Russia

[egg]

Russian gains accelerate. Troop losses estimate is interesting when compared to some of the numbers on here. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c20726y20kvt?post=asset%3Ab4159790-b901-4f6d-9db5-f835d865071c#post

 

 

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, egg said:

Russian gains accelerate. Troop losses estimate is interesting when compared to some of the numbers on here. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c20726y20kvt?post=asset%3Ab4159790-b901-4f6d-9db5-f835d865071c#post

 

 

According to that, so far this year they have captured an area this size of Staffordshire in a country that is two and a half times as big as the UK - just over 1/300th of Ukraine's land mass. In UK terms that is 2 Isle of Wights.

Hardly Blitzkrieg.

 

However, conquering Ukraine is not Putin's intention. Retaining the Donbas and Crimea, together with preventing Ukrainian accession to NATO and the EU, would give him all he wanted from the SMO. A frozen conflict suits him.

Edited yesterday at 08:40 by badgerx16

[skintsaint]

1 hour ago, egg said:

Troop losses estimate is interesting when compared to some of the numbers on here.

Most figures included wounded as well.

[egg]

20 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

According to that, so far this year they have captured an area this size of Staffordshire in a country that is two and a half times as big as the UK - just over 1/300th of Ukraine's land mass. In UK terms that is 2 Isle of Wights.

Hardly Blitzkrieg.

 

However, conquering Ukraine is not Putin's intention. Retaining the Donbas and Crimea, together with preventing Ukrainian accession to NATO and the EU, would give him all he wanted from the SMO. A frozen conflict suits him.

Hardly Blitzkrieg I agree, but the point is that Russia are not being pushed back even with US support. Putin will achieve those aims imo, although EU membership I wouldn't rule out. The land has gone and won't come back though, and there's not a snowballs chance that the US will agree to Ukrainian NATO membership.

[badgerx16]

21 minutes ago, egg said:

Hardly Blitzkrieg I agree, but the point is that Russia are not being pushed back even with US support. Putin will achieve those aims imo, although EU membership I wouldn't rule out. The land has gone and won't come back though, and there's not a snowballs chance that the US will agree to Ukrainian NATO membership.

US and European military aid was only ever going to stabilise the front line, we never gave them, ( assuming we ever actually had it ), enough to turn the tide as offensive operations require far more hardware than defensive, and Ukraine was never going to gain the key factor - air superiority.

Russia will continue to use the meat grinder tactics and chip away at Ukrainian territory; Ukraine does not have unlimited ammunition, and the psychological impact of facing, and slaughtering, WW1 style human waves wears down the defenders.

Edited yesterday at 09:16 by badgerx16

[AlexLaw76]

46 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

US and European military aid was only ever going to stabilise the front line, we never gave them, ( assuming we ever actually had it ), enough to turn the tide as offensive operations require far more hardware than defensive, and Ukraine was never going to gain the key factor - air superiority.

Russia will continue to use the meat grinder tactics and chip away at Ukrainian territory; Ukraine does not have unlimited ammunition, and the psychological impact of facing, and slaughtering, WW1 style human waves wears down the defenders.

All we have done is to allow Ukraine to lose more slowly. Russia have never ran out of munitions, and this will end around the table.

that has always been the case.

[whelk]

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

All we have done is to allow Ukraine to lose more slowly. Russia have never ran out of munitions, and this will end around the table.

that has always been the case.

Your predictions have been flawless, thanks 

[egg]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

Your predictions have been flawless, thanks 

He's been one of the sensible ones - we've had predictions of Russia running out of soldiers, munitions, no negotiations, no ceding of land, etc. All ridiculously hopeful/fanciful. 

[buctootim]

4 hours ago, egg said:

Russian gains accelerate. Troop losses estimate is interesting when compared to some of the numbers on here. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c20726y20kvt?post=asset%3Ab4159790-b901-4f6d-9db5-f835d865071c#post

 

 

Not really. The BBC and mediazone only cite numbers where the can certify a death from publicly available sources - againsta backdrop of the Kremlin doing everything they can to hide losses - including mass unmarked burials on the battlefield

[Jimmy_D]

5 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

All we have done is to allow Ukraine to lose more slowly. Russia have never ran out of munitions, and this will end around the table.

that has always been the case.

