|
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 May 12 2024 00:53 Luolis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2024 21:43 zeo wrote:On May 11 2024 15:52 KwarK wrote:On May 11 2024 13:44 zeo wrote:On May 11 2024 03:17 ZeroByte13 wrote:
A buffer zone for what? There has always been talk of creating a buffer or sanitation zone as a response to the supply of long range missiles or weapons to the government in Kiev. Whatever the range of the missiles shipped, thats how far away their possible deployment from populations centers in pre-2022 Russia the buffer zone needs to be. There have also been a few PR border raid campaigns by proxy groups and indiscriminate shelling of civilian areas and something like this has been inevitable for quite some time now. It also lengthens the front, Russia at the end of 2022 was desperate to shorten the front line as much as possible due to manpower shortages but now if the active front line is lengthened by 20-30% its going to cause a lot more problems for Kiev than for Moscow. They don't have the manpower there to take Kharkov head on and that would be a bloody mess but by forcing a combat line filled with personnel that could have been of use elsewhere the attrition rates spike sharply. This is not a reasonable demand. You don’t get to demand that your neighbours surrender all land near your cities, you just have to try to not be the kind of neighbour who deserves missile strikes. That’s what Russia doesn’t understand. Everyone else seems to be able to get along without needing buffer zones because nobody else is attacking their neighbours. Random internet users don't get to decide what is reasonable or not. Countries don't care, they take whatever actions they want to take and justify it with whatever they want, they'll find a reason. Look at Isreal. In this case double down escalation rhetoric has led to a widening of the front. - If you don't pull out of Ukraine we will send missiles! - oh yeah? you do that and we will invade even more - sends missiles - invades even more - oh yeah? because you invaded even more we will do xyz next - ect. ect. The whole 'regions vote to become part of Russia' came about after negotiations failed and Ukraine started getting mass pumped with weapons. Again, its some people at the top weighing the pros and cons on both sides and being careful not to escalate too much. When you full send there is no going back and you lose any leverage you had. Take sanctions as an example, Russia had its arm twisted behind its back since 2014 with sanctions and the threat of being cut off. NATO immediately went all in with sanctions, Russia took the hit and didn't collapse. Now sanctions are rarely mentioned anymore unless as a meme used to laugh at how Europe shot itself in the foot with how impotent they are Sounds to me like we should just bomb the shit country of Russia then if they dont play with the rules.
You should go do that. Not playing by the rules is a grave offence indeed.
At the end of the second day a map from a neutral source. Both sides have widely varying accounts of what's going on but this seems to be the middle-of-the-road consensus. Limited motorized forces deployed, both sides not rushing. Will be interesting to see how things unfold in the next few days. Twelve villages and around 100-120 square km captured by the Russians for now.
That said, the main defensive line is 10km from the border and most of these localities were grey zones / abandoned.
|
Current situation as of yesterday evening:
Russian forces have reached the first real defensive line on this sector. Reports coming in yesterday that a foothold had been gained inside Volchansk and various conflicting news about heavy fighting and abandonment of the town.
Compared to the UKR offencive last year its comparable to reaching Robotyne which was achieved a month into the operation. Robotyne though having a prewar population 40 times smaller than Volchansk
|
Zurich15366 Posts
So Shoigu has a new job and everyone is speculating what that means? Just the Fuehrer reshuffling his siloviki?
|
Finland4632 Posts
On May 13 2024 20:26 zatic wrote:
So Shoigu has a new job and everyone is speculating what that means? Just the Fuehrer reshuffling his siloviki?
He will take some time to install new windows in his apartment
|
On May 13 2024 22:47 0x64 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2024 20:26 zatic wrote:
So Shoigu has a new job and everyone is speculating what that means? Just the Fuehrer reshuffling his siloviki? He will take some time to install new windows in his apartment
Should go for an office on the ground floor or even the basement. A lot safer
|
Here I am with yet another "someone help me understand this" question.
As we all know, Ukraine is having a bad time recently. Lots of "oh shit" talk going around.
France makes an unclear but also very specific declaration: Ukraine will never fall. If France thinks Ukraine is on the verge of being taken over, they will absolutely dive straight in and push back Russia. Let me step you all through my logic diagram regarding this declaration. My conclusion doesn't really make sense, which is why I am here to ask for clarification.
1: If France goes full-ass in pushing Russia out of Ukraine, France will very likely succeed.
2: There's essentially 0 chance Macron made this declaration before discussing it with other members of NATO, such as the US.
3: If France made an attempt to save Ukraine, and then it became apparent that they will not succeed in doing so, Europe/NATO would be forced to offer France additional assistance to prevent them from taking critical losses. Similar to how France has decided Ukraine losing to Russia is critically negative, European nations would absolutely conclude the same thing with France.
