Russia

[AlexLaw76]

6 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

So Russia still have access to the same level of resources they did two years ago then?

No idea

[badgerx16]

Analysis of satellite imagery of Russian tank storage gives estimates of useful reserves available to them ;

 

 

[aintforever]

1 hour ago, Jimmy_D said:

Russia would love everyone to believe they have effectively unlimited resources, but they really don’t.

They’re gutting their own economy to keep the war going, and it’s starting to hit the tipping point where that’s going to start having very real effects on their ability to wage war.

From what I have read I would tend to agree with this. I think NATO have them where they want them (not making significant progress into Ukraine and their military capability being constantly eroded) and are playing the long game. This is what a poster on Reddit who appears to know his onions (yes I know he could obviously be anyone so could be wrong) said when asked about the Russian economy:

“No one knows because Russia hasn't been reporting real numbers for a while now. What's clear is that some segments are ruined (like the Gazprom which is near bankrupcy - China f-ed them over with not willing to invest into trans-siberian pipeline and they don't have LPG infrastructure so gas trade is mostly gone) and government is wasting gold and foreign currency reserves and most income from oil into war effort.

We'll see how much longer can it last - they're still pumping oil and that's a lifeline. They're also exporting grain, coal, etc. Sanctions on enriched Uranium are still few years away but things like that are being tightened. Air transport & travel is slowly going to shit and indirect effects of lack of infrastructure investment are starting to show. 

Their weapons exports are gone and customers are turning to the west - France pushed them off the 2nd spot year ago and by now they might not be in top 5 or even 10 anymore. 

Long term I think situation is even more dire - the opportunity loss will be huge as, unlike China, they don't really have any high tech industry and aren't investing into it. They'll increasingly depend on oil and resource exports and that can easily slip into not being profitable for various reasons (i.e. see Venezuela, but also hopefully oil becomes less costly as world slowly switches to EVs). 

I think nuclear deterrent will be a weight around their necks as it requires maintenance and upgrades to subs and ICBMs and airforce, and that ain't getting any cheaper.

And then there's demographics - fertility rate is 1.5 which is worse than most of the west, but unlike the west, Russia won't be able to make it up with immigration as it's becoming a bigger shithole than it's poorer neighbours. 

So... Short term - who knows, watch the ruble. Long term - they're pretty much f-ed if they swiftly don't get out of Ukraine.”

Again, god knows if the above is accurate but it ties in with other stuff I’ve read.

 

[Weston Super Saint]

3 hours ago, egg said:

There's always an end. Everyone wants a Ukraine victory, and Putin's downfall, I'm not sure anyone sees that as likely on the battlefield, and if the west won't risk a Russia victory, and nobody wants WW3. There ain't any option but settlement but I'm all ears to other alternatives that I'm missing.

Putin dies - heart attack, chokes on a fish bone, falls out a window. A less hardline leader emerges and Russia walk away (like Afghanistan).

Putin is murdered - leadership walks away.

Putin uses a nuke, the West refuse to retaliate, Ukraine surrenders. Russia wins on the battlefield and governs a nuclear wasteland.

Ukraine uses a dirty bomb in Moscow, the Russian people demand the withdrawal of their troops.

Just a couple of the top of my head, but shows there are numerous possibilities for the special military operation to end on the battlefield.

One thing's for certain, the ending Putin envisioned with his troops rolling into Kyiv after two weeks hasn't happened.

[sadoldgit]

15 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

I mentioned Korea specifically because they are technically still at war and there is a real military front line still active to this day. It’s just a stalemate that the Korean War slowly peaked out into. It was not a negotiated settlement, I’ve no idea why you think I agree with you and SOG.

You keep talking about agreements but there is nothing that both side would agree and stick to that could be negotiated.

Which is my point. If there is no agreed and defined settlement, it will just go on indefinitely, even if the hostilities stop and the defensive lines stay in place for years.

