|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On January 01 2023 20:54 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2023 20:45 Magic Powers wrote:Putin's decree from late 2022 for further mobilization went into effect. 137 000 more soldiers this January, the aim is to get over 2 million soldiers in the army. The narrative is still the same: NATO is the enemy, they keep coming closer to Russia's borders, yada yada. https://newsunrolled.com/politics/153383.html Given the number of officers killed, I really think that these soldiers won't be properly trained anytime soon and I wouldn't be surprised if Putin threw them at Bakhmut unless he decides to let Wagner keep the fighting going while the military builds up
Regarding training, the Russian soldiers are underequipped and understaffed in so many different ways, they won't be able to form a meaningful offensive fighting force. But they will serve very well as canon fodder, which I think is Putin's strategy.
I also think they could be sent to the worst of the fronts. My guess is they'll eventually get there after previous waves have been annihilated.
Putin's plan appears to be fairly simple. Stall, stall, stall. Forever, if necessary. He's hoping for a miracle and he wants to buy time until it happens. For that purpose he's willing to send thousands or even millions of Russian men to their deaths.
He knows that several big Ukrainian offensives are in the making for 2023. He's preparing.
|
On January 01 2023 20:45 Magic Powers wrote:Putin's decree from late 2022 for further mobilization went into effect. 137 000 more soldiers this January, the aim is to get over 2 million soldiers in the army. The narrative is still the same: NATO is the enemy, they keep coming closer to Russia's borders, yada yada. https://newsunrolled.com/politics/153383.html
I think this doesn't really matter that much. Sure, it'll mean way more people are going to die but I don't think it'll actually help Russia in any way. It doesn't matter if you have a lot of men if you don't have equipment to go along with it and pretty much all the assessments to date agree that Russia is running low on almost everything. Add to that the fact that sanctions make it virtually impossible for them to replenish some of their stocks (can't make more advanced missiles, vehicles, ordnance, airplanes and helicopters) and then there's the problem of their industry not moving into war scenario (because of insistence on calling it "a special operation").
Ukraine has access to more men than Russia and with the steady supply of equipment and munitions from the West all they really need to do is hold on and wait until Russia bleeds itself dry. The longer this conflict goes the more advantage Ukraine gets and the scales just keep tipping in their favor.
Then, once Russia is unable to continue this war Ukraine should have plenty of time to rebuild unmolested as it'll most likely take several decades for Russia to get its economy and military back on its feet. Probably won't happen during my lifetime.
|
On January 01 2023 23:04 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2023 20:45 Magic Powers wrote:Putin's decree from late 2022 for further mobilization went into effect. 137 000 more soldiers this January, the aim is to get over 2 million soldiers in the army. The narrative is still the same: NATO is the enemy, they keep coming closer to Russia's borders, yada yada. https://newsunrolled.com/politics/153383.html I think this doesn't really matter that much. Sure, it'll mean way more people are going to die but I don't think it'll actually help Russia in any way. It doesn't matter if you have a lot of men if you don't have equipment to go along with it and pretty much all the assessments to date agree that Russia is running low on almost everything. Add to that the fact that sanctions make it virtually impossible for them to replenish some of their stocks (can't make more advanced missiles, vehicles, ordnance, airplanes and helicopters) and then there's the problem of their industry not moving into war scenario (because of insistence on calling it "a special operation"). Ukraine has access to more men than Russia and with the steady supply of equipment and munitions from the West all they really need to do is hold on and wait until Russia bleeds itself dry. The longer this conflict goes the more advantage Ukraine gets and the scales just keep tipping in their favor.Then, once Russia is unable to continue this war Ukraine should have plenty of time to rebuild unmolested as it'll most likely take several decades for Russia to get its economy and military back on its feet. Probably won't happen during my lifetime.
I'll have to disagree with the bolded part. Ukraine may have less of a problem than Russia to wage a long war that goes on for several years and beyond, but that scenario would be a huge failure for Ukraine and the odds of reclaiming their territory would drop close to zero. Ukraine needs to make big progress each consecutive year, otherwise they'll likely stall for many years, if not indefinitely. Therefore Russia "bleeding dry" is not a winning scenario, because that would take far too long (see wars the US has fought for comparison). Ukraine can't afford to wait for that, they have to progress frequently and with great territorial gains.
|
On January 01 2023 23:41 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2023 23:04 Manit0u wrote:On January 01 2023 20:45 Magic Powers wrote:Putin's decree from late 2022 for further mobilization went into effect. 137 000 more soldiers this January, the aim is to get over 2 million soldiers in the army. The narrative is still the same: NATO is the enemy, they keep coming closer to Russia's borders, yada yada. https://newsunrolled.com/politics/153383.html I think this doesn't really matter that much. Sure, it'll mean way more people are going to die but I don't think it'll actually help Russia in any way. It doesn't matter if you have a lot of men if you don't have equipment to go along with it and pretty much all the assessments to date agree that Russia is running low on almost everything. Add to that the fact that sanctions make it virtually impossible for them to replenish some of their stocks (can't make more advanced missiles, vehicles, ordnance, airplanes and helicopters) and then there's the problem of their industry not moving into war scenario (because of insistence on calling it "a special operation"). Ukraine has access to more men than Russia and with the steady supply of equipment and munitions from the West all they really need to do is hold on and wait until Russia bleeds itself dry. The longer this conflict goes the more advantage Ukraine gets and the scales just keep tipping in their favor.Then, once Russia is unable to continue this war Ukraine should have plenty of time to rebuild unmolested as it'll most likely take several decades for Russia to get its economy and military back on its feet. Probably won't happen during my lifetime. I'll have to disagree with the bolded part. Ukraine may have less of a problem than Russia to wage a long war that goes on for several years and beyond, but that scenario would be a huge failure for Ukraine and the odds of reclaiming their territory would drop close to zero. Ukraine needs to make big progress each consecutive year, otherwise they'll likely stall for many years, if not indefinitely. Therefore Russia "bleeding dry" is not a winning scenario, because that would take far too long (see wars the US has fought for comparison). Ukraine can't afford to wait for that, they have to progress frequently and with great territorial gains.
