|
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 July 22 2024 21:51 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2024 17:49 Acrofales wrote:On July 22 2024 11:06 Hvvacha wrote:On July 22 2024 10:58 KwarK wrote:On July 22 2024 10:41 Hvvacha wrote:On June 20 2024 02:20 Excludos wrote:On June 19 2024 01:31 EEk1TwEEk wrote:
The war will then continue,a dn soon there will be no Ukraine, it would be divided by Russia and Poland The lack of self reflection is absolutely astounding to me. Would you be piping the same tone if Russia was the country that was unjustly invaded? And US just said "If you lay down your arms, demilitarize, and don't join any alliances, we'll let you keep Moscow (for now wink wink nudge nudge)"? Ukraine was justly invaded, there is a video from 1990s of Biden himself saying that the Baltics could be invaded if they join NATO, what to speak of Ukraine. Russia swallowed it then, but not anymore, by 2030 Russia will annex the Baltics. https://x.com/Newsweek/status/1501223357701890054 Russia doesn’t have the strongest army in Ukraine. Nice 2022 joke, though reality is Ukraine hasn't won a single battle in the entire war, despite having the single most potent ground force of the West that has adopted more NATO standards than many NATO members combined and that was supposed to have conquered Crimea, that is according to a former US military advisor to Ukraine since 2014. I know you're a troll, but just for the sake of it, here is a list of battles in Ukraine since 2022. There is a not insignificant number of Ukrainian victories: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_engagements_during_the_Russian_invasion_of_UkraineMost notably: Battle of Kyiv Battle of Kharkiv Kherson counteroffensive Those seem like battles that were rather conclusively won by Ukraine. Not to mention the Black Sea situation being extremely embarrassing for Russia (and putting them at severe risk of losing Crimea, a major reason for fighting the war in the first place). According to that (pro-UKR biased) wiki article, Ukraine havent gotten a W in 660 days. I think what the user above is talking about are battles that were not just Russian and local forces retreating without a fight.
The clue to what they're talking about is in their post:
"though reality is Ukraine hasn't won a single battle in the entire war,"
|
Zeo is trying to imply that every Ukrainian victory was just Russia retreating without a fight because great big Russia cannot possibly lose if it doesn't chose to do so.
I don't think anyone is buying it.
|
Canada11439 Posts
No, no. Russia left those areas voluntarily as an act of good faith in negotiations as all Russia ever wanted was piece... a piece of Ukraine, a piece of Poland...
|
Finland962 Posts
"It doesn't count as a win for Ukraine because Russian forces weren't fighting back hard enough" is an incredible take, though.
|
On July 22 2024 22:41 sertas wrote:
Kherson and Kharkiv offensives are far more territory retaken than anything else in the last 2 years and it's not even close
The largest amount of territory changing hands happened within the first weeks with Russian and LNR/DNR forces taking quite a bit out of Ukraine before being stopped by the vast reserves Ukraine had coming into play.
The Russians were completely outnumbered and didnt have anywhere near enough troops to hold or consolidate the Kiev direction and pulled out completely. Those troops were much more needed in other directions which were badly undermanned for the next stage of the conflict. The Izyum direction was left basically with a skeleton crew to strengthen the direction which would have cause Russia enormous problems, i.e. the Melitopol direction.
Would it have turned out better if the Kiev government had thrown everything at cutting off Crimea instead of the easy push into Izyum? Who knows, but the Ukrainian army faired much the same as the Russian army at the beginning, moving and taking unmanned territory while getting attritioned to hell by artillery and sabotage until they met the first lines of organized defense that they were too messed up to break through.
Russia had a choice to make, leave 20.000 troops on the other side of the Dnieper that were getting more difficult to supply or take the L and move them over the river to fill in the gaps and pray they could consolidate the lines enough until the mobilization bore fruit. After that it turned into a completely different war of attrition with completely different rules and objectives. Territory taken is entirely secondary to lives and equipment lost.
|
On July 23 2024 00:58 zeo wrote:Territory taken is entirely secondary to lives and equipment lost.
Russia making tiny advances at tremendous cost in lives and equipment would seem to contract that statement.
|
United States43650 Posts
Yes, territory moved more before the trenches and minefields were established. The question wasn’t why the Kharkiv counteroffensive took so much territory, it was if the Kharkiv counteroffensive happened. The orc posting here asserted that there were no Ukrainian victories at all, all war.
I still like the Black Sea campaign though because Russia initiated that and then got defeated totally. Ukraine had previously accepted a defeat in the Black Sea, they conceded the viability of a Russian blockade, accepted they were blockaded, and submitted to Russian cargo inspections etc. of all imports and exports. Then Russia voluntarily withdrew from the agreement and demanded Ukraine fight their way out of the Black Sea rather than simply submitting. Ukraine took the fight and won and overwhelming victory. Russian ships not only stopped blockading, they left Crimea and retreated to the far eastern shores of the Black Sea. Cargo ships travel freely through the “blockade” unmolested. Grain exports are up and all Russia can do now is war crimes, destroying grain export infrastructure with missile attacks.
