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.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
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.
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.
The offensive on Kyiv may have already failed, the fact they haven't even taken Chernihiv to the NE is very telling, they've tried to bypass it but that just leaves them vunerable and they have been dealt with every time they try to push around it. Kyiv is safer today than any previous day in the war and that is likely to continue tomorrow. Russia doesn't appear to have anything else in the North to throw at it and they can't get their artillery close enough to "level" it. They would need Ukraine's eastern front to collapse but Kharkiv also appears to be safe, yes the city is a wreck but destroying civilian infrastructure does not help the Russian war effort, the opposite is true if anything. I'm not sure about Sumy, things look pretty rough there, but they have since day 1.
Mariupol will be sacrificed, it's horrific what is going on there but there is no chance of relief anytime soon. The only possible route in is apparently 100 miles or so of open land with no cover, it would be far to costly for Ukrainian forces to attempt it. It is incredible what the army is achieving there, right on the Russian border, completely surrounded with even the Russian Navy on one side, they still hold out. The cost when finally tallied up will be the stuff of nightmares, but they won't surrender it. Every day they hold on is a massive drain on Russia.
Odesa is safe as houses and Mykolaiv has also gone on the offensive now, poking back toward Kherson. Yes attacking is harder than defending but defending is also much harder when you're embedded in hostile territory with 100k civilians just itching to rip your throat out at the first opportunity.
Ukraine outnumbers Russia in terms of infantry, they train new recruits every day by the thousand and have volenteers still arriving. They will have almost unlimited supply coming in accross the western border as long as this war goes on. Whereas there are huge question marks as to how long Russia can keep this going, they are alraedy scraping the barrel, their reserves seem non-existant.
I don't know what the win/lose conditions are of this war but I suspect Russia will be the first to be making concessions at the negotiating table (before being told you know what).
Sorry if that's all overly optimistic, just based on what I'm seeing and reading. Sure its still early days though.
Whoops, right. I forgot that the CIA had many insiders in the Soviet Union/Russia in those novels. Cardinal is closer to the profile.
I don't how many of you are watchers of Mehdi Hasan, but he brought this interesting part in his show yesterday evening. The fact that Putin is a huge fan of that philosopher is extremely disconcerting, and we should have known that part years ago.
Quoting cos it really is a must-read.
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-europe-edf7240a9d990e7e3e32f82ca351dede
Awesome!
Yeah I don't know but Katchanovski is impeccably well credentialed and seems as knowledgeable in this conflict as any outside of military commands.
Interesting thread.
Thread on Medvedev's open letter "On Poland"
Yep I am with you on this.
I just think if Zelensky does not get 'public approval' for the eventual deal (and I put that in quotes as I think what constitutes public approval is not certain), there is a danger he is outflanked. I don't think Zelensky could simply hand over Crimea on his own, or even with Parliamentary approval.
Yeah, good read, it's good to leave the abstract of the detached overview.
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.
Reads like someone who's slept through the last three weeks, or just a Russki propagandist.
"Russian & separatist forces already took control over most of #Donbass in its borders before Donbas war in 2014"
- Eh? They didn't take over most of the Donbas even after the 2014 war.
" #Zelensky already conceded to #Russian demand of neutrality "
- No he hasn't.
"#Putin threatened that failure to accept these demands would mean capitulation or even end of #Ukrainian state. 7/ "
- He's in no position to make such demands and I'm not sure why anyone would take anything Putin says seriously in the first place.
"#Zelensky tries to prolong talks with #Russia because he apparently believes in intervention by NATO military forces, such as no-fly zone in #Ukraine, even though this would mean NATO's war with Russia & possible nuclear war. 8/"
- This just sounds like an idiotic take to me. Zelensky knows full well NATO's position on non-intervention, he doesn't beg for it because he believes he'll ever get it, its his job to maximise pressure on the rest of the world any way he can.
Yes, a Ukrainian scholar in Ukrainian and Russian wars with an impressive coterie of publications and institutional affiliations. I'm sure you know more than he does. His son is also not currently in the city of Mariupol being laid siege by Russians, so this means he's likely a Russian propagandist in the alternative reality some live in (italic for sarcasm here). This trend of sabotaging the person because you dislike their analysis for whatever biased reason needs to stop. It's becoming ludicrous.
I've no idea who he is but that makes his opinions even more strange, stand by my comments.
edit: I suppose if he has a child in Mariupol he would be desperate for any kind of peace deal so might explain his focus.
Really don't get this part. He's not some sort of real-time OSINT analyst.
That's fair play. If there were any civvies in that mall then they were not thinking straight.
The bit about a Russian drone crashing in Poland is interesting
I think his factual comments all stand up. Bear in mind, he's translating Ukrainian into English so sometimes you see rough sentences. Or if you've heard him speak, you'll understand.