Ukraine has the momentum though, doesn't it? They reclaimed part of Kherson, they got Kharkiv back. They went from "Kyiv is falling" to counter-offensives. The best Russians can do is to fortify themselves in currently occupied territories, I think. The more Ukraine wins, the less time Putin has in power in my opinion and he knows it.
|
On January 01 2023 23:41 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2023 23:04 Manit0u wrote:On January 01 2023 20:45 Magic Powers wrote:Putin's decree from late 2022 for further mobilization went into effect. 137 000 more soldiers this January, the aim is to get over 2 million soldiers in the army. The narrative is still the same: NATO is the enemy, they keep coming closer to Russia's borders, yada yada. https://newsunrolled.com/politics/153383.html I think this doesn't really matter that much. Sure, it'll mean way more people are going to die but I don't think it'll actually help Russia in any way. It doesn't matter if you have a lot of men if you don't have equipment to go along with it and pretty much all the assessments to date agree that Russia is running low on almost everything. Add to that the fact that sanctions make it virtually impossible for them to replenish some of their stocks (can't make more advanced missiles, vehicles, ordnance, airplanes and helicopters) and then there's the problem of their industry not moving into war scenario (because of insistence on calling it "a special operation"). Ukraine has access to more men than Russia and with the steady supply of equipment and munitions from the West all they really need to do is hold on and wait until Russia bleeds itself dry. The longer this conflict goes the more advantage Ukraine gets and the scales just keep tipping in their favor.Then, once Russia is unable to continue this war Ukraine should have plenty of time to rebuild unmolested as it'll most likely take several decades for Russia to get its economy and military back on its feet. Probably won't happen during my lifetime. I'll have to disagree with the bolded part. Ukraine may have less of a problem than Russia to wage a long war that goes on for several years and beyond, but that scenario would be a huge failure for Ukraine and the odds of reclaiming their territory would drop close to zero. Ukraine needs to make big progress each consecutive year, otherwise they'll likely stall for many years, if not indefinitely. Therefore Russia "bleeding dry" is not a winning scenario, because that would take far too long (see wars the US has fought for comparison). Ukraine can't afford to wait for that, they have to progress frequently and with great territorial gains.
The core problem is that even if Ukraine liberates all of their territory, that doesn't mean the war ends. Russia can just keep on sending men into Ukraine, and Ukraine can't really march on Moscow to end the war.
So even if Ukraine makes massive progress and throws Russia out of Ukrainian territory, they may still need to wait for Russia to bleed itself dry for the war to end. The war keeps going until Russia decides that they are done watching their men die pointlessly in Ukraine.
|
On January 01 2023 20:54 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2023 20:45 Magic Powers wrote:Putin's decree from late 2022 for further mobilization went into effect. 137 000 more soldiers this January, the aim is to get over 2 million soldiers in the army. The narrative is still the same: NATO is the enemy, they keep coming closer to Russia's borders, yada yada. https://newsunrolled.com/politics/153383.html Given the number of officers killed, I really think that these soldiers won't be properly trained anytime soon and I wouldn't be surprised if Putin threw them at Bakhmut unless he decides to let Wagner keep the fighting going while the military builds up
I think Putin might be happy to let Wagner continue to expend resources in Bahkmut. He weakens a rival military force while selling the offensive to the Russian public.
|
On January 01 2023 23:48 SC-Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2023 23:41 Magic Powers wrote:On January 01 2023 23:04 Manit0u wrote:On January 01 2023 20:45 Magic Powers wrote:Putin's decree from late 2022 for further mobilization went into effect. 137 000 more soldiers this January, the aim is to get over 2 million soldiers in the army. The narrative is still the same: NATO is the enemy, they keep coming closer to Russia's borders, yada yada. https://newsunrolled.com/politics/153383.html I think this doesn't really matter that much. Sure, it'll mean way more people are going to die but I don't think it'll actually help Russia in any way. It doesn't matter if you have a lot of men if you don't have equipment to go along with it and pretty much all the assessments to date agree that Russia is running low on almost everything. Add to that the fact that sanctions make it virtually impossible for them to replenish some of their stocks (can't make more advanced missiles, vehicles, ordnance, airplanes and helicopters) and then there's the problem of their industry not moving into war scenario (because of insistence on calling it "a special operation"). Ukraine has access to more men than Russia and with the steady supply of equipment and munitions from the West all they really need to do is hold on and wait until Russia bleeds itself dry. The longer this conflict goes the more advantage Ukraine gets and the scales just keep tipping in their favor.Then, once Russia is unable to continue this war Ukraine should have plenty of time to rebuild unmolested as it'll most likely take several decades for Russia to get its economy and military back on its feet. Probably won't happen during my lifetime. I'll have to disagree with the bolded part. Ukraine may have less of a problem than Russia to wage a long war that goes on for several years and beyond, but that scenario would be a huge failure for Ukraine and the odds of reclaiming their territory would drop close to zero. Ukraine needs to make big progress each consecutive year, otherwise they'll likely stall for many years, if not indefinitely. Therefore Russia "bleeding dry" is not a winning scenario, because that would take far too long (see wars the US has fought for comparison). Ukraine can't afford to wait for that, they have to progress frequently and with great territorial gains. Ukraine has the momentum though, doesn't it? They reclaimed part of Kherson, they got Kharkiv back. They went from "Kyiv is falling" to counter-offensives. The best Russians can do is to fortify themselves in currently occupied territories, I think. The more Ukraine wins, the less time Putin has in power in my opinion and he knows it.
