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.
Reports coming in that forward units have captured the last remaining paved road out of Ugledar, one dirt road left which the units still inside the city have been using to evacuate in small numbers under heavy fire. Also reports of shock troops taking the first high rise buildings near the dacha area.
The 72nd had been (quite successesfully) holding the city for two years already, a few weeks ago parts of the 72nd stationed on the flanks were sent to plug the gaps in the Pokrovsk direction and newly mobilized of the 110th were rotated in. Relatively quickly the flanks started failing after that.
Most of the core of the 72nd is apparently still in Ugledar, estimates range up to 2000 troops max (the real number is likely half that), in what condition they are is anyones guess
I am not following anymore the microgame... We've done it for years now, it comes down to nothing. Russia control Bakhmut... Great. Putin can go there for his summer holidays 2025.
I think the vast majority of people here know that the reality catches up in the end, we don't know if the economy collapses in 6 month or 3 years but we just follow simple logic. There is causes and consequences.
The way things have changed now with the ammo supply blowing up suddenly in a very large scale, is much more important than one unit pushing another from a small town.
We don't know how many % Russia can lose of their ammos but we know there is a number that is too high for them to keep fighting.
Zeo, what ammount of tons of munition would consider bad for Russia to lose and how much Russia is capable of producing?
Ardias has been much less active so I am interested on what Russia's official message is on that front.
"We don't know how many % Russia can lose of their ammos but we know there is a number that is too high for them to keep fighting." 0x64 We should also consider how much ammo Ukraine is getting or not getting.
Syrskyi was absolutely right, Russia is not advancing towards Pokrovsk... It seems to be advancing towards the north shore of the Vovcha river, from behind.
On September 24 2024 21:57 0x64 wrote: I am not following anymore the microgame... We've done it for years now, it comes down to nothing. Russia control Bakhmut... Great. Putin can go there for his summer holidays 2025.
I think the vast majority of people here know that the reality catches up in the end, we don't know if the economy collapses in 6 month or 3 years but we just follow simple logic. There is causes and consequences.
The way things have changed now with the ammo supply blowing up suddenly in a very large scale, is much more important than one unit pushing another from a small town.
We don't know how many % Russia can lose of their ammos but we know there is a number that is too high for them to keep fighting.
Zeo, what ammount of tons of munition would consider bad for Russia to lose and how much Russia is capable of producing?
Ardias has been much less active so I am interested on what Russia's official message is on that front.
You dont follow whats going on on the ground because it contradicts the imagined realities and narrative you've copiumed yourself into believing.
Its been a week already and you are still flogging the ammo depot dead horse. Like 1-2 days worth of ammunition for the side with a 10-1 ammo and barrel advantage will make much of a difference. The dogs bark but the caravans keep on moving as they say.
Lines that havent moved in years in hard attrition are moving again after your supposed 'macrogame' moments. Maybe you should start following what is happening on the ground before everything to the Dnieper becomes strategically unimportant and the Russian economy will fail next year for real this time guys! *crickets*
On September 24 2024 22:55 zeo wrote: Its been a week already and you are still flogging the ammo depot dead horse. Like 1-2 days worth of ammunition for the side with a 10-1 ammo and barrel advantage will make much of a difference. The dogs bark but the caravans keep on moving as they say.
Lines that havent moved in years in hard attrition are moving again after your supposed 'macrogame' moments. Maybe you should start following what is happening on the ground before everything to the Dnieper becomes strategically unimportant and the Russian economy will fail next year for real this time guys! *crickets*
We're not sure what was stored in those werehouses. If it were artillery shells then Russia lost about 3 months worth of them but most reports say it was primary ballistic missiles.
In any case, if Russia didn't have problems with shell production/consumption they probably wouldn't be buying 50 year old stocks from North Korea...
And I'm not sure it's really worth tracking all the micro-changes. Russia advanced 2km in the past week. That's not a very rapid pace.
