Utopia Talk / Politics / The fall of Avdiika

Paramount Member	Sat Feb 17 09:39:36 Avdiivka, Longtime Stronghold for Ukraine, Falls to Russians With Ukraine’s forces at risk of encirclement, the top military commander ordered a retreat. In startlingly candid accounts, soldiers described disarray and despair. Ukraine ordered the complete withdrawal from the decimated city of Avdiivka before dawn on Saturday, surrendering a position that had been a military stronghold for the better part of a decade, in the face of withering Russian assault. “Based on the operational situation around Avdiivka, in order to avoid encirclement and preserve the lives and health of servicemen, I decided to withdraw our units from the city and move to defense on more favorable lines,” Gen. Oleksandr Syrsky, Ukraine’s top military commander, said in a statement issued overnight. The fall of Avdiivka, a city that was once home to some 30,000 people but is now a smoking ruin, is the first major gain Russian forces have achieved since May of last year. After rebuffing a Ukrainian counteroffensive in the summer and fall, Russian forces in recent weeks have been pressing the attack across nearly the entire length of the 600-mile-long front. The Ukrainian withdrawal on Saturday follows a bloody endgame that saw some of the fiercest fighting of the two-year-old war. Relying on its superiority in personnel and weaponry, Russia pounded the city with aerial bombardments and ground assaults, even as its fighters suffered a staggering amount of casualties. Outgunned Ukrainian forces had begun withdrawing from positions in the southern part of the city on Wednesday, and since then have been engaged in a desperate battle to avoid encirclement inside the city as Russian forces advanced from multiple directions. As Russian bombers pummeled Avdiivka, Ukraine said its forces had targeted and shot down three Russian warplanes. Oleksandr Tarnavskyi, the head of Ukraine’s forces in the south, said there had been no choice but to withdraw, given the Russian advantage in firepower and the number of soldiers Russia was willing to throw into the battle. “In a situation where the enemy is advancing on the corpses of their own soldiers with a 10-to-1 shell advantage, under constant bombardment, this is the only correct solution,” he said in a statement. The commander said that there were losses for the Ukrainians and “at the final stage of the operation, under pressure from the superior forces of the enemy, some Ukrainian servicemen fell into captivity.” Even if Ukrainian lines stabilize in the rear of Avdiivka, its fall into Russian control will allow Moscow’s military to move its troops and equipment more efficiently as it presses in other directions. “Avdiivka is a very important strong point in the Ukrainian system of defense,” because it protects Pokrovsk, about 30 miles to the northwest, a logistical hub for the Ukrainian Army, Mykola Bielieskov, a military analyst at the National Institute for Strategic Studies in Ukraine, said in an interview. “Taking control of Avdiivka might create an opening for Russia,” he said. Soldiers reached by phone on Friday, who asked not to be identified given the ongoing military action, described a harrowing bid to escape the city. They gave accounts of racing past blasted-out buildings as shells thundered from all around and Russians pressed in from several directions. “In one of the sectors in the town, fighters from the 3rd Separate Assault Brigade find themselves completely surrounded, but they are attempting to break through, and they succeed,” Maj. Rodion Kudryashov, deputy commander of the assault brigade, said in an interview with Radio Liberty. Some expressed concern privately in interviews that the call to withdraw had come too late, or posted stark accounts on social media of their dangerous and chaotic retreat. Viktor Biliak of the 110th Brigade, which has been defending the city for the past two years, described his evacuation on Thursday of the garrison known as Zenit, in a southern pocket of the city. Mr. Biliak, who uses the call sign Hentai, said his unit was left no time for an orderly exit — neither to evacuate weapons and equipment, nor to burn papers and lay mines in the way of attacking Russian troops. Ten men made a failed attempt to leave on Wednesday night, he said. They had to fight their way forward in a gun battle, but then came under artillery fire. “Only three wounded made it back,” Hentai wrote on Instagram. He helped rescue one of the wounded men the next morning, he said, a dangerous movement in daylight that cost the unit four more wounded, including himself. The troops made another attempt Thursday night, and the severely wounded were told to wait for an armored vehicle to take them. “Groups were leaving, one after the other,” Hentai wrote. Still able to walk, he decided not to wait for the evacuation vehicle and led a group out. “There was zero visibility outside. It was just plain survival. A kilometer across the field,” he wrote. “A bunch of blind cats led by a drone. Enemy artillery. The road to Avdiivka is littered with our corpses.” The evacuation vehicle never came for the wounded, he said. The last group left the bunker, and he overheard a wounded soldier asking over the radio about the evacuation vehicle. The commander replied that no vehicle was coming and that they should leave the wounded behind. “He didn’t know he was talking to a wounded man,” Hentai wrote. “This dialogue on the radio wounded us to our very core.” His and other accounts could not be independently confirmed, but the soldiers cited in this article are known to be members of the Ukrainian military with a public presence on social media, and the locations of landscapes shown in videos were verified as being in Avdiivka by The New York Times. As the battle for Avdiivka intensified, Ukrainian commanders fighting in the area were forced to ration ammunition, soldiers said. White House officials have seized on similar accounts to assert that the failure to pass a $60 billion renewed military aid package in Congress was directly undermining the Ukrainians’ fight