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 September 10 2024 09:19 Manit0u wrote: It also seems that despite all of the material and production advantages Russia is actually running short on stuff. They're now pulling men from Burkina Faso to get some bodies in the front. The price of military contracts is now 4x higher than initially etc. For all intents and purposes it looks like they're running out of men. It doesn't mean that the situation for Ukraine is much better but overall it seems that the war has definitely taken a heavy toll on Russian military.
You mean that "that the war has definitely not taken a heavy toll on Ukrainian military"? Ukraine is not "running short on stuff"? You mean 100.000 men from Burkina Faso? 10.000 men? Have you read anything about inflation in Ukraine recently? and the salaries of its soldiers? etc...
I think that if you dismount the infantry from their APC you can use them to defend and those vehicles to provide fire support.
There are currently 3 likely major ways the war can end in the next 2 years.
3. Ukraine gives up, most people here doesn't hope for that. They have the equipment, money and people to hold if they want to. It is depressingly costly and they have to draft people to keep the military supplied with enough people.
2. Russia thinks it is too expensive and actually wants a negotiated peace treaty.
1. Putin dies and his replacement thinks 2. is viable since it isn't their sunk cost and goal. Instead wanting a few mansions for his family in London and Paris over a war in Ukraine.
Past that horizon I am not sure how likely a total Ukrainian collapse even if they want to defend is. I also don't know how likely it is that the economical and logistical pressures on Russia makes it incapable of fielding enough hardware to continue the war. Basically ending in a stalemate without a peace treaty, see Korea.
So to summarize why we discuss Russian losses and costs. It is because it is only way that the war ends without Ukraine giving up in the near future. Most of Europe would prefer a scenario where Ukraine still exists as a friend after the war. We would even like it if Russian leadership and way of ruling changed enough so that they can be our friend again.
Man, it's so frustrating too. Everyone wanted the cold war to be over. Everyone wanted to trade, travel, and have good relationship with Russia. They have the worlds biggest landmass, and could have absolutely thrived if they weren't so fucking hellbent on being moustache twirling bad guys for no other reason than some weird paranoia and rose tinted glasses about a long lost empire. EU bent over backwards to appease Russia at every intersection, hoping they would finally wise the fuck up. And then Putin decides to invade a sovereign country.
If Ukraine exists after this war, they'll immediately be embraced by EU and NATO, and welcome into our fold with open arms. The country will be rebuilt into a modern society that will thrive. Meanwhile Russia, win or lose, is going to continue to be angry kid in the corner who can't get along with anyone, struggling with poverty, corruption, high suicide rates, alcoholism, and generally shitty living conditions. No one wanted this, no one but Putin and his cronies.
On September 10 2024 09:19 Manit0u wrote: It also seems that despite all of the material and production advantages Russia is actually running short on stuff. They're now pulling men from Burkina Faso to get some bodies in the front. The price of military contracts is now 4x higher than initially etc. For all intents and purposes it looks like they're running out of men. It doesn't mean that the situation for Ukraine is much better but overall it seems that the war has definitely taken a heavy toll on Russian military.
You mean that "that the war has definitely not taken a heavy toll on Ukrainian military"? Ukraine is not "running short on stuff"? You mean 100.000 men from Burkina Faso? 10.000 men? Have you read anything about inflation in Ukraine recently? and the salaries of its soldiers? etc...
I think that if you dismount the infantry from their APC you can use them to defend and those vehicles to provide fire support.
There are currently 3 likely major ways the war can end in the next 2 years.
3. Ukraine gives up, most people here doesn't hope for that. They have the equipment, money and people to hold if they want to. It is depressingly costly and they have to draft people to keep the military supplied with enough people.
2. Russia thinks it is too expensive and actually wants a negotiated peace treaty.
1. Putin dies and his replacement thinks 2. is viable since it isn't their sunk cost and goal. Instead wanting a few mansions for his family in London and Paris over a war in Ukraine.