Ukraine’s main problem is the support from the West. If that is reduced and Zelensky’s ability to hold Putin where he is is diminished, he might be tempted to offer up terms in a damage limitation exercise. Who knows? There is a point where realism and pragmatism has to kick in. So much depends on who becomes the next POTUS.

As for Putin, his actions are solid gold Orwell. Keep the country at a perpetual state of war with overly imagined threats from others at you keep control of your power and the people. Has there been a  time in Putin’s reign where Russian troops have not been active anywhere in the world?

 

[egg]

13 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Putin dies - heart attack, chokes on a fish bone, falls out a window. A less hardline leader emerges and Russia walk away (like Afghanistan).

Putin is murdered - leadership walks away.

Putin uses a nuke, the West refuse to retaliate, Ukraine surrenders. Russia wins on the battlefield and governs a nuclear wasteland.

Ukraine uses a dirty bomb in Moscow, the Russian people demand the withdrawal of their troops.

Just a couple of the top of my head, but shows there are numerous possibilities for the special military operation to end on the battlefield.

One thing's for certain, the ending Putin envisioned with his troops rolling into Kyiv after two weeks hasn't happened.

So the only way this ends on the battlefield is a nuke or dirty bomb. Right you are.

I'm still waiting for a sensible suggestion of how this ends in the battlefield. Not one person who feels that's the way it'll go can come up with one. 

It'll be resolved around the table. Pre the US election is my guess - neither the West nor Ukraine will risk Trump exposing us to a wider war. 

[whelk]

1 minute ago, egg said:

So the only way this ends on the battlefield is a nuke or dirty bomb. Right you are.

I'm still waiting for a sensible suggestion of how this ends in the battlefield. Not one person who feels that's the way it'll go can come up with one. 

It'll be resolved around the table. Pre the US election is my guess - neither the West nor Ukraine will risk Trump exposing us to a wider war. 

Nearly everyone wants an end obviously but doesn’t mean there is anything viable at the moment.  
if a rapist comes into your house do you offer just one of your daughters in the hope they’ll go away?

[Lighthouse]

25 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Ukraine’s main problem is the support from the West. If that is reduced and Zelensky’s ability to hold Putin where he is is diminished, he might be tempted to offer up terms in a damage limitation exercise. Who knows?

Christ, you cant' seriously be that detached from reality.

[egg]

8 minutes ago, whelk said:

Nearly everyone wants an end obviously but doesn’t mean there is anything viable at the moment.  
if a rapist comes into your house do you offer just one of your daughters in the hope they’ll go away?

There's a reality to address and hoping ain't realistic. Trump is a reality. He'll hang Ukraine out to dry. That leaves the rest of NATO to either fight or fold. It won't get that far imo, but like it or not, something has to give to make this end. Hitler only went after a world war. That won't be allowed to develop here. 

[whelk]

24 minutes ago, egg said:

He'll hang Ukraine out to dry

That isn’t a given. The president isn’t a dictator and their security councils are very powerful. Worrying for Ukraine but Trump is a lot of bluster and the consequences will be made very clear. He likes to be seen as the tough guy, not the cowards who walked away to let evil triumph.

[Weston Super Saint]

29 minutes ago, egg said:

Trump is a reality. He'll hang Ukraine out to dry. 

He said he'd build a big, beautiful wall. He didn't get far with that either.

He's full of shit, so I wouldn't rely too heavily on what he says he'll do.

[buctootim]

17 hours ago, aintforever said:

From what I have read I would tend to agree with this. I think NATO have them where they want them (not making significant progress into Ukraine and their military capability being constantly eroded) and are playing the long game. This is what a poster on Reddit who appears to know his onions (yes I know he could obviously be anyone so could be wrong) said when asked about the Russian economy:

“No one knows because Russia hasn't been reporting real numbers for a while now. What's clear is that some segments are ruined (like the Gazprom which is near bankrupcy - China f-ed them over with not willing to invest into trans-siberian pipeline and they don't have LPG infrastructure so gas trade is mostly gone) and government is wasting gold and foreign currency reserves and most income from oil into war effort.