No, but check his feed. I've been following the NYT tracker for weeks and he's typically been ahead of it. Their map seems to mirror his reporting in places. Other than that, he clearly knows the material inside and out. No one has a live real-time feed unless you're in the military command, which is my point. Outside of that scenario to which none of us will be privy people like this are your next best thing. There are a couple dozen of them with the experience and expertise and some who are well positioned. Typically more informed than mainstream reporters who might break some story first but only after relaying so much crap before it, which is the price of access.
Well if the Iranians can pull it off..Can't imagine how a Russian drone would lose its datalink.
According to this article, the Kadyrovtsy act as anti-retreat forces for Russian troops near Kyiv. They have orders to shoot their own front-line troops, which avoid fighting with the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
https://en.lb.ua/news/2022/03/11/10705_kadyrovtsy_act_antiretreat.html
https://en.lb.ua/news/2022/03/11/10705_kadyrovtsy_act_antiretreat.html
Well, historically, that tracks.
And here I was thinking the Chechens were spending their days standing around making IG videos to the tune of ISIS hymns.
Last edited:
Why Can’t the West Admit That Ukraine Is Winning?
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/03/ukraine-is-winning-war-russia/627121/
A sample extract:
"... most modern militaries rely on a strong cadre of noncommissioned officers. Sergeants make sure that vehicles are maintained and exercise leadership in squad tactics. The Russian NCO corps is today, as it has always been, both weak and corrupt. And without capable NCOs, even large numbers of technologically sophisticated vehicles deployed according to a compelling doctrine will end up broken or abandoned, and troops will succumb to ambushes or break under fire.
... Russian losses are staggering—between 7,000 and 14,000 soldiers dead, depending on your source, which implies (using a low-end rule of thumb about the ratios of such things) a minimum of nearly 30,000 taken off the battlefield by wounds, capture, or disappearance. Such a total would represent at least 15 percent of the entire invading force, enough to render most units combat ineffective. And there is no reason to think that the rate of loss is abating—in fact, Western intelligence agencies are briefing unsustainable Russian casualty rates of a thousand a day.
... The 1-to-1 ratio of vehicles destroyed to those captured or abandoned bespeaks an army that is unwilling to fight."
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/03/ukraine-is-winning-war-russia/627121/
A sample extract:
"... most modern militaries rely on a strong cadre of noncommissioned officers. Sergeants make sure that vehicles are maintained and exercise leadership in squad tactics. The Russian NCO corps is today, as it has always been, both weak and corrupt. And without capable NCOs, even large numbers of technologically sophisticated vehicles deployed according to a compelling doctrine will end up broken or abandoned, and troops will succumb to ambushes or break under fire.
... Russian losses are staggering—between 7,000 and 14,000 soldiers dead, depending on your source, which implies (using a low-end rule of thumb about the ratios of such things) a minimum of nearly 30,000 taken off the battlefield by wounds, capture, or disappearance. Such a total would represent at least 15 percent of the entire invading force, enough to render most units combat ineffective. And there is no reason to think that the rate of loss is abating—in fact, Western intelligence agencies are briefing unsustainable Russian casualty rates of a thousand a day.
... The 1-to-1 ratio of vehicles destroyed to those captured or abandoned bespeaks an army that is unwilling to fight."
Last edited:
Recently I can't read articles from the Atlantic on my phone. I open the link and I see a header, but literally no body text. And I can't scroll.
The responsibility of taking tactical initiative can fall to either NCOs or junior officers, but what it can't do is fall to neither.
I've edited the post to include a few sample extracts:
"... most modern militaries rely on a strong cadre of noncommissioned officers. Sergeants make sure that vehicles are maintained and exercise leadership in squad tactics. The Russian NCO corps is today, as it has always been, both weak and corrupt. And without capable NCOs, even large numbers of technologically sophisticated vehicles deployed according to a compelling doctrine will end up broken or abandoned, and troops will succumb to ambushes or break under fire.
... Russian losses are staggering—between 7,000 and 14,000 soldiers dead, depending on your source, which implies (using a low-end rule of thumb about the ratios of such things) a minimum of nearly 30,000 taken off the battlefield by wounds, capture, or disappearance. Such a total would represent at least 15 percent of the entire invading force, enough to render most units combat ineffective. And there is no reason to think that the rate of loss is abating—in fact, Western intelligence agencies are briefing unsustainable Russian casualty rates of a thousand a day.
... The 1-to-1 ratio of vehicles destroyed to those captured or abandoned bespeaks an army that is unwilling to fight."
Solid article
Might upset Vlad.
Curiously enough, I don't trust fully Biden on this. Could be, but doesn't make sense because cruise missiles and short range ballistic missiles had seemed to be hitting targets in prior weeks. I also think in general (and I've mentioned this before) that he's not very disciplined when it comes to messaging. He's probably been briefed on what the military knows and doesn't know about this strike, but the official line so far had been that they were unable to confirm or deny.
We've seen a lot of estimates about Russian losses, but I wonder what Ukrainian (military/paramilitary) losses are like. Presumably... higher?