|
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. |
United States43676 Posts
On November 20 2024 14:58 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2024 11:10 KwarK wrote:On November 20 2024 02:25 Excludos wrote:On November 19 2024 23:27 KwarK wrote:
Strongly disagree. Russia will continue for sunk cost reasons despite economic collapse. I think 2028 or later. Sure, thay could happen. But it'll happen much much sooner than 2028. Once the central bank isn't able to finance itself, the collapse will happen quickly. It'll be towards the latter half of 2025, early 2026 at the latest Based on what? Russians deciding they’ve had enough of dying for the vanity of a mad Czar? When has that ever happened? Even in the 1917 revolution part 1 they still wanted to keep fighting. It was only part 2 that surrendered, and only because they were literally on the German payroll. The wheels will fall off before 2028 but the Russians will keep pushing the cart long after it stops moving. Based on the fact that modern war requires ammunition and equipment. Without it, Ukraine is going to start pushing back rapidly. Russia can want to fight as much as they want, it doesn't matter if they just get rolled over by tanks which they have no means of dealing with
Sure, and then what? Let’s say Ukraine starts grinding their way back through the minefields. Let’s say they take Bakhmut back in 2026 and are approaching Mariupol in 2027. What then? They can’t simply declare victory without the assent of a Russia that is still able and willing to launch terror attacks on their cities. So 2028 rolls around and they start retaking Crimea but Russia still won’t talk.
Mines are cheap. Russians are happiest when their chocolate ration is increased from 100g to 50g. This can go on for a while.
|
On November 20 2024 05:34 WombaT wrote:
It was an interesting observation in one of my podcasts that looks at various historical epochs. Until relatively recently in historical terms, states of various forms could hit hard in a war, but had a glass jaw. You either knock your opponent out in round 1, or they knock you out. A single, or couple of bad military outcomes and you’re done. Whereas the more modern nation state has the capacity to go 12 rounds if it so desires.
The punic wars would like to have a talk with you.
|
On November 20 2024 20:04 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2024 05:34 WombaT wrote:
It was an interesting observation in one of my podcasts that looks at various historical epochs. Until relatively recently in historical terms, states of various forms could hit hard in a war, but had a glass jaw. You either knock your opponent out in round 1, or they knock you out. A single, or couple of bad military outcomes and you’re done. Whereas the more modern nation state has the capacity to go 12 rounds if it so desires.
The punic wars would like to have a talk with you.
Add The Thirty Years' war
My absolute uneducated hot take would be that russia can supply their own raw materials, energy and manpower to keep the war machine buzzing and making the shells and rockets for the old sowjet tech.
Northkorea, and to an lesser extend India and China are not even hiding their support in delivering supplies, and also many "western" countries happily fly under the radar with exempts to sanctions.
There are South Korean Professionals building a lithium Ion battery facility in Kaliningrad. The EU exempt nuclear industry.. and so on.
There are even mechanical engineering companies that deliver machines to produce shells and ammo, under the veil of "Dual use".. yeah right, they need rifle ammo for hunting.
While Germany ran out of energy, steel and men causing WW2 to be lost in 1942 when the nazis bit off more than they could chew, in my hot take... russia won't.
Germany lost against the production and manpower of russia ..and the US.
International law isn't worth a dime, without a military industrial complex to enforce it.
|
Well, we know it ends when it costs Russian population more than they can take or when somebody marches to Moscow.
Someone tried to march with all they got to Kiev, didn't work, now they don't have the ressources to try that again.
What history has tough us is that you don't breed enemies out of 50 millions citizen without consequences over the coming centuries.
|
Finland962 Posts
I think there was an interview with Zaluzhnyi where he said that the Ukrainian strategy was to delay and cause enough Russian casualties for Russia to stop.
That hasn't really happened yet, despite massive amounts of losses in men and materiel.
|
Northern Ireland26359 Posts
On November 20 2024 20:04 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2024 05:34 WombaT wrote:
It was an interesting observation in one of my podcasts that looks at various historical epochs. Until relatively recently in historical terms, states of various forms could hit hard in a war, but had a glass jaw. You either knock your opponent out in round 1, or they knock you out. A single, or couple of bad military outcomes and you’re done. Whereas the more modern nation state has the capacity to go 12 rounds if it so desires.
The punic wars would like to have a talk with you.
Some historians do believe if Hannibal had just gone all-in after Cannae he wins that one.
Point taken though, but some of these older conflicts weren’t bouts of constant regular engagements as well. There’d be a big engagement, then another buildup would take a while, then they’d go again. Just the realities of logistics in those days.
So it’s less Hannibal vs Rome going 12 rounds, but to continue the boxing analogy like Hannibal vs Rome rematch 7 by the end.
The overall timespan may be comparable but in a more recognisably modern conflict you’re going to toe for big chunks of that timespan, prior there’s huge gaps between impactful engagements
|
One requirement for the war to last until 2028 is Ukraine being able to hold for 4 more years.
This requires at least current level of economic/material support from US and EU, but even then there might (and probably will) be a personel problem - will there be enough people to replace killed/wounded ones for 4 more years?
