Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

[maniak]

Tell this to @DT12

I don't care about him, I think he's a shill for russian propaganda.

But I talk to many people and they all had this idea, by watching the news, that we - the west - were all in on helping ukraine and the sanctions were going to destroy russia's economy.

Now we see ukrainians desperate at the lack of manpower and weapons, while western countries hesitate at every corner about what weapons to send, when to send, etc. IMF reports russia's economy is growing.

Are people supposed to believe russia is losing?

 

[maniak]

Rather than read news articles on mainstream media designed to cater to audiences that don't know anything beyond GDP per capita, look into in depth research by academics and such on the state of the Russian economy

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/703208

this is a good start

At no point did anyone credible say this, or think this. Nobody.

You are now judging geopolitical expectation on media spin?

Mate, my first post in this conversation was about how this will be spinned in the west, so yeah, I'm looking at this from the point of view of mainstream media narratives and spin.

 

[maniak]

Maybe its your presumption that Russia isn't defeated on your self generated timeline that is the problem. For all you know, it could happen in a few years (or never at all). That's why they fight the wars.

Sure, ifs and buts, but I'm reading the news today. I see a lot of pessimism on the ukrainian side.

 

[maniak]

Its a country of 38m people, so they are not going to run out of fighters anytime soon. They will however run out of money and ammo unless they are regularly replinished.

Again, I'm glad you're optimistic while ukrainian generals complain about the manpower shortage.

 

[Lemoor]

But I talk to many people and they all had this idea, by watching the news, that we - the west - were all in on helping ukraine and the sanctions were going to destroy russia's economy.

Now we see ukrainians desperate at the lack of manpower and weapons, while western countries hesitate at every corner about what weapons to send, when to send, etc. IMF reports russia's economy is growing.

Journalists are complete fecking clowns that should never be trusted about their predictions and the disconnect between what politicians say and do is massive. That is an unfortunate reality regardless of an issue.

 

[Raoul]

Sure, ifs and buts, but I'm reading the news today. I see a lot of pessimism on the ukrainian side.

Much of the pessimism is reflective of their funds and ammo running low because of delays in Congress. That has now been fixed as of two weeks ago.

 

[Real Name]

I don't care about him, I think he's a shill for russian propaganda.

But I talk to many people and they all had this idea, by watching the news, that we - the west - were all in on helping ukraine and the sanctions were going to destroy russia's economy.

Now we see ukrainians desperate at the lack of manpower and weapons, while western countries hesitate at every corner about what weapons to send, when to send, etc. IMF reports russia's economy is growing.

Are people supposed to believe russia is losing?

They're not losing but they're not exactly winning either.

 

[unchanged_lineup]

Oh look, the "Russian bot" card has come out again. Never takes long. And for the record, I don't wonder why you call me that. It's the default mantra of those who are still, 28 months into this war, utterly clueless as to why it started.

The last time you posted in any other thread but this one was February, and that was an outlier.

 

[maniak]

Journalists are complete fecking clowns that should never be trusted about their predictions and the disconnect between what politicians say and do is massive. That is an unfortunate reality regardless of an issue.

Regardless, they shape popular narratives and influence people's perceptions. Russia plays with that, as do we, so it's not strange people see russia as winning this so far.

 

[maniak]

Much of the pessimism is reflective of their funds and ammo running low because of delays in Congress. That has now been fixed as of two weeks ago.

No, they complain specifically about manpower. I don't think 100 dollar bills can hold a machine gun yet.

 

[maniak]

They're not losing but they're not exactly winning either.

Now, sure, my prediction is that they will.

I hope they don't to be clear, in case anyone is misinterpreting my posts and some kind of russia support.

 

[Raoul]

No, they complain specifically about manpower. I don't think 100 dollar bills can hold a machine gun yet.

Manpower requires weapons and training. Ukraine have more than enough people in their population to fight, especially given that fighting age males between 18-60 have to register for military service. Their challenge is the logistics of getting new people through the recruitment process and onto the battlefield.

 

[maniak]

Manpower requires weapons and training. Ukraine have more than enough people in their population to fight, especially given that fighting age males between 18-60 have to register for military service. Their challenge is the logistics of getting new people through the recruitment process and onto the battlefield.

That's not what I'm reading anywhere. I mean, when have batallions at 35% strength and you're drafting bills to allow prisoners to go to the frontlines you have a problem that goes way beyond cash and material.

Although Ukraine will receive $61 billion in aid from the US over the coming months, the country has continuously struggled to increase and maintain its manpower on the front lines — a critical capability the aid package doesn't fix.

"Ammunition may come in two weeks, but manpower won't," Kofman said. Ukraine has long struggled with manpower issues, but the situation has worsened.

