Utopia Talk / Politics / Ukraine ad infinitum

murder Member	Wed Aug 30 17:58:18 ...
obaminated Member	Wed Aug 30 18:04:56 http://twitter.com/GeoConfirmed/status/1696811846303449093 That failed offensive is now behind enemy lines getting shelled by artillery.
jergul large member	Wed Aug 30 21:16:29 The failed offensive towards Verbove is pushing into a wide ravine that Russia has full fire control over from 3 sides. That is a trap, not an advance. Squirming through the dragon teeth and into minefields on a very narrow front. Surrounded by Russian firing positions. And with arty to top it off as obam pointed out. The advance NE of Novoprokorivka is potentially more significant, but that has not reached the first line of defence yet.
obaminated Member	Wed Aug 30 21:51:45 The Russians are gonna have a hard time pushing the Ukrainians back. Can't very well flank them. Significant step in the right direction for Ukraine. Not sure when Russia had meaningful good news. Once Wagner left the field, after the coup, Russia seemed to turtle up in hopes that Ukraine would bleed out and sue for peace. That hasn't happened and year to date Ukraine has gained more land than Russia.
Dukhat Member	Wed Aug 30 23:04:05 Weird seeing people on different sides of an issue. Ukraine is best served by simply outlasting Russia and conserving manpower. No need for showy offensives that bleed the most important resource of all: lives. The aid the western countries are giving is a drop in the bucket for their economies and sustainable for a long time. Just outlast Putin. That being said, I have no idea how many casualties Ukraine is actuallly taking. News reports are not accurate and people are just choosing to believe their priors.
Seb Member	Thu Aug 31 04:45:01 Dukhat: I think they need to show progress as western electorates don't have that nuanced a view. They link energy costs etc. to the conflict and there are self-interest and pacifist voices that would look at a stalemate and say "ok then, there must be peace" which would give Putin a path to victory. And US support isn't guaranteed in the long term. A MAGA premium, if you will. If they were able to cut the Russian land bridge it would probably liberate the rest of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia (no longer possible to supply it).
murder Member	Thu Aug 31 06:17:29 "And US support isn't guaranteed in the long term. A MAGA premium, if you will." Exactly. Just because something is sustainable doesn't means it will be sustained.
Seb Member	Thu Aug 31 07:48:08 I should say the MAGA tendency here to say "let's let putin win" is as self defeating for the US as day, the British Empire deciding to let Germany get away with invading France in WW1 or 2 and trying to style disengagement as enlightened self interest. A fucking disaster.
Seb Member	Thu Aug 31 07:48:40 Sadly, the Habebe's of this world exist.
jergul large member	Sat Sep 02 11:19:10 Ukraine may be caught is a perpetual war for funding reasons alone. VA costs along with other state funding needs have to have assurances of being covered even after a ceasefire deal with Russia. Supporting Ukraine for as long as it takes may very well be a 50 year endevour.
Rugian Member	Sat Sep 02 11:47:50 Seb If the UK had managed to stay neutral in WWII, it could have still kept the empire. To say nothing about saving your cities from devastation at the hands of the Luftwaffe, or keeping your country from being relegated to America's junior in the post-war order. But sure, you did manage to save Poland...except for that big chunk of the country that was gobbled up Stalin, and also except for the rest of the country that was subjected to 45 years of horrific communist rule. Ao bombs away!
Seb Member	Sat Sep 02 16:53:42 Rugian: Theres a reason that England and then Britain's foreign policy for hundreds of years prior to the 1930s was to prevent any one country dominating the European mainland. If we'd tried to sit out the war, we'd be facing either a German or Russian empire far more powerful than we could stave off. The reason to go to war when we did wasn't about protecting Poland. It was - as Churchill put it wrt to Halifax (who argues as you do) - that it would be peace in German terms and on German forbearance. This is exactly my point here. The US would be insane to let Russia win in Ukraine. Because it would mean they would rearm and attack the Baltics. And if you bottled the Baltic's, then it would be Poland and then Germany.
jergul large member	Sat Sep 02 19:34:38 Seb Russia cannot win in Ukraine on terms that would not leave Ukraine a simmering, militant busy rearming itself for the next rematch. Such a Ukraine would still protect the Baltics as it would take advantage of any attack versus Nato to rejoin the fight with Nato. Rendering an attack impossible as Russia would be forced to keep the mainstay of its forces ready to deal with a rekindling of the Ukraine conflict. This is the true status quo. What it means is that fighting now is in the best case meaningless, and in the worst case counter-productive. It serves only to let Russia slowly rearm while the strains of warfare deplete whatever the West provides Ukraine. Frankly, a cf within the next few months serves Ukrainian interests. The problem is that you would never get Russia to agree to a reprieve that lets Ukraine rearm and retrain. To the last Ukrainian is perhaps a joke, but that is sort of what it boils down to for Russia. Ukraine's manpower base has to be diminished by way of migration, cripples, retirement at 60 or death. Only then can Russia win in any meaningful sense to its national security. Territory is a side issue. Sure, Russia may want Kharkiv or Odessa, but it is not critical. Only diminished Ukrainian manpower matters.
jergul large member	Sat Sep 02 19:42:11 The same method that suggests there are 30k Russian dead suggest that there are 50k Ukrainian dead (scrubbing the internet for obits). The ratio sounds about right given Russia's shell advantage. My conclusion would be that it will take years for Ukraine to reach manpower shortages that limit its future threat potential to Russia in a significant way. But years pass faster than you might think. You really do need a plan B.
Seb Member	Sun Sep 03 01:14:09 Hand wavey and not reliable. Why would Ukraine, shafted twice by the west in this scenario, trust the west? Where is this Ukraine, ditched by the west from relatively cheap military aid, access the funding needed to rebuild economically to self finance the military required to launch an attack on Russia? "The same method that suggests there are 30k Russian dead suggest that there are 50k Ukrainian dead (scrubbing the internet for obits)." Given where the mobiks come from (very poor, rural) I'm not sure you can use that method comparatively. You would need to be sure that the likelihood of finding an online obit for any given dead person is the same. Meanwhile you've had lots of stories about how Russia has been absolutely terrible at confirming deaths to families. No confirmed death - less likely to be an obituary.
Seb Member	Sun Sep 03 01:22:00 Also going back to the grand strategy : you are saying that the US should rely on Russia not attacking the Baltics because of the strategic folly in doing so. This seems unduly optimistic given the current situation is entirely down to Russia making a massive miscalculation. The lesson Russia would take is very simple: the US can be deterred from using nuclear weapons in defence of countries that it has guaranteed security of. Russia can create facts on the ground, and the west lacks the focus to sustain military support. In short, the idea that giving Putin a victory path by way of stalemate is offset by some sort of deterrence factor in that is simply utterly delusional. You need the most rose tinted glasses to believe that to be the case.
jergul large member	Sun Sep 03 02:12:07 Seb Shafted twice by the West? How do you figure beyond a general stab in the back theory that will be used to explain Ukrainian war fatigue in any event. Nowhere did I suggest the West should stop providing aid for Ukraine. I merely said it is in Ukraine's interests get a cf in the next few months. The argument has nothing to do with lessened Western support. In fact the assumption is continued support so Ukraine can use a cf to good effect. 160 F-16s would make a difference in 6 years. Not so much if they trickle in to a live conflict. Russia will not give Ukraine a ceasefire however. Russia is in the "If we can't have it, we will break it" position. Nothing else really for it to do but diminish Ukraines manpower base to a point where it no longer is a significant threat. Frankly, I think Ukrainian losses are way higher than Russia's. Arty is still queen of battle and Russia dominates that field. And with that, inflict a disproportionate level of casualties on Ukraine. The argument you made about conscripts being very poor is doubly true of Ukraine. Which relies waaaay more heavily on conscripted forces. If you think highly motivated, then you have not been paying much attention. It is quite common to take Ukrainian weaknesses and project them on Russia. So you are not alone in doing that.