I'd say I mostly agree. Ukraine has some momentum and is building more of it. 2023 they'll have to demonstrate that their advantage is enough to continue to make large territorial gains. If that fails, then 2024 would likely be their last opportunity to show progress, because most people won't want to support a futile war effort.
On January 01 2023 23:49 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2023 23:41 Magic Powers wrote:On January 01 2023 23:04 Manit0u wrote:On January 01 2023 20:45 Magic Powers wrote:Putin's decree from late 2022 for further mobilization went into effect. 137 000 more soldiers this January, the aim is to get over 2 million soldiers in the army. The narrative is still the same: NATO is the enemy, they keep coming closer to Russia's borders, yada yada. https://newsunrolled.com/politics/153383.html I think this doesn't really matter that much. Sure, it'll mean way more people are going to die but I don't think it'll actually help Russia in any way. It doesn't matter if you have a lot of men if you don't have equipment to go along with it and pretty much all the assessments to date agree that Russia is running low on almost everything. Add to that the fact that sanctions make it virtually impossible for them to replenish some of their stocks (can't make more advanced missiles, vehicles, ordnance, airplanes and helicopters) and then there's the problem of their industry not moving into war scenario (because of insistence on calling it "a special operation"). Ukraine has access to more men than Russia and with the steady supply of equipment and munitions from the West all they really need to do is hold on and wait until Russia bleeds itself dry. The longer this conflict goes the more advantage Ukraine gets and the scales just keep tipping in their favor.Then, once Russia is unable to continue this war Ukraine should have plenty of time to rebuild unmolested as it'll most likely take several decades for Russia to get its economy and military back on its feet. Probably won't happen during my lifetime. I'll have to disagree with the bolded part. Ukraine may have less of a problem than Russia to wage a long war that goes on for several years and beyond, but that scenario would be a huge failure for Ukraine and the odds of reclaiming their territory would drop close to zero. Ukraine needs to make big progress each consecutive year, otherwise they'll likely stall for many years, if not indefinitely. Therefore Russia "bleeding dry" is not a winning scenario, because that would take far too long (see wars the US has fought for comparison). Ukraine can't afford to wait for that, they have to progress frequently and with great territorial gains. The core problem is that even if Ukraine liberates all of their territory, that doesn't mean the war ends. Russia can just keep on sending men into Ukraine, and Ukraine can't really march on Moscow to end the war. So even if Ukraine makes massive progress and throws Russia out of Ukrainian territory, they may still need to wait for Russia to bleed itself dry for the war to end. The war keeps going until Russia decides that they are done watching their men die pointlessly in Ukraine.
Well, ok that's a good point. The war is technically not over if Ukraine reclaims their territory, especially not if their leadership keeps pursuing Crimea as well (I just don't think Crimea is a realistic target for Ukraine in the coming years, or perhaps ever).
At least then Ukraine can focus on defending. If Russia keeps attacking relentlessly after losing all territory, they won't be able to rebuild their old army strength at the same time.
NATO can then also use the opportunity to establish bases in Ukraine to help defend against terror attacks. The conflict would likely turn much colder, perhaps with the occasional terror attack, or not. These will become increasingly futile.
|
On January 02 2023 00:16 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2023 23:48 SC-Shield wrote:On January 01 2023 23:41 Magic Powers wrote:On January 01 2023 23:04 Manit0u wrote:On January 01 2023 20:45 Magic Powers wrote:Putin's decree from late 2022 for further mobilization went into effect. 137 000 more soldiers this January, the aim is to get over 2 million soldiers in the army. The narrative is still the same: NATO is the enemy, they keep coming closer to Russia's borders, yada yada. https://newsunrolled.com/politics/153383.html I think this doesn't really matter that much. Sure, it'll mean way more people are going to die but I don't think it'll actually help Russia in any way. It doesn't matter if you have a lot of men if you don't have equipment to go along with it and pretty much all the assessments to date agree that Russia is running low on almost everything. Add to that the fact that sanctions make it virtually impossible for them to replenish some of their stocks (can't make more advanced missiles, vehicles, ordnance, airplanes and helicopters) and then there's the problem of their industry not moving into war scenario (because of insistence on calling it "a special operation"). Ukraine has access to more men than Russia and with the steady supply of equipment and munitions from the West all they really need to do is hold on and wait until Russia bleeds itself dry. The longer this conflict goes the more advantage Ukraine gets and the scales just keep tipping in their favor.Then, once Russia is unable to continue this war Ukraine should have plenty of time to rebuild unmolested as it'll most likely take several decades for Russia to get its economy and military back on its feet. Probably won't happen during my lifetime. I'll have to disagree with the bolded part. Ukraine may have less of a problem than Russia to wage a long war that goes on for several years and beyond, but that scenario would be a huge failure for Ukraine and the odds of reclaiming their territory would drop close to zero. Ukraine needs to make big progress each consecutive year, otherwise they'll likely stall for many years, if not indefinitely. Therefore Russia "bleeding dry" is not a winning scenario, because that would take far too long (see wars the US has fought for comparison). Ukraine can't afford to wait for that, they have to progress frequently and with great territorial gains. Ukraine has the momentum though, doesn't it? They reclaimed part of Kherson, they got Kharkiv back. They went from "Kyiv is falling" to counter-offensives. The best Russians can do is to fortify themselves in currently occupied territories, I think. The more Ukraine wins, the less time Putin has in power in my opinion and he knows it. I'd say I mostly agree. Ukraine has some momentum and is building more of it. 2023 they'll have to demonstrate that their advantage is enough to continue to make large territorial gains. If that fails, then 2024 would likely be their last opportunity to show progress, because most people won't want to support a futile war effort. Show nested quote +On January 01 2023 23:49 Simberto wrote:On January 01 2023 23:41 Magic Powers wrote:On January 01 2023 23:04 Manit0u wrote:On January 01 2023 20:45 Magic Powers wrote:Putin's decree from late 2022 for further mobilization went into effect. 