Any agreement to anything by Russia is utterly worthless.

Getting around a table certainly wouldn't end it.

[hypochondriac]

7 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

Any agreement to anything by Russia is utterly worthless.

Getting around a table certainly wouldn't end it.

Getting round a table with strong enforcement of any agreement and effective safeguards in place is how it's going to end. I'd like to hear from someone who disagrees with that what scenario they consider to be more likely. 

[hypochondriac]

5 hours ago, whelk said:

Your predictions have been flawless, thanks 

What's your prediction for the most likely end scenario? Give it a go.

[Jimmy_D]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Getting round a table with strong enforcement of any agreement and effective safeguards in place is how it's going to end. I'd like to hear from someone who disagrees with that what scenario they consider to be more likely. 

Effective safeguards like the Minsk agreements?

Russia is demanding no NATO involvement in Ukraine, what other 'strong enforcement' is possible?

Russia don't want negotiations, they just want to be able to do what they're doing with weaker opposition.

[aintforever]

24 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

and effective safeguards in place is how it's going to end.

Which can only really mean membership of NATO or NATO forces based in Ukraine. 

[whelk]

35 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

What's your prediction for the most likely end scenario? Give it a go.

I don’t know but some fuckwit just repeating what they have heard elsewhere is the essence of Saintsweb. 

 

[hypochondriac]

9 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Which can only really mean membership of NATO or NATO forces based in Ukraine. 

Maybe. I heard talk of a dmz neutral zone in between the two countries with an understanding that escalation would lead to defensive actions from Ukraine and other countries. 

[hypochondriac]

7 minutes ago, whelk said:

I don’t know but some fuckwit just repeating what they have heard elsewhere is the essence of Saintsweb. 

 

I'm not sure who you're calling a fuckwit here so my response is either one of the love heart emotions or something more passive aggressive. 

Edited 17 hours ago by hypochondriac

[aintforever]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Maybe. I heard talk of a dmz neutral zone in between the two countries with an understanding that escalation would lead to defensive actions from Ukraine and other countries. 

Not sure how that would work. If NATO caves in to Putin's demands now they are basically saying they are scared of getting involved - which other countries would help defend Ukraine?

The only way any agreement could work is if Ukraine get NATO membership or if NATO troops are based in the country. Anything else just means a year or so down the line Russia will just invade again.

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, aintforever said:

Not sure how that would work. If NATO caves in to Putin's demands now they are basically saying they are scared of getting involved - which other countries would help defend Ukraine?

The only way any agreement could work is if Ukraine get NATO membership or if NATO troops are based in the country. Anything else just means a year or so down the line Russia will just invade again.

They (we) are scared - to a degree - now. That is why there are no boots on the ground, so to speak. 

 

[whelk]

13 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Maybe. I heard talk of a dmz neutral zone in between the two countries with an understanding that escalation would lead to defensive actions from Ukraine and other countries. 

Batman although I have a strange fondness for him as part of the furniture with his posting style. And he does very good press conference summaries 

[aintforever]

2 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

They (we) are scared - to a degree - now. That is why there are no boots on the ground, so to speak. 

 

Yes, but not getting involved in an ongoing war is one thing, NATO is a defensive organisation so that makes sense.

Not letting a country, which is not at war, join NATO because they are scared it might upset Russia is a different thing altogether.

[hypochondriac]

Q

4 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Not sure how that would work. If NATO caves in to Putin's demands now they are basically saying they are scared of getting involved - which other countries would help defend Ukraine?

The only way any agreement could work is if Ukraine get NATO membership or if NATO troops are based in the country. Anything else just means a year or so down the line Russia will just invade again.

Where did I mention giving into putin's demands? It's a peace negotiation which will involve both sides having to give up things, that's how these things work. Of course it's not ideal but war and recovering from war never is. Russia and Putin will still have to survive with the consequences of their actions which will be continuing international pariah status for a period, sanctions and loss of life and a badly damaged country. 

