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.
I wonder if they timed it just now to make use of US intelligence sharing freeze. Assuming it even mattered.
I think both Russia and Ukraine knew this year will be when negotiation starts and ends, even before Trump got into power. Russia did their huge recruitment effort last year, and Ukraine wanted the Kursk to be a bargaining chip.
If you only followed mainstream media, you would have thought Kursk showed Ukraine still got some fierce in them. When they failed to encirclement/ capture the strategically important spots like the powerplants, this was a failure more than anything else.
- Ukraine might just land one of the worst position possible on the negotiation table. It started too late, and it has been losing for too long, and is still losing.
The worst outcome is if the negotiation drags on long enough to the point where Ukraine's army breaks spirit. Ukraine is not getting enough recruits and some of their armies had been fighting since the invasion began, and no rotation means their spirit are going to collapse sooner or later.
With all the investments and loans send to Ukraine, it's really time to go all in or just cut loss. France is at least being pro-active (in fact it was the only nation to propose sending troops to aid Ukraine a couple months back). All the big fancy number aids being announced by other nations, unless they can deliver immediately and solve manpower issue, to me it's all PR stunts.
You seem to have your history a bit backwards there. Kursk wasn't planned, it was an attack of opportunity. When Russian defence in the area failed, largely manned by conscripts, Ukraine took the opportunity to push as far as they could. It's telling how utterly unprepared Ukraine was for this (and Russia for that matter), having to quickly relocate huge amounts of troops to the area so they could continue to fight.
Yes, it's a shame they never reached the powerplants. But it's not a failure as such; they never truly planned for it to begin with. Their initial vector of attack wasn't even in that direction.
And lastly, could you actually start reading your own sources? Do you really think up to 70% of Ukranian recruits die within 5 days? That would be utter insanity. The "report" is from 2023, and based off of a single guy's quote. Come on. This isn't Reddit. At least read past the headline
Kursk wasn't planned, it was an attack of opportunity.
There are other theories, and all sorts of explanations like "it was to diverge the other enemies forces" etc. I don't buy it's a random attack if they didn't choose to give up the position.
And lastly, could you actually start reading your own sources? Do you really think up to 70% of Ukranian recruits die within 5 days? That would be utter insanity. The "report" is from 2023, and based off of a single guy's quote
So are you saying I didn't read the sources or you don't believe the morality rate is that high?
First off, these are sources from: on morality rate: https://www.ft.com/content/b9396112-585a-4f7e-9628-13d500c99d93 (quote: "Along the front in Donetsk, four commanders, a deputy commander and nearly a dozen soldiers from four Ukrainian brigades told the Financial Times that the new conscripts lack basic combat skills, motivation and often abandon their positions when they come under fire. The commanders estimated that 50 to 70 per cent of new infantry troops were killed or wounded within days of starting their first rotation.")
on deserters: https://apnews.com/article/deserters-awol-ukraine-russia-war-def676562552d42bc5d593363c9e5ea0 (quote: More than 100,000 soldiers have been charged under Ukraine’s desertion laws since Russia invaded in February 2022, according to the country’s General Prosecutor’s Office. Nearly half have gone AWOL in the last year alone, after Kyiv launched an aggressive and controversial mobilization drive that government officials and military commanders concede has largely failed. It’s a staggeringly high number by any measure, as there were an estimated 300,000 Ukrainian soldiers engaged in combat before the mobilization drive began. And the actual number of deserters may be much higher. One lawmaker with knowledge of military matters estimated it could be as high as 200,000.)
I have read even worse numbers at Kursk. And so yes, I did read the source and yes, it IS absolute insanity.
If you think this is bad, read up about how the French trained 155th brigade was disintegrated before reaching front line. https://www.kyivpost.com/post/44997
I wonder if they timed it just now to make use of US intelligence sharing freeze. Assuming it even mattered.
I think both Russia and Ukraine knew this year will be when negotiation starts and ends, even before Trump got into power. Russia did their huge recruitment effort last year, and Ukraine wanted the Kursk to be a bargaining chip.
If you only followed mainstream media, you would have thought Kursk showed Ukraine still got some fierce in them. When they failed to encirclement/ capture the strategically important spots like the powerplants, this was a failure more than anything else.
- Ukraine might just land one of the worst position possible on the negotiation table. It started too late, and it has been losing for too long, and is still losing.