Paramount Member	Sun Sep 03 05:24:53 ”Russia will not give Ukraine a ceasefire however.” I agree with that. Why would they? It won’t benefit Russia at all. Russia will accept that Ukraine surrender. ”Russia is in the "If we can't have it, we will break it" position” I don’t think that Russia is really interested in having or governing western Ukraine. But Russia is not going to accept that Ukraine becomes a platform from which anti-Russian actors (such as US/Nato and Ukrainian nationalists/neo-nazis) can carry out attacks on Russia from. Russia won't accept anything but a neutral Ukraine. Unless Ukraine (US/Nato) will accept neutrality, Russia will however be forced to move their troops all the way to the polish border. And this isn’t in anyone’s interest. If US/Nato is serious about ”saving/protecting” Ukraine, then they should welcome neutrality. But then, they should have allowed this from the start because then the war would not have been necessary. But then again, the US are warmongers. They are happy as long as Russians are being killed, they really don’t care about Ukrainians (who are the Russian’s brothers) at all. They love it when people are being slaughtered and killed. That’s how they are.
Sam Adams Member	Sun Sep 03 10:50:40 http://twi...tatus/1698302027552436366?s=20 Russians are stacking used tires around their bombers hoping it will cause ukrainian drones to bounce off. Amazing.
obaminated Member	Sun Sep 03 11:51:57 Lol. I guess they are hoping the rubber will help absorb any damage. Better than nothing?
Seb Member	Sun Sep 03 14:03:48 Jergul: You were responding to my post, which was a discussion with Rugian about why the Maga calls to cut Ukraine loose are disastrous. So yes, we are talking about a post Trump victory "spend American money on Americans" cessation of military and presumably bilateral budgetary aid. If you aren't talking about that, then you are having a different conversation.
Rugian Member	Sun Sep 03 14:59:35 Seb I couldn't disagree more strongly with your assertion that Putin's Russia is somehow analogous to Hitler's Germany in terms of its practical threat to the UK and the continent. If Russia was to conquer all of Ukraine tomorrow, then its future expansion potential in Europe would be quite limited - Belarus and Moldova. Everyone else is in NATO, which means Article 5 protection, which means the kind of war that Russia could never in a million years win. Even if we were to get USSR-lite (Russia annexes the former Soviet countries outside of the Baltics), I struggle to see how that results in a significantly larger threat to Britain than Russia is today. I don't share either your or jergul's respect for Russia on that front - it's a regional petrostate that is stagnating on population and hemorrhaging talent, and a quarter-century of Putin's rule means that the governance infrastructure has worn away into virtual nothingness. Between Russia and China, the latter is the significantly more dangerous threat to the world order. Bottom line, I don't think that a loss in Ukraine is going to result in you (or your German friends for that matter) running to get into your bomb shelters any time soon.
Rugian Member	Sun Sep 03 15:00:56 And I say this as someone who would be adamant about seeing Beijing reduced to ashes in the event it tries to invade Taiwan, so it's not like I'm being a hardcore isolationist here.
jergul large member	Sun Sep 03 16:05:12 Seb I was clearly not talking about that. We can assume the West will continue to send hardware as best it can long after a ceasefire has been signed. A different conversation you engaged in. Ruggy If you bail on Ukraine you will see ukrainian militant terrorism hitting Western targets. Ostensibly as false flag operations blaming Russia, but mostly as punishment for stabbing Ukraine in the back as they will see it. If you think Russia is a failed petrostate, then Ukraine is what exactly? The goo under your shoe after a trip on the NY subway?
jergul large member	Sun Sep 03 16:09:14 Seb I was clearly not talking about that. We can assume the West will continue to send hardware as best it can long after a ceasefire has been signed. A different conversation you engaged in. How exactly do you stop Russia from breaking Ukraine? Ruggy If you bail on Ukraine you will see ukrainian militant terrorism hitting Western targets. Ostensibly as false flag operations blaming Russia, but mostly as punishment for stabbing Ukraine in the back as they will see it. If you think Russia is a failed petrostate, then Ukraine is what exactly? The goo under your shoe after a trip on the NY subway?
obaminated Member	Sun Sep 03 16:12:24 Rugian - do you honestly think NATO would get into a shooting war with Russia over the Baltic states? Let's say Russia runs an effective misinformation campaign as they did with Ukraine and successful cause it to be blurry about the threat to Russia from the Baltic states and before you know it Russia has launched an invasion of estonia, latvia and Lithuania. Do you really think we are willing to get into a nuclear war over those countries? The over all point seb is making is that there is no real rule that stops Russia from invading. Ukraine was a soveign nation and Russia broke every international rule by invading it and is still actively attempting to conquer it. NATO is only as strong as its individual members and none of them want a nuclear or even shooting war with Russia because it will lead to a nuclear war. Stopping russia at ukraine, by proxy, is the best thing NATO can do for peace and stability for the future. Allowing Russia to learn that they can break international rules and the west will condemn but allow it is not going to stop them. Bullys do not back down from strong words. Bullys back down from fear. A bully who always gets his way doesn't have wisdom enough to have fear.
Daemon Member	Sun Sep 03 16:13:06 Who knows if NATO still exists in 10 years? In Germany the far right party AfD gets stronger and they want to leave the EU and are also talking about leaving NATO and getting into good relations with Russia, fascists like each other. And you Americans vote retards like Trump into office.