We'll see how much longer can it last - they're still pumping oil and that's a lifeline. They're also exporting grain, coal, etc. Sanctions on enriched Uranium are still few years away but things like that are being tightened. Air transport & travel is slowly going to shit and indirect effects of lack of infrastructure investment are starting to show. 

Their weapons exports are gone and customers are turning to the west - France pushed them off the 2nd spot year ago and by now they might not be in top 5 or even 10 anymore. 

Long term I think situation is even more dire - the opportunity loss will be huge as, unlike China, they don't really have any high tech industry and aren't investing into it. They'll increasingly depend on oil and resource exports and that can easily slip into not being profitable for various reasons (i.e. see Venezuela, but also hopefully oil becomes less costly as world slowly switches to EVs). 

I think nuclear deterrent will be a weight around their necks as it requires maintenance and upgrades to subs and ICBMs and airforce, and that ain't getting any cheaper.

And then there's demographics - fertility rate is 1.5 which is worse than most of the west, but unlike the west, Russia won't be able to make it up with immigration as it's becoming a bigger shithole than it's poorer neighbours. 

So... Short term - who knows, watch the ruble. Long term - they're pretty much f-ed if they swiftly don't get out of Ukraine.”

Again, god knows if the above is accurate but it ties in with other stuff I’ve read.

 

Chimes exactly with what Ive read. Essentially avoid a direct NATO v Russia conflict at any costs and instead gradually throttle them and weaken them until they cant support both war effort and the life the civilian population expect anymore. Russia on its trajectory pre 2022 was doomed anyway. Vast country, terrible birth rate and hostile to immigrants. The excellent education system of the Soviet Union is long gone and with it the scientists necessary for high tech innovation. As Obama said 15 years or so ago its just a gas station with nukes and its only got worse since.     

[Jimmy_D]

3 hours ago, egg said:

So the only way this ends on the battlefield is a nuke or dirty bomb. Right you are.

I'm still waiting for a sensible suggestion of how this ends in the battlefield. Not one person who feels that's the way it'll go can come up with one. 

It'll be resolved around the table. Pre the US election is my guess - neither the West nor Ukraine will risk Trump exposing us to a wider war. 

One battlefield has already been settled by Ukraine. The Black Sea has no Russian navy any more.

What makes you think that it’s different for their army in Ukraine that means Russia can just indefinitely sustain more losses than they can replace?

[buctootim]

2 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

He said he'd build a big, beautiful wall. He didn't get far with that either.

He's full of shit, so I wouldn't rely too heavily on what he says he'll do.

Full of shit and also constantly changes his mind depending on what the last person he spoke to said to him. Apparently the armed forces and CIA are convinced he and Vance will come around on Ukraine once they've been briefed in detail. 

[egg]

36 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

One battlefield has already been settled by Ukraine. The Black Sea has no Russian navy any more.

What makes you think that it’s different for their army in Ukraine that means Russia can just indefinitely sustain more losses than they can replace?

The focus here is Ukraine, not the sea, you know that. I don't think Ukraine are better placed than Russia to replace dying men.

You've had strong opinions throughout. How can this end on the ground, in Ukraine? Do the west support a war of attrition ad infinitum? How can Ukraine win? Please explain. 

[buctootim]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

The focus here is Ukraine, not the sea, you know that. I don't think Ukraine are better placed than Russia to replace dying men.

You've had strong opinions throughout. How can this end on the ground, in Ukraine? Do the west support a war of attrition ad infinitum? How can Ukraine win? Please explain. 

You should watch this - Yevgeny Fedorov, a State Duma deputy from United Russia, Putin's own party .

https://x.com/i/status/1817531921930273150

[Jimmy_D]

1 hour ago, egg said:

The focus here is Ukraine, not the sea, you know that. I don't think Ukraine are better placed than Russia to replace dying men.

You've had strong opinions throughout. How can this end on the ground, in Ukraine? Do the west support a war of attrition ad infinitum? How can Ukraine win? Please explain. 

