Jump to content

Ukraine and Only Ukraine. If it isn't about Ukraine then fuck off


Recommended Posts

Kharkiv has been retaken. Russia holds no major cities. Pushing them out of the Donbas regions will be slow and ugly for both sides.  Feel free to bitch all you want in the other thread(s).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 532
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Ohhhhhh, the all caps gambit. I am just so askeered !!  I post on topic except to respond to stupidity such as yours.  I post facts, and analysis based on those facts, which somehow offend y

One of the stupider men of the 20th century, Henry Kissinger, wanted a lasting stand off. He actually did his thesis on it, Peace, Legitimacy, and the Equilibrium. That might have worked if Russia was

In more ways than one.

Posted Images

For those who think Russia can win with superior numbers - borrowed from another forum

Russia has overwhelming numbers on paper only.

The Russian armed forces are approx. 900,000-strong. Of that, the army is approx. 280,000-strong.

Of that 280,000 in the army, around 200,000 have been deployed into Ukraine. They’ve also suffered devastating losses; hundreds of tanks, hundreds of other armoured vehicles, dozens of helicopters and dozens of combat aircraft. 15–20,000 troops killed and approx. double that wounded. So that’s anything between 45,000–60,000 casualties out of 200,000 or so. That’s a horrific casualty figure, even if two-thirds of that are only wounded (to varying degrees, some being minor and can return to combat within days or weeks, and others being catastrophic and life-changing).

The bulk of the Russian army is in Ukraine, fighting. This means that troops cannot be easily rotated out of combat tours as there is no one to replace them. This will lead to the troops being exhausted and morale completely degraded. People can only go on so long in combat, especially when you are the invading force - defenders i.e. Ukraine can go on longer, morale is better, because they have more reason to fight.

Troops will keep fighting until exhausted, even more of their BTGs (battalion tactical groups) will be rendered combat-ineffective, and the Russian army will keep on being worn down. The only way to prevent this would be to rotate some of those troops with the approx. 80,000 remaining who are garrisoned elsewhere in Russia e.g. along NATO borders, borders with China etc. But there are too few of those to effectively rotate, so Putin’s only other option is increase conscription.

That comes with further challenges; let’s say they can train soldiers in 8–12 weeks. Those soldiers will be of poor quality - even by Russian standards. They’ll be green boys with barely any training and no experience. They won’t be very effective at all and they’ll just be more bodies into the meat grinder. The Russian troops they’d be replacing, rotated back home, will tell everyone they know how awful it is there, and word will get out. Putin can’t silence tens of thousands of troops.

I don’t think Putin wants them to rotate home; if they do then they’ll talk, they’ll tell their families and friends the awful things they’ve seen, and done, whilst over there. They’ll tell them how they’re barely supplied, how their equipment is old, barely maintained and ineffective.

This also applies to equipment, also. As tanks are being destroyed by the hundreds in Ukraine, more will be brought out of storage. Russia has thousands of tanks but a large proportion are simply gathering dust in warehouses. Many tanks will have to be cannibalised and stripped of parts to get others back into basic fighting shape. Corners will likely be cut and Russia will simply rely on numbers. Again, though, it’s meat into the grinder. If their best and most-maintained Russian T-72s are getting hammered by NLAWs, Javelins, and even Ukrainian T-72s using better tactics, then the 2nd-rate reserve tanks, crewed by the above green boys with barely 8–12 weeks’ training and no experience, are going to fare even worse.

The best Russia can hope for is to cling onto Donbas and Crimea, but even then they’re going to be mauled in the trying.

None of this is even taking into account the sanctions against Russia, which is hampering their war effort (a lot of microchips etc that go into their missiles are made in Europe and are no longer being supplied).

Even though it’s Ukraine that has suffered devastation in the war, Russia will suffer more long-term. Years after the West has helped Ukraine back on its feet, Russia will be the Eurasian equivalent of North Korea.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

From a favorite writer Mats Andersson

Have you even looked at one of those maps of the Ukrainian war lately?

Russia now occupies at most 2/3 of the territory they occupied after a week or two. Ukraine is advancing. Russia is retreating. Ukraine’s capacity is increasing. Russia’s is decreasing.

Russia’s objective was to eradicate Ukraine as a nation and to eradicate the Ukrainian language and culture. They are failing completely. Ukraine’s objective was simply to survive as an independent nation.

