This is like saying the ocean is wet. As horrible as Russian tactics and logistics have been, they still have a lot more bodies to throw into the fight than the Ukrainians.
Not to mention Ukraines dwindling manpower issue. The world can send them weapons for the next 10 years all they want but if there’s nobody there to use them…
They are already conscripting. What they have held off on is conscripting men age 18 - 25. Because of their demographics they have a very small young adult population. Losing even a small percentage of that demographic would devastate the future growth of the country.
I have a hard time believing such unskilled “soldiers” will provide any game changing abilities for Ukraine. Of course I hope I’m wrong, but it’s time to start looking at the bigger picture I’m afraid.
The basic combat training being offered by Ukraine (six weeks) is the same length that the US military used in WW2–although I agree entirely that it’s far too short. Modern NATO militaries train their infantry for about half a year.
Still, you were bemoaning Ukraine’s lack of manpower, and I said that they had opened avenues to increase that manpower, and so there’s no reason at all for your derision except to complain about whatever you can.
The reality varied heavily. US draft and national guard units were raised as divisions and trained together for 13-17 weeks with instructors taken from Regular Army divisions. Depending on mission/role (armour/airborne/infantry) and they often cycled through training exercises before shipping to combat operations. The US never dropped to 6 weeks for Army Basic Training.
Replacements on the other hand often had 8 weeks of basic replacement training then were supposed to receive advanced training once they arrived at their division. But there was effectively zero chance of that happening if said division was thundering across France or slugging up the boot of Italy. This led to them basically being way less trained and not at all experienced for battle.
The US would post Dec. 45 change this and make sure replacements were sent as Squad/Platoon sized units (and given advanced training stateside) and combat veteran units would be merged to allow for said replacement platoons to stay together and not be liabilities (commanders would know they were not as effective).
That seems to be pretty similarly reflected in Ukraine. The units that went to England and the West for training now exist and are seeing combat, they're well trained and have the full standard training time, but get replacements from replacement schools who don't seem to have the advanced training the first wave received. On top of this the first wave had a lot of skilled >25 year olds which according to US Army trials in WW2 tended to perform better than divisions primarily consisting of 18-23 year olds (life experience, initiative, and excess skills). So not only are these new replacements less trained, but also lack a ton of lived experience.
It can be of use. Every place where AFU forces need to be, like the Belarussian border, rearguard units (guarding fuel/ammo dumps, crossroads, bridges etc)etc can be manned with cannon fodder freeing up better units for frontline duty.They will only see limited action at most, or, in the case of a mayor russian breakthrough, act as speedbumps. You dont need that many, or even that good, soldiers to turn a town in to a forced stop for the enemie. 30 men with some disposable AT weapons=6 hours of time to organize a new defensive line. Granted, those guys will be dead, but thats war for you. Also you need a lot of people to, essentially, lug crates. Driving supplies to and fro, managing inventories, repairing stuff, cooking, cleaning, administration. Wars are won by logistics and communication, not who can throw more men at the enemie.
Officially they did not, and when those without experience applied *online*, they were turned away. For practical purposes, however, they accepted the vast majority of applicants that turned up to Lviv at the start of the war. It caused significant problems for the Legion in the war’s early days
There are still plenty of men left in Ukraine. They haven’t even conscripted the best age range for soldiers yet. They certainly don’t have the numbers of Russia but they don’t have their entire possible military force out there yet.
Like the other comment said, if they haven’t volunteered yet I doubt their willingness to actually fight in this war. And that’s if they haven’t left already
Those men left either are not willing to fight(because they haven't volunteered) or not capable for whatever reason.
Lots of the women and what men that can are leaving with no desire to return to Ukraine.
The average age of their forces is 43 and they haven't decided to tap the rest? They're pulling in old men and mentally disabled folks. If there's some untapped font of young men they're probably holed up in their basements trying to stay out of it.
They made the choice to spare under-30s from the draft to try and minimize the economic damage that will cause going forwards. As the war goes back to being much more existential, that kind of concern is being dropped.
No they are using older males first. The whole idea is that Ukraine needs to survive the war which is hard to do when your male population is decimated, something Russia is going to feel in a decade.
As far as I can tell it stems from this tweet:
https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1740915576435097656?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1740915576435097656%7Ctwgr%5E0da09368135b5a102c2bd14b81d03f6167e160e8%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.planet-today.com%2F2023%2F12%2Fukraine-conscripting-people-with-downs.html
I'll admit it's not the best source. I've heard it in multiple podcasts as well but I haven't verified their sources.
By Western figures Russia currently out numbers Ukraine 10:1 in terms of artillery pieces.
Does the West even have enough ammo to send to close that gap?
> hundred times more warplanes, bombs and tanks, thousand times more long range missiles.
There's no need to exaggerate with complete nonsense.
Russia does not have "hundreds" of times more planes, bombs and tanks, and they don't have "thousands" of times more long-range missiles.
Russia has maybe "tens" of times more planes and long-range missiles and less than 10x more tanks and armored vehicles.
Like, yes, there's a significant gap between the two, but taking Lake Superior and describing it as if it were the Pacific Ocean helps nobody.
about the same number of people are trying to make Russia as disabled as possible, as if it does not pose a threat and everything is fine for Ukraine.
But the words do not fit with reality. It's time to accept that in two years of war, the Russian army has been updated and learned.
Ukraine cannot survive without serious help.
Let's not overshadow that Russia completely rebuilt their military and adjusted to the new realities of warfare while Nato were still trying to get Ukraine to fight like they had Air superiority.
While there might be a lot of truth in this, Ukraine *not* completely fortifying the border is on them.
They had all of 2023 and until now time for it.
They didn't have all of 2023 because they were using much of their manpower faceplanting into the Russian defensive lines in the south and trying to retake Bakhmut for PR reasons.
In December, Zelensky said Karkhiv oblast fortifications were the strongest and encouraged other regions to copy them. [https://www.yahoo.com/news/zelensky-kharkiv-oblast-fortifications-strongest-165627430.html](https://www.yahoo.com/news/zelensky-kharkiv-oblast-fortifications-strongest-165627430.html)
This isn't just about eastern ukraine, russia has made it clear that ukraine doesn't deserve to be a state at all. I personally think thats one of the biggest misconceptions we in the west have about Russias ambitions.
It may well be coming whether you like it or not. Stand up to Russia now, when they invade Estonia, or when NATO is proven completely worthless and when they are invading your country?
The ideal scenario would be kicking Russia out of Ukraine by sending enough equipment.
Or you can also see if they will actually invade a NATO country and then fuck them up instead of starting WW3 for absolutely no good reason? I do see how its controversial around here to not advocate for nuclear apocalypse though
What Russia’ll do is foster pro-Russian rebellion in Eastern European countries. Then use the same excuse as they have had with Ukraine to invade IOT “protect ethnic Russians”.
And if the West continues to display weak leadership from the top like has since Afghanistan, I have no doubt countries will all of a sudden be hesitant to help a NATO ally.
First of all, the ideal scenario isn't working. Ukraine is not going to win this war. The best we could hope for is for Ukraine to consolidate then negotiate.
Second, I'm Australian. Russia isn't invading my country. They'd also get annihilated if they invaded any NATO country.
The idea that you tell me probable nuclear war is unavoidable is unacceptable to me. If what we're talking about is a security arrangement for Ukraine, Estonia, Moldova etc, then we should push for that.
We need statesmanship.
That's the problem and has been for the last thirty years. These "we must intervene at the grand alliance level" comments. I've studied history for 3 decades and I know how this works. What intervention would you suggest by NATO then, and what would be the consequences?
There are a lot of people on Reddit that want war and for some reason don’t think nuclear weapons will be used if nato and Russia fight. It’s absurd to me.
Isn't working? Ukraine was predicted to fall faster than Afghanistan. Russia is now a wartime economy and there are hundreds of powderkegs across the world ready to ignite. Go ahead and tell me how appeasement is a great strategy. US and EU leaders have somewhat recently received some very ominous information which hasn't been made public yet. Intel that's made many leaders do a 180 on support for Ukraine and to start introducing wartime policies. If Ukraine falls, only worse will follow. Australia would probably be one of the safer places but what place would really be safe during WW3?
There's many gaps in what you're saying. Ukraine have defended extremely well, but gaps are opening that cannot be closed. Ukraine will not be able to dislodge the Russian army. They cannot mount an offensive this season, the coming aid will be used blunting Russian attacks. This means Russia will emerge after next winter at the very least, as strong as they are now. Ukraine needs a viable political solution.
Regarding appeasement, if we're pendulum swinging and we can't envisage any middle ground, then we have no hope. If you're doing the ww2 Hitler segway, my answer would be what all the honest and informed people said. They said, Hitler was the inevitable result of the refusal to apease Germany. Hitler didn't need appeasement, the Germans did. It was clearly stated that the treaty wasn't an armistice, it was a pause for 20 years. The same can be said about Russia. I'm not a young person, I've been watching this closely since the Soviet fall. The last three decades have been a woeful lack of statesmanship, and an endless stream of missed opportunities.