The worst outcome is if the negotiation drags on long enough to the point where Ukraine's army breaks spirit. Ukraine is not getting enough recruits and some of their armies had been fighting since the invasion began, and no rotation means their spirit are going to collapse sooner or later.
With all the investments and loans send to Ukraine, it's really time to go all in or just cut loss. France is at least being pro-active (in fact it was the only nation to propose sending troops to aid Ukraine a couple months back). All the big fancy number aids being announced by other nations, unless they can deliver immediately and solve manpower issue, to me it's all PR stunts.
You seem to have your history a bit backwards there. Kursk wasn't planned, it was an attack of opportunity. When Russian defence in the area failed, largely manned by conscripts, Ukraine took the opportunity to push as far as they could. It's telling how utterly unprepared Ukraine was for this (and Russia for that matter), having to quickly relocate huge amounts of troops to the area so they could continue to fight.
Yes, it's a shame they never reached the powerplants. But it's not a failure as such; they never truly planned for it to begin with. Their initial vector of attack wasn't even in that direction.
And lastly, could you actually start reading your own sources? Do you really think up to 70% of Ukranian recruits die within 5 days? That would be utter insanity. The "report" is from 2023, and based off of a single guy's quote. Come on. This isn't Reddit. At least read past the headline
Kursk wasn't planned, it was an attack of opportunity.
There are other theories, and all sorts of explanations like "it was to diverge the other enemies forces" etc. I don't buy it's a random attack if they didn't choose to give up the position.
And lastly, could you actually start reading your own sources? Do you really think up to 70% of Ukranian recruits die within 5 days? That would be utter insanity. The "report" is from 2023, and based off of a single guy's quote
So are you saying I didn't read the sources or you don't believe the morality rate is that high?
Both
(quote: "Along the front in Donetsk, four commanders, a deputy commander and nearly a dozen soldiers from four Ukrainian brigades told the Financial Times that the new conscripts lack basic combat skills, motivation and often abandon their positions when they come under fire. The commanders estimated that 50 to 70 per cent of new infantry troops were killed or wounded within days of starting their first rotation.")
This is both a quote, from 2023, and are based on feelings, not statistics. We know it's not true, because Ukraine hasn't been wiped out yet. If 70% of new recruits died within 5 days, 3 years straight, Ukraine would at this point have no soldiers left.
I have not commented on the second source for a reason. That Ukraine has a problem with deserters is well known and documented
edit: Let's put some numbers on it, to hammer the point home. Ukraine forces, pre invasion, totalled only roughly 300k, quickly building up to 700k within half a year (about a million including border guards, police and national guard). These are the vast majority of their untrained forces, who were pushed to the front lines quickly in pure desperation. Most forces since have gone through basic training at the least. Which, sure, is only 2 months in the UK. But it's 2 very intense and packed months. We would like to train them for longer, but they are by no means green when they are finished. A lot of them go on to continue their training here in Norway afterwards. Morale amongst troops that have gone through basic are also much higher for obvious reasons. But anyways, that's a digression
Today, their forces are at total 2.2 million (900k active, 1.2m reserve, and 100k paramilitary). As you can see, this number have grown drastically. The biggest reason it's not growing further is mainly equipment shortage (There's no point in recruiting more people than you have equipment and jobs for. There are entire battalions who currently sits combat ineffective due to equipment shortage alone). If 70% of ALL new recruits died within 5 days, how the fuck do you think they managed to grow to this number? Did they recruit 5 million and 4 of them died?! Did none of the older soldiers die for this to happen? This is not even remotely reasonable logic. Even if you remove the reserves, which leaves us down to a military force of 1 million, that's still numbers which would be entirely impossible if 70% of all new recruits died immediately like that
I don't have access to your second link for payment reasons, so I can't confirm, but I can imagine that this was said by one commander who was in an intense fighting zone with high casualty rates, and that the number he gave was located to that area alone, and not the entire front. And then other media outlets ran wild with it
I wonder if they timed it just now to make use of US intelligence sharing freeze. Assuming it even mattered.
I think both Russia and Ukraine knew this year will be when negotiation starts and ends, even before Trump got into power. Russia did their huge recruitment effort last year, and Ukraine wanted the Kursk to be a bargaining chip.
If you only followed mainstream media, you would have thought Kursk showed Ukraine still got some fierce in them. When they failed to encirclement/ capture the strategically important spots like the powerplants, this was a failure more than anything else.