How can anyone look at the facts and with a straight face say that Ukraine isn’t winning?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Putin made a yuge mistake by invading, and the Russian people will continue to suffer for his tragic miscalculation(s) for quite some time to come. It would be highly ironic if he ended up liberating his own country through his own hubris. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another piece from Quora: Did Putin teach NATO a lesson by attacking Ukraine?

Oh ya- Putin taught NATO lessons like he was a professor.

Lesson 1: Russia sucks

main-qimg-06de369c934e43377862939956df4271-lq

I cannot overstate how long NATO has feared the invincible Russian bear- a military that could muster 15,000 tanks and swarm Europe. The US has spent 700 billion dollars PER YEAR building to face this exact threat.

NATO developed special tactics to deal with Russia including specialized defense-in-depth (definition in comments) procedures, specialized weapons training, and tactical concepts meant to target Russia’s weak points.

The big question was “would it work”. Would these untested tactics, strategies, and weapons work in the face of a large-scale Russian invasion?

Ukraine didn’t really have much of an Army prior to 2014. Then Putin annexed Crimea and started fighting in the Donbas. Suddenly Ukraine had to build an army very quickly with the singular goal of defending against a Russian invasion. So naturally, they turned to NATO for training and NATO gave them everything- the weapons, the tactics, the strategies.

Turns out it did work! The tactics used by the Ukrainians are NATO tactics (with some alternations) and the weapons proving to be the deadliest are NATO weapons.

So now we know for sure that the US military would dominate the Russian military in short order. Ukraine is managing to really give the Russians a bloody nose with minimal training, minimal equipment, and minimal support.

  1. Russia has failed to control the air space in the face of about 500 anti-air weapons, a handful of Helicopters, and 225 Aircraft. The US has 6,000 Aircraft, 3000 Helicopters, and over 2000 highly advanced anti-air missile guidance weapons.
  2. Russia has struggled against a few thousand APCs- the US has over 10,000 plus 250,000 Humvees
  3. Russia has struggled against the 1,500 outdated Ukrainian tanks- the US has 8,000 Abrams tanks and 6,000 Bradleys.

Lesson 2: Russia has weak points

main-qimg-56e43c7d23871522aa6819b23631fe40-lq

The entire Russian military isn’t bad. Their Navy is pretty modern, though it lacks carriers. Their Airforce is also something to behold. How much of the airforce is functional and combat-ready? Not a ton. But even if Russia could sustain combat operations with 25% of their Airforce it would be deadly.

But Russia has some serious flaws here too.

  1. Their logistical capability is…. subpar to say the least. They lack manpower, trucks, and even tires. Russia is down to using civilian trucks to haul supplies to the frontlines. It’s not like Ukraine is a superpower either. Ukraine was able to unravel the entire Russian logistical system with a few drones. In fact, it's unlikely that Russia could have supplied its forces without Ukrainian intervention. By week 2 of this conflict, Russian troops were looting markets for food and abandoning tanks due to a lack of gas.
  2. Their tactical depth is bad. When a war starts and you send all your guys forward how far can they go before they run out of food, fuel, and ammo? The further the better obviously. Well, Russian troops can’t operate more than 90 km from a supply depot. This means they cannot strike deep into enemy territory or employ flexible creative advances. They have to hop-frog from city to city because cities can serve as ample supply depots.
    1. Ukraine knows this and it's why to defends its cities so strongly
  3. Russia has bad SEAD (definition in comments) capabilities. Step 1 of any war is to destroy your enemy's fixed-wing aircraft (or airports) and then target anti-air weapons by bombers, cruise missiles, artillery, you name it. Russia hasn’t even destroyed the very small Ukrainian Airforce yet and Ukraine still possesses loads of anti-air weapons.
  4. Russia relies on conscripted troops too heavily. Someone forced into the army, given little training, and paid virtually nothing is not going to fight hard or well.
  5. Russia has too much old equipment. There are lots of obsolete Russian tanks, planes, helicopters, trucks, guns, artillery- you name it. These old weapons systems are not doing well.

Lesson 3: Putin is not to be trusted

Putin's goals are clear- reform the USSR (in terms of size) and he is willing to go to war to do so.

Putin cares little for peace or for his own people. He should be viewed like we viewed Hitler in 1938.


In summary, Russia is inferior to most modernized nations militarily due to their many flaws and Putin is something a rouge dictator- and a threat to world peace.

