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 19 2024 16:52 zatic wrote: Both sides, Ukraine and Russia, regularly state that all incoming missiles have been shot down and any damage is a result of falling debris.
It's wartime propaganda speech for not all missiles have been shot down and we have been hit.
This is just factually incorrect. Russia always states that everything has been shot down even when their buildings are exploded and on fire, the falling debris is new bullshit. The Ukrainians are non stop saying what % they shot down and pointing out the Hospitals, day cares, schools, power plants, military targets have been hit by Russians and drones. They are then using that as evidence on why they need western anti air as well as begging for a no fly zone.
In no way is this a both thing, that is falling for the Russian propaganda in the same way Zeo says that you can't trust Onyx because both lie as if equally when Russia has only officially claimed 5k deaths the entire war.
I have stated before that just because both sides aren't telling the thruth doesn't mean the truth lies in the middle. Ukraine might embellish their numbers, Russia fabricates complete fantasy.
On September 20 2024 06:18 zatic wrote: I have stated before that just because both sides aren't telling the thruth doesn't mean the truth lies in the middle. Ukraine might embellish their numbers, Russia fabricates complete fantasy.
My apologies, it is very difficult to keep up with what everyone has said in all their posts so I was just responding to the one specific post. I don't really agree with your estimates, but I do agree with the general sentiment of it.
Not in response to either of your posts but as a general statement, I would be quite trusting of the onyx's of the world in their reporting, thinking that they are generally underreporting on losses for both sides as not all losses are provable in the way they demand.
A Ukrainian drone attack on a Russian missile facility early Wednesday threw up towering fireballs visible from space and thundering detonations that triggered earthquake monitors.
Speaking to reporters early Wednesday, Tver Gov. Igor Rudenya said that all drones in the region were shot down and that there was a fire on the ground as a result of debris from a downed drone. As he spoke, loud explosions could be heard in the background.
Some of the workers there had a smoke break and that is where the fires and exlosions come from obviously
On September 18 2024 21:26 Excludos wrote:
On September 18 2024 18:53 Razyda wrote:
On September 18 2024 18:38 Elroi wrote: I don't think they use shovels in actual combat, right?
But sure, that's a good point. Another huge difference (even bigger) is that the Russian propaganda is made on purpose and dictated from the top, while the examples from Reuters and BBC were probably a result of wishful thinking more than anything else.
I think it is actually folding shovel (? not sure if thats correct translation) and it is rather common fighting tool, to the point that training on it was provided in National Service Army (if I remember correctly) in Poland.
Yeah, same in the Norwegian army. The foldable shovels are considered tertiary weapons, and whilst not a huge focus, is trained a little bit with. The amount of options I would have to exhaust before reaching for the damn shovel is enormous though.
IMO "running away" is way higher on the list than using a shovel if you ask me. It's like 1. Use tank/ artillery/ heavy machinerie 2. Use AK / machinegun 3. Use small fire arm/ throwables/ Grenades 4. GTFO ... 199. Use knife 200. Use shovel
I think it is quite possible to be in a sitiuation where running away won't work at all. Like if the other guy jumps into your trench right in front of you or something. If you run, you just get shot in the back.
Yeah I can't imagine waiting in a trench for someone to do me without any kind of firearm only with a knife and a shovel but like you said, what is written here by us nerds and the real world are probably miles apart
The BBC have confirmed (at least) 70,000 dead for Russia in the conflict. They've used obituaries, local news reports, social media etc. to confirm the deaths, and are reporting that volunteers now make up the majority of those killed each month (as opposed to mercenaries, convicts, or conscripts).
EDIT:
"The oldest volunteer killed was 71 years old - a total of 250 volunteers above the age of 60 have died in the war."
Looking at those maps, even if each one is slightly different... as the spelling is.
The Ukrainian counterattack in Kursk is going nowhere, including those 2 small villages and Tektino, and the 3.000 men about to surrender. The Russian counterattack in Kursk took a good chunk of Russia back and is dangerously close to the road at Zelenii Shliag. Russia has been capturing POWs in the area. I read that Ukraine had captured a factory in Vovchansk, but it still shows as in Russian hands. Inactive front, anyway. Russia, from Pishchane, keeps advancing towards the Oskol/Oskil river; and slower from Sinkivka, in the Kupiansk area. Ukraine has the upper hand in the Ternu area, with Russia abandoning efforts to get to the river. Chasiv Iar inactive, but Russia has made two dents across the canal; north and south of the city. In Toretsk, Russia took the prison, a chunk of the southern suburbs and it's still advancing in both fronts. In the Prokovsk area, Ukrainsk and Grodivka fell, Russia has a foothold in Selidove and there are small advances here and there; including towards Girnuk. Vugledar still holding, but Russia slowly advancing from Vodiane. (I also read an extremely optimistic view of Russia taking Novoukrainka and Bogoiavlenka.) I never thought that Kursk was in danger, as I never thought that Krinki was the imminent fall of Sevastopol. I may not see "real progress", but I see slow, constant progress for Russia; that is not an optimistic situation for Ukraine.