Earlier this year, a Ukrainian service member told The Washington Post that the companies in his battalion were staffed at 35% of normal levels.

Ukrainian military officials have sought as many as 500,000 more soldiers to fight. More recently, new mobilization laws are going into effect, and Ukrainian lawmakers took steps last month to advance a bill that would allow certain individuals in prison to serve in the country's military.

https://www.businessinsider.com/ukr...-could-get-worse-before-it-gets-better-2024-5

 

[Raoul]

That's not what I'm reading anywhere. I mean, when have batallions at 35% strength and you're drafting bills to allow prisoners to go to the frontlines you have a problem that goes way beyond cash and material.


https://www.businessinsider.com/ukr...-could-get-worse-before-it-gets-better-2024-5

Like I said, it costs money to get new troops recruited, trained, and deployed. They don't suddenly emerge out of thin air in the absence of resources and logistics to move them through the process. The same money the US sends for weapons is also used for Ukrainian troops, just as it is for paying the salaries of government officials and existing soldiers.

 

[Revan]

Interesting how the Western countries call upon territorial integrity for Ukraine, whilst recognising Kosovo as an independent country. If Kosovo can be independent, then Crimea and Donbas can join Russia.

Double standards and all that.

One thing guaranteed in this life, every several pages some Serbian poster will say ‘if Kosovo can be independent, inject unrelated nonsense after that’.

 

[VorZakone]

Interesting how the Western countries call upon territorial integrity for Ukraine, whilst recognising Kosovo as an independent country. If Kosovo can be independent, then Crimea and Donbas can join Russia.

Double standards and all that.

Didn't Donbas vote yes for an independent Ukraine in 1991? Would be interesting to have polling results from pre-2014 before the Donbas war.

Nevertheless, I'm sure there are all kinds of (legal) nuances between Donbas and Kosovo. And Kosovo isn't yet universally recognized.

 

[DT12]

Now, sure, my prediction is that they will.

I hope they don't to be clear, in case anyone is misinterpreting my posts and some kind of russia support.

Think about the times we live in that you felt compelled to write that 2nd paragraph lest the rabid pack of "PUTIN APOLOGIST!'" hyenas fall on you.

In related news, the EU has just sanctioned 4 more "Russian propaganda" outlets, including 1 from Czech Republic. That one has been carrying videos, shot by Ukrainian citizens, of Ukrainian recruitment officers "Gestapoing" (to adapt AA' s word about his cousin) Ukrainian men and shipping them off to fight.

Can't have you guys in the free and democratic world seeing that "Russian propaganda" can we? It cuts into the "Ukraine just needs money to arm its 38 million warm bodies, that's all!" narrative.
Better to ban it all as part of this war for freedom.

 

[4bars]

If things ends like that, no country wins. If it ends another way, no country wins but who would be losing more changes. As it is right now:

Ukraine lost because lost people, the economy, territory and future
Russia lost because lost people, the economy and future

But it is 0 undisputable that Ukraine would lose way more than Russia

Ukraine could only "win" if they would repel Russia completely and that doesn't seem it will happen as it looks now. And Russia could only "win" if Ukraine surrenders territory officially. Russia's objective was never conquer the whole Ukraine but partially and convert them a puppet state or at least prevent them to get close with the west

 

[NicolaSacco]

Looks like you're the one who soaked up too much "nationalist rhetoric" from your country's media

I was wondering how you'd avoid answering. Turns out it was just repeating what I said back at me. 3/10

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

I guess that will be gist of the spin.

Well if we weigh matters honestly it is hard to see a Russian win following the invasion and quite easy to see how NATO will be stronger in the middle to long term future.

Lets make the obvious point that Finland and Sweden have joined NATO because of the invasion and Poland has massively increased its defence spending as have other eastern European countries. Is that a win for Russia?

They have used about 2/3 of the Soviet arms stored in terms of tanks armored fighting vehicles and long range missiles. They will never replace them. Not a win there either.

1/3 of the Black Sea fleet is destroyed and there naval base at Sevastopol has been abandoned for operations. That's not a win either.

Their air force has struggled with combined operations has lost huge numbers of planes and helicopters. It still can't dominate the battle field areas for overflight and target acquisition purposes. No win there.

The count is what 450000 dead or wounded with no end in sight two years into a two week special operation.

That is not winning in my opinion.

 

[VorZakone]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Raoul]

I just feel like History is completely left out of this thread, despite being a large part of the belligerents' casus belli.

Sadly it is likely down to most posters' ignorance on the region and the matter at large.

It depends how far back in time you want to go. Kyiv was established over 600 years before Moscow, and somehow noted history buff Vladimir Putin seems to think Ukraine belongs to Russia.