137 000 more soldiers this January, the aim is to get over 2 million soldiers in the army. The narrative is still the same: NATO is the enemy, they keep coming closer to Russia's borders, yada yada. https://newsunrolled.com/politics/153383.html I think this doesn't really matter that much. Sure, it'll mean way more people are going to die but I don't think it'll actually help Russia in any way. It doesn't matter if you have a lot of men if you don't have equipment to go along with it and pretty much all the assessments to date agree that Russia is running low on almost everything. Add to that the fact that sanctions make it virtually impossible for them to replenish some of their stocks (can't make more advanced missiles, vehicles, ordnance, airplanes and helicopters) and then there's the problem of their industry not moving into war scenario (because of insistence on calling it "a special operation"). Ukraine has access to more men than Russia and with the steady supply of equipment and munitions from the West all they really need to do is hold on and wait until Russia bleeds itself dry. The longer this conflict goes the more advantage Ukraine gets and the scales just keep tipping in their favor.Then, once Russia is unable to continue this war Ukraine should have plenty of time to rebuild unmolested as it'll most likely take several decades for Russia to get its economy and military back on its feet. Probably won't happen during my lifetime. I'll have to disagree with the bolded part. Ukraine may have less of a problem than Russia to wage a long war that goes on for several years and beyond, but that scenario would be a huge failure for Ukraine and the odds of reclaiming their territory would drop close to zero. Ukraine needs to make big progress each consecutive year, otherwise they'll likely stall for many years, if not indefinitely. Therefore Russia "bleeding dry" is not a winning scenario, because that would take far too long (see wars the US has fought for comparison). Ukraine can't afford to wait for that, they have to progress frequently and with great territorial gains. The core problem is that even if Ukraine liberates all of their territory, that doesn't mean the war ends. Russia can just keep on sending men into Ukraine, and Ukraine can't really march on Moscow to end the war. So even if Ukraine makes massive progress and throws Russia out of Ukrainian territory, they may still need to wait for Russia to bleed itself dry for the war to end. The war keeps going until Russia decides that they are done watching their men die pointlessly in Ukraine. Well, ok that's a good point. The war is technically not over if Ukraine reclaims their territory, especially not if their leadership keeps pursuing Crimea as well (I just don't think Crimea is a realistic target for Ukraine in the coming years, or perhaps ever). At least then Ukraine can focus on defending. If Russia keeps attacking relentlessly after losing all territory, they won't be able to rebuild their old army strength at the same time. NATO can then also use the opportunity to establish bases in Ukraine to help defend against terror attacks. The conflict would likely turn much colder, perhaps with the occasional terror attack, or not. These will become increasingly futile. You think Russia can hold Crimea after Ukraine reclaims the land route and blows up the bridge to Russia?
|
On January 01 2023 23:41 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2023 23:04 Manit0u wrote:On January 01 2023 20:45 Magic Powers wrote:Putin's decree from late 2022 for further mobilization went into effect. 137 000 more soldiers this January, the aim is to get over 2 million soldiers in the army. The narrative is still the same: NATO is the enemy, they keep coming closer to Russia's borders, yada yada. https://newsunrolled.com/politics/153383.html I think this doesn't really matter that much. Sure, it'll mean way more people are going to die but I don't think it'll actually help Russia in any way. It doesn't matter if you have a lot of men if you don't have equipment to go along with it and pretty much all the assessments to date agree that Russia is running low on almost everything. Add to that the fact that sanctions make it virtually impossible for them to replenish some of their stocks (can't make more advanced missiles, vehicles, ordnance, airplanes and helicopters) and then there's the problem of their industry not moving into war scenario (because of insistence on calling it "a special operation"). Ukraine has access to more men than Russia and with the steady supply of equipment and munitions from the West all they really need to do is hold on and wait until Russia bleeds itself dry. The longer this conflict goes the more advantage Ukraine gets and the scales just keep tipping in their favor.Then, once Russia is unable to continue this war Ukraine should have plenty of time to rebuild unmolested as it'll most likely take several decades for Russia to get its economy and military back on its feet. Probably won't happen during my lifetime. I'll have to disagree with the bolded part. Ukraine may have less of a problem than Russia to wage a long war that goes on for several years and beyond, but that scenario would be a huge failure for Ukraine and the odds of reclaiming their territory would drop close to zero. Ukraine needs to make big progress each consecutive year, otherwise they'll likely stall for many years, if not indefinitely. Therefore Russia "bleeding dry" is not a winning scenario, because that would take far too long (see wars the US has fought for comparison). Ukraine can't afford to wait for that, they have to progress frequently and with great territorial gains.