It's a year more than entire duration of the war so far.
Same thing about personel problem can be said about Russia - but this also why I don't think it will last until 2028.
|
On November 21 2024 04:47 ZeroByte13 wrote:
One requirement for the war to last until 2028 is Ukraine being able to hold for 4 more years.
This requires at least current level of economic/material support from US and EU, but even then there might (and probably will) be a personel problem - will there be enough people to replace killed/wounded ones for 4 more years?
It's a year more than entire duration of the war so far.
Same thing about personel problem can be said about Russia - but this also why I don't think it will last until 2028.
Hmmm ending the war, and Ukraine not holding is kind of two differents thing. You can look how Talibans held 20 years in Afghanistan.
The question is what you do once you "win"... Do you start calling small group "rebel terrorist?", they will be the resistance. Do you build something in Ukraine, or do you punish the country and go the Holodomor way?
There is no victory for Russia, because there is no victory condition. Ukraine has one, Russian soldiers out of the boundary. Now Russia can't call it a win if Ukrainian soldiers are out of Russian boundary. There is nothing that ends the conflict that satisfies Putin.
At this point we might just as well let the nuke fly and collect divide what is left of Russia. There is a high probability that russian nukes have not even been maintained in functional condition.
It's a hyperbole from me, but you can see that Russia hasn't even came close to any red lines the west has, and it is already out of military equipment and soldiers. So yes, it suck to be Ukraine but how do you control Ukraine, when you compare to the size of tchetchenia.
|
United States43676 Posts
On November 21 2024 04:47 ZeroByte13 wrote:
One requirement for the war to last until 2028 is Ukraine being able to hold for 4 more years.
This requires at least current level of economic/material support from US and EU, but even then there might (and probably will) be a personel problem - will there be enough people to replace killed/wounded ones for 4 more years?
It's a year more than entire duration of the war so far.
Same thing about personel problem can be said about Russia - but this also why I don't think it will last until 2028.
The losses are far from existential while the war is existential. Ukraine can sustain this indefinitely. Not happily but they only have to like it more than they like Russian occupation.
|
On November 21 2024 04:56 0x64 wrote:
Hmmm ending the war, and Ukraine not holding is kind of two differents thing. You can look how Talibans held 20 years in Afghanistan.
The question is what you do once you "win"... Do you start calling small group "rebel terrorist?", they will be the resistance. Do you build something in Ukraine, or do you punish the country and go the Holodomor way?
There is no victory for Russia, because there is no victory condition. Ukraine has one, Russian soldiers out of the boundary. Now Russia can't call it a win if Ukrainian soldiers are out of Russian boundary. There is nothing that ends the conflict that satisfies Putin.
At this point we might just as well let the nuke fly and collect divide what is left of Russia. There is a high probability that russian nukes have not even been maintained in functional condition.
It's a hyperbole from me, but you can see that Russia hasn't even came close to any red lines the west has, and it is already out of military equipment and soldiers. So yes, it suck to be Ukraine but how do you control Ukraine, when you compare to the size of tchetchenia. There's a lof of "you" in this text - do you mean me or "you" as a way of addressing Russia as an actor in this war?
|
On November 21 2024 01:54 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2024 20:04 justanothertownie wrote:On November 20 2024 05:34 WombaT wrote:
It was an interesting observation in one of my podcasts that looks at various historical epochs. Until relatively recently in historical terms, states of various forms could hit hard in a war, but had a glass jaw. You either knock your opponent out in round 1, or they knock you out. A single, or couple of bad military outcomes and you’re done. Whereas the more modern nation state has the capacity to go 12 rounds if it so desires.
The punic wars would like to have a talk with you. Some historians do believe if Hannibal had just gone all-in after Cannae he wins that one. Point taken though, but some of these older conflicts weren’t bouts of constant regular engagements as well. There’d be a big engagement, then another buildup would take a while, then they’d go again. Just the realities of logistics in those days. So it’s less Hannibal vs Rome going 12 rounds, but to continue the boxing analogy like Hannibal vs Rome rematch 7 by the end. The overall timespan may be comparable but in a more recognisably modern conflict you’re going to toe for big chunks of that timespan, prior there’s huge gaps between impactful engagements
Naw Fabius was on the scene and demonstrated already successful tactics against Hannibal. Elephants aren't that effective against stone walls and the Carthaginians had never demonstrated any sort of seigecraft.
Its more like the American Revolution or the texan war of Independence where you continue to lose and suffer while you are given support from abroad. The people who revolted know whats at stake for them if they surrender and therefore resists until they are simply unable to any longer.
|
Apparently a successful MIRV strike this morning delivered by an ICBM at Dnipropetrovsk. Conventional payload (non-nuclear) but the fact that they reenter Earths atmosphere at mach 27 means that even if they weren’t full of explosives', just solid object impact can penetrate the ground very deep and cause massive damage.
Obviously they arnt worth using on Ukraine so this is more of a show of force in light of recent events. Im not sure if an ICBM has ever been used in any conflict. Whatever it was the Patriots stationed there couldnt do anything, maybe they were the target.
Very interesting in any case. If it wasnt an ICBM its something new in any case
edit: maybe an RS-26?
|
It seems like it was in ICBM. Russia digging up something to react with.
How accurate are these weapons either way? Only information I found was "very accurate, within 100s of meters".
I guess that's more than close enough for a nuclear strike but with a conventional warhead you kind of have to hit what you are aiming for.
I guess you could saturation bomb a city with non-nuclear MIRVs if you wanted to. It would be a new world record for cost ineffectiveness.
And also, no I don't think an ICBM has ever been used for conventional warfare before, for obvious reasons.
|
The lunch was aimed at Trump and his voters, and also at domestic russian viewership. They are saying "hey, next time it could be loaded with nuke". But it is just a publicity stunt. The problem is half of the missiles they are tossing at Ukraine for 2 and half year could carry a nuclear payload. So what? Nobody in Ukraine of EE cares.
Really it looks very bad that US got bullied and closed embassy.
|
i'm impressed that 88% of ukrainians think they will win the war, even if the numbers used to be higher, its going down every poll, but still overwhelmingly confident, this is interesting, all the russian supports here think russia will win easily in the long run but actual ukrainians think they got this
|
On November 21 2024 21:15 sertas wrote:
i'm impressed that 88% of ukrainians think they will win the war, even if the numbers used to be higher, its going down every poll, but still overwhelmingly confident, this is interesting, all the russian supports here think russia will win easily in the long run but actual ukrainians think they got this
At the end of the day, barring a capitulation from Zelenskyy, there is no winning scenario for Russia. Occupation isn't winning unless the population also gives up.
But personally I believe the most likely scenario is a peace treaty that neither side really feels like they won out in. Ukraine giving up territories in the east but be allowed to join Nato, or something along those lines
|
On November 21 2024 07:56 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2024 04:47 ZeroByte13 wrote:
One requirement for the war to last until 2028 is Ukraine being able to hold for 4 more years.
This requires at least current level of economic/material support from US and EU, but even then there might (and probably will) be a personel problem - will there be enough people to replace killed/wounded ones for 4 more years?
It's a year more than entire duration of the war so far.
Same thing about personel problem can be said about Russia - but this also why I don't think it will last until 2028. The losses are far from existential while the war is existential. Ukraine can sustain this indefinitely. Not happily but they only have to like it more than they like Russian occupation.
A majority would already rather negotiate a negative peace + Russian occupation (of some portion of Ukraine) than keep fighting.
After more than two years of grinding conflict, Ukrainians are increasingly weary of the war with Russia. In Gallup’s latest surveys of Ukraine, conducted in August and October 2024, an average of 52% of Ukrainians would like to see their country negotiate an end to the war as soon as possible....38% believe their country should keep fighting until victory.
news.gallup.com
I think you guys are also underestimating how quickly Russia will be begrudgingly welcomed back into international trade with the West after Trump drops a bunch of the sanctions and Europe is unwilling to cut off their nose to spite their face.
|
United States43676 Posts
I don't think you know what the expression "cut off your nose to spite your face" means because you're not using it correctly.
|
East ukraine and crimea were snatched away from ukrainians by unmarked troops supporting "russian majority seperatists" and basicly everbody who remains needs to adjust to russian occupation (by force).
I think putin really really thought that kyiv just folds and gives into electing a new dear leader like that belarussian puppet.
Now his elite troops are north koreans, most of his latest bestest super weapons are acutally very interceptable by Patriot 4, and he is back to waste money on showing that the PP still goes up.. Oh I meant the ICBM... which did nothing.
Even aiming at Dnipro tells me that they were looking for a target area with a 500km safety radius, since it wouldn't have hit any other country (but russia, which would have been "a test").
|
On November 21 2024 23:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2024 07:56 KwarK wrote:On November 21 2024 04:47 ZeroByte13 wrote:
One requirement for the war to last until 2028 is Ukraine being able to hold for 4 more years.
This requires at least current level of economic/material support from US and EU, but even then there might (and probably will) be a personel problem - will there be enough people to replace killed/wounded ones for 4 more years?
It's a year more than entire duration of the war so far.
Same thing about personel problem can be said about Russia - but this also why I don't think it will last until 2028. The losses are far from existential while the war is existential. Ukraine can sustain this indefinitely. Not happily but they only have to like it more than they like Russian occupation. A majority would already rather negotiate a negative peace + Russian occupation (of some portion of Ukraine) than keep fighting. Show nested quote +After more than two years of grinding conflict, Ukrainians are increasingly weary of the war with Russia. In Gallup’s latest surveys of Ukraine, conducted in August and October 2024, an average of 52% of Ukrainians would like to see their country negotiate an end to the war as soon as possible....38% believe their country should keep fighting until victory. news.gallup.comI think you guys are also underestimating how quickly Russia will be begrudgingly welcomed back into international trade with the West after Trump drops a bunch of the sanctions and Europe is unwilling to cut off their nose to spite their face.
I just said the polls show that 88% of ukrainians think they will win, it's overwhelming majority. And give russia an inklin of weakness and they will not stop until they take whole ukraine, so a peace deal from weakness will mean ukraine no longer exists
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