 
 
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

How can anyone look at the facts and with a straight face say that Ukraine isn’t winning?

... because Russia still occupies large amounts of eastern Ukraine. It is a dumb war which is something that we know about: Vietnam, Persian Gulf + Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia. But while the Russians will pay a steep price, they aren't losing until they decide they're losing, until the body bags or their equivalent mount up. Until then it's a draw.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

... because Russia still occupies large amounts of eastern Ukraine. It is a dumb war which is something that we know about: Vietnam, Persian Gulf + Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia. But while the Russians will pay a steep price, they aren't losing until they decide they're losing, until the body bags or their equivalent mount up. Until then it's a draw.

Militarily it's a draw, but there are many things going on behind the scenes in Russia. There could be a sudden decision to not drag the entire country back to 1720 to satisfy one sick man's ego.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

... because Russia still occupies large amounts of eastern Ukraine. It is a dumb war which is something that we know about: Vietnam, Persian Gulf + Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia. But while the Russians will pay a steep price, they aren't losing until they decide they're losing, until the body bags or their equivalent mount up. Until then it's a draw.

They pulled out all their forces in the Kiyv area to concentrate in the east and they are still not advancing and in fact are being pushed back. It's not dumb to those who live there and understand what life is like under Putin.  They are fighting for their lives and their country - the ones they are fighting are there because they have to be.  This has nothing to do with the examples you listed above unless you see Vietnam and Afghanistan as Ukraine who don't want to be invaded and occupied - a lesson that hopefully the US has finally learned.  The US at least tried to be a benevolent occupier, Russia has shown to be ruthless, cruel and willing to wipe a people off the map.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect the biggest immediate threats are for the Russians to get along the Black Sea coast to Transnistria. This probably requires the Belarus army to present a threat to Northern Ukraine and for the Russians to gain much better control of the air locally. The sinking of the Moskva clearly helps Ukraine with this but the ability to interdict Russian supplies through the Crimea would be huge. I'm not sure what size of warhead would be needed to destroy the Kerch bridge and I doubt Ukraine have any missiles with a >250 mile range.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even in places were they are putting a lot of effort in advancing the Rus only advance at most 2 miles day. And not on the whole front, but very localized, and then have to stop again when they reach the next defence line of Ukraine. Ukraine is big...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like Russia's focus on prestige projects may have undermined their ability to effectively use combined arms. I don't mean just in terms of resource allocation, they've also concentrated leadership talent into specific areas and abandoned any widespread notions of esprit de corps. How effective is an innumerate artillery battery going to be?

I'm not fully on board with commentators acting surprised by Russia's inability to project force beyond its own borders. It reminds me of the French needing US support for moving Leopards into Mali. Having the struggle so close to home, after a protlonged buildup, is definitely revealing though.

I wonder if NATO's focus on the Fulda Gap as a point of orientation is a modern version of the Maginot Line.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Expatriated said:

I suspect the biggest immediate threats are for the Russians to get along the Black Sea coast to Transnistria.

Rivers in the way, 3, nice defence lines.

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

... because Russia still occupies large amounts of eastern Ukraine. It is a dumb war which is something that we know about: Vietnam, Persian Gulf + Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia. But while the Russians will pay a steep price, they aren't losing until they decide they're losing, until the body bags or their equivalent mount up. Until then it's a draw.

Is the Korean war over yet?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LeoV said:

Rivers in the way, 3, nice defence lines.

And nice new artillery zeroed in on the landing beaches. Russia would be throwing their troops into a meat grinder, not that that has ever been much of a concern for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not 250 miles but the Germans have given the Ukes some of their Panzerhaubitze 2000 howitzers. With a rocket assisted projectile it has a freakish range of 42 miles and laser guidance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerhaubitze_2000

As for winning + losing, just as with causes and sufficient grounds, different countries will define things differently. Vlad could give a shit about Ivan dying. What Vlad doesn't want to do is lose (sound familiar?). So 'losing' or some form of expensive draw is preferable to lost. And given that he gives no fucks about his country (sound familiar?) it could get drawn out. The difference between our stupidity and theirs is that we could afford W the Stupid's stupid stupidity and they can't afford theirs AND they're getting sanctioned up the ass.