What’s happened in the Black Sea has a very real effect on Russia’s ability to take Ukraine. Two years ago the threat of an amphibious assault to attempt to take Odessa was a worry as it would have cut Ukraine off from all sea trade, and is an example that Russia’s ability to wage war has already been degraded.

Kherson is probably the best example on the ground. Eventually they calculated that they didn’t have the resources to defend and withdrew.

Russia are already starting to have problems replacing troops. They’ve cannibalized a huge portion of their regular economy to fuel their war economy. On paper that makes certain aspects of their economy look great, unemployment is low, production is high, but it also means that Russia isn’t producing everything Russia needs, with sanctions increasing that problem. As reserves start to run down, scarcity of some products is increasing, and inflation is starting to run away, making it more expensive to hire soldiers.

On the battlefield, similarly, they’ve been delving into reserves of Soviet equipment to maintain their forces. While those are deep, they’re not replaceable at anywhere near the rate they’ve been using them, and the best quality is used first. There’s a reason we’re seeing equipment that’s 60 or 70 years old appearing from Russia, and motorised troops being equipped with nothing more than motorbikes. This is being exploited by Ukraine by using drones that Russia’s remaining materiel is more and more vulnerable to, with Ukraine now having the advantage in drone production, and also Western IFVs provided to Ukraine being able to compete with Russian tanks.

Air defence is a particular problem for Russia, with coverage already having to be prioritised by Russia, and Ukraine in possession of weapons that can take out Russian air defence systems, which is about to be exploited by the introduction of F16 by Ukraine.

Another aspect that’s starting to become an issue for Russia is artillery. They currently have enough shells, albeit of less than ideal quality, thanks to North Korea, but the barrels to fire them (and the ability to replace those barrels) is another matter. Huge swathes of Soviet equipment have been cannibalized just for the barrels. Russia has already started to have to ration barrel usage.

[AlexLaw76]

40 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

What’s happened in the Black Sea has a very real effect on Russia’s ability to take Ukraine. Two years ago the threat of an amphibious assault to attempt to take Odessa was a worry as it would have cut Ukraine off from all sea trade, and is an example that Russia’s ability to wage war has already been degraded.

Kherson is probably the best example on the ground. Eventually they calculated that they didn’t have the resources to defend and withdrew.

Russia are already starting to have problems replacing troops. They’ve cannibalized a huge portion of their regular economy to fuel their war economy. On paper that makes certain aspects of their economy look great, unemployment is low, production is high, but it also means that Russia isn’t producing everything Russia needs, with sanctions increasing that problem. As reserves start to run down, scarcity of some products is increasing, and inflation is starting to run away, making it more expensive to hire soldiers.

On the battlefield, similarly, they’ve been delving into reserves of Soviet equipment to maintain their forces. While those are deep, they’re not replaceable at anywhere near the rate they’ve been using them, and the best quality is used first. There’s a reason we’re seeing equipment that’s 60 or 70 years old appearing from Russia, and motorised troops being equipped with nothing more than motorbikes. This is being exploited by Ukraine by using drones that Russia’s remaining materiel is more and more vulnerable to, with Ukraine now having the advantage in drone production, and also Western IFVs provided to Ukraine being able to compete with Russian tanks.

Air defence is a particular problem for Russia, with coverage already having to be prioritised by Russia, and Ukraine in possession of weapons that can take out Russian air defence systems, which is about to be exploited by the introduction of F16 by Ukraine.

Another aspect that’s starting to become an issue for Russia is artillery. They currently have enough shells, albeit of less than ideal quality, thanks to North Korea, but the barrels to fire them (and the ability to replace those barrels) is another matter. Huge swathes of Soviet equipment have been cannibalized just for the barrels. Russia has already started to have to ration barrel usage.

Now do Ukraine 

https://www.politico.eu/article/why-ukraine-losing-russia-war/

[Jimmy_D]

Just now, AlexLaw76 said:

Now do Ukraine 

https://www.politico.eu/article/why-ukraine-losing-russia-war/

That was out of date when it was written, let alone now.

[badgerx16]

Bloomberg report that the first F-16s are in Ukraine.