4: The chain of intervention described above means that France committing to defend Ukraine ends up leading to NATO committing to defending Ukraine. There's no situation where NATO would allow France to be properly punished for overextending in Ukraine. NATO would bail out France to prevent France from taking critical losses, since those losses would weaken NATO by extension.
5: "If Russia continues to conquer beyond (insert map here), France/Europe/NATO will push Russia back" is equivalent to negotiating a ceasefire. It means Russia can just conquer all of the land right before that red line.
6: The existence of a red line for France, and thus Europe/NATO, means Russia can't conceivably conquer enough of Ukraine to make continued war worthwhile. Once Russia reaches the red line, Ukraine becomes equivalent to a direct ally of Europe/NATO.
7: Russia can't conceivably defeat NATO in any way whatsoever. Its just not even possible if we assume NATO actually goes full-ass. So that means the red line becomes the maximum amount of Ukraine Russia could ever conceivably take. The war machine completely stops as soon as they reach this red line.
In conclusion: Russia continuing to push into Ukraine is strictly incorrect because it isn't possible for them to take enough land to give themselves the ability to pivot away from a war economy. Unlike Crimea, Russia can't benefit enough to make this worthwhile anymore.
I don't think Putin is some kinda genius. But I do think my logic chain must not be true. I suppose its also possible that he considers Russia entirely committed at this point and that pulling back in any way would fundamentally be equivalent to complete failure. And so he may as well keep going. Since Russia can always hide behind nukes, Russia can't conceivably ever be actually conquered. So the worst case scenario for Russia is to be confined to their current state. Maybe Putin considers that intolerable and truly believes in his silly little Russian manifest destiny.
|
for one Russia might not believe France, I know I don't.
They might not believe NATO is committed to bailing out France for what would essentially be an offensive action, not a defensive one.
They might be waiting for Trump to win the election and undermine NATO.
Putin might not have a realistic alternative because his continued rule and life is tied to victory (or not defeat) in Ukraine.
|
United States44202 Posts
When two countries issue incompatible red lines the assumption is that at least one of them is bluffing. The question then is which. Russia’s credibility in this regard is approximately none because they’ve issued a hundred red lines already which have been crossed with impunity. That puts them in a difficult spot when it comes to communicating their actual red lines because they can’t make them sound any different to their fake ones.
|
On May 14 2024 08:12 Gorsameth wrote:
for one Russia might not believe France, I know I don't.
They might not believe NATO is committed to bailing out France for what would essentially be an offensive action, not a defensive one.
They might be waiting for Trump to win the election and undermine NATO.
Putin might not have a realistic alternative because his continued rule and life is tied to victory (or not defeat) in Ukraine.
I can understand the potential to not believe France. But France has plenty of other reasons to try to push back against Russia, so I think its likely credible. But I disagree with NATO letting France be weakened. I think NATO would absolutely prevent France from being punished for over extending.
|
Until France makes a statement like this - Ukraine will never fall, because we'll join the war if Ukraine is close to falling - I wouldn't believe loud but abstract words.
|
History doesn't repeat but often rhymes.
Korean war scenario, starring Ukraine as North Korea, Russia as the Western forces and NATO as China. Stakes are a bit higher, but it seems pretty analogous to me.
|
On May 14 2024 07:34 Mohdoo wrote:
1: If France goes full-ass in pushing Russia out of Ukraine, France will very likely succeed.
Do it. Don't wait, go in now. Whats the worst that can happen?
As for the day 4 update UAF has sent quite a number of reserves to the area but the counterattacks seem to have been ineffectual with the Russian army entering a few more settlements. As of last night RAF had captured 1/3rd of Volchansk and first reports of fighting inside Liptsi were coming in. Waiting for new info this morning regarding Ternova though most seem to believe both thrusts have linked up into a single front over the day.
The initial spears are still limited forces, but if the Russians break through Volchansk the main groupings and mechanized can start flooding in. The next few days are critical.
pravda.com.ua
Interesting news article in Ukrainska Pravda titled 'Where are the fortifications? Kharkiv OVA paid millions to fictitious companies'. Above is the Google translated link. Apparently over 200 million USD was paid to non-existant companies to build fortifications at the Kharkov border. Interesting.
|
Do it. Don't wait, go in now. Whats the worst that can happen?
They could assume that they'd achieve victory in two days weeks months and still be there two years later.
That would be pretty embarrassing, and would make any victory a completely Pyrrhic one.
I can't imagine that happening in this war though...
|
Finland4632 Posts
On May 14 2024 19:48 MJG wrote:They could assume that they'd achieve victory in two days weeks months and still be there two years later. That would be pretty embarrassing, and would make any victory a completely Pyrrhic one. I can't imagine that happening in this war though...
I wish we could upvote comments on TL :D
|
On May 14 2024 19:48 MJG wrote:They could assume that they'd achieve victory in two days weeks months and still be there two years later. That would be pretty embarrassing, and would make any victory a completely Pyrrhic one. I can't imagine that happening in this war though...