Militarily, what Russia doesn't have is the ability to replace their shitty war materiel after it gets smashed, sabotaged or abandoned. The Ukes have the entire West shipping in NATO quality stuff. The Russians have shitty shit to begin with and their shit isn't getting replaced.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem for big military movements is that it needs preparation, staging places, FOB etc.
Satellites and drones makes that not a surprise any more. Ukraine has a lot of informers in occupied area too. They can prepare for defence in that time.

Same for big naval landing near Odessa. Russian fleet manoeuvres are followed in real time. Nato has recon planes in the air et all times. Covering Black Sea and Belarus and West Ukraine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Not 250 miles but the Germans have given the Ukes some of their Panzerhaubitze 2000 howitzers.

After the Dutch send a bunch to Germany for deployment in Ukraine. So they can train on them there, more then a week later Germany promised theirs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ShortForBob said:

Is the Korean war over yet?

Actually, no. I believe it’s technically only a ceasefire. However, I don’t believe Ukraine was involved so it’s not on topic. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Monkey said:

Actually, no. I believe it’s technically only a ceasefire. However, I don’t believe Ukraine was involved so it’s not on topic. 

And not a war, a conflict.  Ukraine is most certainly a war.  If Putin is dying, I hope he does it quickly.  Russia is really in the shitter no matter what happens in the Ukraine.  Putin's successor better be well trained in groveling.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

And not a war, a conflict.  Ukraine is most certainly a war.  If Putin is dying, I hope he does it quickly.  Russia is really in the shitter no matter what happens in the Ukraine.  Putin's successor better be well trained in groveling.

That would have to be an epic pro in groveling to avoid being the next North Korea. About the only proper groveling I can think of that would prevent Russia from wallowing in poverty for the next fifty years, but still be fair to Ukraine would be something along the lines of agreeing to pay reparations in free oil/gas (Russia is basically out of money, but they have resources), give up their nukes, and denounce Putin’s actions. I think the world could mostly forgive Russia if a new leader did something like that. 
 

I seriously doubt it’d ever happen though. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

All true, and I think it's not wishful thinking.  We're two and a  half months in and Russia is nowhere near it's goals.  At this point, it seems like the most damage Russia can do is fire cruise missles from inside their own borders. ....which they do a lot, killing civilians, destroying hospitals and schools, and basically proving to the world that their command structure is flat-out Evil.  They have lost the public relations and information war worldwide, and within months they won't be able to hide all the "Your son was in the region of Donbas in our special military action and is no longer alive, so here's $75 in rubles" letters.  Remember that the 10K dead Russian boys in Afghanistan had a ~rather~ pronounced effect on Russia, not that  long ago.

It boggles my mind that any Chechens are fighting for them.


Oh, and they can starve the Azov's in the steel plant until they either die or surrender.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Alan H said:

They have lost the public relations and information war worldwide,

Nope, half the world. Asia and Africa have Putin supporting countries. And many others quiet.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, LeoV said:

Nope, half the world. Asia and Africa have Putin supporting countries. And many others quiet.

True.  Look at how many abstentions were filed in the UN Human Rights vote.  How about if I modify that to read  "most of the industrialized world"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, d'ranger said:

Kharkiv has been retaken. Russia holds no major cities. Pushing them out of the Donbas regions will be slow and ugly for both sides.  Feel free to bitch all you want in the other thread(s).

 

Yeah but the Donbass is the industrial heartland of the area, an example is that steel plant at Mariupol being one of the largest in the world, so "major cities" is a bit misleading. Kherson isn't technically a major city but it's the location of a key dam, the one that controls the water to Crimea. Expect both sides to continue to fight for that too. 

 Not 100% sure it will be slow and ugly though. For sure if both sides fight, but the Russian morale problem in combination with getting pounded by accurate artillery supplied with high quality and timely intel stands a chance of bringing the whole show down in a hurry.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Olsonist said:

... because Russia still occupies large amounts of eastern Ukraine. It is a dumb war which is something that we know about: Vietnam, Persian Gulf + Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia. But while the Russians will pay a steep price, they aren't losing until they decide they're losing, until the body bags or their equivalent mount up. Until then it's a draw.

But they have a landbridge to crimea now, so the mighty russian navy can...  opps. 

Seriously though, they have been screwed as far as ports go for a long time, and they might keep the south.  Notice how that steel plant in mariupol is still standing?  Pretty sure they could kill all those guys inside easy enough, but then they wouldn't have a steel plant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is to be a lesson to be learned from Russian soldiers looting washing machines and so on, it is this; Authoritiarianism cannot deliver magical economic benefits that liberal democracy cannot provide.  
 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The_Real_XYZ said:

But they have a landbridge to crimea now, so the mighty russian navy can...  opps. 