Those statements are not contradictory. Russia bleeding itself dry would let Ukraine recapture territory easier. In my opinion the onus is actually on Russia to make progress to justify the war and for several months now they've mostly been losing ground. It's almost uncanny how this entire situation resembles Operation Barbarossa from WW2, this time Russia being the aggressor. And we all know how this ended once the Lend-Lease was put in motion.
|
On January 02 2023 00:26 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2023 00:16 Magic Powers wrote:On January 01 2023 23:48 SC-Shield wrote:On January 01 2023 23:41 Magic Powers wrote:On January 01 2023 23:04 Manit0u wrote:On January 01 2023 20:45 Magic Powers wrote:Putin's decree from late 2022 for further mobilization went into effect. 137 000 more soldiers this January, the aim is to get over 2 million soldiers in the army. The narrative is still the same: NATO is the enemy, they keep coming closer to Russia's borders, yada yada. https://newsunrolled.com/politics/153383.html I think this doesn't really matter that much. Sure, it'll mean way more people are going to die but I don't think it'll actually help Russia in any way. It doesn't matter if you have a lot of men if you don't have equipment to go along with it and pretty much all the assessments to date agree that Russia is running low on almost everything. Add to that the fact that sanctions make it virtually impossible for them to replenish some of their stocks (can't make more advanced missiles, vehicles, ordnance, airplanes and helicopters) and then there's the problem of their industry not moving into war scenario (because of insistence on calling it "a special operation"). Ukraine has access to more men than Russia and with the steady supply of equipment and munitions from the West all they really need to do is hold on and wait until Russia bleeds itself dry. The longer this conflict goes the more advantage Ukraine gets and the scales just keep tipping in their favor.Then, once Russia is unable to continue this war Ukraine should have plenty of time to rebuild unmolested as it'll most likely take several decades for Russia to get its economy and military back on its feet. Probably won't happen during my lifetime. I'll have to disagree with the bolded part. Ukraine may have less of a problem than Russia to wage a long war that goes on for several years and beyond, but that scenario would be a huge failure for Ukraine and the odds of reclaiming their territory would drop close to zero. Ukraine needs to make big progress each consecutive year, otherwise they'll likely stall for many years, if not indefinitely. Therefore Russia "bleeding dry" is not a winning scenario, because that would take far too long (see wars the US has fought for comparison). Ukraine can't afford to wait for that, they have to progress frequently and with great territorial gains. Ukraine has the momentum though, doesn't it? They reclaimed part of Kherson, they got Kharkiv back. They went from "Kyiv is falling" to counter-offensives. The best Russians can do is to fortify themselves in currently occupied territories, I think. The more Ukraine wins, the less time Putin has in power in my opinion and he knows it. I'd say I mostly agree. Ukraine has some momentum and is building more of it. 2023 they'll have to demonstrate that their advantage is enough to continue to make large territorial gains. If that fails, then 2024 would likely be their last opportunity to show progress, because most people won't want to support a futile war effort. On January 01 2023 23:49 Simberto wrote:On January 01 2023 23:41 Magic Powers wrote:On January 01 2023 23:04 Manit0u wrote:On January 01 2023 20:45 Magic Powers wrote:Putin's decree from late 2022 for further mobilization went into effect. 137 000 more soldiers this January, the aim is to get over 2 million soldiers in the army. The narrative is still the same: NATO is the enemy, they keep coming closer to Russia's borders, yada yada. https://newsunrolled.com/politics/153383.html I think this doesn't really matter that much. Sure, it'll mean way more people are going to die but I don't think it'll actually help Russia in any way. It doesn't matter if you have a lot of men if you don't have equipment to go along with it and pretty much all the assessments to date agree that Russia is running low on almost everything. Add to that the fact that sanctions make it virtually impossible for them to replenish some of their stocks (can't make more advanced missiles, vehicles, ordnance, airplanes and helicopters) and then there's the problem of their industry not moving into war scenario (because of insistence on calling it "a special operation"). Ukraine has access to more men than Russia and with the steady supply of equipment and munitions from the West all they really need to do is hold on and wait until Russia bleeds itself dry. The longer this conflict goes the more advantage Ukraine gets and the scales just keep tipping in their favor.Then, once Russia is unable to continue this war Ukraine should have plenty of time to rebuild unmolested as it'll most likely take several decades for Russia to get its economy and military back on its feet. Probably won't happen during my lifetime. I'll have to disagree with the bolded part. Ukraine may have less of a problem than Russia to wage a long war that goes on for several years and beyond, but that scenario would be a huge failure for Ukraine and the odds of reclaiming their territory would drop close to zero. Ukraine needs to make big progress each consecutive year, otherwise they'll likely stall for many years, if not indefinitely. Therefore Russia "bleeding dry" is not a winning scenario, because that would take far too long (see wars the US has fought for comparison). Ukraine can't afford to wait for that, they have to progress frequently and with great territorial gains. The core problem is that even if Ukraine liberates all of their territory, that doesn't mean the war ends. Russia can just keep on sending men into Ukraine, and Ukraine can't really march on Moscow to end the war. So even if Ukraine makes massive progress and throws Russia out of Ukrainian territory, they may still need to wait for Russia to bleed itself dry for the war to end. The war keeps going until Russia decides that they are done watching their men die pointlessly in Ukraine. Well, ok that's a good point. The war is technically not over if Ukraine reclaims their territory, especially not if their leadership keeps pursuing Crimea as well (I just don't think Crimea is a realistic target for Ukraine in the coming years, or perhaps ever). At least then Ukraine can focus on defending. If Russia keeps attacking relentlessly after losing all territory, they won't be able to rebuild their old army strength at the same time. NATO can then also use the opportunity to establish bases in Ukraine to help defend against terror attacks. The conflict would likely turn much colder, perhaps with the occasional terror attack, or not. These will become increasingly futile. You think Russia can hold Crimea after Ukraine reclaims the land route and blows up the bridge to Russia?