You know what we should do? We should ask the losing side how they feel about being on the wrong end of a pyrrhic victory and if it was all worth it in the end. Would they have rather lost a war after two days or two years?
But there will probably be some other thing to stand on a soapbox over for more upvotes during that same time... so why bother? Not like we'll even remember where Ukraine is on a map a year or two after it all over anyway. Not when we've got xy percieved injustice to aggressively respond to in the name of our own definition of yz higher values.
We can't let 'the villans' win can we?!?
|
On May 14 2024 21:37 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2024 19:48 MJG wrote:Do it. Don't wait, go in now. Whats the worst that can happen? They could assume that they'd achieve victory in two days weeks months and still be there two years later. That would be pretty embarrassing, and would make any victory a completely Pyrrhic one. I can't imagine that happening in this war though... You know what we should do? We should ask the losing side how they feel about being on the wrong end of a pyrrhic victory and if it was all worth it in the end. Would they have rather lost a war after two days or two years? But there will probably be some other thing to stand on a soapbox over for more upvotes during that same time... so why bother? Not like we'll even remember where Ukraine is on a map a year or two after it all over anyway. Not when we've got xy percieved injustice to aggressively respond to in the name of our own definition of yz higher values. We can't let 'the villans' win can we?!?
I know you have been told this a hundred times but - what if Russia would just stop attacking its neighbor in a war of aggression? If you are so concerned about the fate of the victims you should be calling for the attacker to stop attacking. It really does not get simpler than that. But here you are glorifying the nation that is 100 % responsible for all the suffering and death that has happened and is still happening.
Maybe think about that at some quiet moment.
|
Of course we can't let the villains win, or we wouldn't name them as such.
|
On May 14 2024 23:13 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2024 21:37 zeo wrote:On May 14 2024 19:48 MJG wrote:Do it. Don't wait, go in now. Whats the worst that can happen? They could assume that they'd achieve victory in two days weeks months and still be there two years later. That would be pretty embarrassing, and would make any victory a completely Pyrrhic one. I can't imagine that happening in this war though... You know what we should do? We should ask the losing side how they feel about being on the wrong end of a pyrrhic victory and if it was all worth it in the end. Would they have rather lost a war after two days or two years? But there will probably be some other thing to stand on a soapbox over for more upvotes during that same time... so why bother? Not like we'll even remember where Ukraine is on a map a year or two after it all over anyway. Not when we've got xy percieved injustice to aggressively respond to in the name of our own definition of yz higher values. We can't let 'the villans' win can we?!? I know you have been told this a hundred times but - what if Russia would just stop attacking its neighbor in a war of aggression? If you are so concerned about the fate of the victims you should be calling for the attacker to stop attacking. It really does not get simpler than that. But here you are glorifying the nation that is 100 % responsible for all the suffering and death that has happened and is still happening. Maybe think about that at some quiet moment.
I'm sure theres no context or pretext for anything happening in Ukraine. Everything can be easily digested into a sentence or two no need to think about anything. Good vs. Evil, black vs. white ect. Oh? Why did Israel kill thousands of children? Well have I got a 3500 word essay going through every single narrative going back to the times of Ancient Egypt for you!
Anyway, a source partly funded by the Ukrainian government posted this:
Translation: About the engineering and fortification preparation of Kharkiv Oblast
📷 These photos show the outskirts of Liptsi and a gift from Ukrainian taxpayers to the enemy. According to the fighters, these barriers have been idle since the summer of 2023.
🫤 Let's not draw conclusions, let them be made by the commission, which will consider the good faith of the contractors who built the defense structures and the responsible persons who were supposed to exercise control.
Well I'll be. One billion USD invested into three lines of defense of which 0 were actually built. These dragons teeth just dumped there last year and there's Ukrainian soldiers on social media posting about how they were forced to sign off on works that never happened
|
Canada11586 Posts
France and Poland likely suffered less initial losses to their country when they fell quickly to the German invasion. But best believe they still wanted their freedom even if less of their population died compared to Russia's attritional warfare in the same war. And maybe France even suffered more losses from the wicked Allies when they liberated France. Won't anyone think of the French losses in the D-Day bombings? Should just let the Germans occupy France as there would be less loss of life and destroyed infrastructure. What cruelty when we just take for granted the necessity of the invading force's quickly gained victories and contrast it to the grinding cost to liberate the same.
|
Not to mention the torture facilities and mass burials of civilians that are uncovered every time ukraine liberates a city, think izyum , bucha , kherson etc.
Everyone except zeo knows this, so it's like we're all talking to one person that will never in a million years change his mind anyway so what's the point.
F16 should arrive in 2-3 months and that will be a weapon system that europe can easily supply ukraine ammunition with, since that's part of the nato doctrine. Will not win the war as everyone always points out but i'm sure those bombs and missiles will destroy russian equipment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