Seb Member	Mon Sep 04 04:00:12 Rugian: "I couldn't disagree more strongly with your assertion that Putin's Russia is somehow analogous to Hitler's Germany in terms of its practical threat to the UK and the continent." That's what people said about Hitler's Germany when he started breaking the terms of Versailles. Initially they were right, but by indulging revanchism Germany became a threat again. "If Russia was to conquer all of Ukraine tomorrow, then its future expansion potential in Europe would be quite limited" You say that, while at the same time if you track the internal discourse they talk very clearly about the Russian speaking populations in the Baltics. They ultimately want everything they considered part of the Russian Empire. "Everyone else is in NATO, which means Article 5 protection," If the USA is deterred from getting into a direct confrontation with Russia over Ukraine, a country to which it gave security guarantees, why would it not be deterred from direct confrontation over the Baltic states? Especially if Trump is re-elected and he's repeatedly called NATO into question? "I struggle to see how that results in a significantly larger threat to Britain than Russia is today" Because why would Russia stop at the Baltics? It wouldn't immediately roll into Germany - but there is now a pattern and methodology for Russia's neo-imperialism. Having established itself as the lynchpin of physical security in Europe that's what its next objective would be. And as you say, Russia's economy is shit so the way they tend to do this is try to fuck up everyone else's politics and economics. Ultimately the problem for Russia is the EU - Russia would want to break that up to establish hegemony over Europe. And Russia has PLENTY of asymmetric military options if it think the west can't/won't retaliate. Pipelines and power grids and fibres - they can fuck up oil, gas and offshore wind, telecoms and a chunk of the grid. The UK is particularly vulnerable to this. Key here is deterrence. Russia must be convinced that we will not fall for this bullshit deniability and we will respond robustly. Western support for Ukraine is part of that. The "slowly boil the frog" strategy which avoided giving Putin an "escalate to deescalate" point has been good, but I think we are being too cautious. I think we should have done more about provision of planes and longer range weapons earlier. Drip feeding resources in and allowing Russia to establish these deep fortifications after Kherson and Kharkiv offensives last year was a mistake. "Between Russia and China, the latter is the significantly more dangerous threat to the world order." Which is exactly why it would be fucking stupid to allow Russia to destabilise Europe - which would greatly strengthen China's influence in Europe while weakening US allies. Put it this way, do you think at that point we will be sending nuclear subs to the pacific to help contain China, or will they be stationed in the North Sea? Think also on the lessons China might draw: that they do not need to be deterred from using military coercion against neighbours by US alliances. They just need to establish facts quickly, bunker down, and wait the US out. The view from 40,000 feet is this: Putin put his balls into a fucking bear trap, and what the West needs to do now is ensure that they are ripped off before he gets out of it. That means supporting Ukraine as long as it is prepared to fight. Jergul: "A different conversation you engaged in." The one I'm in is about why Ukraine feels the need some urgency in making progress now and now just stay on the defensive. I don't think Russia will break Ukraine if western support remains. I think eventually Ukraine will break Russia. However, to ensure western support remains, Biden needs to be able to go into the election able to show that Ukraine is making progress and needs more time.
jergul large member	Mon Sep 04 05:35:06 Seb Russia is breaking Ukraine with Western support remaining. One cripple, mental basket case, dead, refugee, and child not concieved at a time. Ukrainian offensives play into the Russia attrition strategy and will lessen the time it takes before Ukraine passes beyond the point of no return. You get that Russia is doing the good old "if I cant have it, I will break it", right? "Have" in the US sense of surrounding itself with friendly client states.
jergul large member	Mon Sep 04 07:49:56 I should mention that this is also the 4th year Ukrainian primary education is being flushed down the toilet. First covid, then the war. Most teachers fleeeing the country and heavy reliance on remote learning for security reasons and because schools have been repurposed (a soviet thing. Concrete buildings with bomb shelters. Ideal for housing the vastly expanded Ukrainian military).
Paramount Member	Mon Sep 04 08:22:27 Ukraine will need to import young men from North Africa and the Middle East when all this is done. Someone has to impregnate the Ukrainian women so a new generation of Ukrainians can be born. And Ukraine will also need young strong men in the workforce.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Sep 04 08:42:17 The women are obsolete, artificial wombs inside android women is the future.
Seb Member	Mon Sep 04 08:54:41 Jergul: I think you are unduly pessimistic. Cf. France and Germany after WWI/II. "You get that Russia is doing the good old "if I cant have it, I will break it", right?" Russia wants to dominate it's "near abroad" (aka historic empire) - if it cannot do so it will destroy them to prevent them being competitors. I believe I have set that out already, and that is precisely why it must be defeated decisively in Ukraine. Ukraine should be provided with what it needs to drive the Russian's out of Ukraine if that is the policy it wants to set itself to. If it wants to sue for peace they should be supported in that effort also. But it is overwhelmingly in Western interests that Russia pay as high a price as possible, come away with as little as possible, and ideally nothing at all.
jergul large member	Mon Sep 04 10:29:27 Seb It is a mistake to think this a zero-sum game. It is a negative-sum game. Both will lose. The problem is that Ukraine has been losing most since 2022 (Russia lost most 2014-2022 when sanctions caused ongoing lethargic growth). From that logic and to rephrase what you are saying because Ukraine will continue to lose more: Is it truly in Western interests that Ukraine pay as high a price as possible and come away with as little as possible, because well, I guess we can keep on helping it after a ceasefire is signed? I agree that we should help Ukraine as much as we can and that Ukraine ultimately has to decide what price it is willing to pay*. But it remains likely that every Euro given now will need to be matched by a post conflict euro later if we wish to avert Ukraine becoming a failed state. We can also be honest about this help being a 50 year endevour. Just here. We dont have to tell the rest of the world. *This is not entirely up to the Ukrainian government. Self-determination can also be expressed from the bottom up if the Ukrainian people truly become tired of war.
Seb Member	Mon Sep 04 12:11:17 Jergul: The fact that that both lose vs a baseline of there not having been a war does not mean that continuing the war is worse for Ukraine. Russia can be beaten in Ukraine with appropriate levels of western support - and that remains the preferable outcome for both the west and Ukraine. "But it remains likely that every Euro given now will need to be matched by a post conflict euro later if we wish to avert Ukraine becoming a failed state" Yes. However, if we allow Russia (and China for that matter) to believe that they can create facts on the ground and then hold us off, then we will spend much more in blood and treasure down the line. "We can also be honest about this help being a 50 year endevour." I guess you haven't been following what's been going on in the EU Commission regarding preparing for Ukrainian accession processes. Yes. It will be an endeavour akin to the re-integration of East Germany but on a European scale. The expectation is Ukraine will absorb the bulk of EU internal development funds and a total of about 40% of EU funding for the next few decades after the end of the conflict. On the other hand it is a huge strategic asset to the European economy also in terms of strategic resources and capabilities like gas storage. I don't think many people (at least not in the policy circles) have any expectations that reconstruction of Ukraine will be cheap. However, the upsides of reconstruction for Europe are heavily attenuated if the result is a cease-fire - and a final settlement with Ukraine recognising Russian held territory as no longer part of Ukraine is highly unlikely.
jergul large member	Mon Sep 04 12:27:39 Seb I agree. One of the criteria for a just war is that there is a realistic possibility of gaining a better outcome than could be gained through negotiations. Ukraine is still in that zone. Arguably and barely still in that zone. I do not think the West has the means to match Russia's ongoing investment in degrading Ukraine's capabilities through active attrition. I may arguably be wrong. I think any assumption that Russia currently wants a ceasefire is wrong. It may be willing to negotiate. It took 500 meetings to get a ceasefire in the Koreas. But the only good outcome for Russia as it stands is a broken Ukraine that is a net liability to the West for many decades. We do not have a Ukraine strategy. Giving Ukraine what it needs for a long, long time is not a strategy. Nor really does Ukraine have a strategy. Not after weakening Russia was taken off the table by facts on the ground on the front, at the enlistment offices, and on the factory floors. It is quite a unique disadvantage that only Russia has a strategic goal in mind.