Past that horizon I am not sure how likely a total Ukrainian collapse even if they want to defend is. I also don't know how likely it is that the economical and logistical pressures on Russia makes it incapable of fielding enough hardware to continue the war. Basically ending in a stalemate without a peace treaty, see Korea.
So to summarize why we discuss Russian losses and costs. It is because it is only way that the war ends without Ukraine giving up in the near future. Most of Europe would prefer a scenario where Ukraine still exists as a friend after the war. We would even like it if Russian leadership and way of ruling changed enough so that they can be our friend again.
The important thing about 3 is also that surrendering actually costs Ukraine more then keeping on fighting, because we know what Russia does to people they conquer.
We all got the point from foreign affairs, right? "Russia retains an advantage in manpower, equipment, and ammunition."
Ukraine is not NATO. What NATO could do is one thing, what NATO is doing is a different thing; and no country is going to disarm itself to arm Ukraine. Ukraine is fighting this war, not NATO.
I see your optimism, but you are saying that as soon as, or if, NATO cuts its support, Ukraine will fight with sticks and stones.
I don't think that Kursk offensive was a good idea, I think it's another Anzio.
On September 11 2024 09:11 zboh wrote: I don't think that Kursk offensive was a good idea, I think it's another Anzio.
Kursk offensive was actually a brilliant idea for several reasons:
1. Potential forced peace "at current borders" is now unacceptable for Russia. 2. Ukraine can fight the way they want to (maneuver warfare) instead of fighting the way Russia wants (attrition warfare). 3. It creates internal tension within Russia. Just look how panicked their propaganda media are now, they don't even know what to say. They're calling it "unlawful invasion" and "terrorism" like they weren't doing the same thing in Ukraine. 4. If Russia wants to push Ukrainians out of their territory (and they really have to if they want to claim any real success) they need to pull men and equipment from other parts of the front, which will ease the tension there and potentially open them up for Ukrainian counter-offensive. 5. Russia can't really use their favorite tactics on their own territory (razing everything to the ground) which is a big bummer for them. 6. Ukraine can show some visible signs of success to the doubters. 7. Ukraine can also now maybe renegotiate the whole "don't use our stuff on Russian territory" because they have shown that they can win against Russia even when their hands are somewhat tied.
Kursk offensive was actually a brilliant idea for several reasons: 1. Potential forced peace "at current borders" is now unacceptable for Russia. 2. Ukraine can fight the way they want to (maneuver warfare) instead of fighting the way Russia wants (attrition warfare). 3. It creates internal tension within Russia. Just look how panicked their propaganda media are now, they don't even know what to say. They're calling it "unlawful invasion" and "terrorism" like they weren't doing the same thing in Ukraine. 4. If Russia wants to push Ukrainians out of their territory (and they really have to if they want to claim any real success) they need to pull men and equipment from other parts of the front, which will ease the tension there and potentially open them up for Ukrainian counter-offensive. 5. Russia can't really use their favorite tactics on their own territory (razing everything to the ground) which is a big bummer for them. 6. Ukraine can show some visible signs of success to the doubters. 7. Ukraine can also now maybe renegotiate the whole "don't use our stuff on Russian territory" because they have shown that they can win against Russia even when their hands are somewhat tied.[/QUOTE]
I have seen already (since noon UK) four sources, your "brilliant idea" is not going well.
1. I don't think Russia is in a hurry. (It is not "Peace", it's negotiations). 2. Russia is maneuvering here (Kursk) and in Prokrovsk (and in Vodiane, Pischchane, Prechistivka and Lisivka); look at the maps. 3. I seems that they don't have to, because Ukraine doesn't have enough forces in Kursk. 5. That is war. Do you think Ukraine is not shelling Ukraine? 6. Looking at the maps this morning, I was thinking... Let's give it a couple of weeks. Let's look at your "success" in two weeks time. (I may be wrong). 7. They have already shown that they are capable of limited successful operations (as Russia has), it's just that you need a lot of them to win a war.
Maybe looking at the maps will temper a bit your optimism into realism.