- Ukraine might just land one of the worst position possible on the negotiation table. It started too late, and it has been losing for too long, and is still losing.
The worst outcome is if the negotiation drags on long enough to the point where Ukraine's army breaks spirit. Ukraine is not getting enough recruits and some of their armies had been fighting since the invasion began, and no rotation means their spirit are going to collapse sooner or later.
With all the investments and loans send to Ukraine, it's really time to go all in or just cut loss. France is at least being pro-active (in fact it was the only nation to propose sending troops to aid Ukraine a couple months back). All the big fancy number aids being announced by other nations, unless they can deliver immediately and solve manpower issue, to me it's all PR stunts.
You seem to have your history a bit backwards there. Kursk wasn't planned, it was an attack of opportunity. When Russian defence in the area failed, largely manned by conscripts, Ukraine took the opportunity to push as far as they could. It's telling how utterly unprepared Ukraine was for this (and Russia for that matter), having to quickly relocate huge amounts of troops to the area so they could continue to fight.
Yes, it's a shame they never reached the powerplants. But it's not a failure as such; they never truly planned for it to begin with. Their initial vector of attack wasn't even in that direction.
And lastly, could you actually start reading your own sources? Do you really think up to 70% of Ukranian recruits die within 5 days? That would be utter insanity. The "report" is from 2023, and based off of a single guy's quote. Come on. This isn't Reddit. At least read past the headline
Kursk wasn't planned, it was an attack of opportunity.
There are other theories, and all sorts of explanations like "it was to diverge the other enemies forces" etc. I don't buy it's a random attack if they didn't choose to give up the position.
And lastly, could you actually start reading your own sources? Do you really think up to 70% of Ukranian recruits die within 5 days? That would be utter insanity. The "report" is from 2023, and based off of a single guy's quote
So are you saying I didn't read the sources or you don't believe the morality rate is that high?
Both
(quote: "Along the front in Donetsk, four commanders, a deputy commander and nearly a dozen soldiers from four Ukrainian brigades told the Financial Times that the new conscripts lack basic combat skills, motivation and often abandon their positions when they come under fire. The commanders estimated that 50 to 70 per cent of new infantry troops were killed or wounded within days of starting their first rotation.")
This is both a quote, from 2023, and are based on feelings, not statistics. We know it's not true, because Ukraine hasn't been wiped out yet. If 70% of new recruits died within 5 days, 3 years straight, Ukraine would at this point have no soldiers left.
I have not commented on the second source for a reason. That Ukraine has a problem with deserters is well known and documented
edit: Let's put some numbers on it, to hammer the point home. Ukraine forces, pre invasion, totalled only roughly 300k, quickly building up to 700k within half a year (about a million including border guards, police and national guard). These are the vast majority of their untrained forces, who were pushed to the front lines quickly in pure desperation. Most forces since have gone through basic training at the least. Which, sure, is only 2 months in the UK. But it's 2 very intense and packed months. We would like to train them for longer, but they are by no means green when they are finished. A lot of them go on to continue their training here in Norway afterwards. Morale amongst troops that have gone through basic are also much higher for obvious reasons. But anyways, that's a digression
Today, their forces are at total 2.2 million (900k active, 1.2m reserve, and 100k paramilitary). As you can see, this number have grown drastically. The biggest reason it's not growing further is mainly equipment shortage (There's no point in recruiting more people than you have equipment and jobs for. There are entire battalions who currently sits combat ineffective due to equipment shortage alone). If 70% of ALL new recruits died within 5 days, how the fuck do you think they managed to grow to this number? Did they recruit 5 million and 4 of them died?! Did none of the older soldiers die for this to happen? This is not even remotely reasonable logic. Even if you remove the reserves, which leaves us down to a military force of 1 million, that's still numbers which would be entirely impossible if 70% of all new recruits died immediately like that
I don't have access to your second link for payment reasons, so I can't confirm, but I can imagine that this was said by one commander who was in an intense fighting zone with high casualty rates, and that the number he gave was located to that area alone, and not the entire front. And then other media outlets ran wild with it
Of course it's not the entire battlefield, it's specifically talking about multiple fronts, fronts that really need men for the rotation. I am not sure where it was said to be a quote from 2023? It's a report by 4 different brigades. And then went on talking about new recruits from draft law in May 2024 not being motivated etc
from other sources, it's been suggested new recruits have only 1 month of training at best.
