Ukrainian War Developments

Status
Not open for further replies.
FairAndUnbiased

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
asif iqbal said:
and I think some of the land taken will be used as negotiating points to get ride of the stricter sanctions

because Russia cannot live with the sanctions for a very long time their economy is getting hammered and would want some of them to be lifted

the only other thing is the mutual trust and friendship over last 8 decades with Germany is lost and also they have lost trust with Scandinavia nations who all contributed to Ukraine with ATGM including Finland

the fall out will be massive but just shows how far Putin was willing to go to keep Ukraine

honestly Ukraine should have just let go too many are dying and the destruction is too much

no one knew how much Putin wanted Ukraine if they did they could just have it for heavens sake
Click to expand...
That's why they're conquering not just the east but all of Kiev, Odessa (Ukraine's only remaining black sea port) and the chicken neck near Moldova. They can trade away these if necessary, for everything east of the Dnieper.

It is unlikely for Kiev to remain capital of either west Ukraine or east Ukraine in this situation. They'll probably move the western capital to Lviv and the eastern capital to Kharkiv.

Now west Ukraine will have a dilemma: if they recognize Russian control of the east they can join NATO. Otherwise they can't because they have a "disputed territory".

But recognizing it means they lose east Ukraine forever since now there's a militarized natural barrier: the Dnieper River. Their only real choice is to accept Russian control of the east and join NATO/EU with something like ~12 million population with 2000 USD GDP per capita after losing their biggest industries and resources to Russia. They'll be a permanent drag on the EU.

If they don't join NATO and EU due to rejection then they'll become a failed state.

That's my prediction of the Russian end game: take as much of Ukraine as possible but at least east Ukraine, and make the western part a failed state.
 
A

Abominable

Major
Registered Member
FairAndUnbiased said:
I called this shit ages ago.

Ukraine is likely to be partitioned. The South and East sides east of the Dnieper are Russian speaking. The West side is Ukrainian speaking.

Russia will likely take the entire part of the country east of the Dnieper River including East Kiev, take some extra land in the South, and leave Ukraine as a landlocked or near landlocked failed state.

If they had moved quickly I'd say they would prop up a puppet regime but at this point I think they have invested too much for mere puppets. They might go for full annexation.
Click to expand...
126dw5s568tz.png

This map looks like a reasonable option.

Split the country into two divided by the red line, India - Pakistan style. Ethnic groups on either side can freely choose to migrate to either side. Both regions respect and allow the use of either language.

The right half becomes a region of Russia, the left half becomes a demilitarised non aligned independent state.

It may be a good idea to hold a plebiscite in the purple region to stop that becoming a future Kashmir problem with Hungary.
 
P

panzerfeist1

Junior Member
Registered Member
anzha said:
You are correct Iraq was not supplied in a meaningful way by anyone. The distance from the border to Kiev is significantly shorter than the distance from Kuwait to Baghdad. Roughly 100 km vs 670 km.

Where the Russians have done will is the Southern Front. Again, not denying that. Never have. The distance from Genichesk to Mariupol is about 250 km. +/-

The logistics problems seem to be mostly in the north: AFVs being found with no gas but functional. etc.
Click to expand...
anzha said:
Nope.

Based on the videos I've seen of the soldiers on the ground, with a few exceptions, they seem quite competent. Not super. Not morons. The bunching up on roads is a really bad sign though.

What I do see is an army that cannot move the amount of troops they built up. I see tanks without gas in less than a week into the war. We were seeing that *3* days into the war. That says logistics problems.
Click to expand...
anzha said:
Why be insulting? You're doing it again. There's no need to be. Poking at someone doesn't help your argument. Convince, don't insult. You might even win an argument based on reason.

If we want a mocking session, that can be done if the site would let us open a forum for roasts.
Click to expand...
here is a guide I made for you


-how much Russian military personnel was used and against what number of Ukrainian military and militia as in citizens being armed? Were there any russian special forces used and how much? how many are greenhorns or cannon fodder from each side?

-in terms of using kids gloves as in not their better equipment and securing areas how do they compare or do their tactics even compare to how NATO has conducted there warfare.

-what are the losses when side does not want to talk about dead Ukrainians but Ukrainians want to talk about dead russians?


BUT before you make assumptions you have to have standards 1st and criticize them to those standards to be a proper critic instead of a shill

-Such as I expect the Russians with their smaller number, not best equipment and kids glove approach to take Ukraine in 1, 2, 3, 4 weeks or months.

-I expect a 100 tank losses (assuming my sources are not ghost of kyiv propaganda) in the entire war?

-is it expected that NATO would have issues with fuel when entering that country if they did?

you have to have standards placed 1st, dont want others to think your a shill or anything.
 
sferrin

sferrin

Junior Member
Registered Member
Nobaru said:
Yea, last time your lil boys were having headache from tehranic rockets.
You are already saying "USAF", Russia might make it even more short form in real time.
Btw when are you heading for Ukraine to volunteer? I see lots of free people from OO.Azz are firing lots of online opinion & meme barrage. :rolleyes::rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Seem to have struck a nerve there. ;)
 
Phead128

Phead128

Captain
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
sequ said:
Status quo was the best option. Putin broke that and now he gets to sit on the burn marks.
Click to expand...
I thought the same way too until I learned that Russia had been fighting a proxy war in Ukraine for 8 years since 2014 Euromaidan coup as a way to have a veto over Ukraine foreign policy orientation, but proxy war and diplomacy failed fo shake Ukraine resolve to EU/NATO, so he felt forced to go bigger, and maybe pandemic is a good time to do it while countries were disarrayed.

So perhaps Putin thinks a failed state in Ukraine is worth it, otherwise a prosperous democratic EU-aligned Ukraine could spread similar Euromaidan revolutions in Russia. Putin likely thought of his own future and needed to make a Ukraine a fail state to protect his own future.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top