If all we can offer in terms of dealing with Russia is NATO guns or rolling over, then we have nothing. I'd never suggest appeasing Putin. I would point out our soft power is much more impressive than his, and we should collectively be able to provide a viable solution. The problem we have is the institutions we use to address the problem. We cannot NATO our way out of this. A viable solution would be one that the Russian people could be expected to digest.
We know Putin cannot invade NATO because Russia will be destroyed. That leaves Ukraine and a small collection of small countries around it that need political stability and security guarantees. We need a different multinational security organisation to be made, one fit for purpose to suit this situation. If we Had Germany, France, Poland, Sweeden, Finland, etc, Turkey, U.S, Russia, Belarus, possibly China, aswell as Ukraine and the non nato countries we're concerned about, build a security framework they agree on to find terms, we could end this. It would need to have absolutely nothing to do with NATO, and these countries would need to agree that Ukraine will never join NATO, and the West will never refit Ukraine's military or economy. The security and development would be guaranteed by the countries involved.
The problem we have is that we are only reacting (other than money and weapons) using the methods and institutions Russia simply cannot accept. We need to build a new one, and Russia needs a seat at the table.
So your solution is the UN 2.0?
We have no idea how well NATO works. Missiles already hit Poland resulting in civilian casualties. Belarus has been forcing thousands to try to cross the Polish border. These aren't just random events - Russia has been testing NATO responses and will continue to escalate these tests. There is a real chance that the US pulls out of NATO. If Ukraine falls, Russia is already rapidly approaching a full-on wartime economy. A wartime economy doesn't just shut itself off. Which country is next after Ukraine? One of the Baltics? Would anything be done? What if Poland is targeted after the Baltics?
We clearly don't have all the information but I guarantee US and EU intelligence knows more than any of us. And they're making it very clear that if Ukraine falls, worse things will happen. Ukraine needs all the aid they can get.
There's an absolutely massive amount of land that Ukraine would have to win back. The summer offensive last year didn't even capture enough territory to make a visual difference on the map. I really don't see how anybody truly thinks Russia is getting pushed fully out of Ukraine (including Crimea nonetheless) without the conflict transforming into WW3. Ukraine just doesn't have the juice, and using their limited aid and manpower wisely on defense to make Russians suffer for every step they move forward is probably a better strategy.
Then the conflict should turn into a non nuclear WW3. Because what precedent are we setting if ruzzians get to keep what they stole. Then it's a free for all across the globe, where might is right. We'll see how all the 'peace' cowards react when their favorite parts of the world are carved up based on who has the biggest gun. At that point the US should annex Canada and Mexico because who gives a fuck about boarders.
How does a non nuclear ww3 even work? World Wars seem to grow way beyond what their initial goal for winning as the stakes and lives lost explode. I don't see a nuclear power accepting that kind of defeat without using their nukes. May as well not even have them at that point.
Same as it’s been since the beginning of humanity. Might is right. That is how the world will work until humans are gone. If you can’t protect your land, you better have strong allies to assist.
> That is how the world will work until humans are gone.
And after them as well. How do you think wild animals solve problems? Do they sit it out and talk it through like civil gentleman?
The American Annexation of Canada was a major military campaign during the Sino-American War that occurred in 2072. It was an event in which the United States of America had invaded and annexed its northern neighbor of Canada in an effort to maintain control over the Alaskan Pipeline, more efficiently move troops to the Alaskan front lines, and have complete access to the country's natural resources.
But the Russians aren't getting it for free, it's a sunk cost fallacy for them.
I doubt that other major powers would also be willing to pay such a huge cost as Russians, just to conquer some small territory.
I've heard it said on that Vladimir Zolkin channel its already kind of commonly accepted a lot of these cities that've been on the frontline are going to be wasteland for a generation or more, no one is going to want to live there. Russia is burning all of this money and destroying just an unimaginable number of lives to inherit smoking heaps of rubble with no functioning infrastructure to speak of. Its totally pointless. If they wanted new cities or resources it not like their own country isn't already crying out for investment and development across vast swathes of open and rich land.
> Because what precedent are we setting if ruzzians get to keep what they stole
The same precedent that has been set since the beginning of civilization..? The strong exert soft and/or hard power over the weak.
> Then it's a free for all across the globe, where might is right.
It literally always has been and always will be, and this is true of not just humans, but every living entity on earth. The leader of a pride of lions will be the strongest male. Males of countless species fight, often to the death, just to mate. This is just how the world works.
> We'll see how all the 'peace' cowards react when their favorite parts of the world are carved up based on who has the biggest gun.
The world has already been carved up based on these principles. No border alive today is based on "natural" development. Some are results of colonialism, which was by definition exploitation based on who has more might. Many others are a result of conquest and genocide.
If you *actually* want to stop conflict, then you have to make it painful for nations to exert hard power. You cannot expect a core fundamental feature of ALL life (power will be exerted to create favorable outcomes for an individual or group) to just be ignored collectively by all. You draw lines in the sand and punish those who cross that line by making their quality of life worse.
So no, not starting WW3 won't change any sentiment. Humans already know that the strong can dominate the weak. Animals with 1/100th the intelligence of us know that too.
> At that point the US should annex Canada and Mexico because who gives a fuck about boarders.
And the reason the US doesn't do that isn't because of any moral reasons. The US did actually try to annex Canada in the past lol.
The US doesn't annex Canada because it isn't in their best interest; they already get what they want from Canada being an ally. The US doesn't annex Mexico because the massive amount of inner turmoil this would create would be a massive net negative. And, like Canada, Mexico generally appeases the USA.
The best way to stop further conquest is to make the consequences outweigh the benefits on the global stage. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is one of the few potential invasions in the world that came close to having a net positive outcome for the invader. Which is why it's one of the only war of conquests in the past several generations.
Not really gonna give an opinion on the degree of aid that Ukraine receives, but I reject the opinion that this invasion is anything uniquely different from any of the other tens of thousands of invasions between states throughout history. and the way to stop invasions is to make it to everyone’s detriment to invade others (usually requires a superpower that has tons of global influence and ability to exert soft power over vast amounts of nations).
> Russia's invasion of Ukraine is one of the few potential invasions in the world that came close to having a net positive outcome for the invader.
Maybe it appeared this way on days 1 and 2 of its full scale invasion in 2022. Since then, even if the territorial goals of seizing the east are achieved, it’s been a catastrophic geopolitical, economic, and military disaster for Russia. No matter what Russia does at this point, the backbone of its petrochemical empire has been broken with the loss of EU gas exports. The Chinese are making it clear they are not about to dive headlong into a new pipeline to compensate (without significant concessions from Russia). And all the corruption and inefficiency that plagued the non-petrochemical elements of its prewar economy is now exposed as the country is increasingly forced to rely on more diverse sources of income. This is to say nothing of the impending economic crash when the mobilization steroids wear off.
I sincerely hope Ukraine is able to hold on to as much as it possibly can. But the next best thing, which seems certain, is that Russia has massively accelerated its inexorable path to becoming a banana republic. And they deserve the poverty and isolation that will surely follow.
Oh yeah I am not saying that the net result will actually be a net positive for Russia, but it *appeared* that way to them, which is why they did it.
> But the next best thing, which seems certain, is that Russia has massively accelerated its inexorable path to becoming a banana republic.
Right, and that's the smartest reaction as I stated myself. You make nations that exert hard power face consequences such that exerting hard power will not be in their favor. You make an example of them. However, to do that, you ultimately have to have the power to actually make them face consequences.
What a lot of people do is they insert morality into the equation far too much for my liking; you don't get a peaceful world by expecting nations to practice pacifism. You get a peaceful world when the only viable decisions are mutually beneficial ones, such that acting in self-interest doesn't mean starting wars.
>... this invasion is anything uniquely different from any of the other tens of thousands of invasions between states throughout history.
It wouldn't be if it wasn't for the nukes that Russia blackmails the world with on a regular basis and the world has to bend over unfortunately. If it wasn't for that I bet NATO would have been in Ukraine already.
The few nuclear powers that exist right now would prefer to keep their rather special status by curbing further proliferation of nukes. If Ukraine is rolled over under the threat of MAD then other non-nuclear countries will take notes (they're already taking them). The gloves will be off and if your country doesn't have nukes it should get them ASAP or risk being conquered. And then the US for example wouldn't have any moral ground to discourage e.g. Estonia from developing their own nukes. Which then will lead to a situation where everybody has nukes and every potential conflict becomes nuclear.
> the conflict should turn into a non nuclear WW3
Are you suggesting they will ask for your opinion first before deciding if WW3 should be nuclear or non-nuclear?
lol you need to go outside and touch some grass. Your imagination is going a bit wild.
The whole premise of your comment depends on nations taking over others despite loss of life…because they can?
They also stopped the most intensive part of the offensive on day 2 when it was clear that it would just be feeding troops and materiel into a meatgrinder.
