calodo2003
Flaming Full Member
Fired? More like woodchipped.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Fired? More like woodchipped.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
The problem with talking about winners and losers here is that the war is only being fought in the defender’s country and they have nothing staked on them winning it that they otherwise wouldn’t have had without the war.The "end" of the war will be, at best for Russia, a stalemate. They have no chance of defeating Ukraine.
If it's genuine, as apparently it is, then it's more signs of unrest within the Russian military - I reckon that information has been deliberately leaked.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
If the Russian army really tries to attack Odessa head-on from the sea, oh boy, Omaha Beach would look like a sandbox compared to that.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
It seems Russia is going to try to attack Odessa without having anything on land to link up with. This could be a disaster for them.
I wouldn't say a need for a large scale offensive, but I think the best way to put a quick end to the war would be the Ukrainian army drawing the bulk of the Russian force in a very vulnerable area where the latter can be picked off and pounded until being forced to surrender. One big battle to cripple and humiliate the invading army beyond repair. That is the key moment that decided the fate of the Indochina War with a massive French defeat in 1954.Do they need a large scale offensive? They only need to push Russia back a few kms from the cities, get them out of range of artillery, then it's all but over for Russia. Russia is not going to sit and hold a few fields on the border. They don't need to chase them all the way back to Moscow.
Plus Russia's military is not unlimited, both in manpower and financing. Intelligence updates suggest they're getting low on both.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Indeed, there are no traditional victories against nuclear powers, only political change at best (unlikely, and the other side can't push too hard for it as it could be seen as an existential threat and therefore lead to nuclear escalation), and unsatisfactory agreements at worst (discounting scenarios of defeat).The problem with talking about winners and losers here is that the war is only being fought in the defender’s country and they have nothing staked on them winning it that they otherwise wouldn’t have had without the war.
The war can go terribly for Russia, they can pay a high cost for it, they can be somewhat embarrassed, yet they will still likely achieve the minimum of their war goals, which is to further hamstring, partition and impede the Westernisation and democratisation of an independent Ukraine.
This is what I feared would have happen less than a week into the war, when people were getting a bit giddy about Russia’s underwhelming performance. They never needed to take that more territory to subject Ukraine to severe castration. They can occupy the coast to the Black Sea and Sea of Azov and then just bed down there, whilst committing what are essentially terrorist acts on targets within range under the guise of “war”.
That’s not a win for Ukraine, but there was virtually no way for Ukraine to win this. How do you win against terrorists, who are willing to sacrifice their economic strength and lives of their citizens to damage your country?
The only long term win for Ukraine here is Putin causing the Russian state to self-destruct, potentially given them better security in the future with a more benign leader. That’s by no means certain either.
Russia can't be cut off from resupply routes in the east, as their conquered territories on that side directly borden on Russia itself or the sea.People fixated on the Ukrainians not being able to take back captured areas are missing the point. They don't really have too, all they have to do is reduce the ability of Russia to sustain and resupply those units in their country from Russia.
You starve in a tank just as quickly as you starve in a house. Once you are paused due to supply issues you are easier to target and the supply routes are harder to defend in enemy territory. The operational pause becomes a stalemate which becomes exhaustion and capitulation. All can happen while you are sat on your backside waiting to start fighting again.
Only if the war goes on as-is. If Russia dig in at their conquered areas and otherwise mostly focus on artillery attacks, the rate at which they lose soldiers could drop significantly.So, if the cited Komsomolskaya Pravda figures are true, so far the Russians have 26,000 killed or injured. This apparently excludes DNR and LNR troop losses. It also excludes those captured, surrendered, or deserted.
If we round it up to 30,000 now out of action to take account of these latter, that's an average rate of close to 10,000 per week. So in another month it could rise to 70,000. I don't see how Russia can sustain their invasion for too much longer.
The Russians don't have the resources to continue fighting much longer, much less hold any existing territory inside Ukraine. The Ukrainians and NATO know this, which is why they aren't likely to capitulate to any Russian demands. If anything, they are incentivized to double down and fight harder because they see a clear strategy to winning the standoff.I agree. If Russia digs in and defends the eastern Ukrainian areas that it already has or almost has under control (part of Donbas, coastal strip to the Crimea), then there is little Ukraine can do to get them out of there. And if Russia accompanies that by destroying key Ukrainian urban, military, and other infrastructure, then they won't need much from Ukraine anymore beyond a promise to stay out of NATO to make Ukraine stay irrelevant for a very long time (while they rebuild from the ruins).
From that perspective, reducing Kyiv to ruins actually does have a purpose for Russia, especially once they have accepted that they can't take it.
Or the rate could rise significantly, as ever more sophisticated weapons pour into Ukraine.... Only if the war goes on as-is. If Russia dig in at their conquered areas and otherwise mostly focus on artillery attacks, the rate at which they lose soldiers could drop significantly.
Being on the defensive is a significant advantage in terms of minimizing casualties, as long as not under air or artillery attack.Or the rate could rise significantly, as ever more sophisticated weapons pour into Ukraine.