Seb Member	Mon Sep 04 13:23:06 I disagree re Strategy. The Ukraine strategy is to defeat Russia without direct engagement, enabling Ukraine to formally join NATO and the EU. The hope was to repeat of last year's offensives, and while Ukraine is repeating is corrosion strategy, the Russians were given to long for that to produce rapid rapid breakthroughs; but overall that appears to be working. There's significant investment in artillery shell production capacity that's coming through c. 2024/5. That indicates an expectation of long term shell usage. Things might get derailed by ADF or Republican victories in the next year but failing that the long term geopolitical strategy seems clear. Russia is going to be shut out as far as possible from Western economy, Europe is going to rearm and Ukraine is going to be integrated into the European economy, which in turn requires a decisive outcome on the battlefield. The argument that somehow the facts show Russia is better placed to sustain the conflict economically than Ukraine+the west just seems a profound misreading.
jergul large member	Mon Sep 04 13:41:37 Seb Defeating Russia is not on the table. Ukraine may gain a better negotiating position, but ultimately, it will have to accept heavy attrition for a long period of time before a ceasefire is realistic. Ukraine joining Nato (I doubt Hungary or Turkey will ever accept that) is likely to trigger new hostilities during the ratification process. From a Russian perspective, Ukraine has to be weakened so much that the threat of renewed hostilities will deter any future Nato application. I am arguing Russia is better placed to sustain the conflict physically. Kinetics versus manpower, materiell and infrastructure will form the outcome, not the combined might of Western service sectors. I could be wrong, but I dont think so.
Seb Member	Mon Sep 04 14:48:52 jergul: "Defeating Russia is not on the table" I see no basis for that assessment at all. "I am arguing Russia is better placed to sustain the conflict physically" I don't really see that at all. Western industrial capacity is far in excess of Russia's and they are lacking in key areas.
obaminated Member	Mon Sep 04 15:32:03 I don't think anyone besides a fully brainwashed pro rus is going to seriously argue that Russia benefits from a long drawn out war or that Ukraine winning the war is off the table, especially after the collapse of russias currency and wagner.
jergul large member	Mon Sep 04 16:56:19 Obam No true scotsman debating fallacy. Red-herring fallacy. Strawman fallacy. Cherry picking fallacy In one long sentence. You are outdoing yourself. Russia loses less from a long drawn out war than it would from any premature (from its standpoint) ceasefire. The war is not really about territory at this point. It is about ensuring Ukraine becomes a permanent net security/economic burden to the West. Rouble stability is a concern, but only insofar as it spills over into inflation. Russians are seeing real increases in wages that are primarily going into the service sector as travel abroad is significantly down. Wagner netted the Russian Armed forces a some 10s of thousands contract soldiers in addition to other PMCs changing individual contracts from that with the PMC to one with the MOD directly. Perhaps comparable to the SA being absorbed by the Wehrmacht after the night of long knives. Seb Military aid to Ukraine so far is about equal to Army procurement costs in all of the West for the same time period. I dont think increasing spending beyond current levels is being seriously discussed. What we are providing now is not nearly enough to reach parity with Russian armament production. Russia has been doing import substitution since 2014. Its arms industry has adjusted to sourcing things from non-western countries. What specifically do you think Russia is not able to source right now that cannot be substituted with something else? My take is that Russia is taking the war exactly as seriously as it has to. Neither more, nor less. The limitation is hardware, not manpower, but it is in the process of forming two new armies from hardware production not immediately needed by units in combat. Not as impressive as it sounds as the armies only amount to 10 odd new brigades, but still is useful as a gauge for excess hardware production. Do we have a plan to equip 10 new brigades in addition to reequiping those already in the field?
jergul large member	Mon Sep 04 17:00:49 But like I said. There is still a chance Ukraine can gain more from fighting than it will eventually gain through negotiation. It meets the criteria for fighting a just war. For now. But the offensives are playing into Russian hands as I see it. The need to show progress is a huge handicap Russia does not share.
jergul large member	Mon Sep 04 17:11:50 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZT-wVnFn60
Seb Member	Mon Sep 04 17:34:58 Jergul: Military aid to Ukraine is still primarily in the form of surplus gear. Whether there is a ceasefire or not, Western defence budgets will need to increase permanently. There's nothing unsustainable about either scenario. Either we have to rebuild and stockpile European militaries, and as we do so that frees up expiring kit for Ukraine. Or we can feed more to Ukraine direct. From an economic point of view, the lowest cost option for Western defence budgets is to equip Ukraine to continue the conflict as long as it takes. Much cheaper than the alternative of maintaining cold war level defence expenditures for the foreseeable future. "from hardware production not immediately needed by units in combat." So... why is it pulling air defence units and armour from the east if it's able to equip two entire new armies from freshly manufactured equipment? I would have thought the dismal actual readiness of Russian forces in Feb 22 would have disabused you in trusting Russian claims.
Seb Member	Mon Sep 04 17:38:42 Poland alone plans to grow its armed forces by 150,000 by 2035.
jergul large member	Mon Sep 04 18:40:15 We will see.
jergul large member	Tue Sep 05 01:07:00 Since we are doing the anectdotal thing. First confirmed challenger-2 kill. Sadly with crew compartment penetration and a catastrophic explosion.
jergul large member	Tue Sep 05 01:26:04 2700 US killed in combat 2001-2006 and 500 amputees. Assuming killed to amputee ratio the same, 20k-50k Ukrainian amputees gives 108k-216k killed.
obaminated Member	Tue Sep 05 01:41:44 Jergul is a funny guy. It is 20k estimate ukranian amputees in the 18 months since Russia invaded. No idea where he got 50k. Even the idea that he would take a serious discrepancy between 20 and 50 thousand is laughable. He also gave combat related injuries and death for US. That 20k amputees for ukraine includes civilians, ya know, for all the times Russia bombed schools, apartment buildings and hospitals. Jergul is a funny guy.
obaminated Member	Tue Sep 05 01:45:52 http://apn...c5c47ea4b8326d980e630d3df87b77 Here is a yahoo article that cites the 50k number but then within the article states that 200k Ukrainians have been seriously injured in the conflict and generally 10% of seriously injured are amputees, but propaganda gonna propaganda. http://www.google.com/amp/s/news.yahoo.com/amphtml/amputations-ukraine-widespread-trenches-world-110152326.html
jergul large member	Tue Sep 05 01:56:26 Obam There are probably a few k civilian amputees (mostly for civilian stuff like diabetes), but a rounding error given the inherent inaccuracy expressed in the range given. What is up? Freedom is not free. Ukraine is paying a heavy cost for resisting. Why trivialize the cost? Its not like anyone can pull the plug on Ukrainian aid "for their own good". Ukraine will decide when it wants to start negotiations (though that may be a bottom up decision taken out of the hands of government). Note that starting negotiations does not mean a ceasefire will be achieved immediately in any event.
Seb Member	Tue Sep 05 03:53:56 Turrets still on despite having been hit by artillery. Those ammo blowouts work. Given how the Ukrainians use the challengers (use excellent aim and rifled barrel for long distance fire support) I would guess it got immobilised by a mine and hit by artillery. Crew probably escaped prior if so. It's a shame but hey ho, you can't expect invincibility.
Seb Member	Tue Sep 05 03:55:55 First one destroyed by enemy action is mostly a testament to the fact it's only ever been fielded against countries without much capability to fight it.