 

[VorZakone]

I am not one of the belligerents but Putin released a long essay in 2021 that you must know of, on what he views as the historical unity of Russians and Ukrainians, with this quote in particular which goes some way to explain his invasion six months later :

And what's your personal view of Putin's words? Do you think he has a valid point there?

 

[2cents]

I am not one of the belligerents but Putin released a long essay in 2021 that you must know of, on what he views as the historical unity of Russians and Ukrainians, with this quote in particular which goes some way to explain his invasion six months later :

Are you citing Pogodin and Putin uncritically here?

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

I don't see how managing to occupy more land, destroy ukrainian hope of recovering it, managing to maintain a normal economy and showing the west as weak and unreliable is not a win for russia. Sure it cost them a lot but it's still a win.

Russia's economy is anything but normal. Inflation rose very high in 2022 and while its dropped off, its still higher in Russia than Western economies. They also have very high interest rates which is and will continue to be problematic for Russia. They've shifted to a war time focus on economy which generally provides a short-term boost which has helped them but the opportunity cost is that they aren't actually developing a strong foundation. IIRC Russia is now spending about 8% of their GDP on military, compared with only about 3% of US GDP and US military innovation is far ahead of Russia and will continue to remain so. Russia will now lag behind on technological innovations and they still depend too much on resource exportation, which has always been a weaknesses of the Russian economy. It's true that pivoting to more trade with China and India has mitigated to some degree the removal of Western trading partners and its also true that a country like Germany became too dependent on Russia and was hurt as well. However, they are now very dependent on China in a lot of ways which is another long term weakness. Overall, this is definitely not "normal" and it's not sustainable. Part of what has helped Russia compensate short term is them dipping into their "rainy day" fund which is now a little under half what it was before the war. There are going to be long term repercussions that will see Russia fall further behind the leading economies on diversity and innovation and that's not going to help them.

No doubt some media outlets might have hyped up the effects of sanctions too much but to say Russia's economy is doing better than before or to say sanctions have "backfired" (as some media outlets have said) is also going too far the other direction. I don't think any economists actually believed that Russia's economy would collapse or anything like that.

 

[maniak]

Like I said, it costs money to get new troops recruited, trained, and deployed. They don't suddenly emerge out of thin air in the absence of resources and logistics to move them through the process. The same money the US sends for weapons is also used for Ukrainian troops, just as it is for paying the salaries of government officials and existing soldiers.

Yeah you keep saying something that contradicts the ukranians on the ground. You'll forgive me if I take their words over yours.

 

[maniak]

Well if we weigh matters honestly it is hard to see a Russian win following the invasion and quite easy to see how NATO will be stronger in the middle to long term future.

Lets make the obvious point that Finland and Sweden have joined NATO because of the invasion and Poland has massively increased its defence spending as have other eastern European countries. Is that a win for Russia?

They have used about 2/3 of the Soviet arms stored in terms of tanks armored fighting vehicles and long range missiles. They will never replace them. Not a win there either.

1/3 of the Black Sea fleet is destroyed and there naval base at Sevastopol has been abandoned for operations. That's not a win either.

Their air force has struggled with combined operations has lost huge numbers of planes and helicopters. It still can't dominate the battle field areas for overflight and target acquisition purposes. No win there.

The count is what 450000 dead or wounded with no end in sight two years into a two week special operation.

That is not winning in my opinion.

You can still win after losing a lot. Russians know all about that.

If at the end putin can claim he got land and resources, he got this despite western support and points out the west was all talk about support ukraine to the end, then he will have won in the eyes of most of the world.

Western leaders saying "well he didn't take ALL of ukraine" will sound weak as shit.

 

[maniak]

Russia's economy is anything but normal. Inflation rose very high in 2022 and while its dropped off, its still higher in Russia than Western economies. They also have very high interest rates which is and will continue to be problematic for Russia. They've shifted to a war time focus on economy which generally provides a short-term boost which has helped them but the opportunity cost is that they aren't actually developing a strong foundation. IIRC Russia is now spending about 8% of their GDP on military, compared with only about 3% of US GDP and US military innovation is far ahead of Russia and will continue to remain so. Russia will now lag behind on technological innovations and they still depend too much on resource exportation, which has always been a weaknesses of the Russian economy. It's true that pivoting to more trade with China and India has mitigated to some degree the removal of Western trading partners and its also true that a country like Germany became too dependent on Russia and was hurt as well. However, they are now very dependent on China in a lot of ways which is another long term weakness. Overall, this is definitely not "normal" and it's not sustainable. Part of what has helped Russia compensate short term is them dipping into their "rainy day" fund which is now a little under half what it was before the war. There are going to be long term repercussions that will see Russia fall further behind the leading economies on diversity and innovation and that's not going to help them.