on the ground. The Ukrainian government is also struggling to recruit and mobilize soldiers to fill its depleted ranks after two years of often brutal fighting. Avdiivka and the surrounding communities have been on the front line ever since Russian-backed militants seized territory in eastern Ukraine in 2014, but the Russians stepped up their efforts to take the city in October, launching large-scale assaults to broadly encircle the area. Those attempts largely failed and resulted in some of the heaviest Russian losses of the war, with tens of thousands of its soldiers killed and wounded, according to the Ukrainian military as well as British and American officials. Early this year, the Russians managed to break into the city of Avdiivka itself, at which point Ukrainian losses started to increase significantly. At the same time, Russia stepped up bombardment of the city, seeking to smash heavily fortified Ukrainian defenses. As the situation turned increasingly dire, military analysts inside and outside Ukraine worried that the leadership would repeat what many regarded as a past mistake: holding on after it was clear that hope was lost, and unnecessarily expending personnel and weapons. The withdrawal from Avdiivka was still underway Saturday morning under withering Russian bombardment. The Ukrainian military command said the withdrawal from the southern part of the city had been conducted with “minor losses.” But soldiers posting videos on social media provided a window into how dangerous movement in the area had become. In one video, several Ukrainian soldiers ride atop an armored vehicle just half a mile from the Avdiivka Coke Chemical Plant on the northwestern edge of the city, a landmark. They drive past the sign “Avdiivka is Ukraine” at the entrance to the city, made famous when President Volodymyr Zelensky posted a selfie video from there in December. Seconds later, the soldiers duck and grimace as shells land just yards from them, throwing up clouds of dust and dirt. On Friday, the commander of the 2nd Mechanized Battalion of the Third Assault Brigade said that the Russians had used incendiary munitions to ignite tanks storing hazardous fuel at the coke plant. “When burning, this poisonous substance has extremely severe consequences for the health and even the lives of our fighters,” he said in a statement. The wind sent plumes of toxic black smog over the city and seeping into the plant, which the Ukrainians had long used as a stronghold in the face of Russian advances. It was unclear early Saturday whether the Ukrainian troops holed up in the plant had also withdrawn. Volodymyr Furayev, a soldier posted at the sprawling Soviet-era industrial plant, said that his unit had been ordered to evacuate. “Leaving the coke plant,” Mr. Furayev said in one post on TikTok. “Everything is being targeted. Hard to know where we’re going. Hello to everyone who knows me. I don’t know if we’ll make it out.” Oleksandr Chubko contributed reporting from Kharkiv, Ukraine, and Malachy Browne from Limerick, Ireland. Marc Santora has been reporting from Ukraine since the beginning of the war with Russia. He was previously based in London as an international news editor focused on breaking news events and earlier the bureau chief for East and Central Europe, based in Warsaw. He has also reported extensively from Iraq and Africa. More about Marc Santora http://www...avdiivka-withdraw-despair.html
Paramount Member	Sat Feb 17 09:41:39 ”“There was zero visibility outside. It was just plain survival. A kilometer across the field,” he wrote. “A bunch of blind cats led by a drone. Enemy artillery. The road to Avdiivka is littered with our corpses.” The evacuation vehicle never came for the wounded, he said. The last group left the bunker, and he overheard a wounded soldier asking over the radio about the evacuation vehicle. The commander replied that no vehicle was coming and that they should leave the wounded behind. “He didn’t know he was talking to a wounded man,” Hentai wrote. “This dialogue on the radio wounded us to our very core.”” ^ Just as in Bachmut, Russia gave the Ukrainians in Avdiivka an ultimatum. They were given the chance to surrender. Some did but many chose to remain and fight. Those who chose to remain decided to flee later on when the Russian forces attacked, and it is their bodies that are now littering the roads and the fields around the city.
Paramount Member	Sat Feb 17 09:48:22 ”As the battle for Avdiivka intensified, Ukrainian commanders fighting in the area were forced to ration ammunition, soldiers said. White House officials have seized on similar accounts to assert that the failure to pass a $60 billion renewed military aid package in Congress was directly undermining the Ukrainians’ fight on the ground.” Make no misstake, Genocide Joe and the US is responsible for the deaths of Ukrainians. First they incite Ukrainians to attack eastern Ukraine, and then they refuse to supply them with money and ammunition.
Paramount Member	Sat Feb 17 09:56:32 ”The commander replied that no vehicle was coming and that they should leave the wounded behind.” It sounds like the Ukrainians fled in panick. Leaving their wounded behind.
Paramount Member	Sat Feb 17 14:57:20 So now the blame game has started. Genocide Joe is blaming the Republicans: Biden Blames Lawmakers' 'Inaction' For Fall Of Ukrainian City US President Joe Biden on Saturday blamed congressional inaction for Russia's capture of the eastern Ukrainian stronghold of Avdiivka, as partisan wrangling holds up $60 billion in badly needed military aid. http://www...on-on-ukraine-w-house-5fd48922
murder Member	Sat Feb 17 15:31:02 One of these days Ukraine will figure out that these "we'll bleed them out" campaigns do nothing but fix their assets and bleed themselves out. Russia not only has more mass, but even more importantly, they have more mass that they are fine with losing.
murder Member	Sat Feb 17 15:32:32 "Genocide Joe is blaming the Republicans" Blaming them for doing exactly what they set out to do.
TheChildren Member	Sun Feb 18 00:54:17 ima alrdy seein da propaganda machine sayin it aint no defeat...