[skintsaint]

2 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Bloomberg report that the first F-16s are in Ukraine.

 

[skintsaint]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2024/08/01/ukraine-launched-more-long-range-attack-drones-than-russia-in-july/

[badgerx16]

The Russian army is now the second strongest army in Russia.

 

 

[badgerx16]

☺️

Edited August 8 by badgerx16

[Lighthouse]

Day 800 of the 3 day special military operation. Ukraine invades Russia.

[whelk]

No Russian fanboys posting this week?

[badgerx16]

4 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Day 800 of the 3 day special military operation. Ukraine invades Russia.

Ok Vlad, let's negotiate - we get Crimea, Luhansk, and Donestk, you get Kursk, Bryansk, and Belgorod.

[badgerx16]

Restrictions were placed on the launching of some weapons from Ukraine into Russia. Nobody seems to have placed restrictions on weapons launched at Russian targets from within Russia.

[skintsaint]

[skintsaint]

 

Interesting to hear they are not too far from the nuclear power plant in Kursk. Also this coincides with F-16s coming into operation so maybe Ukraine hasn't got to watch the skies as much as Russians a bit fearful of more air losses? All speculative ofc.

[Jimmy_D]

One aspect that’s becoming clearer, Ukraine being able to go this far and this quick into Russian territory, and Russia’s continuing lack of ability to effectively respond to that, suggests Russia’s resources are stretched even thinner than anyone thought.

They’ve obviously been throwing thousands of troops onto Ukraine’s defences for minimal gain in Ukraine, but it appears they’ve been completely compromising Russia’s own security to do so, throwing absolutely everything they have at it.

Even if Russia believed that Ukraine invading was completely impossible, a country with the supposed military resources of Russia leaving a border with a country they’re at war with without any form of adequate defence defies belief.

[badgerx16]

 

Edited August 10 by badgerx16

[buctootim]

Ive got a Russian doctor friend who has always been pretty pro Putin. Hadnt spoken to her for a couple of years. She just asked me if I could help her emigrate. Her son already emigrated to Australia a few years ago and now her daughter has just got residency in France. Feels like a sinking ship. 

[skintsaint]

Ukraine now in Belgorod Oblast too apparently.

[Lighthouse]

They should sit down and negotiate a peace deal. Ukraine will give back Kursk if Russia promises not to join NATO.

[egg]

On 09/08/2024 at 23:30, Jimmy_D said:

One aspect that’s becoming clearer, Ukraine being able to go this far and this quick into Russian territory, and Russia’s continuing lack of ability to effectively respond to that, suggests Russia’s resources are stretched even thinner than anyone thought.

They’ve obviously been throwing thousands of troops onto Ukraine’s defences for minimal gain in Ukraine, but it appears they’ve been completely compromising Russia’s own security to do so, throwing absolutely everything they have at it.

Even if Russia believed that Ukraine invading was completely impossible, a country with the supposed military resources of Russia leaving a border with a country they’re at war with without any form of adequate defence defies belief.

I think they were caught on the hop and I'm not sure anyone seriously expected a Ukrainian incursion. Piecing together various bits out there, it seems that Ukraine are holding limited areas but have suffered big losses of men and equipment. That said, it gives Russia something to think about and you'd imagine that they're going to have to redeploy troops and equipment to deal with this, leaving themselves thinner elsewhere. Interesting development for sure. 

[Lighthouse]

3 hours ago, egg said:

I think they were caught on the hop and I'm not sure anyone seriously expected a Ukrainian incursion. Piecing together various bits out there, it seems that Ukraine are holding limited areas but have suffered big losses of men and equipment. That said, it gives Russia something to think about and you'd imagine that they're going to have to redeploy troops and equipment to deal with this, leaving themselves thinner elsewhere. Interesting development for sure. 

Which sources is that information coming from? Most of what I’ve seen on the news and Twitter points towards very minimal resistance and small losses in an attack that caught Russia totally by surprise.