Again, I don't buy the idea they don't have enough supply and not recruiting, there are non combat roles. they literally are trying to recruit more but it's just unpopular AF.
I wonder if they timed it just now to make use of US intelligence sharing freeze. Assuming it even mattered.
I think both Russia and Ukraine knew this year will be when negotiation starts and ends, even before Trump got into power. Russia did their huge recruitment effort last year, and Ukraine wanted the Kursk to be a bargaining chip.
If you only followed mainstream media, you would have thought Kursk showed Ukraine still got some fierce in them. When they failed to encirclement/ capture the strategically important spots like the powerplants, this was a failure more than anything else.
- Ukraine might just land one of the worst position possible on the negotiation table. It started too late, and it has been losing for too long, and is still losing.
The worst outcome is if the negotiation drags on long enough to the point where Ukraine's army breaks spirit. Ukraine is not getting enough recruits and some of their armies had been fighting since the invasion began, and no rotation means their spirit are going to collapse sooner or later.
With all the investments and loans send to Ukraine, it's really time to go all in or just cut loss. France is at least being pro-active (in fact it was the only nation to propose sending troops to aid Ukraine a couple months back). All the big fancy number aids being announced by other nations, unless they can deliver immediately and solve manpower issue, to me it's all PR stunts.
You seem to have your history a bit backwards there. Kursk wasn't planned, it was an attack of opportunity. When Russian defence in the area failed, largely manned by conscripts, Ukraine took the opportunity to push as far as they could. It's telling how utterly unprepared Ukraine was for this (and Russia for that matter), having to quickly relocate huge amounts of troops to the area so they could continue to fight.
Yes, it's a shame they never reached the powerplants. But it's not a failure as such; they never truly planned for it to begin with. Their initial vector of attack wasn't even in that direction.
And lastly, could you actually start reading your own sources? Do you really think up to 70% of Ukranian recruits die within 5 days? That would be utter insanity. The "report" is from 2023, and based off of a single guy's quote. Come on. This isn't Reddit. At least read past the headline
Kursk wasn't planned, it was an attack of opportunity.
There are other theories, and all sorts of explanations like "it was to diverge the other enemies forces" etc. I don't buy it's a random attack if they didn't choose to give up the position.
And lastly, could you actually start reading your own sources? Do you really think up to 70% of Ukranian recruits die within 5 days? That would be utter insanity. The "report" is from 2023, and based off of a single guy's quote
So are you saying I didn't read the sources or you don't believe the morality rate is that high?
Both
(quote: "Along the front in Donetsk, four commanders, a deputy commander and nearly a dozen soldiers from four Ukrainian brigades told the Financial Times that the new conscripts lack basic combat skills, motivation and often abandon their positions when they come under fire. The commanders estimated that 50 to 70 per cent of new infantry troops were killed or wounded within days of starting their first rotation.")
This is both a quote, from 2023, and are based on feelings, not statistics. We know it's not true, because Ukraine hasn't been wiped out yet. If 70% of new recruits died within 5 days, 3 years straight, Ukraine would at this point have no soldiers left.
I have not commented on the second source for a reason. That Ukraine has a problem with deserters is well known and documented
edit: Let's put some numbers on it, to hammer the point home. Ukraine forces, pre invasion, totalled only roughly 300k, quickly building up to 700k within half a year (about a million including border guards, police and national guard). These are the vast majority of their untrained forces, who were pushed to the front lines quickly in pure desperation. Most forces since have gone through basic training at the least. Which, sure, is only 2 months in the UK. But it's 2 very intense and packed months. We would like to train them for longer, but they are by no means green when they are finished. A lot of them go on to continue their training here in Norway afterwards. Morale amongst troops that have gone through basic are also much higher for obvious reasons. But anyways, that's a digression
Today, their forces are at total 2.2 million (900k active, 1.2m reserve, and 100k paramilitary). As you can see, this number have grown drastically. The biggest reason it's not growing further is mainly equipment shortage (There's no point in recruiting more people than you have equipment and jobs for. There are entire battalions who currently sits combat ineffective due to equipment shortage alone). If 70% of ALL new recruits died within 5 days, how the fuck do you think they managed to grow to this number? Did they recruit 5 million and 4 of them died?! Did none of the older soldiers die for this to happen? This is not even remotely reasonable logic. Even if you remove the reserves, which leaves us down to a military force of 1 million, that's still numbers which would be entirely impossible if 70% of all new recruits died immediately like that
I don't have access to your second link for payment reasons, so I can't confirm, but I can imagine that this was said by one commander who was in an intense fighting zone with high casualty rates, and that the number he gave was located to that area alone, and not the entire front. And then other media outlets ran wild with it
Of course it's not the entire battlefield, it's specifically talking about multiple fronts, fronts that really need men for the rotation. I am not sure where it was said to be a quote from 2023? It's a report by 4 different brigades. And then went on talking about new recruits from draft law in May 2024 not being motivated etc
from other sources, it's been suggested new recruits have only 1 month of training at best.