Seb Member	Sun Feb 18 10:39:09 Murder: So what do you suggest? Just keep falling back every time the Russians advance?
Dukhat Member	Sun Feb 18 21:38:00 Russia can't really take this kind of attrition though. Ukraine can't either which is why they were stupid to waste men on an advance that can't do a mass encirclement. Russia's last mobilization ignored under 27 and urban Slavs. If Putin wants to really mobilize he needs to grab more men AND train them over 6-12 months to really learn how to fight. It's unlikely he even has the officer corps left to do this. Ukraine should've been more patient and just let Russia bleed themselves out but they are facing a lot of undue pressure by compromised politicians in the West and especially Republican party. Fuck Trump/
Seb Member	Mon Feb 19 03:08:33 Dukhat: The degree to which the republicans seem to have decided to jump in bed with the Russian world view is truly bizarre and ultimately dangerous for the US. As Europe wakes up to the fact the US isn't to be relied on you will see a very different world emerge. Like Churchill said if the US, Europe tends to do what is necessary to overcome a crisis, after exhausting the other options. The US is kidding itself if it thinks it can maintain the economic benefits of hegemony while refusing to shoulder the costs. In fact, if Europe is forced to decouple from the US (US cannot be relied upon if even 1 in 10 govts might be isolationist), then what's the rationale for all the US defence infrastructure in Europe? From early warning radars, missile defense, logistics hubs, military hospitals, forward stocks etc. that support US power projection into Africa and Middle East. All that's likely to go if the EU becomes self sufficient on defence for the exact same reason the US would never suffer a German military base on US mainland. Difficult to even imagine overflight rights.
Seb Member	Mon Feb 19 03:17:23 The emergence of a genuine European strategic autonomy then creates the environment where the EU and it's member states can afford the luxury of defining and pursuing it's economic interests with complete disregard to the US in a way that's not possible at the moment. Particularly for the US Tech industry that's bad news. Many Europeans are skeptical enough about US forms controls over data flows and personal information. To a great extent that's been tempered with a degree of trust on the basis we are all allies. This would certainly not be the case if the US is just another economic competitor.
TheChildren Member	Mon Feb 19 11:09:30 " then what's the rationale for all the US defence infrastructure in Europe? " >> so funny da level of delusion. r uz really da only peoples in da world that doesnt know while da rest of da entire world alrdy knows... u do not get a choice. a vassal is in no place 2 demand anything.
TheChildren Member	Mon Feb 19 11:11:57 "This would certainly not be the case if the US is just another economic competitor. " >> lolzzzz i thought that everybody knowz ever since alstrom, ever since mitsubitshu...but apparently u was so blinded by loveeegoggles, u didnt get da memo? not even in 2014? not even when nordstream lol?
williamthebastard Member	Mon Feb 19 16:34:24 Denmark sending its entire stock of infantry equipment, since there is no immediate risk, they dare to, they say. Sweden sending 1b worth of equipment, the largest amount in Swedish history
obaminated Member	Mon Feb 19 16:41:26 This is too bad. Real politick, we have said for a while that we want to hurt Russia and are fully aware Ukraine can't win. Putin is a very bad man. But Ukraine is his czechoslovakia. We need to drown him and let his war machine break. Which it has.
Turtle Crawler Admin	Wed Feb 21 02:15:09 It's probably time for people to stop believing the Ukrainian war propaganda and let the war come to it's inevitable conclusion sooner rather than later. I'm tired of seeing blatant lies reported as fact dominating the coverage and my annoyance over that alone is enough to oppose any more funding. It will be interesting to see at what point they stop writing about catastrophic Russian losses.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Feb 21 05:38:14 The only people who beliefs matter are Ukrainian. As long as they think the war is worth fighting in defense of their homeland I will keep giving them money and weapons. And by he way, since when is "propaganda" not part of winning wars? Where did this loser mentality come from: Oh no, things are tough, let's give up. What kind of father brought up people like this? Listen "son", the guy bullying you, he is clearly much stronger, just give him your lunch money and take the wedgie. Turn the other way if you see him molest your sister. Who are you people? I get the billionaire class, business doesn't like war, they have skin in the game of appeasement. But who are you, who have found some new truth in this. And to pre-empt, Yes Europe should shoulder this financially (and is) next step to massively strengthen the militarily and the infrastructure, but it is obvious to me that loser propaganda goes way beyond any of that. It is actively working against European security interest and in extension the entire western hemisphere. God have mercy on you.
Seb Member	Wed Feb 21 06:44:07 TC: So said Lord Halifax in the 1930s. It's this simple: Yes Ukraine cannot win unless they are massively supported. If we let Russia win, there will be a major war with NATO, because that is explicitly what Russia has said is their overall objective and what they mean by "re-writing the European security regime". When that war comes it will go nuclear, because at least two European countries are nuclear powers and the US will be dragged into it whether it likes it or not because facilities critical to us homeland defences are based in Europe and will be targets in any war between European countries and Russia. You can "spend" a few billion now in costs that are already sunk, or at a later date face the far more costly economic consequences of a global wars effect in the economy and US capital holdings along with the risk mutually assured destruction.
Seb Member	Wed Feb 21 06:45:03 Nim: "The only people who beliefs matter are Ukrainian. As long as they think the war is worth fighting in defense of their homeland I will keep giving them money and weapons." +1 (look, we agree on something!)