Well, the only part of the map where Russia seems to have made any real progress in the past week is near Pokrovsk, which was expected since they have the majority of their forces gathered there and from what I'm hearing Ukrainians aren't super hell bent on throwing everything there just yet because it'll still be a while until Russia can begin laying siege to the city. They'll probably also lose more ground to the south of Pokrovsk in the coming days to evacuate a pocket but it's nothing there (just open fields) so no big tactical loss. It'll be more problematic if Russians can capture the highlands near Kurakhivka.
We'll have to wait and see. We don't really know what's happening in the Kursk region because Ukraine is operating under pretty heavy opsec there so they're not releasing too many videos, pictures or statements. People only rely on Russian reports, which are still saying that they had success near Snagost but while they keep saying that the videos supporting those claims stopped showing all of the sudden.
On September 13 2024 12:20 Manit0u wrote: Well, the only part of the map where Russia seems to have made any real progress in the past week is near Pokrovsk, which was expected since they have the majority of their forces gathered there and from what I'm hearing Ukrainians aren't super hell bent on throwing everything there just yet because it'll still be a while until Russia can begin laying siege to the city. They'll probably also lose more ground to the south of Pokrovsk in the coming days to evacuate a pocket but it's nothing there (just open fields) so no big tactical loss. It'll be more problematic if Russians can capture the highlands near Kurakhivka. We'll have to wait and see. We don't really know what's happening in the Kursk region because Ukraine is operating under pretty heavy opsec there so they're not releasing too many videos, pictures or statements. People only rely on Russian reports, which are still saying that they had success near Snagost but while they keep saying that the videos supporting those claims stopped showing all of the sudden.
It's good to see your optimism talking again. Where, then, has Ukraine "made any real progress in the past week"? And, what else but open fields (and Sudzha) has Ukraine captured in Kursk?
You are saying that Zelenskyi is quite happy to get Prokrovsk in the front line? Hoping for a Bakhmut, instead of an Avdiivka?
On September 13 2024 12:20 Manit0u wrote: Well, the only part of the map where Russia seems to have made any real progress in the past week is near Pokrovsk, which was expected since they have the majority of their forces gathered there and from what I'm hearing Ukrainians aren't super hell bent on throwing everything there just yet because it'll still be a while until Russia can begin laying siege to the city. They'll probably also lose more ground to the south of Pokrovsk in the coming days to evacuate a pocket but it's nothing there (just open fields) so no big tactical loss. It'll be more problematic if Russians can capture the highlands near Kurakhivka. We'll have to wait and see. We don't really know what's happening in the Kursk region because Ukraine is operating under pretty heavy opsec there so they're not releasing too many videos, pictures or statements. People only rely on Russian reports, which are still saying that they had success near Snagost but while they keep saying that the videos supporting those claims stopped showing all of the sudden.
It's good to see your optimism talking again. Where, then, has Ukraine "made any real progress in the past week"? And, what else but open fields (and Sudzha) has Ukraine captured in Kursk?
You are saying that Zelenskyi is quite happy to get Prokrovsk in the front line? Hoping for a Bakhmut, instead of an Avdiivka?
Every day since the beginning of the war where Ukraine has not been defeated makes us more optimistic
On September 13 2024 14:00 zboh wrote: what else but open fields (and Sudzha) has Ukraine captured in Kursk?
They gained control of the gas metering station in Sudzha which is responsible for all gas transport from Russia to Ukraine and EU. Also, Kursk region is the breadbasket of Russia (responsible for majority of their valuable grain) which might be significant during the winter since it's the harvest season now.
It's not like Ukraine just attacked at random. This incursion was executed over the course of 6 months of deception and preparation leading to the actual attack.
Recent reports state that Russian advance towards Pokrovsk has been stalled and Ukrainians are even pushing back in some places. There are also reports of a new incursion in Kursk region, entering from a different direction and taking the town of Veseloe, putting Russian forces there in a precarious position as they can get encircled.