They don't have any issues filling up their non-combat roles. People are highly motivated for those. But you don't need infinite of them. What you need are combat roles, and that's where they lack the equipment. This is also pretty well documented, and one of the things Zelenskyy keeps repeating. Like I said, several Battalions are right now combat ineffective not because of a lack of manpower, but because of a lack of equipment for those men. They can't go into combat with sticks and stone
I wonder if they timed it just now to make use of US intelligence sharing freeze. Assuming it even mattered.
I think both Russia and Ukraine knew this year will be when negotiation starts and ends, even before Trump got into power. Russia did their huge recruitment effort last year, and Ukraine wanted the Kursk to be a bargaining chip.
If you only followed mainstream media, you would have thought Kursk showed Ukraine still got some fierce in them. When they failed to encirclement/ capture the strategically important spots like the powerplants, this was a failure more than anything else.
- Ukraine might just land one of the worst position possible on the negotiation table. It started too late, and it has been losing for too long, and is still losing.
The worst outcome is if the negotiation drags on long enough to the point where Ukraine's army breaks spirit. Ukraine is not getting enough recruits and some of their armies had been fighting since the invasion began, and no rotation means their spirit are going to collapse sooner or later.
With all the investments and loans send to Ukraine, it's really time to go all in or just cut loss. France is at least being pro-active (in fact it was the only nation to propose sending troops to aid Ukraine a couple months back). All the big fancy number aids being announced by other nations, unless they can deliver immediately and solve manpower issue, to me it's all PR stunts.
You seem to have your history a bit backwards there. Kursk wasn't planned, it was an attack of opportunity. When Russian defence in the area failed, largely manned by conscripts, Ukraine took the opportunity to push as far as they could. It's telling how utterly unprepared Ukraine was for this (and Russia for that matter), having to quickly relocate huge amounts of troops to the area so they could continue to fight.
Yes, it's a shame they never reached the powerplants. But it's not a failure as such; they never truly planned for it to begin with. Their initial vector of attack wasn't even in that direction.
And lastly, could you actually start reading your own sources? Do you really think up to 70% of Ukranian recruits die within 5 days? That would be utter insanity. The "report" is from 2023, and based off of a single guy's quote. Come on. This isn't Reddit. At least read past the headline
Kursk wasn't planned, it was an attack of opportunity.
There are other theories, and all sorts of explanations like "it was to diverge the other enemies forces" etc. I don't buy it's a random attack if they didn't choose to give up the position.
And lastly, could you actually start reading your own sources? Do you really think up to 70% of Ukranian recruits die within 5 days? That would be utter insanity. The "report" is from 2023, and based off of a single guy's quote
So are you saying I didn't read the sources or you don't believe the morality rate is that high?
Both
(quote: "Along the front in Donetsk, four commanders, a deputy commander and nearly a dozen soldiers from four Ukrainian brigades told the Financial Times that the new conscripts lack basic combat skills, motivation and often abandon their positions when they come under fire. The commanders estimated that 50 to 70 per cent of new infantry troops were killed or wounded within days of starting their first rotation.")
This is both a quote, from 2023, and are based on feelings, not statistics. We know it's not true, because Ukraine hasn't been wiped out yet. If 70% of new recruits died within 5 days, 3 years straight, Ukraine would at this point have no soldiers left.