Paramount Member	Wed Feb 21 07:21:15 "As long as they think the war is worth fighting in defense of their homeland I will keep giving them money and weapons." I wonder how many Ukrainians still think it is worth fighting at this point. If they thought it is worth to fight, why did so many Ukrainians flee or surrender in Avdiivka? Was it not worth it to keep on fighting? Biden's and Nuland's puppet Zelensky and his people have to grab people on the streets and force them to the front. If the war is worth fighting shouldn't regular Ukrainians go to the front by their own free will?
Paramount Member	Wed Feb 21 07:21:48 "Where did this loser mentality come from: Oh no, things are tough, let's give up. What kind of father brought up people like this?" I think it may come from Iran. Nimatzos father and mother in Iran: Oh no, things are so tough here. Let's give up and flee to Sweden! Being brought up by this kind of parents it's no wonder that Nimatzo himself have this mentality. Nimatzo in Sweden: Oh no, things are crazy Sweden. It's tough being a boy! Girls has too much power! I wanna give up and flee to the USA!
Paramount Member	Wed Feb 21 07:22:01 "And by he way, since when is "propaganda" not part of winning wars?" Baghdad Bob didn't win the war for Iraq. And the West is at this level.
Paramount Member	Wed Feb 21 07:22:16 Seb, "If we let Russia win, there will be a major war with NATO, because that is explicitly what Russia has said is their overall objective " What? Russia has not said that their objective is a major war with NATO.
Seb Member	Wed Feb 21 07:28:17 Paramount: Russia has said it's object is to reshape the European security order, and it's specific demands were that all the eastern European countries leave NATO. Further Putin is engaging in hybrid operations against the Baltics and has indicated an intent that parts of Estonia should be part of Russia. Dissolution of NATO is the objective. Naturally if Putin concludes that use of force was successful in breaking and annexing Ukraine, and that he successfully deterred the US and defeated NATO, then he will obviously then move on to Estonia.
Turtle Crawler Admin	Wed Feb 21 10:54:56 Have you guys seen the Ukrainian poll numbers? They would depose their president and end the war. They had to cancel the elections to keep it going. So if someone supports them because they think the Ukrainian wants to fight, then they would have never supported the war. Even their current president was elected on an anti war platform. Also on a pragmatic note the Ukrainians *did* get massive support and failed to advance with it. The West has been giving out of stock piles while the Russians out of their production. The main thing the West can do that keeps the war going is paying salaries, money things, we simply don't have the weapons and equipment left to build another Ukrainian army like last year. Arguably all the money does now is keep the way going, with Russia getting stronger and more of a threat every month, not less. To be less of a threat to NATO you need to convince them to ramp down production, not continue to increase it!!!
Turtle Crawler Admin	Wed Feb 21 12:39:33 I'd also say that feeding the American public Ukrainian propaganda as fact isn't part of war, it's simply anti democratic.
Seb Member	Wed Feb 21 12:57:39 TC: "They would depose their president and end the war." [Citation needed] http://www...-about-war-future/7303180.html http://kyivindependent.com/poll-zelensky-tops-list-as-most-trusted-ukrainian-political-figure/ https://kyivindependent.com/poll-ukrainians-trust-in-zelensky-declines-trust-in-zaluzhnyi-is-high/ https://ukraine-elections.com.ua/en/election_data/election_history/27 Zelensky's net approval ratings are down, but still high. Tell me the last time a US president had *net* approval ratings of 34%! Indicative polls like the last link show the plurality want him to stand if there were elections. Nowhere is there any indication that there's popular support for ending the war, and rather the decline in popularity for Zelensky is more that he is seen as not doing enough to secure victory. Your turn: what are your sources and the underlying primary sources? Or are you perhaps picking up the spin that the US conservative media is selling. Noting that today is revealed the source behind the info the republicans used to try and impeach Biden was a Russian agent?
Seb Member	Wed Feb 21 13:12:18 "the Ukrainians *did* get massive support and failed to advance with it" Incorrect, it arrived month's *after* it was needed allowing the Russians to establish deep and well defended lines. If deep strike weaponry, jets (the US actively blocked Europeans providing f-16s from their stock) and armoured vehicles (US and Germany only offered modern armour well after the Ukrainians asked for it) had been available from the beginning, the Ukrainians would have been able to press their 2022 advances much further. Instead, Western hesitancy and willingness to overrate Putin's threats gave Russia the opportunity to dig in. "e simply don't have the weapons and equipment left" We've had a year to rebuild stocks. If we don't have the production capacity and stocks to arm Ukraine to fight Russia in a land war in Europe, then clearly that's the same as saying we don't have enough for ourselves to fight a conventional land war in Europe. And if that's the case, then obviously Russia is going to attack the Baltics, and obviously if the US is frightened enough of Russian nuclear threats not to intervene directly and not to even give Ukraine deep strike weapons, then it's going to be as gutless with Estonia and Welch on its NATO commitments. So war is coming, and if the west isn't rearming then it's governments are failing in their primary duty. Ultimately the lesson for Europe is that America is a nation of Tafts and possibly Benedict Arnolds, not Eisenhower and Washingtons. Strategic autonomy is the only way, and with that must come prioritising national security over US defence firms IP (if we can clone and manufacture US technologies we must), tarrifs to protect and onshore key security industry and supply chains, and the eventual removal of US military facilities in Europe such as GBMD and early warning radars, overflight rights and warship movements through national waters. Poland and a few other frontline states may also seek nuclear deterrents and Europes existing nuclear powers must support that. Either there's an alliance, or there isn't. If there isn't, the US trade relations and economic interests and foreign policy shibboleths must not be an obstacle to the defence of Europe.