Russia already had what they wanted because of their significant naval advantage over Ukraine, which had no navy. But in classic Russian form they demanded more than simply surrender, overplayed their hand, and got turbofucked. That left our resident orc insisting that all that was lost was “decommissioned scrap” which is an amusing self own way of describing their literal flagship and the pride of their navy.
|
On July 23 2024 01:30 KwarK wrote:
Russia already had what they wanted because of their significant naval advantage over Ukraine, which had no navy. But in classic Russian form they demanded more than simply surrender, overplayed their hand, and got turbofucked. That left our resident orc insisting that all that was lost was “decommissioned scrap” which is an amusing self own way of describing their literal flagship and the pride of their navy.
The option they have is of course using their subs to sink any large ship going towards Ukraine in the black sea. Ukraine cannot do anything about it and if they pick their targets well Nato nations won't either. While the cost of insuring any ship to enter will be so high people won't be willing to go there, even if from a safe nation (just make one "mistake").
I guess they are afraid Ukraine would retaliate using drones and missiles against Russian shipping, hurting Russia much more.
|
On July 23 2024 02:37 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2024 01:30 KwarK wrote:
Russia already had what they wanted because of their significant naval advantage over Ukraine, which had no navy. But in classic Russian form they demanded more than simply surrender, overplayed their hand, and got turbofucked. That left our resident orc insisting that all that was lost was “decommissioned scrap” which is an amusing self own way of describing their literal flagship and the pride of their navy. The option they have is of course using their subs to sink any large ship going towards Ukraine in the black sea. Ukraine cannot do anything about it and if they pick their targets well Nato nations won't either. While the cost of insuring any ship to enter will be so high people won't be willing to go there, even if from a safe nation (just make one "mistake"). I guess they are afraid Ukraine would retaliate using drones and missiles against Russian shipping, hurting Russia much more. You think Ukraine would not be able to get anti submarine weapons and sonar from NATO?
|
United States43650 Posts
On July 23 2024 02:37 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2024 01:30 KwarK wrote:
Russia already had what they wanted because of their significant naval advantage over Ukraine, which had no navy. But in classic Russian form they demanded more than simply surrender, overplayed their hand, and got turbofucked. That left our resident orc insisting that all that was lost was “decommissioned scrap” which is an amusing self own way of describing their literal flagship and the pride of their navy. The option they have is of course using their subs to sink any large ship going towards Ukraine in the black sea. Ukraine cannot do anything about it and if they pick their targets well Nato nations won't either. While the cost of insuring any ship to enter will be so high people won't be willing to go there, even if from a safe nation (just make one "mistake"). I guess they are afraid Ukraine would retaliate using drones and missiles against Russian shipping, hurting Russia much more.
Yeah, you can’t do that. You have to stop a ship in person, board it, inspect the cargo for contraband, then seize it. Unrestricted submarine warfare against foreign flagged merchant ships is going to get your submarines destroyed by the USAF.
|
United States43650 Posts
On July 23 2024 02:49 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2024 02:37 Yurie wrote:On July 23 2024 01:30 KwarK wrote:
Russia already had what they wanted because of their significant naval advantage over Ukraine, which had no navy. But in classic Russian form they demanded more than simply surrender, overplayed their hand, and got turbofucked. That left our resident orc insisting that all that was lost was “decommissioned scrap” which is an amusing self own way of describing their literal flagship and the pride of their navy. The option they have is of course using their subs to sink any large ship going towards Ukraine in the black sea. Ukraine cannot do anything about it and if they pick their targets well Nato nations won't either. While the cost of insuring any ship to enter will be so high people won't be willing to go there, even if from a safe nation (just make one "mistake"). I guess they are afraid Ukraine would retaliate using drones and missiles against Russian shipping, hurting Russia much more. You think Ukraine would not be able to get anti submarine weapons and sonar from NATO?