LazyCommunist Member	Wed Sep 06 14:55:42 Russia and Cuba are still allies!! http://the...ercenaries-russia-ukraine-war/ HACKED DOCUMENTS REVEAL RUSSIA’S CONTRACTS FOR CUBAN MERCENARIES IN UKRAINE A military officer’s hacked email account reveals the apparent recruitment of at least 100 Cubans, some of whom posted on Facebook about their journey to Russia. RUSSIA IS COORDINATING the recruitment of over a hundred Cuban mercenaries for its war effort in Ukraine, according to hacked documents obtained by The Intercept. Activist hackers known as the “Cyber Resistance” and allied to the Ukrainian government recently infiltrated the personal email account of a Russian officer in the Western Military District who was involved in the recruitment of Cubans. The stolen data offers rare and previously unseen insight into how Russia operates its pipeline of foreign mercenaries into the Ukraine conflict. Within the cache of hacked documents are approximately 122 passport scans and images of Cuban nationals, all fighting-aged males, along with a series of Spanish-language enlistment contracts in with a section of the Russian Armed Forces headquartered in the city of Tula, where a military school and airborne soldiers are known to be located. The contracts are templates, not fully executed agreements, but they sketch the incentives Russia appears to be offering foreign fighters. The contracts promise “a one-time cash payment in the amount of 195,000 rubles,” about $2,000, for the Cubans signing on to serve in the zone of the “special military operation” (the Kremlin euphemism for the war in Ukraine) and monthly payments starting at “204,000 rubles per month,” or just over $2,000, depending on rank, along with several spousal and family benefits. So far, these types of official Russian military contracts geared toward foreign nationals have mostly been discussed in regional media reports (such as those targeting ethnic Russian men in former Soviet republics, according to the British Ministry of Defence). One set of images in the hacked documents shows single passports with a hand holding up entry cards into Russia above them, revealing that a group of at least five Cuban men entered the country through Belarus, a key Kremlin ally, on July 1. A little over a month before that arrival date, a senior Belarussian military official made a public show of pledging to train Cuban troops on its territory.
obaminated Member	Wed Sep 06 15:07:53 2 grand a month to join a hot combat zone is total shit pay. The low end of a mercenary in the west is something like 90k a year. I do not think Russia is getting the best and brightest with this shit pay they ate offering.
murder Member	Wed Sep 06 16:32:41 Probably criminals.
Pillz Member	Wed Sep 06 18:30:27 Ukrainian continues to fail at advancing. Mariupol any day tho
obaminated Member	Wed Sep 06 18:39:21 http://www...3-09-06/?utm_source=reddit.com Russia admits it withdrew from robotyne, after spending a week in denial.
LazyCommunist Member	Fri Sep 08 04:29:30 Poland is buying lots of weapons, but it won't save them, anti-Russians should better leave eastern Europe right now and flee to USA. http://twitter.com/laowaiaround/status/1699973178372903055 Russian General Andrei Mordvichev interview: - The war will take a long time. There is no point in talking specific dates... If we talk about Eastern Europe, what we have to do - of course it will take longer... - Is Ukraine just a stage? - Yes, exactly. It's just the beginning.
Paramount Member	Fri Sep 08 07:57:39 Zelenskyj tells the US: If you stop sending us aid you will face war! Russia (who is weak, stupid, has no ammo, are unable to supply their troops with food and are using inferior equipment) will somehow move further into Europe, into the Baltics and Poland and the US will face war if they stop sending trillion dollars of aid to Ukraine. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/ukraine-counteroffensive-zelenskyy-interview-russia-lose-war-rcna89022 Blinken says Ukraine has made ‘tangible progress’ in counteroffensive against Russia http://www...01895?cid=referral_taboolafeed Some Ukrainians managed to crawl through the minefield in the security zone at night, took a couple of selfies when they reached Russia’s first line of defence, and then crawled back. Tangible progress.
LazyCommunist Member	Fri Sep 08 08:26:06 Very true, UkraNazis will never get back what is rightfully ours now. We are more powerful and we take what we want and if you have a problem with that then we will kill you. It is survival of the fittest, it is raw nature, if you don't agree with us then you are woke (= gay and pedophile).
LazyCommunist Member	Sun Sep 10 05:03:41 Followup to my posting about Russian General Andrei Mordvichev: he has been promoted, Putin likes him! http://www...e-for-attacking-eastern-europe Russian President Vladimir Putin promoted Lieutenant General Andrey Mordvichev to Colonel-General this week in a move that could provide alarming hints about the Kremlin’s plans for the future of the war in Ukraine. Mordvichev, who has been commanding the Central Military District and Russian Central Grouping of Forces in Ukraine, was recently quoted in an interview, which aired in late July, suggesting that Russia has plans to possibly expand the war in Ukraine to Eastern Europe. When asked about the length of the war in Ukraine, Mordvichev responded that he has an understanding that Russia has to attack Eastern Europe. “If we’re talking about Eastern Europe, which we’ll have to attack, it will be longer and longer,” Mordvichev said. When asked if Ukraine is “only an intermediate stage,” Mordvichev replied that Ukraine is just a stepping stone to other attacks. Putin likely promoted him to “reward loyalty and obedience to the senior Russian military command,” according to a report from the Institute for the Study of War. “Mordvichev may hold more of Putin’s favor than other military district commanders.”
Sam Adams Member	Wed Sep 13 12:47:30 Ukraine got in solid hits on 2 russian minor warships in drydock. Looks like an armed landing craft is toast and a diesel electric boat may be toasr.
jergul large member	Wed Sep 13 12:52:23 Seems an odd target choice if we discount PR. Command bunkers directly supporting Russian defensive operations are far less photogenic. Hitting them just causes a hole in the ground.
obaminated Member	Wed Sep 13 13:01:36 Ukraine recently took over a couple oil rigs in the black sea. Strategically not a big deal. But huge PR victory that a country without a navy is able to secure oil rigs in the black sea. At this point I'm not sure russias navy could defeat Iran's ffs. http://www...rigs-intelligence-service-says
Seb Member	Wed Sep 13 14:03:12 Demonstrating that Sevastopol is not a safe place for Russia to maintain the black sea fleet kinda undermines the point of Russia being there. Shows a frozen conflict is not an option for Russia. So they'll need to negotiate a settlement, for which they'll need to make concessions.
jergul large member	Wed Sep 13 15:18:10 Seb It is way more about Nato not having a base in Sevastapol. Russia has alternate facilities in Novorossisk to name one. A frozen conflict is no longer on the table imo. It has reached a point were Russia's only option is to ensure whatever part of Ukraine remains under government control is a firm, permanent and absolute liability to Nato force projection and Western economic power. This war will not be ending any time soon. Maybe by 2030, but I doubt it.