I must say that i am a bit concerned about the "Ukrainian Khorne Group, which is part of the 116th brigade" mentioned in that article. Blood for the Blood God?
On September 15 2024 06:25 Simberto wrote: I must say that i am a bit concerned about the "Ukrainian Khorne Group, which is part of the 116th brigade" mentioned in that article. Blood for the Blood God?
On September 13 2024 14:00 zboh wrote: what else but open fields (and Sudzha) has Ukraine captured in Kursk?
They gained control of the gas metering station in Sudzha which is responsible for all gas transport from Russia to Ukraine and EU. Also, Kursk region is the breadbasket of Russia (responsible for majority of their valuable grain) which might be significant during the winter since it's the harvest season now.
It's not like Ukraine just attacked at random. This incursion was executed over the course of 6 months of deception and preparation leading to the actual attack.
Kursk region as a whole is only 3,7% of Russian grain production https://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/158306/ And Ukraine controls like 1/25-1/30 of it, which makes what, 0,12-0,15% drop in overall grain production? It's not much of an impact. And If Ukraine wanted to stop gas transfer to EU, they just could blow up the pipe anywhere on Ukraine territory and blame it on Russian bombing. And if they don't want to stop it, this control does essentially nothing.
So if any objective there were, it is definetly not gas and grain.
On September 15 2024 06:25 Simberto wrote: I must say that i am a bit concerned about the "Ukrainian Khorne Group, which is part of the 116th brigade" mentioned in that article. Blood for the Blood God?
UAV combat unit. They operate under this name since late 2022 or something.
On September 13 2024 14:00 zboh wrote: what else but open fields (and Sudzha) has Ukraine captured in Kursk?
They gained control of the gas metering station in Sudzha which is responsible for all gas transport from Russia to Ukraine and EU. Also, Kursk region is the breadbasket of Russia (responsible for majority of their valuable grain) which might be significant during the winter since it's the harvest season now.
It's not like Ukraine just attacked at random. This incursion was executed over the course of 6 months of deception and preparation leading to the actual attack.
Kursk region as a whole is only 3,7% of Russian grain production https://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/158306/ And Ukraine controls like 1/25-1/30 of it, which makes what, 0,12-0,15% drop in overall grain production? It's not much of an impact. And If Ukraine wanted to stop gas transfer to EU, they just could blow up the pipe anywhere on Ukraine territory and blame it on Russian bombing. And if they don't want to stop it, this control does essentially nothing.
So if any objective there were, it is definetly not gas and grain.
On September 15 2024 06:25 Simberto wrote: I must say that i am a bit concerned about the "Ukrainian Khorne Group, which is part of the 116th brigade" mentioned in that article. Blood for the Blood God?
UAV combat unit. They operate under this name since late 2022 or something.
The grain production numbers are hard to get because it's more complex than that. You have seasonal crops which are farmed in different parts of the country and different types of grains. Russia has huge farming area overall but Kursk is where the black earth is and where the most valuable crops are being gathered.
Just like Belgorod region is pretty vital to Russia since it's responsible for I think 40% of their iron mining.
Recent Ukrainian reports? This is ISW (a pro-Ukrainian source): "Russian forces recently advanced southeast of Pokrovsk amid continued intensive offensive operations in this direction on September 14. Geolocated footage published on September 13 shows Russian forces assaulting and seizing a Ukrainian trench northwest of Ukrainsk (southeast of Pokrovsk), indicating that Russian forces have advanced west of Ukrainsk via the northern flank, at minimum. Russian forces are likely trying to pressure Ukrainian forces out of Ukrainsk by prioritizing advances on its northern and southern flanks and are likely waiting until Ukrainian troops withdraw from the settlement under the threat of encirclement before directly assaulting the settlement. Russian forces may have seized all of Ukrainsk, although ISW has not observed no visual confirmation of the Russian seizure of Ukrainsk." https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-september-14-2024
Even if "the grain production numbers are hard to get", just give us an estimate of how many thousands of tons Ukraine is going to harvest in Kursk or how many thousands of tons is Russia not going to harvest. Are you suggesting that Russia, not Ukraine, is going to ration bread this winter?