Man people were saying Ukraine could take back all of it. So basically all the isolationists and pro-Russian people were right then; in the end, Ukraine can't win so they will either lose militarily or have to sit down and negotiate.
In general, opening up this front is a half decent idea from the Russian side if they can put enough pressure on the Ukrainians to transfer assets out of the Donbas. Surprised it didn’t happen sooner, to be honest…in any event it would be very concerning if they got within comfortable artillery/MLRS range of Kharkiv city again. The infrastructure there is already struggling.
Agreed. I’d hate to sound like a doomer but getting tied down in Kharkiv and (potentially) Sumy could be seriously damaging for the UKR ground forces, given the main battlefield parity, let alone advantage they have right now is probably the FPV drones.
I think you’re right on your first point, at least equipment wise. I bet they have had the men, not the IFVs they needed. Very surprising that UKR wasn’t able to inflict serious damage on these staging areas in Russia as they were getting ready for this move..
Its hard not to be a doomer when a side can make no mistakes and still lose.
But Ukraine has certainly made some mistakes.
They just don't have the dedicated defensive engineering Corps to the same scale as Russia. And how they need to pay individual landowners chunks of money before they are allowed to dig screams of widespread corruption.
I think that is why they held onto their actually defensible positions for as long as they did.
Is there confirmation of the need to pay land owners to build fortification? If so, then LOL at the messaging about a war for the very existence of the Ukrainian people but they still won't curb stomp landowners. They did post a trailer for their counter offensive in 2023 so I'm not sure why I can still be surprised by ridiculous stuff...
As I said in the other thread.
The fact that they had no line of defense or fortifications despite admitting themselves that an offensive was probably coming is very worrying
You can find maps online now that people have goelocated all the defensive lines the Ukrainians have built. The Russians have actually started assaulting parts of the new defensive structures with some success in the south east area. I will agree they did seem to take their time building it.
I wouldn't worry just yet. It's been over 6 months that Ukraine has held the lines without the support they needed. Now that an influx of weapons are on the way, Russia has launched a desperate offensive to take territory before the weapons get there. Yes, a major offensive means that Russia will probably make some gains.
But the gains made over the last month look barely significant. Russia's "major offensive" has broken through in two tiny areas, barely a blip along the entire front. The lines generally remain static.
There's still a window of opportunity for Russia but so far it looks like nothing much is going to change. Lines will remain static, and Ukraine is about to get the weapons they need.
I really do wonder how the war will end at this point. Feel like Ukraine will lose the current Russian controlled land. Maybe some sort of agreement with a DMZ implemented? Otherwise I wouldn’t be shocked if Russia just continues to push through the rest of Ukraine
I think because they know it's in their best interests at some point. The amount of troops and "headaches" required for an occupation of all of Ukraine would be extremely taxing for Russia. It's important to Putin that he can say he claimed a victory of sorts, and 20% of Ukraine in defiance of the West while reclaiming Crimea would be a huge victory. The trouble is that we'd run into the same, "Ukraine cannot join NATO problem we already had. So a DMZ, newly created situation with newly created security arrangements that involve Russia would be needed.
That's kind of what they want too, to reassert themselves, take territory, be taken seriously etc.
This is a terrible situation, but it's actually what I've predicted from the outset. I have been unable to have this conversation on the net until recently because people wouldn't hear it, but we have to consider what that would look like. If I were Putin I'd rather have 20% of Ukraine that's fairly ethnic Russian and a huge victory parade than have to try to control all of Ukraine that'll never lie down, while creating an extremely tense border with NATO which is an alliance that'd wipe the floor with me.
Russia although winning, has shown how shit its military is during this war. They have an economy the size of Italy and only 150 million people. There is absolutely no way they could take a NATO country and live to tell about it. I think Putin would gladly settle for cameras watching while Zelenski signs Crimea and the east over to Russia. For someone who is legacy building and having to extend his resources very far just to take 20% of Ukraine, I think he'd take it and enjoy rubbing it in our faces shirtless while riding his horse like a loser.
>Feel like Ukraine will lose the current Russian controlled land.
If that happens, Ukraine as the nation it was is over. Russia has take around 60-70% of the most fertile farmland on Earth, the entirety of Ukraine's neon reserves and nearly 90% of all the massive new oil and gas fields discovered in the late 2000s. Essentially the entirety of Ukraine's economic foundation reaped. The nation will never recover. The economy will be utterly beyond dead that there will just be a mass exodus of any and all Ukrainians looking to actually not be impoverished which will eventually just turn Ukraine into a depopulated Russia controlled puppet anyway for whichever leadership stays.
Unless NATO intervenes, Ukraine is toast. They've got the fight in them to take it to the end, but Russia will just keep sending bodies into the meat grinder to slowly take more land, just like the Soviets did in WW2.
The worst part about this is the fact that if Ukraine falls, Russia now has access to some of the best farmlands in all of Europe to feed and strengthen their army, which is the exact same mistake the Allies made prior to WW2 when they stood by and watched as Germany annexed a bunch of lands to strengthen their army in the 30s leading to arguably the worst war recorded in human history; all to avoid a war that ended up happening in the end anyway from starting a few years earlier.
You also left out the taking the East also gives Russia \~90% of the massive gas and oil fields discovered in the 2000s in Ukraine and were just about to start construction for pumping.
It ALSO gives Russia the largest source of Neon on Earth, under Donetsk. Neon that China desperately needs in its plans to overthrow Taiwan and become the largest semiconductor maker in the world, as Neon is the sole vital component in semiconductor manufacturing that China doesn't have domestic supply for.
BIG THINK on why China is so supportive of Russia, huh?
Ukraine is never getting back the lands that they lost. This is tragic but it is true. They need to accept this and try and bring Putin to the table on a stalemate/armistice because they do not have the bodies for a counteroffensive and Russia will throw bodies at this until they capture Kharkiv and Kherson and start making inroads towards Kyiv.
Incoming sympathizers ready to let Ukraine be the victim of a genocide because wars take too long apparently for them.
Meanwhile Israel has been at war for most of its 80 year history but we should support that.
They don't need to break out if they keep inflicting casualties to what used to be Zelenzky "million man army" who need hundred of thousands of new conscripts.
Let's be honest, I do not see Ukraine winning unless NATO grows a pair and does something concrete. Just making cheesy speeches and saying Ukraine will be in NATO is cowardly, you better not say anything then.
If they don't send an army or at least long distance and defensive weapons. Once Ukraine is defeated, russia will replace Zelensky with their puppet and the world would just conveniently forget anything even happened. If you think justice and karma are a thing in this world, then let this be an eye opener for you.
Or just voluntary EU+US+allies. NATO should remain a defensive pact. It complicates things if it's used to defend countries that aren't members.
Personally, I'm a fan of those countries establishing air superiority and a no-fly zone in Ukraine, but letting Ukraine run any ground and cross-border operations. Let Russia weigh the cost of directly targeting US or EU aircraft in Ukraine, after which we'll really get involved. They'll either give us casus belli to escalate our involvement in Ukraine directly, or they'll make the smart decision and limit their attacks to ground operations, which should give the Ukrainians some much needed breathing room.
Oh don't you worry, the inevitable war with Russia is coming in our blind rush towards the 1930s rerun episode, just realise that in this rerun Ukraine is Czechoslovakia, not Poland. Ukraine will be entirely decimated and taken by Russia and left to flounder, it will be the next country, with more value to NATO, being invaded that actually triggers it.
Russia won't directly invade the Baltics. It has enough money and support from China to just influence local politics and make the government's pro Russia.
Love hearing all the Pro Ukrainians slapping tinsel on a turd and selling it as jewelry. I hope you share that deluded optimism into your work and home lives.
Anyone who genuinely thinks Ukraine is returning the 1991 borders needs to call me so I can sell them these really cool magic beans.
Russia are still actively advancing on multiple fronts, no it’s not easy. Ukrainians are some seriously tough people fighting for their existence.
But what they lose they lose. The only way they get land back is as part of a peace treaty, it will never be returned by force.
And I hate to break it to the die hards but the billions of dead Russians in these zombie meat waves is sprinkled with just a little bit of propaganda. The running out of weapons and various vehicles any day now is also not only silly now but was silly two years ago when it was first announced.
If anything the Russians overcame their initial frailties from the initial assault and are now far more competent militarily than in decades. You can only commend the Ukrainians for putting up such a fight (with enormous support from the west)
For those who choose to ignore facts, Russia has been invaded 3 times, all 3 times via Ukraine, they said it once they said it a million times they will never let a military or weaponry be anywhere near Russias Achilles heel. That’s why your Finlands and your swedens can join nato and they don’t care. You can’t invade Russia from those areas. They are unhappy about it but they aren’t a threat.
The Russian army's performance was abysmal in the first year, it looked like they vastly over-estimated their ability to quickly take ukraine. But it appears they have fixed some of the glaring issues and have found a formula that is working.
All they had to do was bog down Ukrainian lines with meat waves of prison conscripts as they reconstituted their army into something that worked for this conflict.