No doubt some media outlets might have hyped up the effects of sanctions too much but to say Russia's economy is doing better than before or to say sanctions have "backfired" (as some media outlets have said) is also going too far the other direction. I don't think any economists actually believed that Russia's economy would collapse or anything like that.

I'm no economist, but for a country at war that the media kept saying would be crippled by sanctions, all the articles I read lately seem to say they're doing pretty ok given the circumstances.

Once the war ends, everyone will flock to trade again more openly.

 

[Raoul]

Yeah you keep saying something that contradicts the ukranians on the ground. You'll forgive me if I take their words over yours.

What I'm saying isn't contradictory to some Ukrainians claiming they are lacking in soldiers. It simply reinforces the reality that it takes money, weapons, and training to get troops to the front lines. If the money dries up, then so do Ukrainian resources to recruit new people to fight the war. Fortunately, the money is flowing again, which is good news for the Ukrainian war effort.

 

[maniak]

What I'm saying isn't contradictory to some Ukrainians claiming they are lacking in soldiers. It simply reinforces the reality that it takes money, weapons, and training to get troops to the front lines. If the money dries up, then so do Ukrainian resources to recruit new people to fight the war. Fortunately, the money is flowing again, which is good news for the Ukrainian war effort.

They are saying money alone won't solve the problem, so it is contradictory.

 

[Raoul]

They are saying money alone won't solve the problem, so it is contradictory.

I agree that money alone can't solve the problem, but it plays a massive role in the equation. Therefore its not contradictory, its complimentary.

 

[VorZakone]

I believe in self determination and that if the people of Crimea and Donbas prefer to be part of Russia, backed by legitimate referendums, the world order created in 2008 in Kosovo needs to accept that

How does this square with Putin annexing Kherson & Zaporizhia? Why take those regions? Aside from the argument that there was no consistent trend in polling up to 2014 that suggested a majority of Donbas residents actually wanted to secede from Ukraine and join Russia. The fact that there was pro-Russian sentiment is not the same as a genuine desire to secede. Pro-Russian sentiment there had strong economic characteristics, not necessarily secessional. But then 2014 happened and the Russians inserted themselves into the region through various ways (Girkin being one of them).

I think Crimea is a different story as it did seem there was a much more genuine desire there to be autonomous from Ukraine even before the "little green men" went in.

 

[Nani Nana]

How does this square with Putin annexing Kherson & Zaporizhia? Why take those regions? Aside from the argument that there was no consistent trend in polling up to 2014 that suggested a majority of Donbas residents actually wanted to secede from Ukraine and join Russia. The fact that there was pro-Russian sentiment is not the same as a genuine desire to secede. Pro-Russian sentiment there had strong economic characteristics, not necessarily secessional. But then 2014 happened and the Russians inserted themselves into the region through various ways (Girkin being one of them).

I think Crimea is a different story as it did seem there was a much more genuine desire there to be autonomous from Ukraine even before the "little green men" went in.

I agree with that on the whole.

As for Kherson and Zaporizhia, I do not have an answer but once negotiations start, Putin will certainly be readier to drop them than the Donbas.

 

[VorZakone]

Anyone know when the F-16's could be used for combat operations?

 

[NicolaSacco]

Anyone know when the F-16's could be used for combat operations?

I’ve read later in the summer, but I really struggle to have faith in that prediction.

 

[the hea]

Anyone know when the F-16's could be used for combat operations?

Mette Fredriksen, the Danish prime minister mentioned during a press conference a couple of days ago that the Danish f-16s will be in the sky over Ukraine within the next few months, so probably June or July.

 

[Raoul]

Mette Fredriksen, the Danish prime minister mentioned during a press conference a couple of days ago that the Danish f-16s will be in the sky over Ukraine within the next few months, so probably June or July.

It will be interesting see how they're used given the amount of Russian air defenses in the area.

 

[NotThatSoph]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Is this some out of context quote, or what's going on? Ukraine has attacked Russia inside their borders tons of times. Is he talking about specific ammunition?

 

[africanspur]

Is this some out of context quote, or what's going on? Ukraine has attacked Russia inside their borders tons of times. Is he talking about specific ammunition?

I think he was talking specifically about the use of Western missiles within Russian borders.

 

[the hea]

Is this some out of context quote, or what's going on? Ukraine has attacked Russia inside their borders tons of times. Is he talking about specific ammunition?

He's talking about Western provided weapons, a lot of countries don't want their weapons used within Russian borders. Ukraine has mainly used domestically produced drones for the attacks inside Russia.