Paramount Member	Wed Feb 21 13:21:17 Seb NATO expansion has not created security, rather conflict in Europe's relations with Russia. When the US unilaterally withdrew from the INF agreement – was it good for the security order? When the USA and its European allies undermine the CFE treaty by single-handedly trying to ensure military security in Europe without taking Russia's interests into account – how does that rhyme with the European security order? For peace and security to prevail, all countries, including Russia, must have the right to feel secure, right? The 2014 CIA coup in Ukraine. How did that rhyme with international law and Europe's security order? When John McCain and Lindsey Graham was in Ukraine and incited right-wing extremists to attack eastern Ukraine and saying that the US will help and that they will win - how does this fit with Europe's security order? With all this in mind, isn't it the US that has reshaped Europe's security order? If the US and UK have the right to invade countries because they are concerned or feel threatened, other countries have this right too. Russia has the right to defend itself when its security is threatened. They also have the right to intervene in Ukraine to protect the civilian population from the Kiev regime's artillery shelling. Russia intervened to protect the population and to create peace and security in the region when Kiev, under American pressure, refused. ”Dissolution of NATO is the objective.” If NATO dissolves it will be by the member states itself and not by Russia. And the reason will likely be due to their own failures and misjudgments - the delusional belief that Ukraine can win a war against Russia. But to fair, the war isn’t over yet so who knows.
Seb Member	Wed Feb 21 14:00:18 Paramount: Incorrect. Russia made no move to in response to NATO expansion for years, then invaded Ukraine after it ejected a Russian backed president after he refused to sign a trade deal with Europe that he has negotiated after Putin vetoed it. At the time Ukraine had a constitutional bar on applying to join NATO and had not applied. This shows exactly why NATO expansion was necessary. It is likely Russia would have invaded the Baltics like it did Georgia and Ukraine if they were not in NATO. And he maybe would not have invaded Georgia and Ukraine had they been part of NATO.
Seb Member	Wed Feb 21 14:01:39 The deal is: be part of NATO and the EU, or Putin will find a thug, shower him with money and support, dictate your economic policy to Russias advantage and try to poison any leader opposing his stooge.
Seb Member	Wed Feb 21 14:19:05 How does NATO expansion undermine Russian sense of security? Did NATO expansion come with military ramp up? No, it came with substantial downsizing of US presence in Europe and Western European substantially shrinking their armed forces. Did it come with the new members substantial increasing their arms? No, it came with similar shrinking of armed forces from their soviet era sizes. Did it come with redeployment of NATO nuclear forces, facilities and joint bases? No, in fact the number of NATO facilities in Western Europea decreased as the US and Western Europe drew down forces. NATO nuclear forces were withdrawn to two bases, no new shared bases or NATO mission deployments to the new members occurred until Georgia. NATO didn't even draw up operational plans to defend the Baltics until after Georgia. Did it come with extensive drills and heightened readiness? No, NATO exercises decreased in scope, scale and frequency and the readiness of NATO forces decreased, with much smaller NATO missions, again restricted to the same old Western European theatre. Indeed until Georgia there was a growing feeling that NATO might be ready to be abolished. It was Russia that recommenced major military drills for attacking Eastern Europe in the 200s and 2010s. It was Russia that started to redeploy nuclear weapons to the European theatre. It was Russia that began to start running air and naval incursions into European air space and test European air defences. It was Russia that started a campaign of overt assassination and sabotage on NATO soil. It was Russia that attacked Georgia, that attacked Ukraine. This idea that Russia was provoked by NATO adopting a threatening posture to Russia is simply Russian propaganda. It's not true. All along it has been Russia that's made overt threats to both neighbours and wider European security (they started running dummy nuclear attack runs with their strategic bombers against the UK back in the late 2000s. I said when they invaded Georgia they would eventually come for Ukraine and the Baltics and of course they have. The reality is that Europe and Russia are in a cold war growing hot and have been since the mid 2000s. The issue isn't NATO expansion, it's European expansion. The economic success of Eastern Europe and above all Poland is a direct challenge to Putinism by highlighting the failure of his regime to do the same for Russia. He sees all of Eastern Europe as naturally part of a Russian/ Orthodox sphere of influence and if he cannot compete with Western Europe in creating an economic degree of gravity, then he needs to use political coercion, subversion and military force to achieve it instead.
Turtle Crawler Admin	Wed Feb 21 15:21:48 The Georgia incident has been widely acknowledged to have been started by and the responsibility of the Georgians. Russia was quite integrated with and part of Europe prior to the conflict. If they weren't then the sanctions wouldn't have required as many changes as they have. Your post doesn't seem to track reality.
Turtle Crawler Admin	Wed Feb 21 16:17:55 Yes, the West right now does not have the ability to successfully invade Russia right now. Nor does Russia have the ability to invade Europe. Both would require very large military build ups, let's not do that please.