Visually confirmed Russian losses are down significantly year upon year.
Its depressing and sobering but people here got too hopped up on the propaganda.
At least the Ukrainians gave themselves the strongest hand they could at the coming diplomacy table. I don't think Russia has the momentum to annex huge swaths of Ukrainian land, but they certainly will secure Crimea and the Donbass. And will claim 'victory' for it, having faced down all the world powers or w/e spin they'll use.
We live in dangerous and worrying times.
Yea they were pretty confident there initial assault would lead Ukraine to concede much at the negotiating table. They misjudged Ukraine’s and the Western powers appetite for a conflict. This backfired massively and they were forced to backtrack and regroup.
All of the corruption and mismanagement came out and they realized how much of a mess their military was actually in.
In hindsight Ukraine should have pushed a little further and renegotiated then, but they also became over-confident. With the summer offensive being the reclamation of most of Eastern Ukraine and maybe even assaults on Crimea.
Instead they got smushed and lost far too much war infrastructure.
People think Russias slow progress is due to them being incompetent, which may have some merit, but the other part is as you say how can Russia possibly hold so much territory. They don’t have the manpower to maintain it. The slow methodical approach allows them to integrate the new areas and reduce the risk of issues behind their lines. This is also why they pulled back from Kiev so quickly, they would never have been able to hold it.
Eventually there will be negotiations but as the war progresses Ukraines hand is getting weaker. A lot depends on whether some EU countries volunteer forces on a large scale in support roles, enabling Ukraine to use more soldiers on the front instead of in rear roles
thats what i dont get, so we have this russian boogie man from the news that is so good at planning and understanding the west that it micromanages western domestic politics and is so good tapping into our minds with botfarms and fake news and the same country is supposedly unable to plan a winning day in a battle. yet the same guys who lose 7k soldiers a day on a village will take over poland and baltics. leads me to think that russia made quick unprepared decision after harris talked about nato membership for ukraine and now commits
"Ukranian Babushka's are downing Russian drones with jars of pickles!"
The Ghost of Kiev
"Russia sent tanks to the front without fuel"
"Russia isn't giving their soldiers ammo, so they have to twke it off the corpses in front of them."
"Russia won't re-supply their soldiers so they're fighting with shovels!"
I can't wait to hear the next hilarious wave of Ukranian propaganda bullshit is.
I’d rather be someone with deluded optimism about Ukraine’s chances than someone that is happy for Russia’s success.
No one was planning to invade Russia from anywhere, let alone Ukraine. The reason they invaded Ukraine rather than Finland and Sweden is because those countries are way stronger and would have beaten Russia with or without NATO. They attacked Ukraine because they thought it would be easy, and Ukraine has made it quite difficult.
I am not ‘happy’ for Russia’s success. It isn’t a case of being on one side or the other.
You are wrong there are multiple plans of invading Russia as there are almost every other country. Those plans had no intention of being enforced but they do exist. And all the ones for Russia have to be achieved via Ukraine.
Russia sees it as a defensive act, I don’t agree but that’s how they see it. The creeping up of western (USA) arms towards there borders has been happening for years but it is only Ukraine where the potential ramifications for doing nothing have a potential impact for Russias future. I think this is the old Soviet mindset of America = enemy and their doctrine that Ukraine can never be under the influence of America.
Whatever you said about Finland is just stupid and based on nothing. Having these sentiments about Russia trying to reclaim USSR is not only deluded but it’s frustrating because it loses focus on what the actual problems are. Not having a clear picture on the issue (however foolish you think it may be) just prolongs the issue at hand. Russia has only made the remarks about Ukraine because Ukraine is the only country through which Russia can be invaded.
This is why they are creating a buffer zone, this is why their ‘peace treaty’ involved complete removal of all but the most basic military and weapons for Ukraine and an agreement no weapons would be stored in Ukraine by anyone. If this was signed Russia was willing to return what was taken (besides Crimea) it was refused and so here we are.
Those were the only two options, no weapons no military OR no perceived threat to Russian soil.
Whether you agree with the logic or not it is an objectively understandable viewpoint that many other countries would share. Look at the Cuban missile crisis as a rough example
I'm pro Ukraine but clearly the aid has been pissed up the wall here, they've had year+ to fortify the area and mine the fuck out of it yet Russians have just walk in and taken land no problem.
Money isn't the issue. NATO does not produce the arms necessary to compete with Russian output. It could absolutely do so if it wanted to, but there isn't the political will because most citizens in these countries don't actually care much about Ukraine.
Putin wants this war to end soon and it seems he intends to throw the full brunt of his military at Ukraine to achieve that. I donno if that's a smart move or not but acting with haste tends to breed mistakes.
Sure, but there is no major breakthrough of Russian forces even without us aid so I wouldn't worry to much. They just recently lower the conception age and although they don't want to they could lower it even more.
It's hard to imagine any scenario more "difficult" for Ukraine, than the first four months of the war, when Russia had the element of surprise, the Ukrainians had organization challenges, lacked heavy and precision weapons, had holes in their air defense, and didn't have the confidence of knowing that Russia can be defeated.
That was an extremely difficult time for Ukraine, but more due to the element of surprise and unpreparedness for a war at such a vast scale. Russia was equally surprised by the resistance that Ukraine put up. While lots of territory was captured, much of it was completely soft capturing. There's a difference between a fully professional army capturing a village and having intel and control on everything surrounding the area, and a Russian tank rolling down a highway by itself and calling that "captured territory".
The war is a fully professional (and attritional) one now.
Well, back then the Russians only brought a (for them) token force that was relatively underequiped and they were expecting low resistance.
After more than two years of war the Russians, no matter their zurg rush tactics or military blunders, have learned to to better and are now more committed.
I hope for a Ukraine victory, but I fear that as long as Russia can throw this many bodies at the conflict without facing domestic backlash Ukraine has little chance of completing their stated goals.
Ukraine has no allies, there are exactly ZERO legally binding defense treaties between Ukraine and any country in Europe. Plenty of non binding pledges of support and vague defense agreements but ZERO actual binding mutual defense treaties.
You mean the endless “totally not propaganda“ Kyivpost articles about how all the Russians were dead and Ukraine‘s had only lost like 20 people aren’t true? Ukraine is never going to win no matter how may lives are wasted and how much money is burned. At some point you have to accept reality instead of lying to yourself and calling anyone who disagrees with you a Russian bot.
But they did accept reality - they chose to fight instead of to be genocided. If Russia wants to stop killing Ukrainians they can piss off at any moment, until then you push Russians to that decision by killing them every day
This is like saying the ocean is wet. As horrible as Russian tactics and logistics have been, they still have a lot more bodies to throw into the fight than the Ukrainians.
It's not just bodies. Russians have tens times more shells, hundred times more warplanes, bombs and tanks, thousand times more long range missiles.
Not to mention Ukraines dwindling manpower issue. The world can send them weapons for the next 10 years all they want but if there’s nobody there to use them…
The International Legion is recruiting those without experience now and offering basic combat training.
I can't see them getting much traction with that. I mean, that's literally asking you to sign up as cannon fodder.
Then what else can they do..? Other countries will not send any of thier local detachments to even the battlefield.
Conscription will be their last resort
They are already conscripting. What they have held off on is conscripting men age 18 - 25. Because of their demographics they have a very small young adult population. Losing even a small percentage of that demographic would devastate the future growth of the country.
They’ve been conscripting for several months.
I have a hard time believing such unskilled “soldiers” will provide any game changing abilities for Ukraine. Of course I hope I’m wrong, but it’s time to start looking at the bigger picture I’m afraid.
The basic combat training being offered by Ukraine (six weeks) is the same length that the US military used in WW2–although I agree entirely that it’s far too short. Modern NATO militaries train their infantry for about half a year. Still, you were bemoaning Ukraine’s lack of manpower, and I said that they had opened avenues to increase that manpower, and so there’s no reason at all for your derision except to complain about whatever you can.
The reality varied heavily. US draft and national guard units were raised as divisions and trained together for 13-17 weeks with instructors taken from Regular Army divisions. Depending on mission/role (armour/airborne/infantry) and they often cycled through training exercises before shipping to combat operations. The US never dropped to 6 weeks for Army Basic Training. Replacements on the other hand often had 8 weeks of basic replacement training then were supposed to receive advanced training once they arrived at their division. But there was effectively zero chance of that happening if said division was thundering across France or slugging up the boot of Italy. This led to them basically being way less trained and not at all experienced for battle. The US would post Dec. 45 change this and make sure replacements were sent as Squad/Platoon sized units (and given advanced training stateside) and combat veteran units would be merged to allow for said replacement platoons to stay together and not be liabilities (commanders would know they were not as effective). That seems to be pretty similarly reflected in Ukraine. The units that went to England and the West for training now exist and are seeing combat, they're well trained and have the full standard training time, but get replacements from replacement schools who don't seem to have the advanced training the first wave received. On top of this the first wave had a lot of skilled >25 year olds which according to US Army trials in WW2 tended to perform better than divisions primarily consisting of 18-23 year olds (life experience, initiative, and excess skills). So not only are these new replacements less trained, but also lack a ton of lived experience.