Seriously though, they have been screwed as far as ports go for a long time, and they might keep the south.  Notice how that steel plant in mariupol is still standing?  Pretty sure they could kill all those guys inside easy enough, but then they wouldn't have a steel plant.

AFAIK it goes about six stories underground, and was intended for WW3. That artillery cannot flatten a blast furnace is unremarkable. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, spankoka said:

AFAIK it goes about six stories underground, and was intended for WW3. That artillery cannot flatten a blast furnace is unremarkable. 

They don't have to destroy the underground stuff, just turn everything above it into rubble.  They would run out of air soon enough.

I bet that any russion troops who cause unnecessary damage to that plant are taken out back and shot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Rain Man said:

Lavrov keeps repeating that lifting the sanctions has to be part of the peace negotiations. 

quite right

ukraine should be prepared to lift all the sanctions it has placed on russia during any peace settlement

we .. who are not involved can choose to do with our funds as we please ... for a very very very long time

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, spankoka said:

The air? It was built as a NBC bunker. 

Yeah, they have to have air intakes somewhere.  Put enough dust in the air and they will clog up no matter how fancy they are.  I bet they could toss up a world trade center amount of dust.  At the very least they could just drop everything on the entrances and seal them in for a few years.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, phill_nz said:

quite right

ukraine should be prepared to lift all the sanctions it has placed on russia during any peace settlement

we .. who are not involved can choose to do with our funds as we please ... for a very very very long time

I think we should be prepared to lift them under certain conditions:  give back all of Ukraine's pre-2014 territory including Crimea, pay war reparations to Ukraine equal to the cost to rebuild all the destruction of this war and the last one to Ukraine, and pay back the West for the money spent helping Ukraine's war effort.

Hey, they didn't have to invade...

Maybe we'll even start using their gas and oil again, if we haven't gone fully renewable/nuclear by then.  No yachts back to the oligarchs though - sold to pay for war reparations.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Cal20sailor said:

And not a war, a conflict.  Ukraine is most certainly a war.  

Oh give us a break. The USA chose not to call the Korean thing a War,

Putang chooses not to call the Ukraine thing a war.

Neither of you are fooling anyone.:rolleyes:

However, the point is that the Ukrain thing will "end" like the Korean Thing, the Israel/P thing and prolly a few others.

Years and years of "slow war"

Simply because, like others before them, Putang wont admit defeat and the west cant or more likely wont make him because even if we do that would involve compensating Ukraine and making Russia PAY.

We all know thats never going to happen, so we'll all take our toys and it will be another active but largely forgotten incident in 5 years,,except by Ukraine.

(typing in the dark)

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rain Man said:

I think we should be prepared to lift them under certain conditions:  give back all of Ukraine's pre-2014 territory including Crimea, pay war reparations to Ukraine equal to the cost to rebuild all the destruction of this war and the last one to Ukraine, and pay back the West for the money spent helping Ukraine's war effort.

Hey, they didn't have to invade...

Maybe we'll even start using their gas and oil again, if we haven't gone fully renewable/nuclear by then.  No yachts back to the oligarchs though - sold to pay for war reparations.

Terrible idea, they will just make more weapons and wait until president desantis abandons all treaties and lets europe and taiwan be taken.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ShortForBob said:

Oh give us a break. The USA chose not to call the Korean thing a War,

Putang chooses not to call the Ukraine thing a war.

Neither of you are fooling anyone.:rolleyes:

However, the point is that the Ukrain thing will "end" like the Korean Thing, the Israel/P thing and prolly a few others.

Years and years of "slow war"

Simply because, like others before them, Putang wont admit defeat and the west cant or more likely wont make him because even if we do that would involve compensating Ukraine and making Russia PAY.

We all know thats never going to happen, so we'll all take our toys and it will be another active but largely forgotten incident in 5 years,,except by Ukraine.

(typing in the dark)

 

 

Wrong!!!!  Go back to your unshelved books.  Or pick up a broom.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, d'ranger said:

So now we know for sure that the US military would dominate the Russian military in short order.

and that means the US can cut military spending by a lot, right ?? 

As I wrote before, Germany alone would be a match for Russia. 

(clear connection here to Ukr :)  !!)