I have not commented on the second source for a reason. That Ukraine has a problem with deserters is well known and documented
edit: Let's put some numbers on it, to hammer the point home. Ukraine forces, pre invasion, totalled only roughly 300k, quickly building up to 700k within half a year (about a million including border guards, police and national guard). These are the vast majority of their untrained forces, who were pushed to the front lines quickly in pure desperation. Most forces since have gone through basic training at the least. Which, sure, is only 2 months in the UK. But it's 2 very intense and packed months. We would like to train them for longer, but they are by no means green when they are finished. A lot of them go on to continue their training here in Norway afterwards. Morale amongst troops that have gone through basic are also much higher for obvious reasons. But anyways, that's a digression
Today, their forces are at total 2.2 million (900k active, 1.2m reserve, and 100k paramilitary). As you can see, this number have grown drastically. The biggest reason it's not growing further is mainly equipment shortage (There's no point in recruiting more people than you have equipment and jobs for. There are entire battalions who currently sits combat ineffective due to equipment shortage alone). If 70% of ALL new recruits died within 5 days, how the fuck do you think they managed to grow to this number? Did they recruit 5 million and 4 of them died?! Did none of the older soldiers die for this to happen? This is not even remotely reasonable logic. Even if you remove the reserves, which leaves us down to a military force of 1 million, that's still numbers which would be entirely impossible if 70% of all new recruits died immediately like that
I don't have access to your second link for payment reasons, so I can't confirm, but I can imagine that this was said by one commander who was in an intense fighting zone with high casualty rates, and that the number he gave was located to that area alone, and not the entire front. And then other media outlets ran wild with it
Of course it's not the entire battlefield, it's specifically talking about multiple fronts, fronts that really need men for the rotation. I am not sure where it was said to be a quote from 2023? It's a report by 4 different brigades. And then went on talking about new recruits from draft law in May 2024 not being motivated etc
from other sources, it's been suggested new recruits have only 1 month of training at best.
They don't have any issues filling up their non-combat roles. People are highly motivated for those. But you don't need infinite of them. What you need are combat roles, and that's where they lack the equipment. This is also pretty well documented, and one of the things Zelenskyy keeps repeating. Like I said, several Battalions are right now combat ineffective not because of a lack of manpower, but because of a lack of equipment for those men. They can't go into combat with sticks and stone
Where did you read the non combat role is filled up? I am plenty sure even that isn't enough. That's why France suggested to bring in troops to help with non combat roles.
It's no secret they are facing recruitment resistance and huge deserters numbers. Of course there's an equipment shortage, but I don't buy Zelenskyy at all with war propoganda running on both sides. It's clear with both deserters and recruitment resistance, draft dodgers, it's these that are the much bigger factor. You see the resistance and unwillingness in poll numbers as well.
Anyways look like Kursk situation will be settled pretty soon.
I wonder if they timed it just now to make use of US intelligence sharing freeze. Assuming it even mattered.
I think both Russia and Ukraine knew this year will be when negotiation starts and ends, even before Trump got into power. Russia did their huge recruitment effort last year, and Ukraine wanted the Kursk to be a bargaining chip.
If you only followed mainstream media, you would have thought Kursk showed Ukraine still got some fierce in them. When they failed to encirclement/ capture the strategically important spots like the powerplants, this was a failure more than anything else.
- Ukraine might just land one of the worst position possible on the negotiation table. It started too late, and it has been losing for too long, and is still losing.
The worst outcome is if the negotiation drags on long enough to the point where Ukraine's army breaks spirit. Ukraine is not getting enough recruits and some of their armies had been fighting since the invasion began, and no rotation means their spirit are going to collapse sooner or later.
With all the investments and loans send to Ukraine, it's really time to go all in or just cut loss. France is at least being pro-active (in fact it was the only nation to propose sending troops to aid Ukraine a couple months back). All the big fancy number aids being announced by other nations, unless they can deliver immediately and solve manpower issue, to me it's all PR stunts.
You seem to have your history a bit backwards there. Kursk wasn't planned, it was an attack of opportunity. When Russian defence in the area failed, largely manned by conscripts, Ukraine took the opportunity to push as far as they could. It's telling how utterly unprepared Ukraine was for this (and Russia for that matter), having to quickly relocate huge amounts of troops to the area so they could continue to fight.
Yes, it's a shame they never reached the powerplants. But it's not a failure as such; they never truly planned for it to begin with. Their initial vector of attack wasn't even in that direction.