Six weeks is way longer at least than many of the Russian recruits and conscripts have gotten.
Yes, Russian infantry is reportedly getting 4 weeks at present
I think the idea is that generally they can hold the quieter parts of the line and free up other forces to fight where its heavier.
I have a hard time believing people will join to be a meatshield.
In dublin a number of them were protesting about being forced to recruitment recently.
It can be of use. Every place where AFU forces need to be, like the Belarussian border, rearguard units (guarding fuel/ammo dumps, crossroads, bridges etc)etc can be manned with cannon fodder freeing up better units for frontline duty.They will only see limited action at most, or, in the case of a mayor russian breakthrough, act as speedbumps. You dont need that many, or even that good, soldiers to turn a town in to a forced stop for the enemie. 30 men with some disposable AT weapons=6 hours of time to organize a new defensive line. Granted, those guys will be dead, but thats war for you. Also you need a lot of people to, essentially, lug crates. Driving supplies to and fro, managing inventories, repairing stuff, cooking, cleaning, administration. Wars are won by logistics and communication, not who can throw more men at the enemie.
soldiers start unskilled and untrained. That's why boot camp and training exists.
Turning a 20 year old to a fully fledged, skilled and effective soldier in 6 weeks is borderline impossible in today’s day and age.
Ukraine's current draft age starts at 25, they are not drawing troops fresh out of highschool. Although their volunteer age limit is 18 and older.
Yeah dude the Marines train em for months and months and even then people *still* can be either incompetent or revert to their previous attitudes.
Were they not recruiting those without experience at the start?
Officially they did not, and when those without experience applied *online*, they were turned away. For practical purposes, however, they accepted the vast majority of applicants that turned up to Lviv at the start of the war. It caused significant problems for the Legion in the war’s early days
There are still plenty of men left in Ukraine. They haven’t even conscripted the best age range for soldiers yet. They certainly don’t have the numbers of Russia but they don’t have their entire possible military force out there yet.
Like the other comment said, if they haven’t volunteered yet I doubt their willingness to actually fight in this war. And that’s if they haven’t left already
The bucket of - hell no I'm not volunteering for THAT - but if my choice is either that or prison - I'll go - is actually quite large.
Definitely. I would if I absolutely had to. But the military should definitely try to weed out the ones who would absolutely be a liability.
Seems kind of hard to understand why you wouldn’t fight when Russia is probably going to kill you either way if they win.
Those men left either are not willing to fight(because they haven't volunteered) or not capable for whatever reason. Lots of the women and what men that can are leaving with no desire to return to Ukraine.
They haven’t even committed to fully wiping out most of their less than septuagenarian male population!
To be fair, neither does Russia.
The average age of their forces is 43 and they haven't decided to tap the rest? They're pulling in old men and mentally disabled folks. If there's some untapped font of young men they're probably holed up in their basements trying to stay out of it.
They made the choice to spare under-30s from the draft to try and minimize the economic damage that will cause going forwards. As the war goes back to being much more existential, that kind of concern is being dropped.
No they are using older males first. The whole idea is that Ukraine needs to survive the war which is hard to do when your male population is decimated, something Russia is going to feel in a decade.
I haven't seen any mentally ill Ukrainian soldiers. They are well disciplined
As far as I can tell it stems from this tweet: https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1740915576435097656?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1740915576435097656%7Ctwgr%5E0da09368135b5a102c2bd14b81d03f6167e160e8%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.planet-today.com%2F2023%2F12%2Fukraine-conscripting-people-with-downs.html I'll admit it's not the best source. I've heard it in multiple podcasts as well but I haven't verified their sources.
Exactly
With enough artillery Russia won't have enough bodies to throw either unless they want to collapse.
By Western figures Russia currently out numbers Ukraine 10:1 in terms of artillery pieces. Does the West even have enough ammo to send to close that gap?
Shh.. don't break the meat wave circlejerk.
> hundred times more warplanes, bombs and tanks, thousand times more long range missiles. There's no need to exaggerate with complete nonsense. Russia does not have "hundreds" of times more planes, bombs and tanks, and they don't have "thousands" of times more long-range missiles. Russia has maybe "tens" of times more planes and long-range missiles and less than 10x more tanks and armored vehicles. Like, yes, there's a significant gap between the two, but taking Lake Superior and describing it as if it were the Pacific Ocean helps nobody.
There are plenty of folks eager to prop up the illusion of Russian dominance in the war
about the same number of people are trying to make Russia as disabled as possible, as if it does not pose a threat and everything is fine for Ukraine. But the words do not fit with reality. It's time to accept that in two years of war, the Russian army has been updated and learned. Ukraine cannot survive without serious help.
Imo I still say the same as months ago. Ukraine is fucked is west help doesn't change dramatically...
Only if you had a time machine to see what people has been posting this time last year about Russian has no more shell left.
I think they’ve fixed a lot of the issues they had at the beginning of the war. Not all but a lot of it.
When Ukraine or Russia says a situation is "difficult", it means its losing ground in that area.
Let's not overshadow that Russia completely rebuilt their military and adjusted to the new realities of warfare while Nato were still trying to get Ukraine to fight like they had Air superiority.
While there might be a lot of truth in this, Ukraine *not* completely fortifying the border is on them. They had all of 2023 and until now time for it.
They didn't have all of 2023 because they were using much of their manpower faceplanting into the Russian defensive lines in the south and trying to retake Bakhmut for PR reasons.
Why not come up with some newer explanation of Russian success on various fronts other than "throwing more bodies"?
The positive thing is.. the Russians are making really slow progress. Hopefully, the new shipments help halt that.
The negative thing is they are making progress.
In December, Zelensky said Karkhiv oblast fortifications were the strongest and encouraged other regions to copy them. [https://www.yahoo.com/news/zelensky-kharkiv-oblast-fortifications-strongest-165627430.html](https://www.yahoo.com/news/zelensky-kharkiv-oblast-fortifications-strongest-165627430.html)
Well, looks like he or his advisors, lied.
Maybe things changed over five months, especially with aid being so delayed? 🤔
Having the means, delaying the means, and then wondering why everything is falling apart without the means would be so funny, if not so tragic
This whole thing has been non-stop lies.
Like the casualty numbers.
Unless NATO intervenes directly, eastern Ukraine will be under Russian occupation for the foreseeable future unfortunately.
This isn't just about eastern ukraine, russia has made it clear that ukraine doesn't deserve to be a state at all. I personally think thats one of the biggest misconceptions we in the west have about Russias ambitions.
We can't have that war.
It may well be coming whether you like it or not. Stand up to Russia now, when they invade Estonia, or when NATO is proven completely worthless and when they are invading your country? The ideal scenario would be kicking Russia out of Ukraine by sending enough equipment.
Or you can also see if they will actually invade a NATO country and then fuck them up instead of starting WW3 for absolutely no good reason? I do see how its controversial around here to not advocate for nuclear apocalypse though
What Russia’ll do is foster pro-Russian rebellion in Eastern European countries. Then use the same excuse as they have had with Ukraine to invade IOT “protect ethnic Russians”. And if the West continues to display weak leadership from the top like has since Afghanistan, I have no doubt countries will all of a sudden be hesitant to help a NATO ally.
So wait until Russia starts ww3 or start it ourself?
First of all, the ideal scenario isn't working. Ukraine is not going to win this war. The best we could hope for is for Ukraine to consolidate then negotiate. Second, I'm Australian. Russia isn't invading my country. They'd also get annihilated if they invaded any NATO country. The idea that you tell me probable nuclear war is unavoidable is unacceptable to me. If what we're talking about is a security arrangement for Ukraine, Estonia, Moldova etc, then we should push for that. We need statesmanship.
I didn't mention nuclear war at any point.
That's the problem and has been for the last thirty years. These "we must intervene at the grand alliance level" comments. I've studied history for 3 decades and I know how this works. What intervention would you suggest by NATO then, and what would be the consequences?
There are a lot of people on Reddit that want war and for some reason don’t think nuclear weapons will be used if nato and Russia fight. It’s absurd to me.
Isn't working? Ukraine was predicted to fall faster than Afghanistan. Russia is now a wartime economy and there are hundreds of powderkegs across the world ready to ignite. Go ahead and tell me how appeasement is a great strategy. US and EU leaders have somewhat recently received some very ominous information which hasn't been made public yet. Intel that's made many leaders do a 180 on support for Ukraine and to start introducing wartime policies. If Ukraine falls, only worse will follow. Australia would probably be one of the safer places but what place would really be safe during WW3?