Seb Member	Wed Feb 21 16:36:41 Turtle Crawler: Funny, I seen to recall that South Ossetia and Abkhazia were under Russian "peacekeepers", but the 2008 incident started with the South Ossetian forces shelling Georgian villages with no response or intervention from this Russian peacekeeping force. Georgian forces eventually responded only to find a whole bunch of undeclared Russian forces not part of the agreed peacekeeping force were in the conflict zone - and strangely (or perhaps not strangely, given that they were not part of the peacekeeping forces and clearly just lost or something) were waiting for the Georgian forces. "Russia was quite integrated with and part of Europe prior to the conflict." No, they are definitely not. You only need to look at the various trade pacts etc too see this is not the case. "does not have the ability to successfully invade Russia right now" Nobody has suggested it needs to. It needs to be able to provide the necessary arms for Ukraine to defend against ongoing Russian attacks and to push them back. "Nor does Russia have the ability to invade Europe." Of course it does, it's in the middle of invading a European country right now and you are telling me that we don't have the ability to sustain Ukrainian attempts to resist. So clearly is that same level of force was applied to the Baltics, which are much closer to Russian supply lines than the areas in Ukraine are, then clearly we don't have the productive capacity to sustain operations against Russian forces there either. "Both would require very large military build ups" Russia has mobilised many hundreds of thousands of men, and devoted a huge amount of it's economy to war production. Yes, military build up is necessary. If the US wants to be divided, ineffectual and irrelevant obviously there's nothing Europe can do about it, but making itself irrelevant will have consequences. You can't reap the economic benefits of global hegemony while retiring from being the hegemon.
williamthebastard Member	Wed Feb 21 17:10:27 "Russia was quite integrated with and part of Europe prior to the conflict" "Your post doesn't seem to track reality." Lol...man, being so insulated from and horribly incorrect about the physical world beyond your local McDonalds isnt something to take pride in.
Turtle Crawler Admin	Wed Feb 21 18:02:56 Pushing Russia back from territory it controls is functionally the same thing as invading Russia. They both require the exact same level of commitment. Yes Russia can go and push into Ukraine, but the idea that it could invade Europe is completely different. Europe isn't at war, only Ukraine.
Seb Member	Thu Feb 22 02:26:49 Turtle Crawler: Pushing Russia out of 74,000 sq km is the same as invading and occupying 17 million sq km? No. No it really isn't. "but the idea that it could invade Europe is completely different." I mean, get a map? Estonia is closer to the Russian border than Kiev. Of course it can invade the the Baltics. It's got Kaliningrad on one side, DT Petersburg on the other, and a client state in Belarus where they've deployed large numbers of troops, nuclear weapons, launched a ground invasion and missile strikes along the other. What, exactly, do you think makes an attack on the baltics more challenging? Or are you redefining "Europe" to exclude eastern Europe?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Feb 22 03:20:02 There is a bullshit asymmetry going on here. Lets go back to the start. Turtle crawler, made some vague reference to Ukrainian polls. Seb supplied several of them. What are you talking about TC? Can we start with the polls and addressing those and explaining in the specific context of Ukraine and the grander context of politics, what you are talking about? You can't just brush that aside and again vaguely say that "Your post doesn't seem to track reality." Then move on and set fire to the next pile and the next pile, without ever reaching a conclusion on any of the claims you are making.
Seb Member	Thu Feb 22 05:36:07 Also Russia appears to be winding up to annex transdnestria (part of Moldova they've been occupying since the 90s)
Seb Member	Thu Feb 22 12:06:20 The argument we can't provide more support to Ukraine is bogus. F.ex the US has 1200 expired ATACMS that are surplus to the SLEP programme. These would function, but are out of service, will not be upgraded. Why not give them to Ukraine? https://twitter.com/ColbyBadhwar/status/1760672058302685457?t=dI_Qv3ktFWouXX0Bc0SN4A&s=19
Turtle Crawler Admin	Thu Feb 22 12:52:56 Seb, winning wars isn't about controlling territory, it's about destroying the other sides ability to fight. Once that is done territory is reassigned at will without difficulty. I suggest not judging who is "winning" a war by who is taking territory, but rather based on the long term ability to draft people and produce weapons and equipment.
Turtle Crawler Admin	Thu Feb 22 13:15:25 1200 ATACMS is indeed a lot of rockets. Yes it would do some damage over a few months. But then what? In the end they get used up. It does nothing to impact Russian ability to raise forces and produce equipment. Russian equipment production is far away. To have an impact they need to overwhelm Russian air defense and take out the factories with cruise missiles. The Americans could use their entire arsenal and damage probably a decent portion of it, but have no ability to sustain such an attack over time so everything would be back online in months. US production is too low. So it's really not going to happen by air. To disable Russian production by ground you need to equip and maintain several million soldiers. A million shells a month. That kind of production doesn't exist. Russia on the other hand prevents any significant military production inside Ukraine, and the population of Ukraine is significantly diminished to the point where are many news articles about them simply running out of people to fight. So in reality the only way to win the war is to start conscripting soldiers from other countries. So if one isn't willing to do that then everything else just leads to more people dying without any purpose.