The US would just sink the submarines itself. What he’s describing is piracy and it’s not an act of war to clean up some rogue pirates. We all had a meeting and decided what constitutes a blockade and what is piracy.
|
On July 23 2024 03:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2024 02:49 Gorsameth wrote:On July 23 2024 02:37 Yurie wrote:On July 23 2024 01:30 KwarK wrote:
Russia already had what they wanted because of their significant naval advantage over Ukraine, which had no navy. But in classic Russian form they demanded more than simply surrender, overplayed their hand, and got turbofucked. That left our resident orc insisting that all that was lost was “decommissioned scrap” which is an amusing self own way of describing their literal flagship and the pride of their navy. The option they have is of course using their subs to sink any large ship going towards Ukraine in the black sea. Ukraine cannot do anything about it and if they pick their targets well Nato nations won't either. While the cost of insuring any ship to enter will be so high people won't be willing to go there, even if from a safe nation (just make one "mistake"). I guess they are afraid Ukraine would retaliate using drones and missiles against Russian shipping, hurting Russia much more. You think Ukraine would not be able to get anti submarine weapons and sonar from NATO? The US would just sink the submarines itself. What he’s describing is piracy and it’s not an act of war to clean up some rogue pirates. We all had a meeting and decided what constitutes a blockade and what is piracy.
Well, the US would probably leave it up to Turkey to do that. I don't think they'd want to risk a US pilot getting shot down by Russian AA while hunting pirates in the Black Sea, but yes, it would absolutely be an act of piracy to have submarines torpedo foreign flagged merchant vessels. It'd also be an act of war against whatever country's ship you just happened to torpedo and whatever country's crewmen you killed. They tend to be a motley lot, so you might just be torpedoing a bunch of Chinese. Probably not what you want to do as Russia.
|
Merchant ships also tend to have very diverse (when it comes to nationality) crews. You might end up sinking Panama flagged ship belonging to Japaneese company, captained by Egyptian and crewed by Indians, Indonesians, Poles and Nigerians for example.
Its like buying lotterry ticket with a lot prizes You don't want to win.
|
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cne4vl9gy2wo
An interesting article from the BBC about drone warfare in Ukraine. These frontline soldiers are very aware that their actions are changing the future of infantry warfare, and they're also very aware that the world is learning from them...
Slight trigger warning: There is a video of a Russian soldier being chased and (presumably) killed by a drone.
|
War became even more nerve-wrecking for soldiers, it seems.
Imagine a flying death chasing you and you have almost no chance of surviving.
|
Well the Russian generals have learned to stay far from the war
|
Russia increased their intrest rate from 16 to 18% after inflation increased from 8,6 to 9% from June to July.
Sign up bonuses for the army is also hitting record highs.
|
United States43650 Posts
Yep. They couldn't sell their latest round of bonds because the expectation of future interest hikes caused nobody to want to accept the note at its current value which forced them to do interest hikes. This is exactly how runaway inflation starts.
Same with the signup bonuses. There is no shortage of exceptionally well paid jobs in Russia right now because half a million men are dead or disabled and another million left. The factories need to outbid the army for men and the army need to outbid the factories for men and both are pulling from the same public treasury which is sustained only by selling bonds to banks that it has absolutely no means to honour. They're stuck in a cycle of
1. spend a fortune on labour
2. run up massive budget deficit
3. fortune gets deposited in banks
4. buy the fortune back from the banks with a high interest loan
5. spend a fortune on labour + high interest loan payments
6. run up bigger budget deficit
7. fortune gets deposited in banks
8. higher interest loan
Incidentally, and in another interesting parallel, this is almost exactly what Hitler did in Germany. Profligate government spending couldn't be supported by the revenues and so they simply robbed all the German banks and started paying people with their own money from their savings accounts. As long as nobody actually tries to use their savings it can kind of work for a bit. The people deposit their newly earned income back into the banks and the perfect cycle continues with the workers not realizing that they're actually slaves because the imaginary number on the bank account asserts that they're being paid.
But eventually all these very rich Russians who are earning far more at the tank factory than they imagined would like to spend some of that money. Maybe buy a lada or something. And they're flush with imaginary cash to do it so the price of ladas can soar which is good because it needs to in order for the lada manufacturing line to compete with the jobs at the tank one.
Once the cycle starts there isn't a good way of stopping it. They may well be fucked.
|
On July 28 2024 06:49 KwarK wrote:
Once the cycle starts there isn't a good way of stopping it. They may well be fucked.
Russia being fucked is all well and good. However I kind of feel like China and India might have the means as well as the desire to support Russian monetary schemes while getting something lucrative in return, be it ridiculously cheap resources or some technologies. But once they've had enough and call their loans, Russia should truly be screwed.
|
Russian Federation240 Posts
On July 28 2024 15:03 JoinTheRain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2024 06:49 KwarK wrote:
Once the cycle starts there isn't a good way of stopping it. They may well be fucked. Russia being fucked is all well and good. However I kind of feel like China and India might have the means as well as the desire to support Russian monetary schemes while getting something lucrative in return, be it ridiculously cheap resources or some technologies. But once they've had enough and call their loans, Russia should truly be screwed.
-I hope you can imagine how pathetic this looks from the other side: a poor man, brainwashed to the core, wishing death to the people he never gets to know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