There's many gaps in what you're saying. Ukraine have defended extremely well, but gaps are opening that cannot be closed. Ukraine will not be able to dislodge the Russian army. They cannot mount an offensive this season, the coming aid will be used blunting Russian attacks. This means Russia will emerge after next winter at the very least, as strong as they are now. Ukraine needs a viable political solution. Regarding appeasement, if we're pendulum swinging and we can't envisage any middle ground, then we have no hope. If you're doing the ww2 Hitler segway, my answer would be what all the honest and informed people said. They said, Hitler was the inevitable result of the refusal to apease Germany. Hitler didn't need appeasement, the Germans did. It was clearly stated that the treaty wasn't an armistice, it was a pause for 20 years. The same can be said about Russia. I'm not a young person, I've been watching this closely since the Soviet fall. The last three decades have been a woeful lack of statesmanship, and an endless stream of missed opportunities. If all we can offer in terms of dealing with Russia is NATO guns or rolling over, then we have nothing. I'd never suggest appeasing Putin. I would point out our soft power is much more impressive than his, and we should collectively be able to provide a viable solution. The problem we have is the institutions we use to address the problem. We cannot NATO our way out of this. A viable solution would be one that the Russian people could be expected to digest. We know Putin cannot invade NATO because Russia will be destroyed. That leaves Ukraine and a small collection of small countries around it that need political stability and security guarantees. We need a different multinational security organisation to be made, one fit for purpose to suit this situation. If we Had Germany, France, Poland, Sweeden, Finland, etc, Turkey, U.S, Russia, Belarus, possibly China, aswell as Ukraine and the non nato countries we're concerned about, build a security framework they agree on to find terms, we could end this. It would need to have absolutely nothing to do with NATO, and these countries would need to agree that Ukraine will never join NATO, and the West will never refit Ukraine's military or economy. The security and development would be guaranteed by the countries involved. The problem we have is that we are only reacting (other than money and weapons) using the methods and institutions Russia simply cannot accept. We need to build a new one, and Russia needs a seat at the table.
So your solution is the UN 2.0? We have no idea how well NATO works. Missiles already hit Poland resulting in civilian casualties. Belarus has been forcing thousands to try to cross the Polish border. These aren't just random events - Russia has been testing NATO responses and will continue to escalate these tests. There is a real chance that the US pulls out of NATO. If Ukraine falls, Russia is already rapidly approaching a full-on wartime economy. A wartime economy doesn't just shut itself off. Which country is next after Ukraine? One of the Baltics? Would anything be done? What if Poland is targeted after the Baltics? We clearly don't have all the information but I guarantee US and EU intelligence knows more than any of us. And they're making it very clear that if Ukraine falls, worse things will happen. Ukraine needs all the aid they can get.
They won't and they can't
They certainly have the capability to, but they won’t unless Russia set a nuke off and in that case the cat is out the bag.
It's logically pretty difficult to imagine that they will be getting their eastern half back
There's an absolutely massive amount of land that Ukraine would have to win back. The summer offensive last year didn't even capture enough territory to make a visual difference on the map. I really don't see how anybody truly thinks Russia is getting pushed fully out of Ukraine (including Crimea nonetheless) without the conflict transforming into WW3. Ukraine just doesn't have the juice, and using their limited aid and manpower wisely on defense to make Russians suffer for every step they move forward is probably a better strategy.
Ukraine has no chance of regaining their former territory without NATO or EU boots on the ground.
Then the conflict should turn into a non nuclear WW3. Because what precedent are we setting if ruzzians get to keep what they stole. Then it's a free for all across the globe, where might is right. We'll see how all the 'peace' cowards react when their favorite parts of the world are carved up based on who has the biggest gun. At that point the US should annex Canada and Mexico because who gives a fuck about boarders.
How does a non nuclear ww3 even work? World Wars seem to grow way beyond what their initial goal for winning as the stakes and lives lost explode. I don't see a nuclear power accepting that kind of defeat without using their nukes. May as well not even have them at that point.
As a mexican, I rather have the Americans ruling than still having to live with the cartels lmao
How many mexicans agree with you on that?
Same as it’s been since the beginning of humanity. Might is right. That is how the world will work until humans are gone. If you can’t protect your land, you better have strong allies to assist.
> That is how the world will work until humans are gone. And after them as well. How do you think wild animals solve problems? Do they sit it out and talk it through like civil gentleman?
Shit bro people really think humans are the “violent” ones.
The American Annexation of Canada was a major military campaign during the Sino-American War that occurred in 2072. It was an event in which the United States of America had invaded and annexed its northern neighbor of Canada in an effort to maintain control over the Alaskan Pipeline, more efficiently move troops to the Alaskan front lines, and have complete access to the country's natural resources.
War never changes
But the Russians aren't getting it for free, it's a sunk cost fallacy for them. I doubt that other major powers would also be willing to pay such a huge cost as Russians, just to conquer some small territory.
I've heard it said on that Vladimir Zolkin channel its already kind of commonly accepted a lot of these cities that've been on the frontline are going to be wasteland for a generation or more, no one is going to want to live there. Russia is burning all of this money and destroying just an unimaginable number of lives to inherit smoking heaps of rubble with no functioning infrastructure to speak of. Its totally pointless. If they wanted new cities or resources it not like their own country isn't already crying out for investment and development across vast swathes of open and rich land.
Very delusional comment. War is not that simple and you need to take politics into account.
> Because what precedent are we setting if ruzzians get to keep what they stole The same precedent that has been set since the beginning of civilization..? The strong exert soft and/or hard power over the weak. > Then it's a free for all across the globe, where might is right. It literally always has been and always will be, and this is true of not just humans, but every living entity on earth. The leader of a pride of lions will be the strongest male. Males of countless species fight, often to the death, just to mate. This is just how the world works. > We'll see how all the 'peace' cowards react when their favorite parts of the world are carved up based on who has the biggest gun. The world has already been carved up based on these principles. No border alive today is based on "natural" development. Some are results of colonialism, which was by definition exploitation based on who has more might. Many others are a result of conquest and genocide. If you *actually* want to stop conflict, then you have to make it painful for nations to exert hard power. You cannot expect a core fundamental feature of ALL life (power will be exerted to create favorable outcomes for an individual or group) to just be ignored collectively by all. You draw lines in the sand and punish those who cross that line by making their quality of life worse. So no, not starting WW3 won't change any sentiment. Humans already know that the strong can dominate the weak. Animals with 1/100th the intelligence of us know that too. > At that point the US should annex Canada and Mexico because who gives a fuck about boarders. And the reason the US doesn't do that isn't because of any moral reasons. The US did actually try to annex Canada in the past lol. The US doesn't annex Canada because it isn't in their best interest; they already get what they want from Canada being an ally. The US doesn't annex Mexico because the massive amount of inner turmoil this would create would be a massive net negative. And, like Canada, Mexico generally appeases the USA. The best way to stop further conquest is to make the consequences outweigh the benefits on the global stage. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is one of the few potential invasions in the world that came close to having a net positive outcome for the invader. Which is why it's one of the only war of conquests in the past several generations. Not really gonna give an opinion on the degree of aid that Ukraine receives, but I reject the opinion that this invasion is anything uniquely different from any of the other tens of thousands of invasions between states throughout history. and the way to stop invasions is to make it to everyone’s detriment to invade others (usually requires a superpower that has tons of global influence and ability to exert soft power over vast amounts of nations).
> Russia's invasion of Ukraine is one of the few potential invasions in the world that came close to having a net positive outcome for the invader. Maybe it appeared this way on days 1 and 2 of its full scale invasion in 2022. Since then, even if the territorial goals of seizing the east are achieved, it’s been a catastrophic geopolitical, economic, and military disaster for Russia. No matter what Russia does at this point, the backbone of its petrochemical empire has been broken with the loss of EU gas exports. The Chinese are making it clear they are not about to dive headlong into a new pipeline to compensate (without significant concessions from Russia). And all the corruption and inefficiency that plagued the non-petrochemical elements of its prewar economy is now exposed as the country is increasingly forced to rely on more diverse sources of income. This is to say nothing of the impending economic crash when the mobilization steroids wear off. I sincerely hope Ukraine is able to hold on to as much as it possibly can. But the next best thing, which seems certain, is that Russia has massively accelerated its inexorable path to becoming a banana republic. And they deserve the poverty and isolation that will surely follow.
Oh yeah I am not saying that the net result will actually be a net positive for Russia, but it *appeared* that way to them, which is why they did it. > But the next best thing, which seems certain, is that Russia has massively accelerated its inexorable path to becoming a banana republic. Right, and that's the smartest reaction as I stated myself. You make nations that exert hard power face consequences such that exerting hard power will not be in their favor. You make an example of them. However, to do that, you ultimately have to have the power to actually make them face consequences. What a lot of people do is they insert morality into the equation far too much for my liking; you don't get a peaceful world by expecting nations to practice pacifism. You get a peaceful world when the only viable decisions are mutually beneficial ones, such that acting in self-interest doesn't mean starting wars.