Yet again US intelligence is absolutely spot on, as they have been with everything in this war. They must have some brilliant sources in the Kremlin.Apparently the casualties of DNR and LNR troops are not counted by the RU MoD, but even excluding those:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
US estimate 2,000-4,000 killed by 9 MarchAny estimates of Ukrainian casualties?
Slipped in an extra phone # into the "Top advisors" Whatsapp groupYet again US intelligence is absolutely spot on, as they have been with everything in this war. They must have some brilliant sources in the Kremlin.
Putin will never admit defeat. I hope I’m wrong, but I can see him dropping a nuke on a city to force them into a surrender.The "end" of the war will be, at best for Russia, a stalemate. They have no chance of defeating Ukraine.
Does that include civilians?US estimate 2,000-4,000 killed by 9 March
Ukrainian Government state 1,300 killed by 12 March
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
When the presentations were done, the prime minister hemmed uncertainly for a few moments but then came to a clear decision. There would be no preemptive strike. Israel might be needing American assistance soon and it was imperative that it would not be blamed for starting the war. 'If we strike first, we won't get help from anybody,' she said.[117]
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/r...ine-military-aggressions-as-a-pretext-for-warThe Ukrainian side has been remarkably disciplined in holding their fire, despite these provocations.
No, military only.Does that include civilians?
I say the source named Spinnaker in Tom Clancy's novels is a real thing, to keep the back channels open in hopes of staving off disaster.Yet again US intelligence is absolutely spot on, as they have been with everything in this war. They must have some brilliant sources in the Kremlin.
But what if Russia decide that it's enough (for example because they acknowledge they won't gain much more), and limit themselves to defending the Donbas and coasta; strip to the Crimea on the one hand, and bombing/shelling cities to weaken Ukraine on the other. Ukraine would have to switch to attacking the Russians to do something about that. Do they have the materials and capacity to do that? And wouldn't it reserve the rate of loss of life?The Russians don't have the resources to continue fighting much longer, much less hold any existing territory inside Ukraine. The Ukrainians and NATO know this, which is why they aren't likely to capitulate to any Russian demands. If anything, they are incentivized to double down and fight harder because they see a clear strategy to winning the standoff.
Wasn’t it Cardinal?I say the source named Spinnaker in Tom Clancy's novels is a real thing, to keep the back channels open in hopes of staving off disaster.
I don't think they can do that for much longer as well. Ultimately, they only have a finite amount of munitions. They could of course start using thermobaric weapons or WMDs, but the latter would have a cost since it would involve NATO responding from within Ukraine. I don't think Putin is suicidal. He is just trying to gain a few bargaining chips he can use to eventually negotiate his way out of this without looking like he gained nothing.But what if Russia decide that it's enough (for example because they acknowledge they won't gain much more), and limit themselves to defending the Donbas and coasta; strip to the Crimea on the one hand, and bombing/shelling cities to weaken Ukraine on the other. Ukraine would have to switch to attacking the Russians to do something about that. Do they have the materials and capacity to do that? And wouldn't it reserve the rate of loss of life?
Yeah that seems overly optimistic. Ukraine is still going to lose this war.
Not sure which war you're watching but there's pretty much no chance now of Kyiv ever being captured. There is more chance of Russian forces being encircled there than of them ever encirling Kyiv, they have been forced into the defensive and their massive "40 mile convoy" is currently being squeezed into a pocket upwards from Irpin/Bucha by well armed reinforcements pushing at them from the west.They'll lose territory and/or have to make concessions regarding Nato, "denazification", other stuff. Most wars in history don't result in the loser just ceasing to exist, though of course that does happen quite a lot too. That's not going to happen here, unless something drastically changes (and it could). Kyiv could definitely be captured, but Lviv won't be.
Whoops, right. I forgot that the CIA had many insiders in the Soviet Union/Russia in those novels. Cardinal is closer to the profile.Wasn’t it Cardinal?
You are both right. Cardinal was a military aide and Spinnaker was a politicianWasn’t it Cardinal?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Quoting cos it really is a must-read.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Awesome!Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Yeah I don't know but Katchanovski is impeccably well credentialed and seems as knowledgeable in this conflict as any outside of military commands.I think he would have to do so tbh.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Yep I am with you on this.Yeah I don't know but Katchanovski is impeccably well credentialed and seems as knowledgeable in this conflict as any outside of military commands.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Interesting thread.
Yeah, good read, it's good to leave the abstract of the detached overview.Quoting cos it really is a must-read.
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-europe-edf7240a9d990e7e3e32f82ca351dede
Medvezhonok’s precious thoughts - like an Andrew Ridgeley single. Or, more appropriately, a Dmitry Little solo comedy show without Vladimir Large.
I don’t think people realise just how important this reporting is. Nearly everything you have seen from real journalists from Mariupol in the last couple of weeks is from these guys and the AP wire. All that footage on the BBC, Channel 4 and CNN; all those pictures in the papers and online; nearly all of it has come from these few people and been syndicated. They should win every prize going in journalism and war reporting this year. Absolute heroes.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Reads like someone who's slept through the last three weeks, or just a Russki propagandist.Yeah I don't know but Katchanovski is impeccably well credentialed and seems as knowledgeable in this conflict as any outside of military commands.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Interesting thread.