Islands like that one are notoriously hard to invade, and the land strip that's connecting it is far too small to matter. I'm only going by what analysts are saying about it, and as far as I can tell they're not generally optimistic about Ukraine's chances there. And the Kerch bridge has again been functional (enough) for a while, so I wouldn't count that as a a signal for the potential liberation of Crimea, it was more a success regarding supply to the occupied Oblasts.
|
On January 02 2023 00:33 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2023 00:26 Gorsameth wrote:On January 02 2023 00:16 Magic Powers wrote:On January 01 2023 23:48 SC-Shield wrote:On January 01 2023 23:41 Magic Powers wrote:On January 01 2023 23:04 Manit0u wrote:On January 01 2023 20:45 Magic Powers wrote:Putin's decree from late 2022 for further mobilization went into effect. 137 000 more soldiers this January, the aim is to get over 2 million soldiers in the army. The narrative is still the same: NATO is the enemy, they keep coming closer to Russia's borders, yada yada. https://newsunrolled.com/politics/153383.html I think this doesn't really matter that much. Sure, it'll mean way more people are going to die but I don't think it'll actually help Russia in any way. It doesn't matter if you have a lot of men if you don't have equipment to go along with it and pretty much all the assessments to date agree that Russia is running low on almost everything. Add to that the fact that sanctions make it virtually impossible for them to replenish some of their stocks (can't make more advanced missiles, vehicles, ordnance, airplanes and helicopters) and then there's the problem of their industry not moving into war scenario (because of insistence on calling it "a special operation"). Ukraine has access to more men than Russia and with the steady supply of equipment and munitions from the West all they really need to do is hold on and wait until Russia bleeds itself dry. The longer this conflict goes the more advantage Ukraine gets and the scales just keep tipping in their favor.Then, once Russia is unable to continue this war Ukraine should have plenty of time to rebuild unmolested as it'll most likely take several decades for Russia to get its economy and military back on its feet. Probably won't happen during my lifetime. I'll have to disagree with the bolded part. Ukraine may have less of a problem than Russia to wage a long war that goes on for several years and beyond, but that scenario would be a huge failure for Ukraine and the odds of reclaiming their territory would drop close to zero. Ukraine needs to make big progress each consecutive year, otherwise they'll likely stall for many years, if not indefinitely. Therefore Russia "bleeding dry" is not a winning scenario, because that would take far too long (see wars the US has fought for comparison). Ukraine can't afford to wait for that, they have to progress frequently and with great territorial gains. Ukraine has the momentum though, doesn't it? They reclaimed part of Kherson, they got Kharkiv back. They went from "Kyiv is falling" to counter-offensives. The best Russians can do is to fortify themselves in currently occupied territories, I think. The more Ukraine wins, the less time Putin has in power in my opinion and he knows it. I'd say I mostly agree. Ukraine has some momentum and is building more of it. 2023 they'll have to demonstrate that their advantage is enough to continue to make large territorial gains. If that fails, then 2024 would likely be their last opportunity to show progress, because most people won't want to support a futile war effort. On January 01 2023 23:49 Simberto wrote:On January 01 2023 23:41 Magic Powers wrote:On January 01 2023 23:04 Manit0u wrote:On January 01 2023 20:45 Magic Powers wrote:Putin's decree from late 2022 for further mobilization went into effect. 137 000 more soldiers this January, the aim is to get over 2 million soldiers in the army. The narrative is still the same: NATO is the enemy, they keep coming closer to Russia's borders, yada yada. https://newsunrolled.com/politics/153383.html I think this doesn't really matter that much. Sure, it'll mean way more people are going to die but I don't think it'll actually help Russia in any way. It doesn't matter if you have a lot of men if you don't have equipment to go along with it and pretty much all the assessments to date agree that Russia is running low on almost everything. Add to that the fact that sanctions make it virtually impossible for them to replenish some of their stocks (can't make more advanced missiles, vehicles, ordnance, airplanes and helicopters) and then there's the problem of their industry not moving into war scenario (because of insistence on calling it "a special operation"). Ukraine has access to more men than Russia and with the steady supply of equipment and munitions from the West all they really need to do is hold on and wait until Russia bleeds itself dry. The longer this conflict goes the more advantage Ukraine gets and the scales just keep tipping in their favor.Then, once Russia is unable to continue this war Ukraine should have plenty of time to rebuild unmolested as it'll most likely take several decades for Russia to get its economy and military back on its feet. Probably won't happen during my lifetime. I'll have to disagree with the bolded part. Ukraine may have less of a problem than Russia to wage a long war that goes on for several years and beyond, but that scenario would be a huge failure for Ukraine and the odds of reclaiming their territory would drop close to zero. Ukraine needs to make big progress each consecutive year, otherwise they'll likely stall for many years, if not indefinitely. Therefore Russia "bleeding dry" is not a winning scenario, because that would take far too long (see wars the US has fought for comparison). Ukraine can't afford to wait for that, they have to progress frequently and with great territorial gains. The core problem is that even if Ukraine liberates all of their territory, that doesn't mean the war ends. Russia can just keep on sending men into Ukraine, and Ukraine can't really march on Moscow to end the war. So even if Ukraine makes massive progress and throws Russia out of Ukrainian territory, they may still need to wait for Russia to bleed itself dry for the war to end. The war keeps going until Russia decides that they are done watching their men die pointlessly in Ukraine. Well, ok that's a good point. The war is technically not over if Ukraine reclaims their territory, especially not if their leadership keeps pursuing Crimea as well (I just don't think Crimea is a realistic target for Ukraine in the coming years, or perhaps ever). At least then Ukraine can focus on defending. If Russia keeps attacking relentlessly after losing all territory, they won't be able to rebuild their old army strength at the same time. NATO can then also use the opportunity to establish bases in Ukraine to help defend against terror attacks. The conflict would likely turn much colder, perhaps with the occasional terror attack, or not. These will become increasingly futile. You think Russia can hold Crimea after Ukraine reclaims the land route and blows up the bridge to Russia? Islands like that one are notoriously hard to invade, and the land strip that's connecting it is far too small to matter. I'm only going by what analysts are saying about it, and as far as I can tell they're not generally optimistic about Ukraine's chances there. And the Kerch bridge has again been functional (enough) for a while, so I wouldn't count that as a a signal for the potential liberation of Crimea, it was more a success regarding supply to the occupied Oblasts.