If they keep up this pace they might be able to reach Pokrovsk in about a month. Then not sure how long would the battle for the city take but typically those are not quick, especially in winter.
If they take Pokrovsk this year they have 100km to another key strongpoint, which with this pace would take them whole year to reach (and they still wouldn't even be at the main obstacle that is the Dnipro river...).
Its worth knowing just how much damage is being caused because at the end of the war there is going to have to be a peace deal no matter what. I just don't see what is in it for the west to ever reopen up with russia while they occupy Ukraine. Culturally its just untenable for anyone to be friendly to putin or associate with him. You can't "move on" like in a democracy with new leaders when the guy who ordered this attack is still there. Even after he dies everyone will just tell the next person to give up ukraine if you want back into Swift or a border to trade with Europe. Whats the point of holding onto the donbass when holding it costs the markets you want to sell its resources to? Sure you can cope that they'll just become subservient with China but thats a really long distance no matter which way you try to travel from.
That’s all true which aligns with the idea that it was never meant to go this way and that Russia simply doesn’t see a way out other than to keep going.
They assumed it would be Crimea all over again and didn’t bother scaling up their military production, repatriating their hundreds of billions (212,000,000,000 USD in euroclear alone), seeking an alternative export market for the hydrocarbon exports their economy is built on etc.
When Zelenskyy said “I don’t need evacuation, I need ammunition” (fantastic line from a real leader btw) Russia’s plan imploded and they simply didn’t have a contingency. They don’t want to go backwards, they can’t see a way forwards, and so they just keep doing this.
On September 24 2024 21:57 0x64 wrote: I am not following anymore the microgame... We've done it for years now, it comes down to nothing. Russia control Bakhmut... Great. Putin can go there for his summer holidays 2025.
I think the vast majority of people here know that the reality catches up in the end, we don't know if the economy collapses in 6 month or 3 years but we just follow simple logic. There is causes and consequences.
The way things have changed now with the ammo supply blowing up suddenly in a very large scale, is much more important than one unit pushing another from a small town.
We don't know how many % Russia can lose of their ammos but we know there is a number that is too high for them to keep fighting.
Zeo, what ammount of tons of munition would consider bad for Russia to lose and how much Russia is capable of producing?
Ardias has been much less active so I am interested on what Russia's official message is on that front.
You dont follow whats going on on the ground because it contradicts the imagined realities and narrative you've copiumed yourself into believing.
Its been a week already and you are still flogging the ammo depot dead horse. Like 1-2 days worth of ammunition for the side with a 10-1 ammo and barrel advantage will make much of a difference. The dogs bark but the caravans keep on moving as they say.
Lines that havent moved in years in hard attrition are moving again after your supposed 'macrogame' moments. Maybe you should start following what is happening on the ground before everything to the Dnieper becomes strategically unimportant and the Russian economy will fail next year for real this time guys! *crickets*
Yeah, I agree with you but I feel like it was more than 1 depot with 1-2 days worth of ammunition this time. It was one big, the another, then 4 of them... not that I mind it being small in the overall, hence I return to my original question, how many of those depot you think they have, how many they can afford without being impacted in the front line.
On September 24 2024 21:57 0x64 wrote: I am not following anymore the microgame... We've done it for years now, it comes down to nothing. Russia control Bakhmut... Great. Putin can go there for his summer holidays 2025.
I think the vast majority of people here know that the reality catches up in the end, we don't know if the economy collapses in 6 month or 3 years but we just follow simple logic. There is causes and consequences.
The way things have changed now with the ammo supply blowing up suddenly in a very large scale, is much more important than one unit pushing another from a small town.
We don't know how many % Russia can lose of their ammos but we know there is a number that is too high for them to keep fighting.
Zeo, what ammount of tons of munition would consider bad for Russia to lose and how much Russia is capable of producing?
Ardias has been much less active so I am interested on what Russia's official message is on that front.
You dont follow whats going on on the ground because it contradicts the imagined realities and narrative you've copiumed yourself into believing.