Paramount Member	Wed Sep 13 15:28:04 There is no safe place for US, Britain, Nato or Ukraine in Ukraine, so it undermines the point of them being there. So they’ll need to negotitate a settlement, for which they’ll need to make concessions.
obaminated Member	Wed Sep 13 16:29:36 Lol jergul. Russias entire hope in 2023 was that Ukraine would grind itself to death while Russia turtled. Not only did that fail spectacularly, 2023 is ending with Ukraine having gained more ground that Russia, Russia having lost a key ally, russias currency collapsing, Ukraine now having long range missiles capable of now hitting Russian targets with information given to them via US intelligence ... and jerguls reaction? "This is gonna be a long war... maybe til 2030" Lol. What are you smoking that you think Russia can afford another year of this much less 6? Imagine if on 2004 the Iraqi military was making the same gains Ukraine was making and some American Homer was like "this is going to be a long war .. it may last until 2010" Mother fuckah this isn't even a war according to putin. It was supposed to last 3 months.
obaminated Member	Wed Sep 13 16:31:48 Seriously jergul, be honest, since you clearly want Russia to pull a W here, despite your claims to be neutral, what can you say about 9 months into 2023 that are good for Russia?
jergul large member	Wed Sep 13 16:46:19 Obam Russia can afford current level of costs forever. Good is a relative term. It has merely formulated a way of fighting that it can sustain and Ukraine cannot sustain. It is betting heavily on Ukraine fighting unsustainably until that country's will and ability to fight is completely degraded. I think that may take a number of years is all.
obaminated Member	Wed Sep 13 17:56:03 So, as suspected, even a pro rus cheerleader like jergul can't point to anything in 2023 as a net positive for Russia. Vague hopes that Ukraine will, over the course of years, hopefully lose momentum and give up is not a military strategy, that's a fantasy.
murder Member	Wed Sep 13 19:30:32 Ukraine is not in control of their success/failure. The war will continue for as long as Ukraine's suppliers want it to.
Seb Member	Thu Sep 14 02:40:45 Jergul: Russia could negotiate that as a term for withdrawal at any time. Zelensky has even hinted at such a thing. Constantly trying to reinterpret Russia's flailings as some clever move in a grand strategy is a rabbit hole with no bottom. Russia at the moment is going to hold on as long as possible because Putin can't afford not to. Meanwhile, Ukraine is nibbling away at Russia's lines, making it increasingly costly and difficult to Russia to supply those lines, while removing any value to Russia from holding the territories. There will come a point, probably post Putin, where Russia will need to figure out what to do if the war isn't settled by then & within that, long term use of Sevastapol as a strategic asset depends on a negotiated peace, and holding it otherwise is a liability. Other than holding on for a biddable maga president in the US, time isn't on Russia's side. If a maga president doesn't happen, they are stuffed. Sure they can make it drawn out and costly, but the conclusion is pretty much inevitable.
Seb Member	Thu Sep 14 02:43:21 Meanwhile, that incident with the RAF rivet joint: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66798508 Turns out the Russian aircraft intentionally shot a missile after miscommunication with it's controllers, but the missile missed after failing to achieve lock. Then appears to have attempted to fire again with malfunction. Not a great story for the Russian air force's general level of combat readiness.
jergul large member	Thu Sep 14 03:09:31 Seb The hubris of thinking Ukraine is actually going to win the war. Russia has simply geared the level of combat to what it can sustain indefinately without shifting its economy to a war footing. A level of combat that is bleeding Ukraine dry. Small minds think anectotes. Larger minds think millions of shells produced. Dont be a small mind seb.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Sep 14 06:49:24 "Not a great story for the Russian air force's general level of combat readiness." Amazing. Our government bureaucracy is inept but the russians take it to a whole new level. I almost want to see ww3 so we see the entire russian air force shot down at the expense of 1 f35.
Seb Member	Fri Sep 15 05:44:30 Another example of Ukrainian subsonic cruise missiles taking out an s300/400 site. ROFL subsonic missiles.
Seb Member	Fri Sep 15 05:46:56 Sam: To be fair, they didn't take some noblest weapons on an unexpected tour of the country.
Seb Member	Fri Sep 15 05:48:03 Jergul: Sure. Indefinitely.
jergul large member	Sun Sep 17 13:04:37 Seb Complex, saturation attacks can still work if supported by the full might of Western SIGINT. Expensive, unsustainable, but sure, you can take out targets if you are willing to fill the airspace with everything from grads to cruise missiles to saturate layered air defences. And you wonder why Ukraine is running out of munitions :). For more spectacular examples, see Russia's sub-sonic missile use. What is actually happening is Ukraine lashing out to create the peception of success now that it is completely obvious the spring offensive has failed. We dont want the press to talk about that, so lets waste scores of stormshadowns on irrelevant things to change the conversation instead :)
Seb Member	Sun Sep 17 15:24:42 Was it a complex saturation attack? Neptunes aren't exactly cutting edge. If s400s can be defeated by affordable saturation attacks the a2d2 bubble appears much more popable. "if you are willing to fill the airspace with everything from grads to cruise missiles to saturate layered air defences." Where are these grads being launched from that are overwhelming air defences in crimea?
jergul large member	Mon Sep 18 00:25:48 Seb Always complex saturation attacks. Stop thinking the Ukrainian military is incompetentent, mkay? Of course individual launchers can be destroyed occassionally when subject to complex attacks bolstered by the full capabilities of Western SIGINT. How many s-400 launchers have been destroyed according to oryx so far do you think? Grads cause clutter. Ukraine would launch kitchen sinks too if it could. Helpful due to the extreme ranges Russian search radars have. Its just a distraction. Because Ukraine wants to avoid Western media focusing on its failed offensive. The hubris of people thinking Ukraine could ever win this. Amazing. A hubris Ukrainians are paying for with their country. Afghanistan has an easier time recovering. See, that is what happens when you listen to Boris. Ukraine should have taken a deal in the spring of 2022.
jergul large member	Mon Sep 18 00:28:10 Oh, and storm shadows, not Neptunes. Ukraine is betting on getting more free equivalents from Germany, so can waste missiles like that to form Western perceptions and keep from negotiating. It has reached a point where Ukraine is no longer fighting a just war in my opinion. It needs to have a willingness to negotiate at this point.
Seb Member	Mon Sep 18 01:55:04 Jergul: What is "complex" about these attacks that distinguishes then from how any Western military would employ a cruise missile attack on enemy air defences as part of SEAD/DEADs Where is there evidence they are being supported by mass barrages of Grads? Where are these grads being launched such that they create "clutter" near the s400 radar systems being targeted? "Helpful due to the extreme ranges Russian search radars have." Are you saying that Russian air defences aren't defended by short range systems? That they can be saturated by the equivalent of a bunch of chaff 100+ km away that's not on a trajectory to hit them? "Its just a distraction. Because Ukraine wants to avoid Western media focusing on its failed offensive." I see, so the fact Ukraine has pretty easily defeated Russian air defence systems with near obsolete weapon systems and is now regularly attacking one of Russia's most important naval bases can be ignored because they are only doing it to distract from the fact that they are about 25 km from establishing fire control over the land bridge to crimea? No lessons to be learned about the brittleness of Russian A2/AD? "Oh, and storm shadows, not Neptunes." Ukrainians are saying neptunes. They lost most of their storm Shadows when the depot got destroyed. They did use storm Shadows on the dry docks. I reckon they are using the remaining storm shadows for hardened targets (broach warheads etc) or ones where they need the flight profile. "It has reached a point where Ukraine is no longer fighting a just war in my opinion" Such a shock you'd take that position. Russia isn't interested in negotiating anyway. It still has claims over territory it doesn't control.