Bridge is roughly 300km from front lines right now. Add another 20km for where you actually want to put long distance equipment.
If they clear out the land to Crimea they are 150-160 km out. Making it much easier to take it out. Still not exactly close but by that point they have few other viable targets and only need to target it and not much else. Just posture for other stuff to spread out air defence.
|
In Kherson, they made Russia leave by making sure their troops could not be supported. I think there are clear signs they are trying similar tactics going forward, targeting supply routes and depots from a distance.
A much faster way to make Russia retreat would be applying pressure elsewhere. Nato could flex in newly acquired Finland, hinting they could cut off the nuclear plants in Kola, for example. Afaik, Russia currently has nothing to stop anything now, except the nuclear threat.
|
On January 02 2023 02:14 Slydie wrote:
In Kherson, they made Russia leave by making sure their troops could not be supported. I think there are clear signs they are trying similar tactics going forward, targeting supply routes and depots from a distance.
A much faster way to make Russia retreat would be applying pressure elsewhere. Nato could flex in newly acquired Finland, hinting they could cut off the nuclear plants in Kola, for example. Afaik, Russia currently has nothing to stop anything now, except the nuclear threat. Such a threat is simply not credible. No one is going to attack Russia and Russia knows that.
|
United States43458 Posts
On January 02 2023 00:16 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2023 23:48 SC-Shield wrote:On January 01 2023 23:41 Magic Powers wrote:On January 01 2023 23:04 Manit0u wrote:On January 01 2023 20:45 Magic Powers wrote:Putin's decree from late 2022 for further mobilization went into effect. 137 000 more soldiers this January, the aim is to get over 2 million soldiers in the army. The narrative is still the same: NATO is the enemy, they keep coming closer to Russia's borders, yada yada. https://newsunrolled.com/politics/153383.html I think this doesn't really matter that much. Sure, it'll mean way more people are going to die but I don't think it'll actually help Russia in any way. It doesn't matter if you have a lot of men if you don't have equipment to go along with it and pretty much all the assessments to date agree that Russia is running low on almost everything. Add to that the fact that sanctions make it virtually impossible for them to replenish some of their stocks (can't make more advanced missiles, vehicles, ordnance, airplanes and helicopters) and then there's the problem of their industry not moving into war scenario (because of insistence on calling it "a special operation"). Ukraine has access to more men than Russia and with the steady supply of equipment and munitions from the West all they really need to do is hold on and wait until Russia bleeds itself dry. The longer this conflict goes the more advantage Ukraine gets and the scales just keep tipping in their favor.Then, once Russia is unable to continue this war Ukraine should have plenty of time to rebuild unmolested as it'll most likely take several decades for Russia to get its economy and military back on its feet. Probably won't happen during my lifetime. I'll have to disagree with the bolded part. Ukraine may have less of a problem than Russia to wage a long war that goes on for several years and beyond, but that scenario would be a huge failure for Ukraine and the odds of reclaiming their territory would drop close to zero. Ukraine needs to make big progress each consecutive year, otherwise they'll likely stall for many years, if not indefinitely. Therefore Russia "bleeding dry" is not a winning scenario, because that would take far too long (see wars the US has fought for comparison). Ukraine can't afford to wait for that, they have to progress frequently and with great territorial gains. Ukraine has the momentum though, doesn't it? They reclaimed part of Kherson, they got Kharkiv back. They went from "Kyiv is falling" to counter-offensives. The best Russians can do is to fortify themselves in currently occupied territories, I think. The more Ukraine wins, the less time Putin has in power in my opinion and he knows it. I'd say I mostly agree. Ukraine has some momentum and is building more of it. 2023 they'll have to demonstrate that their advantage is enough to continue to make large territorial gains. If that fails, then 2024 would likely be their last opportunity to show progress, because most people won't want to support a futile war effort.
You must be from the timeline where the US didn’t spend $2t nation building in Afghanistan.