Slow constant progress for Russia is not enough. At the current rate it’ll take them a century to get to Kyiv. They have about two years. They need something to change, something other than slow constant progress.
On September 20 2024 22:17 zboh wrote: Looking at those maps, even if each one is slightly different... as the spelling is.
The Ukrainian counterattack in Kursk is going nowhere, including those 2 small villages and Tektino, and the 3.000 men about to surrender. The Russian counterattack in Kursk took a good chunk of Russia back and is dangerously close to the road at Zelenii Shliag. Russia has been capturing POWs in the area. I read that Ukraine had captured a factory in Vovchansk, but it still shows as in Russian hands. Inactive front, anyway. Russia, from Pishchane, keeps advancing towards the Oskol/Oskil river; and slower from Sinkivka, in the Kupiansk area. Ukraine has the upper hand in the Ternu area, with Russia abandoning efforts to get to the river. Chasiv Iar inactive, but Russia has made two dents across the canal; north and south of the city. In Toretsk, Russia took the prison, a chunk of the southern suburbs and it's still advancing in both fronts. In the Prokovsk area, Ukrainsk and Grodivka fell, Russia has a foothold in Selidove and there are small advances here and there; including towards Girnuk. Vugledar still holding, but Russia slowly advancing from Vodiane. (I also read an extremely optimistic view of Russia taking Novoukrainka and Bogoiavlenka.) I never thought that Kursk was in danger, as I never thought that Krinki was the imminent fall of Sevastopol. I may not see "real progress", but I see slow, constant progress for Russia; that is not an optimistic situation for Ukraine.
I like how denial works for Kursk.But yeah, if 3000 Ukrainian were about to surrender there, then you'd be right. For all I can find, Ukraine has had no need to report what they are doing there and what are their targets because they are in a micro battle. They move fast, and don't want to overextend. They have made clear they are not rushing to take a big city, so basically big trolling and it seems to be working better than anyone could expect.
It basically showed that Russia had lower than expected reserves.
I like how denial works for Kursk.But yeah, if 3000 Ukrainian were about to surrender there, then you'd be right. For all I can find, Ukraine has had no need to report what they are doing there and what are their targets because they are in a micro battle. They move fast, and don't want to overextend. They have made clear they are not rushing to take a big city, so basically big trolling and it seems to be working better than anyone could expect.
It basically showed that Russia had lower than expected reserves. [/QUOTE]
On September 20 2024 23:18 KwarK wrote: Slow constant progress for Russia is not enough. At the current rate it’ll take them a century to get to Kyiv. They have about two years. They need something to change, something other than slow constant progress.
One question then, how long it will take Ukraine to all its territory back?
On September 20 2024 23:18 KwarK wrote: Slow constant progress for Russia is not enough. At the current rate it’ll take them a century to get to Kyiv. They have about two years. They need something to change, something other than slow constant progress.
One question then, how long it will take Ukraine to all its territory back?
Ukraine doesn't need to take their territories back inch by inch, trench by trench. They just need to hold until Russia runs out. As has happened in all conflicts so far, once the front starts collapsing, it will collaps all at once.
On September 20 2024 23:18 KwarK wrote: Slow constant progress for Russia is not enough. At the current rate it’ll take them a century to get to Kyiv. They have about two years. They need something to change, something other than slow constant progress.
One question then, how long it will take Ukraine to all its territory back?
It depends on a lot of variables. Consider the western front in WW1. Germany was still entrenched in Belgium when it gave up, it recognized the impossibility of holding the lines without requiring the allies take each trench.
Ukraine just needs to hold until Russia gives up and then they'll just get everything back because I assume Russia will be forced to give up Luhansk, Donetsk and Crimea, returning to the pre-2014 borders.
If that happens Russia will need decades to rebuild its stockpile of arms and by that time Ukraine will probably be a part of NATO and much stronger than it ever was.
On September 20 2024 23:18 KwarK wrote: Slow constant progress for Russia is not enough. At the current rate it’ll take them a century to get to Kyiv. They have about two years. They need something to change, something other than slow constant progress.
One question then, how long it will take Ukraine to all its territory back?
Ukraine doesn't need to take their territories back inch by inch, trench by trench. They just need to hold until Russia runs out. As has happened in all conflicts so far, once the front starts collapsing, it will collaps all at once.
What if Russia doesn't "run out"? Have you considered that? Ukraine has not "run out", but how good is Ukraine "holding out"? Do you remember Russia "holding out" the "land bridge"?
