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.
If this is the pattern across the whole of the east of Ukraine, they're going to have a hard time regaining their land. Assuming the Russian military doesn't flee.
Why would they even try to regain it? If it's just a pile of rubble anyway, just bomb it and all the defenders within and be done with it. Then go around and establish defenses on the other side on the main roads which have strategic importance
EDIT: Sorry I thought we were talking about Bakhmut
If we're talking Bakhmut, this seems to be the conclusion Ukraine reached as well, as they haven't attempted to push into or retake the city for a long time. They've received criticism for holding the little part that they are, but in their defense, the casualties Russia (Wagner) has reached by trying to take it is astounding. Meanwhile, Ukraine is pushing both northern and southern flanks. Sieging the rubles that used to be a city is going to be a lot more effective than trying to go door to door and clear it
Some equipment news: 1. USA joined the "aircraft coallition", in the coming months USA and other countries will be discussing when and how many F-16 UA is going to receive. 2. Italy has secretly provided UA with some B1 Centauro wheeled tanks. 3. Netherlands has cancelled its F-16 sale to Draken International. Contract was for 40 F-16s, they'll most likely go to Ukraine (they're not in the best shape though).
It's nice they are talking options when it comes to aircrafts. Can F-16 help in shooting down missiles for example? I don't see them used offensively since Russia's AA is way too tight but as a defensive measure vs Russia's primary offensive capability which is launching a ton of long range missiles/ drones it could be quite useful
If this is the pattern across the whole of the east of Ukraine, they're going to have a hard time regaining their land. Assuming the Russian military doesn't flee.
Why would they even try to regain it? If it's just a pile of rubble anyway, just bomb it and all the defenders within and be done with it. Then go around and establish defenses on the other side on the main roads which have strategic importance
EDIT: Sorry I thought we were talking about Bakhmut
If we're talking Bakhmut, this seems to be the conclusion Ukraine reached as well, as they haven't attempted to push into or retake the city for a long time. They've received criticism for holding the little part that they are, but in their defense, the casualties Russia (Wagner) has reached by trying to take it is astounding. Meanwhile, Ukraine is pushing both northern and southern flanks. Sieging the rubles that used to be a city is going to be a lot more effective than trying to go door to door and clear it
Part of the criticism is that Ukrainian casualties were similar to Russian ones though. Hard to say if the battle was really worth it for Ukraine.
If this is the pattern across the whole of the east of Ukraine, they're going to have a hard time regaining their land. Assuming the Russian military doesn't flee.
Why would they even try to regain it? If it's just a pile of rubble anyway, just bomb it and all the defenders within and be done with it. Then go around and establish defenses on the other side on the main roads which have strategic importance
EDIT: Sorry I thought we were talking about Bakhmut
If we're talking Bakhmut, this seems to be the conclusion Ukraine reached as well, as they haven't attempted to push into or retake the city for a long time. They've received criticism for holding the little part that they are, but in their defense, the casualties Russia (Wagner) has reached by trying to take it is astounding. Meanwhile, Ukraine is pushing both northern and southern flanks. Sieging the rubles that used to be a city is going to be a lot more effective than trying to go door to door and clear it
Part of the criticism is that Ukrainian casualties were similar to Russian ones though. Hard to say if the battle was really worth it for Ukraine.
Fighting in the trenches of the outskirts most likely led to a casualty ratio of ~7:1 attacker:defender. When fighting reached the inner city with supply routes restricted by the Russians it became more like 1:1. It was reported that Zelenskiy made the decision to hold the city when the generals were in favor of withdrawing. I thought it was to bind Russian troops in preparation of the Ukrainian offensive, but as that didn't happen there must have been some other calculation. Maybe morale, maybe just to eliminate Wagner from the battlefield.
On May 21 2023 18:51 Simberto wrote: I would highly suggest not interacting with zeo, unless you like to get angry and frustrated. Or unless you really want to figure out in real time exactly what the Russian propaganda machine currently spews out.
He has been like this for ages. Zeo will always and exclusively take the most Pro-Russian perspective on any subject, and twist his "facts" to a degree that would break a contortionists back.
I don't know if all Serbians are like that, or if it is only zeo. His one core axiom from which everything follows seems to be "NATO bad". Which obviously means that Russia, who are against NATO, are good.
I've only met two Serbians, both highly educated researchers in STEM living in the West. Both of them are very prone to believing all sorts of anti-Western conspiracies spread by Russia and it always comes down their self-victimisation regarding the NATO intervention in Yugoslavia. At the same time, they consider the Serbian leaders from that time as rabid nationalists/murderers. I'm still puzzled by their logic.