|
On January 02 2023 02:23 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2023 00:16 Magic Powers wrote:On January 01 2023 23:48 SC-Shield wrote:On January 01 2023 23:41 Magic Powers wrote:On January 01 2023 23:04 Manit0u wrote:On January 01 2023 20:45 Magic Powers wrote:Putin's decree from late 2022 for further mobilization went into effect. 137 000 more soldiers this January, the aim is to get over 2 million soldiers in the army. The narrative is still the same: NATO is the enemy, they keep coming closer to Russia's borders, yada yada. https://newsunrolled.com/politics/153383.html I think this doesn't really matter that much. Sure, it'll mean way more people are going to die but I don't think it'll actually help Russia in any way. It doesn't matter if you have a lot of men if you don't have equipment to go along with it and pretty much all the assessments to date agree that Russia is running low on almost everything. Add to that the fact that sanctions make it virtually impossible for them to replenish some of their stocks (can't make more advanced missiles, vehicles, ordnance, airplanes and helicopters) and then there's the problem of their industry not moving into war scenario (because of insistence on calling it "a special operation"). Ukraine has access to more men than Russia and with the steady supply of equipment and munitions from the West all they really need to do is hold on and wait until Russia bleeds itself dry. The longer this conflict goes the more advantage Ukraine gets and the scales just keep tipping in their favor.Then, once Russia is unable to continue this war Ukraine should have plenty of time to rebuild unmolested as it'll most likely take several decades for Russia to get its economy and military back on its feet. Probably won't happen during my lifetime. I'll have to disagree with the bolded part. Ukraine may have less of a problem than Russia to wage a long war that goes on for several years and beyond, but that scenario would be a huge failure for Ukraine and the odds of reclaiming their territory would drop close to zero. Ukraine needs to make big progress each consecutive year, otherwise they'll likely stall for many years, if not indefinitely. Therefore Russia "bleeding dry" is not a winning scenario, because that would take far too long (see wars the US has fought for comparison). Ukraine can't afford to wait for that, they have to progress frequently and with great territorial gains. Ukraine has the momentum though, doesn't it? They reclaimed part of Kherson, they got Kharkiv back. They went from "Kyiv is falling" to counter-offensives. The best Russians can do is to fortify themselves in currently occupied territories, I think. The more Ukraine wins, the less time Putin has in power in my opinion and he knows it. I'd say I mostly agree. Ukraine has some momentum and is building more of it. 2023 they'll have to demonstrate that their advantage is enough to continue to make large territorial gains. If that fails, then 2024 would likely be their last opportunity to show progress, because most people won't want to support a futile war effort. You must be from the timeline where the US didn’t spend $2t nation building in Afghanistan.
Yes, that's a valid point. But public opinion strongly shifted from pro- to anti-war regarding Afghanistan. I think the same is likely to happen in Ukraine if the situation on the ground doesn't notably change every so often. People are going to ask "what for?" because they remember what happened the previous times. Most people only take so many setbacks before they no longer care to invest. This is part of what Putin is banking on.
Whereas if Ukraine keeps showing great results, they'll also continue to receive strong public support, and that further increases their chances to succeed.
|
Situation in Ukraine is much different than Afghanistan though. It's not internal conflict in a middle-eastern country but an invasion into pro-democratic state. I have nothing against middle-eastern countries by the way but the fact is that Ukraine is much closer to the West not just in terms of geographic location but on a cultural level. It's not a war in the desert against mountain tribes being led by warlords, it's a war right on the doorstep of the European Union.
Despite how bad it all may sound, optics do matter a lot in this case, especially when we're talking about popular opinion on the matter and garnering support from your citizens to continue your country's involvement in the conflict.
|
On January 02 2023 04:50 Manit0u wrote:
Situation in Ukraine is much different than Afghanistan though. It's not internal conflict in a middle-eastern country but an invasion into pro-democratic state. I have nothing against middle-eastern countries by the way but the fact is that Ukraine is much closer to the West not just in terms of geographic location but on a cultural level. It's not a war in the desert against mountain tribes being led by warlords, it's a war right on the doorstep of the European Union.
Despite how bad it all may sound, optics do matter a lot in this case, especially when we're talking about popular opinion on the matter and garnering support from your citizens to continue your country's involvement in the conflict.
Another relevant difference is between an offensive war and a defensive war. It is a lot easier to support a democratic country defending itself against an autocratic aggressor than it is to support the invasion of a foreign country to "bring them democracy", when clearly the whole thing isn't really working.
And despite this, the US was still in Afghanistan for 20 years. We don't even have to be in Ukraine, we just need to keep sending them guns that we have too many of anyways, and they will bleed a major opponent of the free world dry in an obviously just war.
I honestly doubt that support for Ukraine will dry up quickly.
|
I think it's alright, it's speculation right now anyway. Chances are Ukraine is going to make major moves in 2023.
I'm mostly talking about support because of the situation with the tanks and other weapons. Initially I was hoping Ukraine would get its airforce propped up at some later point in the war, but now that even tanks aren't on the table I have to admit I'm feeling a little frustrated.
|
Ukraine bombed a school in Makiivka that doubled as a Russian base. It also happened to have an ammunition cache in the basement, which exploded. A rough translation of this indicates 500 dead, possibly more, as a result of the strike, most, if not all, mobiks.
|
On January 02 2023 04:59 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2023 04:50 Manit0u wrote:
Situation in Ukraine is much different than Afghanistan though. It's not internal conflict in a middle-eastern country but an invasion into pro-democratic state. I have nothing against middle-eastern countries by the way but the fact is that Ukraine is much closer to the West not just in terms of geographic location but on a cultural level. It's not a war in the desert against mountain tribes being led by warlords, it's a war right on the doorstep of the European Union.
Despite how bad it all may sound, optics do matter a lot in this case, especially when we're talking about popular opinion on the matter and garnering support from your citizens to continue your country's involvement in the conflict. Another relevant difference is between an offensive war and a defensive war. It is a lot easier to support a democratic country defending itself against an autocratic aggressor than it is to support the invasion of a foreign country to "bring them democracy", when clearly the whole thing isn't really working. And despite this, the US was still in Afghanistan for 20 years. We don't even have to be in Ukraine, we just need to keep sending them guns that we have too many of anyways, and they will bleed a major opponent of the free world dry in an obviously just war. I honestly doubt that support for Ukraine will dry up quickly.
Afghanistan never made merch to sell on amazon or made War propaganda of killing Russians with our weapons. 24/7 news an't got shit on phonk drone footage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