[Lighthouse]

5 hours ago, egg said:

He's been one of the sensible ones - we've had predictions of Russia running out of soldiers, munitions, no negotiations, no ceding of land, etc. All ridiculously hopeful/fanciful. 

Russia is sourcing personnel from North Korea and weapons from Iran, which would certainly suggest shortages to some extent, plus they clearly haven’t had the spare capacity to force Ukraine out of Kursk. As for negotiations and ceding land, nothing has happened yet so we’ll have to see. Nobody has put forward any kind of proposed settlement that both sides might agree to so far.

[sadoldgit]

Storm Shadow missiles fired into Russia and Biden agreeing to the deployment of anti personal mines (which I thought were “illegal”) show that we aren’t falling for Putin’s sabre rattling.

[sadoldgit]

7 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

All we have done is to allow Ukraine to lose more slowly. Russia have never ran out of munitions, and this will end around the table.

that has always been the case.

All conflicts end around a table. It is just a question of when a conflict reaches a point that an agreement can be reached between the combatants.

If Ukraine are losing more slowly it also means that Russia aren’t winning very quickly.

Edited 16 hours ago by sadoldgit

[Weston Super Saint]

9 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

According to that, so far this year they have captured an area this size of Staffordshire in a country that is two and a half times as big as the UK - just over 1/300th of Ukraine's land mass. In UK terms that is 2 Isle of Wights.

Hardly Blitzkrieg.

 

However, conquering Ukraine is not Putin's intention. Retaining the Donbas and Crimea, together with preventing Ukrainian accession to NATO and the EU, would give him all he wanted from the SMO. A frozen conflict suits him.

And all at a cost of 29 Russians lives per square kilometre.

I know Russia doesn't really value lives but that is a pretty severe loss.

[egg]

39 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Russia is sourcing personnel from North Korea and weapons from Iran, which would certainly suggest shortages to some extent, plus they clearly haven’t had the spare capacity to force Ukraine out of Kursk. As for negotiations and ceding land, nothing has happened yet so we’ll have to see. Nobody has put forward any kind of proposed settlement that both sides might agree to so far.

It doesn't matter where they source things/people from, the facts is they're sourcing them. 

Re the bold but, there'll be a settlement. It was obvious from day 1, and is inevitable after the Trump election win. The terms will get ironed out.

[Weston Super Saint]

20 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

All conflicts end around a table. It is just a question of when a conflict reaches a point that an agreement can be reached between the combatants.

If Ukraine are losing more slowly it also means that Russia aren’t winning very quickly.

Well, all of them apart from the ones the Romans were involved in.  And the Vikings. 

[Whitey Grandad]

3 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

All conflicts end around a table.

Korea?

[Lighthouse]

1 minute ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Korea?

And WW1, WW2, the Falklands, the battle with ISIS and many, many others which ended in stalemate or military defeat.

[egg]

24 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

And WW1, WW2, the Falklands, the battle with ISIS and many, many others which ended in stalemate or military defeat.

If this ends as a stalemate, it'll be negotiated, and involve either an agreement to cede land or at least an acknowledgement that land ain't coming back. 

[Lighthouse]

Just now, egg said:

If this ends as a stalemate, it'll be negotiated, and involve either an agreement to cede land or at least an acknowledgement that land ain't coming back. 

A stalemate is a military impasse, by definition it is not negotiated. If it were to occur, what would be the benefit of ceding any land?

[egg]

13 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

A stalemate is a military impasse, by definition it is not negotiated. If it were to occur, what would be the benefit of ceding any land?

Semantics. This war will end with both sides talking, and as a result each will stop throwing bombs, and Russia will either keep some land or Ukraine will accept that it ain't coming back. Whatever you want to call it, that's the inevitable outcome, and always was. 

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, egg said:

Semantics. This war will end with both sides talking, and as a result each will stop throwing bombs, and Russia will either keep some land or Ukraine will accept that it ain't coming back. Whatever you want to call it, that's the inevitable outcome, and always was. 

Yep. Whether Ukraine agree or forced to grudgingly accept it that will be part of any negotiation. Hopefully the terms will be tough for Russia that it's painful for them to agree to.