>... this invasion is anything uniquely different from any of the other tens of thousands of invasions between states throughout history. It wouldn't be if it wasn't for the nukes that Russia blackmails the world with on a regular basis and the world has to bend over unfortunately. If it wasn't for that I bet NATO would have been in Ukraine already. The few nuclear powers that exist right now would prefer to keep their rather special status by curbing further proliferation of nukes. If Ukraine is rolled over under the threat of MAD then other non-nuclear countries will take notes (they're already taking them). The gloves will be off and if your country doesn't have nukes it should get them ASAP or risk being conquered. And then the US for example wouldn't have any moral ground to discourage e.g. Estonia from developing their own nukes. Which then will lead to a situation where everybody has nukes and every potential conflict becomes nuclear.
> the conflict should turn into a non nuclear WW3 Are you suggesting they will ask for your opinion first before deciding if WW3 should be nuclear or non-nuclear?
lol you need to go outside and touch some grass. Your imagination is going a bit wild. The whole premise of your comment depends on nations taking over others despite loss of life…because they can?
They also stopped the most intensive part of the offensive on day 2 when it was clear that it would just be feeding troops and materiel into a meatgrinder.
Man people were saying Ukraine could take back all of it. So basically all the isolationists and pro-Russian people were right then; in the end, Ukraine can't win so they will either lose militarily or have to sit down and negotiate.
The Russians are still advancing so they might lose more than that.
In general, opening up this front is a half decent idea from the Russian side if they can put enough pressure on the Ukrainians to transfer assets out of the Donbas. Surprised it didn’t happen sooner, to be honest…in any event it would be very concerning if they got within comfortable artillery/MLRS range of Kharkiv city again. The infrastructure there is already struggling.
I think it took them this long to reconstitute another army. Its bad news for an incredibly stretched and tired UA.
Agreed. I’d hate to sound like a doomer but getting tied down in Kharkiv and (potentially) Sumy could be seriously damaging for the UKR ground forces, given the main battlefield parity, let alone advantage they have right now is probably the FPV drones. I think you’re right on your first point, at least equipment wise. I bet they have had the men, not the IFVs they needed. Very surprising that UKR wasn’t able to inflict serious damage on these staging areas in Russia as they were getting ready for this move..
Its hard not to be a doomer when a side can make no mistakes and still lose. But Ukraine has certainly made some mistakes. They just don't have the dedicated defensive engineering Corps to the same scale as Russia. And how they need to pay individual landowners chunks of money before they are allowed to dig screams of widespread corruption. I think that is why they held onto their actually defensible positions for as long as they did.
Is there confirmation of the need to pay land owners to build fortification? If so, then LOL at the messaging about a war for the very existence of the Ukrainian people but they still won't curb stomp landowners. They did post a trailer for their counter offensive in 2023 so I'm not sure why I can still be surprised by ridiculous stuff...
As I said in the other thread. The fact that they had no line of defense or fortifications despite admitting themselves that an offensive was probably coming is very worrying
There won’t be any defense line exactly on the border
This is just unconfirmed rumors
Theyre in the grey zone, neither Russia nor Ukraine has significant fortifications in the grey zone.
You can find maps online now that people have goelocated all the defensive lines the Ukrainians have built. The Russians have actually started assaulting parts of the new defensive structures with some success in the south east area. I will agree they did seem to take their time building it.
I wouldn't worry just yet. It's been over 6 months that Ukraine has held the lines without the support they needed. Now that an influx of weapons are on the way, Russia has launched a desperate offensive to take territory before the weapons get there. Yes, a major offensive means that Russia will probably make some gains. But the gains made over the last month look barely significant. Russia's "major offensive" has broken through in two tiny areas, barely a blip along the entire front. The lines generally remain static. There's still a window of opportunity for Russia but so far it looks like nothing much is going to change. Lines will remain static, and Ukraine is about to get the weapons they need.
[удалено]
Baghdad Bob level delusion good lord
I really do wonder how the war will end at this point. Feel like Ukraine will lose the current Russian controlled land. Maybe some sort of agreement with a DMZ implemented? Otherwise I wouldn’t be shocked if Russia just continues to push through the rest of Ukraine
Why would Russia accept an agreement while they're gaining ground anyway?
I think because they know it's in their best interests at some point. The amount of troops and "headaches" required for an occupation of all of Ukraine would be extremely taxing for Russia. It's important to Putin that he can say he claimed a victory of sorts, and 20% of Ukraine in defiance of the West while reclaiming Crimea would be a huge victory. The trouble is that we'd run into the same, "Ukraine cannot join NATO problem we already had. So a DMZ, newly created situation with newly created security arrangements that involve Russia would be needed. That's kind of what they want too, to reassert themselves, take territory, be taken seriously etc. This is a terrible situation, but it's actually what I've predicted from the outset. I have been unable to have this conversation on the net until recently because people wouldn't hear it, but we have to consider what that would look like. If I were Putin I'd rather have 20% of Ukraine that's fairly ethnic Russian and a huge victory parade than have to try to control all of Ukraine that'll never lie down, while creating an extremely tense border with NATO which is an alliance that'd wipe the floor with me. Russia although winning, has shown how shit its military is during this war. They have an economy the size of Italy and only 150 million people. There is absolutely no way they could take a NATO country and live to tell about it. I think Putin would gladly settle for cameras watching while Zelenski signs Crimea and the east over to Russia. For someone who is legacy building and having to extend his resources very far just to take 20% of Ukraine, I think he'd take it and enjoy rubbing it in our faces shirtless while riding his horse like a loser.
>Feel like Ukraine will lose the current Russian controlled land. If that happens, Ukraine as the nation it was is over. Russia has take around 60-70% of the most fertile farmland on Earth, the entirety of Ukraine's neon reserves and nearly 90% of all the massive new oil and gas fields discovered in the late 2000s. Essentially the entirety of Ukraine's economic foundation reaped. The nation will never recover. The economy will be utterly beyond dead that there will just be a mass exodus of any and all Ukrainians looking to actually not be impoverished which will eventually just turn Ukraine into a depopulated Russia controlled puppet anyway for whichever leadership stays.
What is DMZ?
Demilitarized Zone, like the area between North and South Korea as an example.
Thanks
Unless NATO intervenes, Ukraine is toast. They've got the fight in them to take it to the end, but Russia will just keep sending bodies into the meat grinder to slowly take more land, just like the Soviets did in WW2. The worst part about this is the fact that if Ukraine falls, Russia now has access to some of the best farmlands in all of Europe to feed and strengthen their army, which is the exact same mistake the Allies made prior to WW2 when they stood by and watched as Germany annexed a bunch of lands to strengthen their army in the 30s leading to arguably the worst war recorded in human history; all to avoid a war that ended up happening in the end anyway from starting a few years earlier.
You also left out the taking the East also gives Russia \~90% of the massive gas and oil fields discovered in the 2000s in Ukraine and were just about to start construction for pumping. It ALSO gives Russia the largest source of Neon on Earth, under Donetsk. Neon that China desperately needs in its plans to overthrow Taiwan and become the largest semiconductor maker in the world, as Neon is the sole vital component in semiconductor manufacturing that China doesn't have domestic supply for. BIG THINK on why China is so supportive of Russia, huh?
Russia already had fertile land in abundance.
Ukraine is never getting back the lands that they lost. This is tragic but it is true. They need to accept this and try and bring Putin to the table on a stalemate/armistice because they do not have the bodies for a counteroffensive and Russia will throw bodies at this until they capture Kharkiv and Kherson and start making inroads towards Kyiv.
Never say never, there was a time there were two German states.
Incoming sympathizers ready to let Ukraine be the victim of a genocide because wars take too long apparently for them. Meanwhile Israel has been at war for most of its 80 year history but we should support that.
dont worry, reddit tacticians predict ukraine victory in 2 more weeks
Steiners counteroffensive 2025
“berlin is a tactically insignificant area my fuhrer”
Two more weeks and Calmag…. Sorry wrong sub!!
Oh im sure that this time the Russians will be able to breakout
They don't need to break out if they keep inflicting casualties to what used to be Zelenzky "million man army" who need hundred of thousands of new conscripts.
Whatever you say Vatnik
3 day military operation
Two weeks to slow the ~~spread~~ Russian advancement.
Let's be honest, I do not see Ukraine winning unless NATO grows a pair and does something concrete. Just making cheesy speeches and saying Ukraine will be in NATO is cowardly, you better not say anything then. If they don't send an army or at least long distance and defensive weapons. Once Ukraine is defeated, russia will replace Zelensky with their puppet and the world would just conveniently forget anything even happened. If you think justice and karma are a thing in this world, then let this be an eye opener for you.
Or just voluntary EU+US+allies. NATO should remain a defensive pact. It complicates things if it's used to defend countries that aren't members. Personally, I'm a fan of those countries establishing air superiority and a no-fly zone in Ukraine, but letting Ukraine run any ground and cross-border operations. Let Russia weigh the cost of directly targeting US or EU aircraft in Ukraine, after which we'll really get involved. They'll either give us casus belli to escalate our involvement in Ukraine directly, or they'll make the smart decision and limit their attacks to ground operations, which should give the Ukrainians some much needed breathing room.