Seb Member	Thu Feb 22 15:03:22 Turtle Crawler: This is, what, the 5th time you've shifted the goalposts in this conversation? I also completely reject your assertion that the only way the Russians can be stopped is if you destroy Russian industry. I mean you were alive in the 80's and saw Russia defeated in Afghanistan. Was that achieved by the Muhajadeen raising an army of several million men and destroying Russia's industrial base? Ukranin's victory is achieved by pushing Russia off their territory and restoring territorial integrity and hold them off. The Russian's will likely give up at that point, and if not we can also at that point bring Ukraine into NATO itself without worrying about disputed territory. If you are corect, the western world cannot support Ukraine doing that, then obviously they cannot support fending off Russian aggression in Estonia or the Baltics either. The only reasonable conclusion is that we must heavily re-arm anyway because we are inviting Russia to pursue it's ambitions by attacking us through our inability to defend the Baltics. On the other hand, if we are going to re-arm to be able to outproduce Russia, then we might as well send a lot of stuff to Ukraine in any case: the best way to delay or even avoid having to fend of a Russian invasion is if they are bogged down in Ukraine, or better yet, defeated and realise they cannot achieve their objectives of dominating Eastern Europe by military means. Further, if Russian forces were pushed out of Ukraine and it's territorial integrity restored, we could let it into NATO and park a bunch of European forces on the border and Russia will likely then not dare attack, having seen that NATO has the will and capacity to defeat its forces. As for Russia's ability to recruit men and build forces, they are relying heavily on re-furbishing old equipment (that is why they are having to buy missiles from North Korea and Iran), and for recruitment that is not something they can keep resorting to indefinitely either. All we need to do is push them out of Ukraine and hold them out of Ukraine until they are forced to recognise they have failed (cf. Afghanistan, you were alive then right?) The idea that victory can only be achieved if we start destroying Russian industry isn't well founded at all. As for Ukraine running out of people to recruit, this is not the case. The challenge is doing so without damaging the economy further. It's also worth noting Ukrainian military production has increased since the war began, but you are right they can't match Russia's ability to generate new equipment from old stock plus their manufacturing capability. But then that's true for most European countries and probably the US and precisely why we would lose any conventional conflict with Russia in Eastern Europe if they are willing to throw hundreds of thousands of people into the meat grinder - and we've just shown them that we are deterred from using nuclear weapons. So, yeah, we need to EITHER have the military production that is sufficient to show them that we will be able to win a war of attrition with them in Eastern Europe and risk nuclear escalation, or - and this is overwhelmingly cheaper for us - just increase military production enough to supply Ukraine to push them out of Ukraine. This defeatist rubbish is the kind of shit I expect from Tankies!
Dukhat Member	Thu Feb 22 16:31:13 Turtle Crawler making stuff up as usual. The last polling of Ukraine in october showed 60% support for the war effort. Down from 70% a year early but still easily mass support. All the other stuff sounds like far-right twitter feed. Russians took Adviika because the front is wide and huge and they still have more men and can concentrate firepower. But if they really had strength, they would be able to do more than what they have which is basically nothing else. They don't have the vehicles and tanks to do anything like an encirclement which would be necessary to win the war. "long term ability to draft people and produce weapons and equipment." Both Ukraine and Russia have bad demographics. Ukraine has the advantage in weapons and equipment if the West supports them properly. " It does nothing to impact Russian ability to raise forces and produce equipment." Untrue. Russia is out of modern tanks and apc's. They are using their mothballed shit. This ain't your mama's russia. They don't have good heavy industry anymore. *** Putin is going very hardcore KGB now killing people. He killed one very pro-war blogger for reporting the accurate casualties to take Aadvika. He's actually quite weak and can't stand up to the spending a united West can spend to at least give Ukraine more favorable terms.
Dukhat Member	Thu Feb 22 16:31:39 One of the better reddit posts on the issue: Ukraine has managed to recapture 50% of the territory Russia took since the full-scale invasion. They have been constantly improving their infrastructure (cracking down on fraud and corruption in acquistions and recruitment), becoming more experienced, and successfully blending their pre-war Soviet inheritance and new Western systems. Russia's successes in Bakhmut and Avdiivka, as well as Ukraine's failure in the counter-offensive, largely go down to Russia being able to concentrate mass; something which they were unable to do after their 'try to take everything, hold nothing' campaign early in the war. Even with the losses of territory and failure of the counter-offensive in 2023, Ukraine came out well ahead that year. Russian casualty rates have gone through the roof, their air-defence systems, newer model artillery, and long-range strike capabilities (both aircraft and naval) have been brutally degraded throughout the year. That has had a drastic shaping effect on the battlefield. But Ukraine still needs enormous support from its Western allies, especially as its old Soviet equipment is attrited. F-16s to replace its Su- aircraft; the Su-s are quickly going to be approaching full-life airframe flight hours and become dangerous, same issue Russia will have. Replacing the depleted 152mm artillery with 155mm artillery ammo and artillery pieces. Supplementing long-range missiles etc etc etc. The West has done a brilliant job of replacing Soviet systems with systems that Ukraine can use, and the West can logistically support. But a production gap was inevitable in developing that logistic support. As much as people think Russia can suffer the current attrition rate forever, Russia really can't. The initial mobilisation wave had a pretty minor impact on the European-Russian cities, such as Moscow and St. Petersburg. But even still it generated some of the most aggressive anti-Putin and subversive activities that Russia has seen under Putin's rule. Russia will have to go to a second round of mobilisation this year, and it will be difficult for them to do so while insulating under 27s and urbanized Slavs as they did the first time. Plus, for Russia to genuinely make serious ground in Ukraine to threaten Ukrainian statehood, Russia would have to have a military force superior in training, numbers and equipment then it did prior to the full-scale invasion. Russia cannot build that force without significant economic and social mobilisation. And Putin has been VERY hesitant to commit to that degree of economic and social mobilisation; say what you will about Putin, but he knows Russia. If he is hesitating to do so, I trust it is with good reason and greatly speaks to Russia's domestic state.