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, phill_nz said:

why are you not able to at least make a bold stab at it

Peace loving people need to support Ukr's stance on negotiations, 

unless your goal is to fight to the last Slav. 

"We" is not you, nor is it me. 

See ?? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Peace loving people need to support Ukr's stance on negotiations, 

unless your goal is to fight to the last Slav. 

"We" is not you, nor is it me. 

See ?? 

Does anyone know what their stance is at the moment?  It seems to change with Ukraine taking a harder line after each atrocity.  They may decide to fight to the last Slav on their own.   But yes, we need to support Ukraine in all ways until they tell us differently.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rain Man said:

Does anyone know what their stance is at the moment?  It seems to change with Ukraine taking a harder line after each atrocity.  They may decide to fight to the last Slav on their own.   But yes, we need to support Ukraine in all ways until they tell us differently.

The question is whether they want peace at any cost. That obviously would cost them sovereignty over a lot of their country. Given that the Ukraine is on the offensive taking back land they lost to the aggressor, then it's really up to Putin to sue for peace at any cost. Quite rightly Ukraine should continue fighting until they at least recapture every bit of land they lost since the war started. All nations should fully support and assist them until this has been achieved.

  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, The Dark Knight said:

The question is whether they want peace at any cost. That obviously would cost them sovereignty over a lot of their country. Given that the Ukraine is on the offensive taking back land they lost to the aggressor, then it's really up to Putin to sue for peace at any cost. Quite rightly Ukraine should continue fighting until they at least recapture every bit of land they lost since the war started. All nations should fully support and assist them until this has been achieved.

  

They are only taking back the recent loses in the north.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Russians Lost Nearly An Entire Battalion Trying To Cross A River In Eastern Ukraine (msn.com)

 

 

The better part of a Russian army battalion—50 or so vehicles and up to a thousand troops—in recent days tried to cross a pontoon bridge spanning the Siverskyi Donets River, running west to east between the separatist provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk in eastern Ukraine.

Ukrainian artillery caught them at the river bank—and destroyed them. The rapid destruction of around three dozen tanks and other armored vehicles, along with the bridge itself, underscores Russia’s deepening woes as its troops try, and fail, to make meaningful gains in eastern Ukraine’s Donbas region.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The_Real_XYZ said:

They are only taking back the recent loses in the north.

Yes. Pushing Russians out of areas lost since the war started (not 2014) puts the Ukraine in a stronger position than if they were only slowing or stopping a Russian advance. The would rightly expect at this point of time that at the minimum the return to 2014 .  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The_Real_XYZ said:

The Russians Lost Nearly An Entire Battalion Trying To Cross A River In Eastern Ukraine (msn.com)

 

 

The better part of a Russian army battalion—50 or so vehicles and up to a thousand troops—in recent days tried to cross a pontoon bridge spanning the Siverskyi Donets River, running west to east between the separatist provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk in eastern Ukraine.

Ukrainian artillery caught them at the river bank—and destroyed them. The rapid destruction of around three dozen tanks and other armored vehicles, along with the bridge itself, underscores Russia’s deepening woes as its troops try, and fail, to make meaningful gains in eastern Ukraine’s Donbas region.

 

Probably this...

 

55 minutes ago, The Dark Knight said:

more about what's happening on the ground in Ukraine

 

 

AJ can't help himself..

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So we have Very Serious Talking Heads all over the MSM clamoring for more weapons 

and they NEVER disclose their financial ties to the merchants of death. 

That is just amazing to me . . . 

And it shows that y'all are getting played like a cheap ukulele . . 

  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a good source that blows up the fantasy that the Ukr-Russia conflict is all about Vlad. 

Part of the problem is that Vlad's views on the war are widely shared in Russia, whether we want to believe it or not. 

I know I have posted on this issue before, but a number of you still do not get it. 

(there are a ton of sources like this . .  ) 

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/not-just-putin-most-russians-support-the-war-in-ukraine/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone have any update on the effort to recover the supposed nukes on the sunken Moskva? 

There was apparently an effort being mounted to send out their ancient submarine retrieval ship to have a shot at doing that.  But this has slipped off the radar. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Here is a good source that blows up the fantasy that the Ukr-Russia conflict is all about Vlad. 

P

Seriously? - An argument from popularity makes everyone from Trump the GWB look like pretty solid leaders at one time. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, P_Wop said:

Does anyone have any update on the effort to recover the supposed nukes on the sunken Moskva? 