Now, that goes beyond optimism, this is just pure fantasy. "All conflicts"? Do you mean Operation Bagration, when the Group Army Centre was all but destroyed? The Italian front did not collapse, the rest of the East Front did not collapse. Was Ocheretino a "collapsing front"? Izium? You have to update your "collapse" definition and create a whole new definition of "all".
The actual total being higher, but 200.000 would be far too optimistic. 7x3 (minimum) or 7x5 (common), or even 7x10 (posh) would mean around (10x4) 500.000 Russian casualties. We also read about those (8+40) Ukrainian casualties. As I said, you can always choose the number you like.
Maybe the incursion was not that victorious nor that "cheap" (nor that secret according to theguardian).
(This numbers are only the Sudzha area.) Now Naalsio (@naalsio26) is also tracking losses for both sides during this operation. They are reporting on Twitter: Russian losses Ukrainian losses 6-13 August 22 (4 tanks) 29 (4 tanks, 8 IFVs) As of 15 August +5 (+2 tanks, +3 IFVs) +22 (+4 IFVs) As of 20 August +13 (+5 tanks, +2 IFVs) +14 (+4 IFVs) As of 27 August +19 (+3 tanks, +3 IFVs) +22 (+5 tanks, + 7 IFVs) As of 3 September +12 (+1 tank) +19 (+2 tanks, + 6 IFVs) As of 9 September +12 (+1 IFV) +17 (+6 IFVs) Total losses: 83 (15 tanks, 9 IFVs) 123 (11 tanks, 35 IFVs)
There is a discrepancy in Russian losses between Warspotting with 53 items destroyed/captured including 8 tanks, 8 IFVs and Naalsio with 83 items destroyed/captured including 15 tanks, 9 IFVs. https://dupuyinstitute.org/category/eastern-europe/
Maybe the incursion was not that victorious nor that "cheap" (nor that secret according to theguardian).
"On War" is valuable strategy document but in modern days mostly outdated and only some of the more abstract points from it are valid (like Sun Tzu's "Art of War"). You can't apply XIX-th century military doctrine to today's battlefields. Hell, the war in Ukraine is redefining military strategy as we speak, making some tactics from WW2 and even later conflicts obsolete.
Also, the parts they're quoting in the article are really esoteric and unclear. By the same definition you can say that Ukrainians have shifted their center of gravity away from Pokrovsk so the Russian center of gravity can't destroy it and it is thus wasted.
Russia is still applying the WW1 and WW2 concepts to war while Ukraine is playing a completely different game where it can, by utilizing dispersed attacks over a wide area, crippling enemy supply chains and using maneuver warfare instead of engaging in a trench slugfest and direct attrition.
On September 20 2024 23:18 KwarK wrote: Slow constant progress for Russia is not enough. At the current rate it’ll take them a century to get to Kyiv. They have about two years. They need something to change, something other than slow constant progress.
One question then, how long it will take Ukraine to all its territory back?
Ukraine doesn't need to take their territories back inch by inch, trench by trench. They just need to hold until Russia runs out. As has happened in all conflicts so far, once the front starts collapsing, it will collaps all at once.
What if Russia doesn't "run out"? Have you considered that? Ukraine has not "run out", but how good is Ukraine "holding out"? Do you remember Russia "holding out" the "land bridge"?
Now, that goes beyond optimism, this is just pure fantasy. "All conflicts"? Do you mean Operation Bagration, when the Group Army Centre was all but destroyed? The Italian front did not collapse, the rest of the East Front did not collapse. Was Ocheretino a "collapsing front"? Izium? You have to update your "collapse" definition and create a whole new definition of "all".
It's the same winning condition for Russia. Ukraine's front lines could also equally collaps all at once, if they run out of people or equipment, definitely.
On September 20 2024 23:18 KwarK wrote: Slow constant progress for Russia is not enough. At the current rate it’ll take them a century to get to Kyiv. They have about two years. They need something to change, something other than slow constant progress.
One question then, how long it will take Ukraine to all its territory back?
Ukraine doesn't need to take their territories back inch by inch, trench by trench. They just need to hold until Russia runs out. As has happened in all conflicts so far, once the front starts collapsing, it will collaps all at once.
What if Russia doesn't "run out"? Have you considered that? Ukraine has not "run out", but how good is Ukraine "holding out"? Do you remember Russia "holding out" the "land bridge"?
Now, that goes beyond optimism, this is just pure fantasy. "All conflicts"? Do you mean Operation Bagration, when the Group Army Centre was all but destroyed? The Italian front did not collapse, the rest of the East Front did not collapse. Was Ocheretino a "collapsing front"? Izium? You have to update your "collapse" definition and create a whole new definition of "all".
What if Russia consumes at a greater rate than it produces for a sufficient duration that daily excess consumption * days > stockpile but consumption continues to exceed production?
EPT