jergul large member	Mon Sep 18 02:07:49 Seb Kitchen sinks flying would be one difference. Ukraine habitually uses MRLS launches to cloak and muddy air defence spaces. Information gathering with impunity within air defence ranges, but in international waters would be another. Western observation and target selection for Ukraine is in general a factor that is impossible to understate. The use of satelittes at all really. GPS and observation assets would not exist in a real conflict. Bandwidth is a final factor. Western support of Ukraine can pour a disproportionate amount of intelligence gathering into targetting individual launchers. Layered air defences. What part of that don't you understand? Most likely, close observation revealed a gap in coverage because things go offline now and then. Ukraine was aware of the window because it has the full support of Western assets. Easily defeated? Are you joking? How many launchers has Ukraine with full Wester support taken out according to Oryx? For easily defeated comparatively speaking, see Russia systematically degrading Ukrainian defences. Ukraine says many things. Neptunes were no doubt also launched because of the kitchen sink tactics, but waves of storm shadows eventually got a few through. One of the criteria for a just war is that you have a chance of achieving more on the battlefield than you can at the negotiating table. This is no longer true for Ukraine. So it is no longer fighting a just war. Negotiations will take forever to resolve, but if it wants to fight a just war, then it has to begin the process.
jergul large member	Mon Sep 18 02:12:03 Russia cannot back down from talking with Ukraine even if it wanted to. Russia at least is keeping its finger on the pulse of global sentiment. The unaligned world want negotiations to start.
Seb Member	Mon Sep 18 02:57:17 Jergul: "Ukraine habitually uses MRLS launches to cloak and muddy air defence spaces." Ukraine doesn't have any MRLS systems that can get within 100km of the air defence systems at Yevpatoria. Moreover the reports are that the missiles struck from the west. The Ukrainians say they used drones to hit the radars followed by the cruise missiles on the launches. Are you seriously suggesting that Russian short and long range radars at Yevpatoria can't resolve cruise missiles and drones operating nearby from clutter caused by grad missiles that, by necessity, most be landing somewhere up in Kherson? "Ukraine says many things. Neptunes were no doubt also launched because of the kitchen sink tactics, but waves of storm shadows eventually got a few through." You know Ukraine only ever got a hundred or so. France may have given more. "One of the criteria for a just war is that you have a chance of achieving more on the battlefield than you can at the negotiating table" Indeed. But as you say, you need to think about the logistics to understand Ukraine's strategy. Their goal, to which they are making progress, is to make it unviable for Russia to supply Crimea while establishing the ability to hit it. If they can force significant evacuation of Crimea it may bring Russia to the table. Their artillery has longer range and is better at counterbatterty than the Russians. The relatively high rates of attrition and destruction of Russian artillery, and the ability of Ukraine to cut supply so that shells can't get to where they need to be to be fired, are why I think your focus on shell production is a mistake. In addition there's plenty of evidence of a difference in effectiveness in their employment. Which is why I think your equation of shells fired as a metric of material damage done is off. It's very Macnamara/Vietnam. Overall their strategy is sound and they are making progress towards it. The fact it is not resulting in the sudden collapse of the Russian lines (yet?) doesn't rob them of their moral authority to resist the Russian invasion and annexation. But it surprises absolutely nobody here that your conclusion is that Ukraine's failure to surrender is hubris and immoral.
Seb Member	Mon Sep 18 03:01:15 You say Russia wants negotiations to start, ok, where and what is it's proposition to Ukraine? It's losing ground, so what is it going to give up to secure peace? Is Putin going to be able to sacrifice all that "Russian" sovereign territory Ukraine is "occupying"? Or is the idea that Ukraine should graciously surrender further territory because its "lost the moral authority" to resist further Russian annexation, even though that's manifestly not true?
jergul large member	Mon Sep 18 03:38:43 Seb Russia wants negotiations to start without preconditions. Russia has also maintained strategic ambiguity. Its goals are political. Ukraine retains formal neutral status. Where the actual future boundaries run through Ukrainian administrative regions is not a matter of prestige. Ukraine has lost the moral authority to refuse to negotiate as it no longer stands to gain more on the battlefield than through negotiations. Crazy that talks have not begun. They will take years to reach a deal in any event. On a side note, Ukraine is the one with territorial goals. Russian strategy is much freer. It pretty much is an attritional "to the last Ukrainian" concept at this point. And why not? An irrecoverably broken Ukraine renders the country defacto neutral no matter what formal organizations it might belong to.
jergul large member	Mon Sep 18 04:04:38 Seb Russia's air defence coverage begins deep within Ukraine. Ukraine has been using MRLS launches to cover precision strikes for months. It eases the gauntlet expensive missiles have to run. Cruise missiles are not obliged to follow a parabolic trajectory. It is one of their defining characteristics. Ukraine is not making progress and is further from cutting the land bridge now than it was in may when it had intact armour brigades with the potential to actually do that. There is no problem bringing Russia to the negotiating table. The problem is Ukraine that refuses to negotiate. Nothing stopping negotiations from going on while Ukraine continues to bleed manpower in futile offensives either. Ukraine is losing the attrition war. By huge margins. It is also at a disadvantage in employment where tactical observation affords Russia a huge advantage. Zelenskij said yesterday that shell expenditure on both sides is currently at 60k a day each. The limitation is shells, not barrels. Ukraine's strategy is unsound because it does not get that the practical cap on columative mobilization is around 10% of the population based on historical numbers. It thinks is has vast manpower reserves and is currently in shock by mobilization failures to meet conscription targets (Lviv got 10% of its mobilization target last cycle). Even with the assumption that the West has an infinite supply of munitions and hardware (which is also false), the Ukrainian strategy will still fail on manpower. So, completely unsound. It needed a decisive breakthrough and a maneuvre warfare victory. That failed and can never be repeated due to above limitations. It has always been hubris to think Ukraine could defeat Russia. But I gave it time to do the counter-offensive before saying that refusing to negotiate is immoral. I have pointed out earlier that Ukraine was on a ticking clock. Today is the first time I have called it.
Seb Member	Mon Sep 18 04:44:47 Jergul: "Russia's air defence coverage begins deep within Ukraine" Lovely. But the attack didn't come from the North. It came from the west. So why would grads over 100km North create clutter that would hide drones and cruise missile strike coming from the west to hit Yevpatoria? It's there any evidence of such a barrage being employed to hide the attack on Yevpatoria air defences? Do the triumph system have no short range defences? "Cruise missiles are not obliged to follow a parabolic trajectory" Indeed. The clue is in the name. But it is also irrelevant. Nobody is suggesting they are following a parabolic trajectory, simply that by virtue of (this may surprise you) being airborne they simply don't need to run the gauntlet of Russian air defences. They can be launched from e.g. Odessa and fly directly to Yevpatoria. "Ukraine is not making progress and is further from cutting the land bridge now than it was in may when it had intact armour brigades with the potential to actually do that." Ukraine has no intact armour brigades? It's making no further progress? "The problem is Ukraine that refuses to negotiate." "Russia wants negotiations to start without preconditions." The second statement is a bald faced lie. Russia rejected African proposed peace talks in July and the Chinese ones earlier. Their prerequisites for talks are that they can only take place if Russian sovereignty over Lugansk, Donetsk, zapohrirhiza and kershon oblast are respected. They don't control half of the territory they are claiming. Their condition for talks is a large Ukrainian withdrawal. "But I gave it time to do the counter-offensive before saying that refusing to negotiate is immoral." How magnanimous of you, but I don't think many agree with your assessment or consider you a moral authority. I note that it would be similarly hubristic to think Norway could win a war against Russia. Better surrender preemptively. It would be immoral to do otherwise.