There was apparently an effort being mounted to send out their ancient submarine retrieval ship to have a shot at doing that.  But this has slipped off the radar. 

Well being built back in the 1900’s you would think she would give a pretty solid radar target, pardon the very real pun.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, P_Wop said:

Does anyone have any update on the effort to recover the supposed nukes on the sunken Moskva? 

There was apparently an effort being mounted to send out their ancient submarine retrieval ship to have a shot at doing that.  But this has slipped off the radar. 

If there really were nukes onboard, the Americans would be helping to recover them.  There's no chance that the US wouldn't help or that the Russians would deny help if that's what was really down there. 

There's war and then there's 'oh shit' and that would be an 'oh shit'.   The potential of leaking nukes poisoning the black sea?  yea.. that's an 'oh shit'.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Rain Man said:

I think we should be prepared to lift them under certain conditions:  give back all of Ukraine's pre-2014 territory including Crimea, pay war reparations to Ukraine equal to the cost to rebuild all the destruction of this war and the last one to Ukraine, and pay back the West for the money spent helping Ukraine's war effort.

Hey, they didn't have to invade...

Maybe we'll even start using their gas and oil again, if we haven't gone fully renewable/nuclear by then.  No yachts back to the oligarchs though - sold to pay for war reparations.

And free elections in Belarus...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BeSafe said:

If there really were nukes onboard, the Americans would be helping to recover them.  There's no chance that the US wouldn't help or that the Russians would deny help if that's what was really down there. 

There's war and then there's 'oh shit' and that would be an 'oh shit'.   The potential of leaking nukes poisoning the black sea?  yea.. that's an 'oh shit'.

 

Nuclear warheads don't have a huge amount of radioactive material - up to 6kg of Plutonium (mostly 239 with <5% Pu240), a few grams of Tritium for the primary. For the secondary Uranium 235 and Lithium Deuteride surrounded by a depleted Uranium shell. Only the Plutonium 240 is very radioactive. Plutonium is highly toxic and that's a bigger issue that it being radioactive. The lack of radioactivity from a nuclear warhead makes lost ones hard to find and is part of the fear of terrorists acquiring them...

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The_Real_XYZ said:

The Russians Lost Nearly An Entire Battalion Trying To Cross A River In Eastern Ukraine (msn.com)

 

 

The better part of a Russian army battalion—50 or so vehicles and up to a thousand troops—in recent days tried to cross a pontoon bridge spanning the Siverskyi Donets River, running west to east between the separatist provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk in eastern Ukraine.

Ukrainian artillery caught them at the river bank—and destroyed them. The rapid destruction of around three dozen tanks and other armored vehicles, along with the bridge itself, underscores Russia’s deepening woes as its troops try, and fail, to make meaningful gains in eastern Ukraine’s Donbas region.

Boom boom, out go the lights!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some good news from CNN

The European Union is proposing to establish “solidarity lanes” exclusively for exporting agricultural goods from Ukraine to help ease the blockade of produce, which is “threatening global food security,” the commission said in a news release Thursday.  

The plan aims to integrate Ukrainian and EU infrastructure to mobilize 20 million metric tons of grain that must leave Ukraine within three months, EU Commissioner for Transport Adina Vălean said in the release. 

“Thousands” of trucks and wagons are stuck on the Ukrainian side of many EU borders, with an average waiting time of 16 days to pass through — rising to 30 days at some borders — the commission said.  

The commission is urging freight and infrastructure managers to take steps to streamline Ukrainian exports, such as making more vehicles available and prioritizing time slots.

National authorities are also being asked to apply “maximum flexibility” to “accelerate procedures at border crossing points” and work to secure more capacity for storing Ukrainian exports temporarily. 

The export blockade — resulting from the war with Russia — in addition to incidents of grain theft, reportedly at the hands of Russian forces, are causing a global supply crisis of grains such as wheat and corn.

 
 
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, spankoka said:

Seriously? - An argument from popularity makes everyone from Trump the GWB look like pretty solid leaders at one time. 

Are you being dense on purpose ??   and @phill_nz  and as usual   @Blue Crab

I did not write that Vlad was a good leader, he is obviously not. 

But I did write that many Russians share his views on the war and Ukraine. 

I wrote that in the faint hope that y'all would not support the same sort of focus-only-on-Saddam stupidity we saw in 2002. 

Link to post
Share on other sites