Its been a week already and you are still flogging the ammo depot dead horse. Like 1-2 days worth of ammunition for the side with a 10-1 ammo and barrel advantage will make much of a difference. The dogs bark but the caravans keep on moving as they say.
Lines that havent moved in years in hard attrition are moving again after your supposed 'macrogame' moments. Maybe you should start following what is happening on the ground before everything to the Dnieper becomes strategically unimportant and the Russian economy will fail next year for real this time guys! *crickets*
Yeah, I agree with you but I feel like it was more than 1 depot with 1-2 days worth of ammunition this time. It was one big, the another, then 4 of them... not that I mind it being small in the overall, hence I return to my original question, how many of those depot you think they have, how many they can afford without being impacted in the front line.
All of them impact the front line. The question is to what degree and where. You can likely just say reduced consumption on 200km of the front. Then use that munition where you want it instead. The problem is if you reduce for a long time on all other areas or go below what you need on the offensive.
Lots of talk about the Russian Economy, much of it really good. Anders Puck Nielsen goes into more detail for those interested. He talks about how war time economy is not sustainable by definition (if it was it would just be your economy) as well as how the influx of government money, especially in the poorer areas, will have long term consequences.
A lot of it is not that different than what was posted in here in a fair bit of detail. He just does a little further and also I find video easier to digest so maybe some of you do as well.
On September 25 2024 04:01 Billyboy wrote: Lots of talk about the Russian Economy, much of it really good. Anders Puck Nielsen goes into more detail for those interested. He talks about how war time economy is not sustainable by definition (if it was it would just be your economy) as well as how the influx of government money, especially in the poorer areas, will have long term consequences.
A lot of it is not that different than what was posted in here in a fair bit of detail. He just does a little further and also I find video easier to digest so maybe some of you do as well.
Excellent video. I would have liked to maybe see some charts, numbers and sources, but what he's explaining is a very good tl;dr of the current situation Russia finds itself in. Aka: It's in a wartime economy, wartime economies are not sustainable, and Russia is nearing a tipping point (Altough exactly when is difficult to guesstimate. I personally think they'll be in a lot of trouble this winter, based on the inability of the Central bank to actually reach their funding, but will manage through just about. They won't manage through next winter), but the western economy isn't running on a wartime economy, and can keep this support for Ukraine up pretty much indefinitely, provided they actually do that; continue their support.
Yes they are, and it is also unsustainable long term, they rely on allies who are not in war time economy to support them. They can outlast Russia because of this, but that is contingent on support from democracies which can change there policy.
The biggest questions Russians should ask is what will happen post war? Most of the land they have taken is going to take huge sums of cash before it is producing anything of value, more likely than not it will be a negative for a while. And if you look at how all the western economies faired after Covid you will see inflation is a major problem and they have given out way, way less. Not to mention have not had to deal with almost any trade restrictions and no sanctions.
If you define winning the war by acquiring more land Russia looks like they have a really good chance to win. If you look at winning as will the Russian people be better off before or after the war Russians for likely generations have almost no chance of wining. I'm not even sure if the Oligarchs will be better off, which is crazy to think about because they can basically win in every other scenario.
@exludos Thank you. My guess would be middle of next year cracks start forming that are bigger than can be hidden from the Russian people. All people are pretty notorious at thinking about only the short term so higher salaries are carrying the day. It will be interesting to see public perception of the war once inflation kicks into high gear.
On September 25 2024 07:07 zboh wrote: Is not Ukraine in a "wartime economy"?
They are, but their main contributor, "The west", isn't. If Ukraine continues to get the support they need, they can likely keep this up for a longer time than Russia. Ukraine alone would have collapsed a long time ago
Wikipedia says 380B (118B military aid) of aid to Ukraine since Feb. 2022. Given Ukraine's GDP (not gov't revenue) was ~200B in 2021, the 262B of aid they've received is pretty significant in keeping them afloat in a way that Russia's government isn't able to sustain.