jergul large member	Mon Sep 18 05:36:20 Seb What part of "cruise missile" dont you understand? Ukraine is not firing V1s at Russia. It is using Storm Shadows. You cannot project from final approach where the missile originated. Ukraine may have chosen to approach over water, but that removes many of the advantages a cruise missile has. A cluttered environment improves its survival. But Ukraine was going with saturation. As well it might since it is acting under the assumption that all missiles are free and easily replacable. They always need to run a gauntlet of air defences when we exclude war crimes like people in civilian clothing launching small drones from outside military bases in Russia proper. Ukraine has no intact brigades and is making no progress. You are doing the mistake of your generals in wwi and using 1:1 scale maps to measure progress. Hint: A bombed out hamlet is not progress. Try to remember back to when you trivialized the loss of Bakhmut and multiply that feeling by about 10k to get the significance of robotyne. Russia does not have preconditions for talks. Ukraine passed laws against having talks. You are either misinformed or are being disingenious. Or both. A just war is defined by specific criteria. Ukraine fails to meet one of those criteria. I gave it the benefit of doubt for a while, but now it is obvious the costs far outweigh any benefits of continued fighting without negotiations. The Norwegian plan has always been to sacrifice a chunk of its territory. The first real defensive line is 400 km south of the frontier. A negotiated settlement would be far outside of Norway's influence to decide if it got that territory back or not. Such is the plight of lesser nations.
jergul large member	Mon Sep 18 05:51:15 The final outcome of negotiations is sort of given anyway. Ukraine will lose some territory and the West will not recognize the new frontier. Russia will remain under permanent sanctions. There is really very little to fight about because nothing will change that outcome.
Seb Member	Mon Sep 18 06:06:30 jergul: "It is using Storm Shadows." And Neptunes. "You cannot project from final approach where the missile originated." And yet you are confidently asserting that the route travelled over occupied Kherson under cover of radar clutter from a barrage of grads. "But Ukraine was going with saturation." This is contrary to the claims. The Ukrainians say they used small drones to take our the radars at Yevpatoria, and Neptune's launched by the navy (so likely from the coast, we know they had launchers around Odessa at one point). But strangely you are confident that they instead flew them over multiple lines of air defence over occupied Kherson relying on grads to create radar clutter, and saturated the site with Storm Shadows. Do you have *any* evidence to support these claims? "A bombed out hamlet is not progress." Moving through and along lines slowly and methodically is progress. The objective is advance far enough to establish fire control over the rail link to Tokmak and M14. This then severs the land bridge and makes it very challenging for Russia to supply its defensive lines west of where they have breached the line; eventually forcing a retreat to more sustainable positions (Crimea). This is achieved by breaching the Russian lines around Robotyne and establishing a salient of sufficient depth, which is what they are doing slowly and methodically. Further they have been dropping bridges from Crimea to Kheson and Zap and attacking Crimea directly. The pattern then becomes clear and similar to the strategy used last year: fix Russian units at various points along the line, use long range fires to degrade Russian logistics until Russian forces are forced to retreat to more favourable lines - in this care Crimea. This is rather different to Bakhmut where control of Bakhmut didn't afford a decisive strategic opportunity worth the resources Russia put into taking it. RE armoured brigades, the 44th and 115th are both intact. Though the former is in Poland undergoing training so may not be fully equipped yet. "Russia does not have preconditions for talks." I don't know what to tell you - they have said as much on multiple occasions. "Ukraine fails to meet one of those criteria." In your arbitrary judgement. It is sadly incorrect as Russia is still demanding control of territory in Ukraine it does not occupy. "he Norwegian plan has always been to sacrifice a chunk of its territory." It is hubristic to believe Norway could keep any. You should surrender pre-emptively. It would be immoral to do otherwise.
jergul large member	Mon Sep 18 06:37:51 Seb Reverse order Doubling down on the ad-absurdum fallacy does not improve its qualities. Perhaps it subconcious is knows how weak your position is and thus compells you to be an internet troll to compensate. Ukraine stands no realistic chance of gaining a better position on the battlefield than it would through negotiations. Just war theory is clear on Ukraine's duty to negotiate at this point. Such an obligation does not compel it to lose more through negotiations than it might on the battlefield, but rather engage in good faith negotiations to at least achieve an equal outcome. Russia has on multiple occassions stated it has no preconditions for talks. It does have conditions for a final settlement as it stands now, but none at all for talks. The 44th is a new formation that is in poland and not equipped or trained yet. The 115th was mauled in Eastern Ukraine. It is also a mechanized brigade, not an armoured brigade. No progress. Ukraine is in a way worse position to achieve its objectives now than it was in May. That Ukraine has devolved its only way of winning (a decisive breakthrough) to attritional warfare heavily favouring Russia underlines that point. Storm Shadows using Western intel for targetting. Anything else was just part of a saturation attack. The saturation part is important. Otherwise, the only thing Ukraine did was push a button to fire a Western weapon at a target designated by Western SIGINT.
jergul large member	Mon Sep 18 07:20:59 Seb How are you going to spin Zelenskij dismissing first its defence minister and today the deputy defence ministers in a way that shows us the war is going perfectly for Ukraine?
jergul large member	Mon Sep 18 07:21:13 his*
Seb Member	Mon Sep 18 08:45:06 Jergul: It's not absurd - it's the logical consequence of your approach. "Ukraine stands no realistic chance of gaining a better position on the battlefield than it would through negotiations." I disagree, they disagree with that assessment. Not least as the price for talks with Russia is to immediately concede a worse position than that have now. "The 44th is a new formation that is in poland and not equipped or trained yet." It is in Poland, it appears largely equipped (it is training on the leopards it has been equipped with). 115th, you are referring to events last year. The 115th was mauled in Eastern Ukraine. It is also a mechanized brigade, not an armoured brigade. "Russia has on multiple occassions stated it has no preconditions for talks." The latest statement from Peskov: "Kyiv will have to start Britain's with Russia by recognising the realities that have emerged since march 2022". One of those realities that Russia had repeatedly made reference to is that it considers the entirety of Lugansk,Donetsk, Kherson and. Zapohrirhiza as part of Russia. Notwithstanding the disingenuous claim immediately preceding this statement, this is a precondition: we can talk, but only if Ukraine starts by accepting why such talks start with recognising this fact. "Storm Shadows using Western intel for targetting. Anything else was just part of a saturation attack." Baseless assertions with no evidence can be readily ignored. The key points here: obsolete western systems employed in the way Western countries would employ them appear able to defeat Russian AA/AD at favourable cost efficiency.
Seb Member	Mon Sep 18 08:45:56 Kyiv will have to start negotiations with Russia by recognising the realities that have emerged since march 2022".
	show deleted posts