Many serbians have the same disease that russians do - it is their comical nationalism, completely unsupported by realities of the world around them. What eats at them the most, is that Ukraine is trading blows and is holding its own versus what used to be considered a major superpower. Serbian fascism under Milosevic was brought to its knees very quickly and without major drama - Serbia arguably avoided being humiliated by almost looking like a victim for a moment. Apparently, this isn't always a good thing, as many serbians have not learned the lesson.
If any of you haven't seen this two part interview with Spaghetti Kozak - I highly recommend it. There's one thought in there that rings especially true - russians only understand force. They will infinitely argue with you and try to twist reality knowing well that they are wrong, and no facts or arguments will make a dent in their terrible stance. Russia and russians should only be reasoned with through force, and this war should result in their complete and utter humiliation.
If this is the pattern across the whole of the east of Ukraine, they're going to have a hard time regaining their land. Assuming the Russian military doesn't flee.
Why would they even try to regain it? If it's just a pile of rubble anyway, just bomb it and all the defenders within and be done with it. Then go around and establish defenses on the other side on the main roads which have strategic importance
EDIT: Sorry I thought we were talking about Bakhmut
If we're talking Bakhmut, this seems to be the conclusion Ukraine reached as well, as they haven't attempted to push into or retake the city for a long time. They've received criticism for holding the little part that they are, but in their defense, the casualties Russia (Wagner) has reached by trying to take it is astounding. Meanwhile, Ukraine is pushing both northern and southern flanks. Sieging the rubles that used to be a city is going to be a lot more effective than trying to go door to door and clear it
Part of the criticism is that Ukrainian casualties were similar to Russian ones though. Hard to say if the battle was really worth it for Ukraine.
Fighting in the trenches of the outskirts most likely led to a casualty ratio of ~7:1 attacker:defender. When fighting reached the inner city with supply routes restricted by the Russians it became more like 1:1. It was reported that Zelenskiy made the decision to hold the city when the generals were in favor of withdrawing. I thought it was to bind Russian troops in preparation of the Ukrainian offensive, but as that didn't happen there must have been some other calculation. Maybe morale, maybe just to eliminate Wagner from the battlefield.
As that didn't happen, meaning the offensive? Oh it will happen.
Speaking of the offensive there are now reports of Russian partisans attacking inside Russian borders. Russian Volunteer Corps have entered the Belgorod region in several places, they're attacking using helicopters, tanks and artillery. In few places (like Dronovka village) there's intense fighting. Russian guard posts at the border are coming under fire. Belgorod authorities have called a crisis meeting.
The Russian Volunteer Corps (RVC; Russian: Русский добровольческий корпус, РДК, romanized: Russkiy dobrovol'cheskiy korpus, RDK) is a paramilitary unit known for claiming responsibility for an attack in Bryansk Oblast in 2023. The Russian government claimed a Ukrainian group carried out a cross-border "terrorist attack", killing two civilians. The Ukrainian government denied involvement, calling it either a false-flag operation or an attack by anti-government partisans within Russia.
The unit announced its creation in August 2022, claiming to be made up of Russian emigrants fighting against Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Its members have been variously described as right-wing, far-right or neo-Nazi. The group claims to be part of Ukraine's armed forces, but Ukrainian military officials say it is independent.
I think it's them but something might have been lost in translation.
If this is the pattern across the whole of the east of Ukraine, they're going to have a hard time regaining their land. Assuming the Russian military doesn't flee.
Why would they even try to regain it? If it's just a pile of rubble anyway, just bomb it and all the defenders within and be done with it. Then go around and establish defenses on the other side on the main roads which have strategic importance
EDIT: Sorry I thought we were talking about Bakhmut
If we're talking Bakhmut, this seems to be the conclusion Ukraine reached as well, as they haven't attempted to push into or retake the city for a long time. They've received criticism for holding the little part that they are, but in their defense, the casualties Russia (Wagner) has reached by trying to take it is astounding. Meanwhile, Ukraine is pushing both northern and southern flanks. Sieging the rubles that used to be a city is going to be a lot more effective than trying to go door to door and clear it
Part of the criticism is that Ukrainian casualties were similar to Russian ones though. Hard to say if the battle was really worth it for Ukraine.
Fighting in the trenches of the outskirts most likely led to a casualty ratio of ~7:1 attacker:defender. When fighting reached the inner city with supply routes restricted by the Russians it became more like 1:1. It was reported that Zelenskiy made the decision to hold the city when the generals were in favor of withdrawing. I thought it was to bind Russian troops in preparation of the Ukrainian offensive, but as that didn't happen there must have been some other calculation. Maybe morale, maybe just to eliminate Wagner from the battlefield.