As long as western nations are willing to give financing to Ukraine, Ukraine's not going to collapse due to economic pressures.
So, if no "western support"... Ukraine is pretty close to disaster. If China decides to finance Russia... Is Ukraine closer to disaster?
Could China play the card of keeping US weapons stockpiles low by prolonging the Ukrainian war? The best trade off for money for China, as someone mention about our investment in Ukraine or against Russia. (A bit like the USSR with the SCW.)
It is a strange concept that of "winning" a war. Being in the less 'worse off' side?
Yes I do think there is a chance that Russia becomes a Vassal state to China rather than just go back to their own territory. I think it is extremely dumb but possible. Or you think China might do it out of the goodness of their heart? Because they would be giving up some huge markets in the US and Europe if they help Russia's war of conquest. They are helping where ever it benefits them, I predict that continues.
So correct me, how is this war profitable to Russia?
The reason why Russia is unlikely to receive a ton of free support from, say, China, is because unlike Russia, China has been working hard on globalizing itself. They would be very unlikely to be willing to eat sanctions from the rest of the world just to appease a moral standing they don't even inhibit.
China is never going to do anything out of the goodness of their heart. They will only do something if it directly benefits them. So while they're happy to sell arms to Russia on the down-low, they'll never support them economically. In fact, Russia collapsing would be a pretty big benefit for China who would be ready to swoop in and grab tons of their land.
And yes, as you say, war isn't about winning. You just try to lose less than your opponent, and hope you're still standing at the end
On September 25 2024 10:09 zboh wrote: So, if no "western support"... Ukraine is pretty close to disaster. If China decides to finance Russia... Is Ukraine closer to disaster?
Could China play the card of keeping US weapons stockpiles low by prolonging the Ukrainian war? The best trade off for money for China, as someone mention about our investment in Ukraine or against Russia. (A bit like the USSR with the SCW.)
It is a strange concept that of "winning" a war. Being in the less 'worse off' side?
We've seen throughout history that it's more important to win the peace than win the war. China keeping us weapons stockpiles low doesn't change the fundamental calculus that China can't last in a war lasting for a year without being deindustrialized and ridden with famine. China's trade relationships with the west is ten times that of it with Russia. Their banks are afraid to do business with Russia with how much the state department is cracking the whip on sanctions.
China benefits from a continued war by destroying Russia even more to take over its market share in the arms industry and snap up central Asia from it. It fundamentally can't benefit that much from a Russian vassel situation with the extreme distance between the two. Sure they share a border but most of the land between the important bits of China and the important bits of Russia are mountains or hardy wilderness. People stopped giving a shit about the red sea when they realized it only hurt Chinese trade and not American trade. China needs things to calm down so it can deal with its economic issues. The rest of the world wants cheaper food that it had when Ukrainian and Russian fertilizer easy to buy.
This is a case where everyone benefits from a sooner peace, everyone other than the one person in the world who can deliver that peace. Putin isn't going to be Alive in time to see the Russian army restore itself to prewar levels and everyone is just waiting for him to die.
On September 25 2024 04:01 Billyboy wrote: Lots of talk about the Russian Economy, much of it really good. Anders Puck Nielsen goes into more detail for those interested. He talks about how war time economy is not sustainable by definition (if it was it would just be your economy) as well as how the influx of government money, especially in the poorer areas, will have long term consequences.
A lot of it is not that different than what was posted in here in a fair bit of detail. He just does a little further and also I find video easier to digest so maybe some of you do as well.
Honestly, I was somewhat disappointed in the video. It nails down the concepts fairly well, but it provides no specifics, no numbers (besides a quick glance at inflation). There's got to be relatively low-hanging fruit out there like the russian debt and deficit to gdp ratio or defence spending as a % of gdp (along with maybe some world war comparisons).
The video could be substituted with the phrase "war is costly and Russia can't pay for it forever" and while fair enough, it makes no effort to quantify when this will come to head.
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.postimg.cc/FKZnbyJQ/IMG-20240924-140624-283.jpg)