[badgerx16]

25 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Which sources is that information coming from? Most of what I’ve seen on the news and Twitter points towards very minimal resistance and small losses in an attack that caught Russia totally by surprise.

Indeed. From what I have seen the Russians have been battered, especially that troop convoy that got HIMARS'd.

[egg]

29 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

.

 

Edited August 11 by egg
Duplicates somehow

[egg]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

Indeed. From what I have seen the Russians have been battered, especially that troop convoy that got HIMARS'd.

27 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Which sources is that information coming from? Most of what I’ve seen on the news and Twitter points towards very minimal resistance and small losses in an attack that caught Russia totally by surprise.

Sure did catch them off guard - was completely left field. I've seen a few reports, you'll find them. 10% of men lost, and shed loads of tanks and other vehicles. Regardless, surely they'll be sitting ducks? 

 

Re Badger's point. That small Russian convoy was battered, but there's also reports of a Ukrainian group being destroyed, and that's what I was referring to. 

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

Sure did catch them off guard - was completely left field. I've seen a few reports, you'll find them. 10% of men lost, and shed loads of tanks and other vehicles. Regardless, surely they'll be sitting ducks? 

 

Re Badger's point. That small Russian convoy was battered, but there's also reports of a Ukrainian group being destroyed, and that's what I was referring to. 

There is a lot of pro-Russian guff swamping places like YouTube.

[Lighthouse]

6 minutes ago, egg said:

Sure did catch them off guard - was completely left field. I've seen a few reports, you'll find them. 10% of men lost, and shed loads of tanks and other vehicles. Regardless, surely they'll be sitting ducks? 

 

Re Badger's point. That small Russian convoy was battered, but there's also reports of a Ukrainian group being destroyed, and that's what I was referring to. 

Fair play, you must have seen some incredibly in-depth information that I just don't have access to. 10% is a very accurate number, considering nobody seems to know exactly how many troops are involved, or how many have been lost. 

[badgerx16]

Loving the irony of Russian news outlets condemning the threat to their 'peaceful civilian population', yet also reporting the drone strikes on Ukrainian towns and villages.

[Colinjb]

33 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Loving the irony of Russian news outlets condemning the threat to their 'peaceful civilian population', yet also reporting the drone strikes on Ukrainian towns and villages.

The truth is what they make it.

[egg]

47 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Fair play, you must have seen some incredibly in-depth information that I just don't have access to. 10% is a very accurate number, considering nobody seems to know exactly how many troops are involved, or how many have been lost. 

Ha!! approx 100 / 1000 in one incursion.  I'm sure that even you acknowledge that Ukraine will have lost men and equipment. 

[egg]

5 minutes ago, Colinjb said:

The truth is what they make it.

Yep. This thread is a classic case of a few posters believing the information that they want to believe, and refusing to accept stuff that they don't. 

[skintsaint]

14 minutes ago, egg said:

Ha!! approx 100 / 1000 in one incursion.  I'm sure that even you acknowledge that Ukraine will have lost men and equipment. 

10% included casualties - which for an offensive of this scale isn't too excessive for Ukraine to not have expected.

[Lighthouse]

1 hour ago, egg said:

Ha!! approx 100 / 1000 in one incursion.  I'm sure that even you acknowledge that Ukraine will have lost men and equipment. 

What do you mean by 'even you'? I don't work for the Ukrainian government. You made the claim that Ukraine had suffered from massive losses of men and equipment for very little gain, then you said it was 10% of forces comitted. This is contrary to what I've seen in the news and on social media so, I asked where you were getting your information from. I've seen a video of a destroyed Russian convoy and footage from a Russian drone appearing to show them one destroyed Ukrainian tank. These are the only specific details I've seen so far as both sides are understandably tight lipped about both the forces and the losses in that area.

Of course there have been Ukrainian losses in this invasion, it's a war. However, this post is the first time I've seen it confirmed that 100 men have died, or that 1,000 were comitted.

[Weston Super Saint]

This article suggests that "many" thousands of Ukraine troops have entered Russia...

[badgerx16]