Not as optimistic as you: "Due to mines and other explosive objects, Ukraine loses 11.2 billion dollars every year. The biggest losses are due to reduced grain exports and lower local tax revenues. This is reported by the Ministry of Economy of Ukraine with reference to the study of the Tony Blair Institute." https://suspilne.media/834295-zbitki-ukraini-cerez-zaminuvanna-ponad-11-mlrd-soroku/
I almost forget... Is that what you call "real progress", "in the past week"? Real Ukranian progress, in this case?
Scroll down to Government support to Ukraine: Type of assistance, € billion
-------
Ukraine is fighting a defensive war. They win each week where Russia gain a few square km since sooner or later Russia will give up due to how costly it is. Of course Ukraine would win more if they were making gains.
On September 15 2024 14:19 zboh wrote: "Due to mines and other explosive objects, Ukraine loses 11.2 billion dollars every year. The biggest losses are due to reduced grain exports and lower local tax revenues. This is reported by the Ministry of Economy of Ukraine with reference to the study of the Tony Blair Institute." https://suspilne.media/834295-zbitki-ukraini-cerez-zaminuvanna-ponad-11-mlrd-soroku/
Well, the war costs Russia $300 million per day so over $100 billion per year. And that's just the face value of payroll and equipment.
Ukraine isn't going to ration bread lol. It's one of the biggest grain producers in the world. It's struggling to get all its surplus grain to market due to Russia targeting export infrastructure at Black Sea ports. They're drowning in grain.
India should not be biased about this war; not much, anyway
Under the circumstances, a US/NATO weapon that navigates through (recognized) sovereign Russian airspace, using guidance signals beamed by US military satellites, to strike a target in sovereign Russian territory could be deemed as an act of war against Russia by the US/NATO. The fact that the weapons are launched from Ukraine is immaterial. It would make Ukraine complicit, but it would not make Ukraine the attacker. Ukraine has to be viewed just as another of the over 800 overseas military bases from which the US can mount attacks on its adversaries. https://www.eurasiantimes.com/deep-strikes-into-russia-m-code-satellite/
Sometimes we read victorious reports by Ukraine about Russian drones. Fly the drones to heights where they can only be engaged with missiles. Not with guns. a. Any missile fired at the drone is likely to be more expensive than the drone. Assuming it takes two missiles to down a low-signature drone, Russia would achieve a victory by imposing a heavier cost b. Depleting Ukrainian AD missile stocks c. Gaining intelligence on AD system deployment for follow on SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defence) attacks with Iskander-M missiles. https://www.eurasiantimes.com/all-89-russian-drones-wiped-out-during/
The problem with the "Iranian missiles for Russia" reports is that similar reports have surfaced in the past. As far back as late 2022, Bloomberg reported the sale of Iranian FATH-360 missiles to Russia, citing European officials. Then too, the sale was reported as being "imminent." The Bloomberg report was followed up by a confirmatory report from Reuters. Still eurasiantimes.
You may get a better "bigger picture" with more points of view. "We need 14 brigades to be ready. Until now ... from these packages we didn't equip even four," Zelenskiy said. 05/09/2024 economictimes.indiatimes.com My point of view would be: For what mission? To attack Robotine, Kursk? To defend Prokrovsk? More importantantly, after those 14, then what, 14 more?
For me, there is also a problem of maths. Let's say 2 years of war, Russia launched 1.000 missiles each year. Russia is bigger, so, let's say, Ukraine has to fire 4.000 western missiles next year, plus another 2.000 for the next 1.000 Russian missiles. All that to cause the same amount of damage that Ukraine has suffered. Ukraine is still fighting. I am not optimistic.
EPT
![[image loading]](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Miranda-Svanidze/publication/334581759/figure/fig1/AS:822555237707776@1573123859064/Map-of-grain-producing-regions-of-Russia.jpg)
