No. Donbass will be extended to its maximum borders. And I think Ukraine will lose the two oblasts in the South too.

I'm getting vibes of the 1904-05 Russo-Japanese war.
What? A war fought on the other side of Russia, really far from their population and industrial core? Nope.

Except the Russians have no reinforcements, and they show no signs of being willing to escalate. Instead, we've had one unilateral concession / retreat after another. Not only are they being made to look evil in the eyes of the West and some neutral observers, they are being made to look weak.
Without increasing the amount of troops deployed to Ukraine they needed to pull troops from elsewhere to attack the Ukrainian formations near the Donbass. And the phantom attacks on Kiev and Odessa outlived their purpose. You can't invade a city like Kiev with 50k troops anyway.

People still can't get their heads wrapped around the idea but it's a real possibility: Russia may deliberately choose to lose the war rather than escalate their tactics or send reinforcements.
They made their objectives clear when the war started and I doubt they will stop the conflict until those are met.

It's possible that they are horrified at what they themselves did in terms of humanitarian costs, gobsmacked at the unified Western response and its economic effects, and just want to cut their losses, retreat back to their borders, and try to repair the damage. Their continuing attacks are to provide cover for their retreat. It's possible. You have no idea what's going on in Moscow. All we have is what they are doing on the ground, which is entirely consistent with what I wrote above.
What? That Putin has over 80% approval rating and people keep saying in Russia that he should be pushing the Ukrainians harder? Yeah right.

ISW Update. It's not clear that all the units withdrawn from the North are being redeployed to East/South.
I doubt they would place the VDV paratroopers they had near Kiev fighting the Ukrainians in the Donbass pocket.
Those would be better off resting and getting used in a week or two in a rear area action elsewhere.
They have mostly light equipment and would be most useful in a war of movement. Not attacking the Ukrainian Siegfried Line.
What I think they will do is put the VDV in Belarus or elsewhere in Russia and get more units of the 1st Guards Tank Army to replace them in the Donbass offensive. Rotating troops out.

Turns out Gazprom had been emptying the Germania gas storage plant since 2021, so the Germans just realized it had barely 1% of gas left in it after they took control of it
Remains to be seen if true. But if the Russians did that they were smart. Since the Europeans have proven themselves to be a bunch of thieves anyway. Perhaps they need to learn the same lesson the Ukrainians did when the Russians cut their gas after the Ukrainians stopped paying. What will they use the Euros they get from Europe for anyway? Now Europe wants to only sell Russia food and medicine. While they keep importing everything they want from Russia. Except. Russia hasn't imported food from Europe since 2014.
So that would leave medicine. And you know what? They can get most of the medicine from somewhere else like India or China.
The EU is making itself increasingly irrelevant for the Russian economy.

They do:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Ukraine used to make missile sensors. So that makes sense. I know Russia had the damnedest time replacing the R-77 missile sensor for example. One reason why the Russian Air Force stuck with the R-27 in service for as long as they did is they did not want to be dependent on Ukrainian parts for the missiles. Only after they replaced the Ukrainian sensor in the R-77 did they order the 100% Russian R-77-1 in large quantities.

Raputitsa or General Mud is the cause. This happens almost every year. Its a consequence of the very deep, organic dirt in a fairly wet climate. It makes for great farm land. It also makes for muck that is deep and thick. People can lose shoes to it even. Driving a truck or tank through it seems...less than brilliant. Putin had to know about the muck. I don't get why he'd not wait for May to launch this war. General Mud retires from the field around then.
Supposedly the Ukrainians would have attacked Donbass by then. This was a preemptive attack so it had to happen earlier.
 
Last edited:

Lapin

Junior Member
Registered Member
Total defeat is impossible for Russia. If it got that bad they'll just nuke Kiev, Lvov and other Ukrainian cities until they get a surrender or there is nothing left.

Ukraine will be continue to fight as long as NATO supplies them. But NATO doesn't have an infinite stockpile and is currently spending billions a month. They're spending at a higher than the Afghan war. Politically all NATO countries are very unstable right now and there's a good chance any of them could end up dealing with serious public unrest.

Most Russians are nationalistic and seem to agree with Putin's idea that this is a war of survival. It certainly means more to them than Vietnam did to the average American. America didn't exactly bleed population then.

I agree that Ukraine is highly unlikely to sign an agreement. Even neutrality or no NATO would mean Ukraine would effectively cease to exist. Ukrainians build their identity on not being Russian. Giving up territory to Russia would make Zelensky the most hated man in the Ukraine and would probably lead to him fleeing and a pogrom of Ukrainian Jews by nationalists.
"Total defeat is impossible for Russia. If it got that bad they'll just nuke Kiev, Lvov and other Ukrainian cities until they
get a surrender or there is nothing left."
--Abominable (a fitting name)

Do you believe that the USSR should have nuked Kabul, Kandahar, and Herat rather than withdraw from Afghanistan?
Do you believe that the USA should have nuked Hanoi and Haiphong (Saigon too?) rather than withdraw from Vietnam?

Russian nuclear first strikes against Ukraine's cities would be acts of genocide--without exaggeration this time.
Of course, the 'might makes right' crowd here presumably believes that some genocides are good and glorious.
 

Abominable

Major
Registered Member
The tireless dishonesty of some fanatical pro-Russian writers here can hardly be exaggerated
I ALREADY pointed out in this forum that the European Union has suggested that China mediate.
Again,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"Russia’s war on Ukraine: ‘It has to be China’ as mediator, EU foreign policy chief says"​

"EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell has spoken out strongly in favour of China mediating in Russia’s war against
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.
“There is no alternative. We [Europeans] cannot be the mediators, that is clear … And it cannot be the US either. Who else?
It has to be China, I trust in that,” Borrell said in an interview with the Spanish newspaper El Mundo."

In response to my earlier post, several writers here rejected that suggestion, ridiculing it as nothing more than a Western trap.
Stop begging China to fix your problems. Ask India or some other country.


"Total defeat is impossible for Russia. If it got that bad they'll just nuke Kiev, Lvov and other Ukrainian cities until they
get a surrender or there is nothing left."
--Abominable (a fitting name)

Do you believe that the USSR should have nuked Kabul, Kandahar, and Herat rather than withdraw from Afghanistan?
Do you believe that the USA should have nuked Hanoi and Haiphong (Saigon too?) rather than withdraw from Vietnam?

Russian nuclear first strikes against Ukraine's cities would be acts of genocide--without exaggeration this time.
Of course, the 'might makes right' crowd here presumably believes that some genocides are good and glorious.
I don't think Russia should nuke Ukraine but I can see the reasons for doing it if they do. Unlike Vietnam or Afghanistan, this is a battle for their survival.

Using nuclear weapons isn't necessarily genocide. Otherwise they would be illegal.
@Lapin

For anyone saying you are 'anti-China' for the slightest criticism of Russia, just know you are not alone.

I have 16-years of anti-US comments on Sinodefence, but some of the Russophiles call me 'pro-US shill, anti-China' for the slightest criticism of Russia.

You can't fix stupid. I suggest just pointing out the absurdity of Russian propaganda, rather than saying Don't go to war. Most of us are living vicariously through Russia smacking US, because China is too reluctant to be this forceful against US. So it's not like we love blood/gore/conquest, but the idea of US getting put in it's place is what excites most people here. China get spit on, but doesn't fight back. We are living life through Russia squash the US.
I don't know if that was addressed to me, but I didn't like Putin before this war, he's too pro-western. But while he's fighting NATO, I'm basicallly a Putin simp. Why is that wrong?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top