As that didn't happen, meaning the offensive? Oh it will happen.
Yes but the timing doesn't work out now as Russia can regroup and rotate in Bakhmut, binding those troops didn't have a huge effect on the coming offensive.
If this is the pattern across the whole of the east of Ukraine, they're going to have a hard time regaining their land. Assuming the Russian military doesn't flee.
Why would they even try to regain it? If it's just a pile of rubble anyway, just bomb it and all the defenders within and be done with it. Then go around and establish defenses on the other side on the main roads which have strategic importance
EDIT: Sorry I thought we were talking about Bakhmut
If we're talking Bakhmut, this seems to be the conclusion Ukraine reached as well, as they haven't attempted to push into or retake the city for a long time. They've received criticism for holding the little part that they are, but in their defense, the casualties Russia (Wagner) has reached by trying to take it is astounding. Meanwhile, Ukraine is pushing both northern and southern flanks. Sieging the rubles that used to be a city is going to be a lot more effective than trying to go door to door and clear it
Part of the criticism is that Ukrainian casualties were similar to Russian ones though. Hard to say if the battle was really worth it for Ukraine.
Fighting in the trenches of the outskirts most likely led to a casualty ratio of ~7:1 attacker:defender. When fighting reached the inner city with supply routes restricted by the Russians it became more like 1:1. It was reported that Zelenskiy made the decision to hold the city when the generals were in favor of withdrawing. I thought it was to bind Russian troops in preparation of the Ukrainian offensive, but as that didn't happen there must have been some other calculation. Maybe morale, maybe just to eliminate Wagner from the battlefield.
As that didn't happen, meaning the offensive? Oh it will happen.
Yes but the timing doesn't work out now as Russia can regroup and rotate in Bakhmut, binding those troops didn't have a huge effect on the coming offensive.
I don't think they can leave Bakhmut now, as Ukrainians started to push the flanks around the area. Whatever they leave will be promptly retaken. Wagner claims to be handing the town over to Russian military, so that will bind more resources there. As you know it's just rubble at this point.
Russian citizens evacuating Belgorod after volunteers crossed the border. I honestly don't understand why Ukraine would approve such a situation to occur, there is no way they did not know of such a plan. Apparently the vehicles used in the attacks can be bought pretty much anywhere. Also a Russian helicopter has apparently been shot down as well. The defenses built for the region cost over $100 million dollars have pretty much proved not to work or deter anything it seems.
Yeah or it's just ukraine troops and they copy paste the russian invasion propaganda in 2014, so maybe they should also start saying belgorod needs to be liberated and they wanna be ukrainian (they speak ukrainian there) haha
I'd imagine NATO is pretty PO'ed right now. This is Russia proper. Also Russia is conducting a counter terrorist action i.e. meaning the Volunteers don't appear to be planning to leave, so are they going to make Russia level an entire area?
On May 23 2023 00:23 Gorsameth wrote: Why would Ukraine be against Russian partisans drawing attention away from an already stretched Russian army while having full deniability?
Because there is no deniability if it occurs from Ukrainian territory and it threatens international support for Ukraine.
Flank the entire Donbass line of fortifications via Belgorod. If this was to happen this would be the one for the books. The best thing is they could never nuke their own territory. This is quite a fantasy but funny nonetheless.
On May 23 2023 00:23 Gorsameth wrote: Why would Ukraine be against Russian partisans drawing attention away from an already stretched Russian army while having full deniability?
Because there is no deniability if it occurs from Ukrainian territory and it threatens international support for Ukraine.
I fail to see why this would threaten international support of Ukraine. This is not the Ukrainian army invading Russia and driving towards Moscow.
On May 23 2023 00:23 Gorsameth wrote: Why would Ukraine be against Russian partisans drawing attention away from an already stretched Russian army while having full deniability?
Because there is no deniability if it occurs from Ukrainian territory and it threatens international support for Ukraine.
I fail to see why this would threaten international support of Ukraine. This is not the Ukrainian army invading Russia and driving towards Moscow.
Absolutely. Why does Ukraine have to play in the sandlot that Russia prefers? Did Russia attack strictly in Donbass when they invaded Ukraine? Do they not attack targets all over Ukraine? This take is nonsensical.
On May 23 2023 01:08 [Phantom] wrote: What does "Volunteer" means here? Basically a terrosits in favor of Ukraine atacking the Russia city from within?
Technically, these are russian volunteers in favor of Russia without Putin. Not unlike russian-propped separatists in Donbass in 2014. The only difference is this isn't meant to become a permanent conflict zone, this is to confuse and stretch the enemy before the offensive. If they use Russian territory to flank russians in Ukraine, it would be absolutely amazing.
EPT