Hrothgar Member	Sun Feb 25 17:48:24 I see a lot of flag waving by Russian supporters lately. Zooming out on the map area of control shows how tiny of change Russia has actually accomplished however. As I've said before, area of control is the real prover of propaganda. And just as it proved Ukraine's "counter offensive" was failing very quickly last summer, the current Russian claims follow as equally hollow. Tens thousands+ more dead Russians for a small area of ruins devoid of productive human life that will need to be rebuilt and repopulated from the ground up to be of any actual value. It's continuing to be a very, very ugly war for both sides. Neither with much in way of real gains toward ending it with anything either side would call a victory.
jergul large member	Mon Feb 26 13:26:57 Seb Georgian tried a coup de main. There was only one tunnel Russia could use. Georgia failed to capture it, Georgia suffered a fast an humiliating defeat. Russia stopped before Tblisi and pulled back once a settlement had been imposed on Georgia. A pet peeve of mine that Georgia is mentioned as anything other than where Russian trust in the West died. I am stunned that you still speak in terms of Ukrainian maximalist goals. As to why the counter offensive failed. Well, wargames tell us why. There were two assumptions. Ukrainian Shorad would hold helicopters at bay. The skill differential favoured Ukraine. The helicopters were not kept at bay. The skill differential favoured Russia. The other factors were wargamed excessively and were known before the counter offensive began. A counter offensive the wargames said would succeed. Funny how 3 week courses held in the UK did not quite cut it versus Spetnaz teams with atgms, eh? And now? The Russian equivalent of JDAMs are not being held at bay either. Ukraine has to stop those, or it is in the same boat as the Iraqi Republican Guard. Heroism does very little against glidebombs landing on your head.
jergul large member	Mon Feb 26 13:29:28 Hrothgar Its not about territory. Its about attrition. My money is on the side dropping JDAM equivalents. For obvious reasons.
jergul large member	Tue Feb 27 12:19:23 Worse now. Ukrainians have filmed contrails of Russian air activity directly above the front lines. Dropping 10 ton payloads directly on targets is a different ballgame altogether. Its all about air defence right now. The arty does not matter if Russian airpower has free reign.
jergul large member	Tue Feb 27 12:20:07 free reign over the front lines* Deep penetration raids with manned aircraft does not seem realistic at this point.
Turtle Crawler Admin	Tue Feb 27 23:45:21 Most pro Ukrainian scenarios depend on believing the propaganda about large and unsustainable Russian losses, or Russians simply giving up and walking away for some undefined reason. It's all wishful thinking Russian aircraft over the front line is the suppression of Ukrainian air defense. I think they are at the point right now where every time they find one they send an iskander at it and destroy it no problem. F16s wouldn't matter much, especially in small qualities, Russian air defense is fully operational.
TheChildren Member	Tue Feb 27 23:48:48 da propaganda machine runnin full throttle... da fallz is now simply "nottin" just like all da previous falls of highly fortifide impenetrable fortress citiez with giant undaground networks 4 some reason (wink wink wut normal city has these), that dont matter but somehow they kept defendin it for months...
Turtle Crawler Admin	Tue Feb 27 23:52:55 These glide bombs... Jesus. They are just too cheap to compete with and Ukraine still had no viable counter. They would somehow have to take the aircraft out in a sustainable way, and in large numbers. Russia makes new ones every month and all they have to do is fly high and fast, turn around, land and repeat. They aren't exactly complicated. Give it a few years and they might even be drones.
Turtle Crawler Admin	Wed Feb 28 00:09:17 The problem with us stocks is that even when they bill gets passed and we send a bunch more weapons, once they run out, the US production of patriot missiles is too low, the himars production is enough to offer counter artillery, the shell production isn't anywhere near enough, and unless they mobilize the US economy for it we'll be back in this scenario in a year.
jergul large member	Wed Feb 28 04:17:00 TC Air defence ambushes are still feasible and probably always will be. But it amounts to risking a battery for a chance at an aircraft. There is pretty strong indications Ukraine has been swapping air defence with russian aircraft recently. Not surprising. The calls for coverage from the frontlines must be overwhelming. The downside is of course the opportunity cost. Russian missile-drone attacks on strategic seem to have become more effective as air defences are transferred to the frontline (if that is what is happening).
jergul large member	Wed Feb 28 04:19:29 Loitering Lancets seems to be the fast reaction tool used to target air defences before they can relocate. Most like the main reason frontline coverage decreased in the first place as Ukraine pulled back coverage to avoid losing stuff.
Turtle Crawler Admin	Wed Feb 28 12:13:38 Yeah any air defense moved forward enough to cover the front line will have attrition. Need a steady supply of new systems to replace the destroyed ones + a strategy that inflicts a high cost for each one lost.
jergul large member	Sat Mar 02 16:22:36 Ukraine has claimed numerous downings recently and we have seen footage of destroyed air defence assets. So I think it clear Ukraine has tried to contest the frontline space. The degree of success is less clear (Russian Fighterbomber has been pretty transparent about Russian losses and has confirmed only the downing of a high value awac). ========== Have we reached an Iraqi equilibrium in sense we all know its downhill from here for Ukraine, so not really much to talk about any more?
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: