|
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 November 24 2024 01:29 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2024 23:32 mounteast02 wrote:
For those pro-russian posters, russia is winning in this war, there is no need to get angry with any posters here, none of the TL forum user are going to change the situation in the battlefield in any meaningful way. It is ok to let the pro-ukraine poster to continue to believe that ukraine is winning.
As for european countries, I think the lack of (sufficient) material support to ukraine really signal that they are unwilling or unable to ramp up sufficiently to match the russian's effort. It would be either the west miscalculated/ mis-estimated the relative strength of their economic / industrial power, or they simply did not think losing the war in ukraine is a(n) (existential) threat to them.
Russia is winning, eh? What is their winning condition that they are currently achieving, you think? Because to me it looks like if the war ended today, and Russia got all the territories they are currently holding, they would still have lost in a number of very important ways: They managed to extend their borders with NATO by a long margin (With more to come), all of EU are mustering, they completely failed to capture Kyiv, they've taken 700000 casualties, lost the vast vast majority of their soviet arsenal, and have an economy that is currently absolutely tanking.. For what? 14% of Ukraine? You'd call that a victory..? See, on my side, all Russia have managed to achieve is making themselves look like an absolute laughing stock. People used to believe this was the second biggest military nation in the world, and they've proudly shown the world they're actually completely inept. And none of that is going to change even if Ukraine capitulated tomorrow.
There are difference between what your assumed russia objective vs mine. You think the russian want to concur the whole ukraine and recreate the soviet union, but I do not think it is true. I believe the main objective of the russian is to keep control of crimea. I certainly do not have official document to proof that, however, if you pay attention to the "macro" of the troop movement, you will be able to see that.
In 2022, while the ukraine counterattack in Kharkov region, the russian still reinforce the southern part. Then in the ukraine 2023 summer "counter offensive", They want to push toward mariupol. The ukrainian even said publicly they want to isolate crimea. Everything point toward to the battle to control crimea. At this moment, there is no indication that the russian is losing control of crimea. That is without considering the recent increased rate of capturing land in donbass. There is no indication of russian losing in the battlefield.
As for economics front, I am no expert so I cannot accurate assess the situation, the russian economy may collapse tomorrow like the soviet union did in 1991. But I have not saw any report of imminent collapse of russia economy. As for export, be it food, or energy, I don't think there is a problem for russia, there is no report that russia's food export being hit. While it might take some discount to sell russia energy product, they have no problem selling it. So we will have to wait and see if / when the russian economy actually collapsed.
For the casualty number, did you get it from the ukrainian? I mean how would the russian suffer significant more casualty than the ukrainian when the russian have a significant advantage in artillery, and air power? And the old stuff is old stuff, technology changes what is useful in the battlefield, and huge loss of old stuff (even if it is true, it might be, but I don't have interest to check) might not be as significant as you might think.
For preventing NATO expansion, at least they make it difficult for NATO to set up bases close to the russian boarder from the ukraine side.
|
I wonder what do people who make new accounts on video game forums purely to share their contrarian political wisdoms think about themselves? Is this a way of coping with being banned previously? The need to always have the last word? Are they just lonely?
|
On November 24 2024 02:27 mounteast02 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2024 01:29 Excludos wrote:On November 23 2024 23:32 mounteast02 wrote:
For those pro-russian posters, russia is winning in this war, there is no need to get angry with any posters here, none of the TL forum user are going to change the situation in the battlefield in any meaningful way. It is ok to let the pro-ukraine poster to continue to believe that ukraine is winning.
As for european countries, I think the lack of (sufficient) material support to ukraine really signal that they are unwilling or unable to ramp up sufficiently to match the russian's effort. It would be either the west miscalculated/ mis-estimated the relative strength of their economic / industrial power, or they simply did not think losing the war in ukraine is a(n) (existential) threat to them.
Russia is winning, eh? What is their winning condition that they are currently achieving, you think? Because to me it looks like if the war ended today, and Russia got all the territories they are currently holding, they would still have lost in a number of very important ways: They managed to extend their borders with NATO by a long margin (With more to come), all of EU are mustering, they completely failed to capture Kyiv, they've taken 700000 casualties, lost the vast vast majority of their soviet arsenal, and have an economy that is currently absolutely tanking.. For what? 14% of Ukraine? You'd call that a victory..? See, on my side, all Russia have managed to achieve is making themselves look like an absolute laughing stock. People used to believe this was the second biggest military nation in the world, and they've proudly shown the world they're actually completely inept. And none of that is going to change even if Ukraine capitulated tomorrow. There are difference between what your assumed russia objective vs mine. You think the russian want to concur the whole ukraine and recreate the soviet union, but I do not think it is true. I believe the main objective of the russian is to keep control of crimea. I certainly do not have official document to proof that, however, if you pay attention to the "macro" of the troop movement, you will be able to see that. In 2022, while the ukraine counterattack in Kharkov region, the russian still reinforce the southern part. Then in the ukraine 2023 summer "counter offensive", They want to push toward mariupol. The ukrainian even said publicly they want to isolate crimea. Everything point toward to the battle to control crimea. At this moment, there is no indication that the russian is losing control of crimea. That is without considering the recent increased rate of capturing land in donbass. There is no indication of russian losing in the battlefield. As for economics front, I am no expert so I cannot accurate assess the situation, the russian economy may collapse tomorrow like the soviet union did in 1991. But I have not saw any report of imminent collapse of russia economy. As for export, be it food, or energy, I don't think there is a problem for russia, there is no report that russia's food export being hit. While it might take some discount to sell russia energy product, they have no problem selling it. So we will have to wait and see if / when the russian economy actually collapsed. For the casualty number, did you get it from the ukrainian? I mean how would the russian suffer significant more casualty than the ukrainian when the russian have a significant advantage in artillery, and air power? And the old stuff is old stuff, technology changes what is useful in the battlefield, and huge loss of old stuff (even if it is true, it might be, but I don't have interest to check) might not be as significant as you might think. For preventing NATO expansion, at least they make it difficult for NATO to set up bases close to the russian boarder from the ukraine side.
Russia is unable to replace those lost in the battlefield. Therefore Russia is losing the ear and will collapse. If you think city boys will join the military to defend their country from a virtual Ukrainian threat. You are dead wrong. They just hope putin is scary enough that they can argue that they were scared of telling him no. And when the rejoin falls suddenly you discover 80% of three population actually think it was a dumb idea.
Russia accepted to live in extremely poor conditions for centuries. At this point it's a cultural preservation thing, the economy started to do too well meanwhile corruption was eating the benefits. That's why no one is seeing conditions going bad. The money went in other pockets. So the collapse is slower and no one cares because they already live in a collapsed economy.
|
On November 24 2024 02:27 mounteast02 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2024 01:29 Excludos wrote:On November 23 2024 23:32 mounteast02 wrote:
For those pro-russian posters, russia is winning in this war, there is no need to get angry with any posters here, none of the TL forum user are going to change the situation in the battlefield in any meaningful way. It is ok to let the pro-ukraine poster to continue to believe that ukraine is winning.
As for european countries, I think the lack of (sufficient) material support to ukraine really signal that they are unwilling or unable to ramp up sufficiently to match the russian's effort. It would be either the west miscalculated/ mis-estimated the relative strength of their economic / industrial power, or they simply did not think losing the war in ukraine is a(n) (existential) threat to them.
Russia is winning, eh? What is their winning condition that they are currently achieving, you think? Because to me it looks like if the war ended today, and Russia got all the territories they are currently holding, they would still have lost in a number of very important ways: They managed to extend their borders with NATO by a long margin (With more to come), all of EU are mustering, they completely failed to capture Kyiv, they've taken 700000 casualties, lost the vast vast majority of their soviet arsenal, and have an economy that is currently absolutely tanking.. For what? 14% of Ukraine? You'd call that a victory..? See, on my side, all Russia have managed to achieve is making themselves look like an absolute laughing stock. People used to believe this was the second biggest military nation in the world, and they've proudly shown the world they're actually completely inept. And none of that is going to change even if Ukraine capitulated tomorrow. There are difference between what your assumed russia objective vs mine. You think the russian want to concur the whole ukraine and recreate the soviet union, but I do not think it is true. I believe the main objective of the russian is to keep control of crimea. I certainly do not have official document to proof that, however, if you pay attention to the "macro" of the troop movement, you will be able to see that. In 2022, while the ukraine counterattack in Kharkov region, the russian still reinforce the southern part. Then in the ukraine 2023 summer "counter offensive", They want to push toward mariupol. The ukrainian even said publicly they want to isolate crimea. Everything point toward to the battle to control crimea. At this moment, there is no indication that the russian is losing control of crimea. That is without considering the recent increased rate of capturing land in donbass. There is no indication of russian losing in the battlefield. As for economics front, I am no expert so I cannot accurate assess the situation, the russian economy may collapse tomorrow like the soviet union did in 1991. But I have not saw any report of imminent collapse of russia economy. As for export, be it food, or energy, I don't think there is a problem for russia, there is no report that russia's food export being hit. While it might take some discount to sell russia energy product, they have no problem selling it. So we will have to wait and see if / when the russian economy actually collapsed. For the casualty number, did you get it from the ukrainian? I mean how would the russian suffer significant more casualty than the ukrainian when the russian have a significant advantage in artillery, and air power? And the old stuff is old stuff, technology changes what is useful in the battlefield, and huge loss of old stuff (even if it is true, it might be, but I don't have interest to check) might not be as significant as you might think. For preventing NATO expansion, at least they make it difficult for NATO to set up bases close to the russian boarder from the ukraine side.
LOL, what a load of nonsense.
If their goal was to keep control of Crimea, then this whole invasion is a monumental fuck-up, considering that they had firm control over Crimea before the invasion and Ukraine had no prospects of ever taking it back. And if the goal was Crimea and not conquering Ukraine, why did they go for Kyiv? Why did they have plans to take Odesa? Why did they plan to attack Moldova as per the documents leaked by Lukashenko?
As for their energy, Gazprom went from being a pillar of their economy to making horrific losses (in the vicinity of 10B USD per year?). For the first time in 25 years. Many other industries got similarly gutted. You have no idea.
The Ukrainian casualty estimate are very accurate. They are backed up by investigations by Mediazona, Meduza, and BBC. The reason why Ukrainians are taking less casualties is because they actually care about their soldiers. Russia treats theirs as expendable cannon fodder.
|
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-missile-parliament-d374dc8ca0fa626e674d29df01ce95cd
if anyone wants a front row seat on the absolute delusion this man is living in:
Speaking Friday to military and weapons industries officials, Putin said Russia is launching production of the Oreshnik.
“No one in the world has such weapons,” he said with a thin smile. “Sooner or later other leading countries will also get them. We are aware that they are under development.”
Yes Putin, I am sure you are at the top of the tech tree. Good job.
|
On November 24 2024 02:53 maybenexttime wrote:
The Ukrainian casualty estimate are very accurate. They are backed up by investigations by Mediazona, Meduza, and BBC. The reason why Ukrainians are taking less casualties is because they actually care about their soldiers. Russia treats theirs as expendable cannon fodder.
Yes. To add to this, the two doctrines could not be more different. Russia focuses on manpower, cheap equipment, overwhelming numbers, and a top-down style order-based mission and tasks, with little room for personal autonomy to change the plan based on operational parameters.
Ukraine meanwhile have embraced western training and doctrine, which focuses on more training, less manpower (Altough this one isn't necessarily voluntarily for Ukraine right now), better equipment, and intention based leadership and mission, where the intention is what is handed down as a task, and the leader and men below actually makes the plan (Who will be much more able to based on their knowledge, their information from the field, and the ability to change said plan when things go wrong).
The difference in casualties aren't just backed up by independent sources, they also make complete predictable sense for anyone who knows the first thing about how the two militaries operates. We knew numbers would look like this from the very beginning. The question was never if Ukraine would have fewer losses, it was whether they could/can instill such a big difference in losses that Russia couldn't easily overwhelm them with pure numbers, which they did/do.
Since we are on a Starcraft forum, equal it to one side massing zerglings/banelings vs the other side massing medic/marines/medevacs
|
To add what Excludos said, you can compare the losses in equipment during each side's offensives. During Russia's offensives, they typically trade 3:1 to 4:1 in Ukraine's favor. In contrast, when Ukraine is on the offensive, the ratio is closer to 1:1. Russia is just horribly wasteful with both equipment and human lives.
|
Come on guys, you're repeating that wrong ww2 idea that Russia's strategy is mostly just zerg rushing their enemies with lots of disposable manpower (which was false in ww2 too btw).
They stupidly started the war with smaller army than Ukraine's and spent the last two years on making small gains through their superior cheap artillery numbers. I admit they did use Zerg-like tactis occassionaly like in Bakhmut and keep having terrible, incompetent top-down micro management incidents like in Vuhledar, but none of that justifies the idea that Russia is stupidly spamming unupgraded zerglings against small but high quality Ukrainian 3/3 super Terrans.
I don't doubt that the casualities are heavily in Ukraine's favor but I believe it's mainly because they spent most of the war defending their positions. Humane leadership and Western support help a lot but I still think it's wrong to make it look like Russia is playing like a very bad Zerg. It's not an all-in. They're hoping to outmacro Ukraine and secure whatever gains they can until the West decides it's time to request a pause.
|
I'm talking about visually confirmed equipment losses. I have no idea what you're on about. Those are facts. During Russia's offensives, their troops suffer horrendous losses in equipment. Ukraine does not. Russia also regularly sends their troops on suicide missions and puts soldiers who refuse into torture prisons.
|
Russia also has a bunch of minorities that they can send to die, I have no doubt that the map of dead people is going to be weighted toward Tatars and Buryats.
|
On November 24 2024 04:43 Sent. wrote:
Come on guys, you're repeating that wrong ww2 idea that Russia's strategy is mostly just zerg rushing their enemies with lots of disposable manpower (which was false in ww2 too btw).
I'm not really repeating any myth or WW2 ideas (Altough, their doctrine hasn't changed all that much since then). I practically live on r/combatfootage, and read up on reports and articles about specific attacks pretty much daily. This isn't some idea stolen from Enemy at the Gates. This is observation and data collection. Russia do, indeed, attack head on with little regards to their men. Their tactics lies in using manpower and pushing through casualties in hopes of taking positions. It's incredibly archaic.
One of the most common ways for Russia to gather for an attack is to send through waves of people and vehicles through danger zones, and let a large part of it be taken out just to get to the rendezvous point. For instance, one of the things you might have seen videos of lately is Russia making use of motorcycles. The way they do it is sending small amounts of men, 2-4, through drones and artillery, in waves, so they can gather up on the other side with whoever makes it. Once enough people get through, they can start commencing an attack on the trench lines. Guess what happens if that attack fails? They got to that position by going through the danger zone in the first place. There's no casevac to bring them out again. Shit like this is why Russia have such high casualty numbers. They have zero regards for their men.
|
I agree with Sent. Russia is not nearly as inept as you make them out to be.
The reason they send in small groups of people is
a) large groups are easier to detect and Ukraine can spend more of their precious artillery and drones for bigger payoff.
b) trenches are manned by skeleton crews of just a few people. Like there can be 3 guys "holding" a position.
So all you really need is to get a few people on position and that might easily be enough, especially as the defenders have to drop EW coverage to get drone support, which means your own drones can then also attack.
The reason Ukraine only mans forwards trenches with small teams is because otherwise their losses are to big when FAB bombs or artillery connect. That's a tactic from WWI by the way, having more troops in forward defenses only means higher casualties.
Either way the new reality on the battlefield is more akin to WWI than anything else. It's really hard to attack right now without air superiority which neither side has. That said, yes Russia doesn't give a fuck about their men because they keep trying to attack. However it's their imperative to be on the offensive right now. They need to make Ukraine break and get their allies to lose hope because they are running out of heavy equipment and their economy is tanking.
Meanwhile Ukraine can (with continued western support) replenish equipment and maintain "their" economy.
|
|
|
On November 24 2024 07:16 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
I agree with Sent. Russia is not nearly as inept as you make them out to be.
The reason they send in small groups of people is
a) large groups are easier to detect and Ukraine can spend more of their precious artillery and drones for bigger payoff.
b) trenches are manned by skeleton crews of just a few people. Like there can be 3 guys "holding" a position.
So all you really need is to get a few people on position and that might easily be enough, especially as the defenders have to drop EW coverage to get drone support, which means your own drones can then also attack.
The reason Ukraine only mans forwards trenches with small teams is because otherwise their losses are to big when FAB bombs or artillery connect. That's a tactic from WWI by the way, having more troops in forward defenses only means higher casualties.
Either way the new reality on the battlefield is more akin to WWI than anything else. It's really hard to attack right now without air superiority which neither side has. That said, yes Russia doesn't give a fuck about their men because they keep trying to attack. However it's their imperative to be on the offensive right now. They need to make Ukraine break and get their allies to lose hope because they are running out of heavy equipment and their economy is tanking.
Meanwhile Ukraine can (with continued western support) replenish equipment and maintain "their" economy.
Nothing you said counted against anything I just said. At no point did I say such tactics couldn't be effective, I just said they create huge losses, and that's the main difference in doctrine between the two sides, and why Russia has 4x the casualty rate of Ukraine. At the end of the day, if you throw a ton of people into the meat grinder to achieve an objective, that objective was still achieved.
Altough that said Russia is certainly inept, that's beyond question at this point. They just happen to have a much larger inept population to fill their inept army ranks than Ukraine does. This way of fighting is going to bite them in the ass when the war is over, whether they win or lose, because they'll now have a generation of people missing from the population
|
On November 24 2024 08:06 terrorist wrote:
The irony behind statements like these are beyond hilarious.
Reminds me of the old saying "Every accusation; a projection"
But hey, you know what? I'll bite: If you can explain to me, with actual logic, why wanting a sovereign country to defend themselves against an unlawful invasion is the behaviour of psychopathy, I'll eat my shoe
|
|
|
On November 24 2024 08:32 terrorist wrote:
So you're arguing that Russia should leave Ukraine and settle for peace?
|
|
|
And here I was thinking that Ukrainian conscripts were fighting to defend their country from a hostile invader bent on ethnic cleansings. Turns out its only the politicians that make them fight...
These f*ing trolls are all the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