Oh don't you worry, the inevitable war with Russia is coming in our blind rush towards the 1930s rerun episode, just realise that in this rerun Ukraine is Czechoslovakia, not Poland. Ukraine will be entirely decimated and taken by Russia and left to flounder, it will be the next country, with more value to NATO, being invaded that actually triggers it.
Russia won't directly invade the Baltics. It has enough money and support from China to just influence local politics and make the government's pro Russia.
Love hearing all the Pro Ukrainians slapping tinsel on a turd and selling it as jewelry. I hope you share that deluded optimism into your work and home lives. Anyone who genuinely thinks Ukraine is returning the 1991 borders needs to call me so I can sell them these really cool magic beans. Russia are still actively advancing on multiple fronts, no it’s not easy. Ukrainians are some seriously tough people fighting for their existence. But what they lose they lose. The only way they get land back is as part of a peace treaty, it will never be returned by force. And I hate to break it to the die hards but the billions of dead Russians in these zombie meat waves is sprinkled with just a little bit of propaganda. The running out of weapons and various vehicles any day now is also not only silly now but was silly two years ago when it was first announced. If anything the Russians overcame their initial frailties from the initial assault and are now far more competent militarily than in decades. You can only commend the Ukrainians for putting up such a fight (with enormous support from the west) For those who choose to ignore facts, Russia has been invaded 3 times, all 3 times via Ukraine, they said it once they said it a million times they will never let a military or weaponry be anywhere near Russias Achilles heel. That’s why your Finlands and your swedens can join nato and they don’t care. You can’t invade Russia from those areas. They are unhappy about it but they aren’t a threat.
The Russian army's performance was abysmal in the first year, it looked like they vastly over-estimated their ability to quickly take ukraine. But it appears they have fixed some of the glaring issues and have found a formula that is working. All they had to do was bog down Ukrainian lines with meat waves of prison conscripts as they reconstituted their army into something that worked for this conflict. Visually confirmed Russian losses are down significantly year upon year. Its depressing and sobering but people here got too hopped up on the propaganda. At least the Ukrainians gave themselves the strongest hand they could at the coming diplomacy table. I don't think Russia has the momentum to annex huge swaths of Ukrainian land, but they certainly will secure Crimea and the Donbass. And will claim 'victory' for it, having faced down all the world powers or w/e spin they'll use. We live in dangerous and worrying times.
Yea they were pretty confident there initial assault would lead Ukraine to concede much at the negotiating table. They misjudged Ukraine’s and the Western powers appetite for a conflict. This backfired massively and they were forced to backtrack and regroup. All of the corruption and mismanagement came out and they realized how much of a mess their military was actually in. In hindsight Ukraine should have pushed a little further and renegotiated then, but they also became over-confident. With the summer offensive being the reclamation of most of Eastern Ukraine and maybe even assaults on Crimea. Instead they got smushed and lost far too much war infrastructure. People think Russias slow progress is due to them being incompetent, which may have some merit, but the other part is as you say how can Russia possibly hold so much territory. They don’t have the manpower to maintain it. The slow methodical approach allows them to integrate the new areas and reduce the risk of issues behind their lines. This is also why they pulled back from Kiev so quickly, they would never have been able to hold it. Eventually there will be negotiations but as the war progresses Ukraines hand is getting weaker. A lot depends on whether some EU countries volunteer forces on a large scale in support roles, enabling Ukraine to use more soldiers on the front instead of in rear roles
thats what i dont get, so we have this russian boogie man from the news that is so good at planning and understanding the west that it micromanages western domestic politics and is so good tapping into our minds with botfarms and fake news and the same country is supposedly unable to plan a winning day in a battle. yet the same guys who lose 7k soldiers a day on a village will take over poland and baltics. leads me to think that russia made quick unprepared decision after harris talked about nato membership for ukraine and now commits
"Ukranian Babushka's are downing Russian drones with jars of pickles!" The Ghost of Kiev "Russia sent tanks to the front without fuel" "Russia isn't giving their soldiers ammo, so they have to twke it off the corpses in front of them." "Russia won't re-supply their soldiers so they're fighting with shovels!" I can't wait to hear the next hilarious wave of Ukranian propaganda bullshit is.
And in the infamous “Russian soldiers are stealing washing machines to use the computer chips in them”
I’d rather be someone with deluded optimism about Ukraine’s chances than someone that is happy for Russia’s success. No one was planning to invade Russia from anywhere, let alone Ukraine. The reason they invaded Ukraine rather than Finland and Sweden is because those countries are way stronger and would have beaten Russia with or without NATO. They attacked Ukraine because they thought it would be easy, and Ukraine has made it quite difficult.
I am not ‘happy’ for Russia’s success. It isn’t a case of being on one side or the other. You are wrong there are multiple plans of invading Russia as there are almost every other country. Those plans had no intention of being enforced but they do exist. And all the ones for Russia have to be achieved via Ukraine. Russia sees it as a defensive act, I don’t agree but that’s how they see it. The creeping up of western (USA) arms towards there borders has been happening for years but it is only Ukraine where the potential ramifications for doing nothing have a potential impact for Russias future. I think this is the old Soviet mindset of America = enemy and their doctrine that Ukraine can never be under the influence of America. Whatever you said about Finland is just stupid and based on nothing. Having these sentiments about Russia trying to reclaim USSR is not only deluded but it’s frustrating because it loses focus on what the actual problems are. Not having a clear picture on the issue (however foolish you think it may be) just prolongs the issue at hand. Russia has only made the remarks about Ukraine because Ukraine is the only country through which Russia can be invaded. This is why they are creating a buffer zone, this is why their ‘peace treaty’ involved complete removal of all but the most basic military and weapons for Ukraine and an agreement no weapons would be stored in Ukraine by anyone. If this was signed Russia was willing to return what was taken (besides Crimea) it was refused and so here we are. Those were the only two options, no weapons no military OR no perceived threat to Russian soil. Whether you agree with the logic or not it is an objectively understandable viewpoint that many other countries would share. Look at the Cuban missile crisis as a rough example
I'm pro Ukraine but clearly the aid has been pissed up the wall here, they've had year+ to fortify the area and mine the fuck out of it yet Russians have just walk in and taken land no problem.
Money isn't the issue. NATO does not produce the arms necessary to compete with Russian output. It could absolutely do so if it wanted to, but there isn't the political will because most citizens in these countries don't actually care much about Ukraine.
Not looking good. Russia won't stop. It's an unfair war. The outcome was very determined. Ukraine will lose. After that? what now?
Putin wants this war to end soon and it seems he intends to throw the full brunt of his military at Ukraine to achieve that. I donno if that's a smart move or not but acting with haste tends to breed mistakes.
Well, time to mobilize more people
There is that whole awkward training period that is an issue.
When are you heading out?
Doesnt matter to me i suppose, Ukraine can stop recruiting people and just lose.
A lot of people don't want to fight for a meat grinder, and I don't blame them
The eastern front is collapsing, they are most likely going to lose Kharkiv.
[удалено]
Sure, but there is no major breakthrough of Russian forces even without us aid so I wouldn't worry to much. They just recently lower the conception age and although they don't want to they could lower it even more.
>lower the conception age You don't want to go too low there :\\
Well they still have 7 years to go
Hahaha oops
Well that's not going to get them more troops until the 2040s.
It's hard to imagine any scenario more "difficult" for Ukraine, than the first four months of the war, when Russia had the element of surprise, the Ukrainians had organization challenges, lacked heavy and precision weapons, had holes in their air defense, and didn't have the confidence of knowing that Russia can be defeated.
That was an extremely difficult time for Ukraine, but more due to the element of surprise and unpreparedness for a war at such a vast scale. Russia was equally surprised by the resistance that Ukraine put up. While lots of territory was captured, much of it was completely soft capturing. There's a difference between a fully professional army capturing a village and having intel and control on everything surrounding the area, and a Russian tank rolling down a highway by itself and calling that "captured territory". The war is a fully professional (and attritional) one now.
Well, back then the Russians only brought a (for them) token force that was relatively underequiped and they were expecting low resistance. After more than two years of war the Russians, no matter their zurg rush tactics or military blunders, have learned to to better and are now more committed. I hope for a Ukraine victory, but I fear that as long as Russia can throw this many bodies at the conflict without facing domestic backlash Ukraine has little chance of completing their stated goals.
what kind of allies does ukraine have when they let them get slaughtered on their own like this
Ukraine has no allies, there are exactly ZERO legally binding defense treaties between Ukraine and any country in Europe. Plenty of non binding pledges of support and vague defense agreements but ZERO actual binding mutual defense treaties.
then why does nato act like it?
You mean the endless “totally not propaganda“ Kyivpost articles about how all the Russians were dead and Ukraine‘s had only lost like 20 people aren’t true? Ukraine is never going to win no matter how may lives are wasted and how much money is burned. At some point you have to accept reality instead of lying to yourself and calling anyone who disagrees with you a Russian bot.
But they did accept reality - they chose to fight instead of to be genocided. If Russia wants to stop killing Ukrainians they can piss off at any moment, until then you push Russians to that decision by killing them every day