And lastly, could you actually start reading your own sources? Do you really think up to 70% of Ukranian recruits die within 5 days? That would be utter insanity. The "report" is from 2023, and based off of a single guy's quote. Come on. This isn't Reddit. At least read past the headline
Kursk wasn't planned, it was an attack of opportunity.
There are other theories, and all sorts of explanations like "it was to diverge the other enemies forces" etc. I don't buy it's a random attack if they didn't choose to give up the position.
And lastly, could you actually start reading your own sources? Do you really think up to 70% of Ukranian recruits die within 5 days? That would be utter insanity. The "report" is from 2023, and based off of a single guy's quote
So are you saying I didn't read the sources or you don't believe the morality rate is that high?
Both
(quote: "Along the front in Donetsk, four commanders, a deputy commander and nearly a dozen soldiers from four Ukrainian brigades told the Financial Times that the new conscripts lack basic combat skills, motivation and often abandon their positions when they come under fire. The commanders estimated that 50 to 70 per cent of new infantry troops were killed or wounded within days of starting their first rotation.")
This is both a quote, from 2023, and are based on feelings, not statistics. We know it's not true, because Ukraine hasn't been wiped out yet. If 70% of new recruits died within 5 days, 3 years straight, Ukraine would at this point have no soldiers left.
I have not commented on the second source for a reason. That Ukraine has a problem with deserters is well known and documented
edit: Let's put some numbers on it, to hammer the point home. Ukraine forces, pre invasion, totalled only roughly 300k, quickly building up to 700k within half a year (about a million including border guards, police and national guard). These are the vast majority of their untrained forces, who were pushed to the front lines quickly in pure desperation. Most forces since have gone through basic training at the least. Which, sure, is only 2 months in the UK. But it's 2 very intense and packed months. We would like to train them for longer, but they are by no means green when they are finished. A lot of them go on to continue their training here in Norway afterwards. Morale amongst troops that have gone through basic are also much higher for obvious reasons. But anyways, that's a digression
Today, their forces are at total 2.2 million (900k active, 1.2m reserve, and 100k paramilitary). As you can see, this number have grown drastically. The biggest reason it's not growing further is mainly equipment shortage (There's no point in recruiting more people than you have equipment and jobs for. There are entire battalions who currently sits combat ineffective due to equipment shortage alone). If 70% of ALL new recruits died within 5 days, how the fuck do you think they managed to grow to this number? Did they recruit 5 million and 4 of them died?! Did none of the older soldiers die for this to happen? This is not even remotely reasonable logic. Even if you remove the reserves, which leaves us down to a military force of 1 million, that's still numbers which would be entirely impossible if 70% of all new recruits died immediately like that
I don't have access to your second link for payment reasons, so I can't confirm, but I can imagine that this was said by one commander who was in an intense fighting zone with high casualty rates, and that the number he gave was located to that area alone, and not the entire front. And then other media outlets ran wild with it
Of course it's not the entire battlefield, it's specifically talking about multiple fronts, fronts that really need men for the rotation. I am not sure where it was said to be a quote from 2023? It's a report by 4 different brigades. And then went on talking about new recruits from draft law in May 2024 not being motivated etc
from other sources, it's been suggested new recruits have only 1 month of training at best.
They don't have any issues filling up their non-combat roles. People are highly motivated for those. But you don't need infinite of them. What you need are combat roles, and that's where they lack the equipment. This is also pretty well documented, and one of the things Zelenskyy keeps repeating. Like I said, several Battalions are right now combat ineffective not because of a lack of manpower, but because of a lack of equipment for those men. They can't go into combat with sticks and stone
Where did you read the non combat role is filled up? I am plenty sure even that isn't enough. That's why France suggested to bring in troops to help with non combat roles.
It's no secret they are facing recruitment resistance and huge deserters numbers. Of course there's an equipment shortage, but I don't buy Zelenskyy at all with war propoganda running on both sides. It's clear with both deserters and recruitment resistance, draft dodgers, it's these that are the much bigger factor. You see the resistance and unwillingness in poll numbers as well.
I have said the very same thing myself, previously. NATO countries going in with people to fill up the back ranks does allow Ukraine to free up men and women for more front line oriented roles. Don't get me wrong, I am at no point saying Ukraine doesn't have a shortage of soldiers, they absolutely do. There just isn't a way of increasing said shortage with the equipment they currently have. Zelenskyy can't lower the recruitment age below 25, or push more people to the front, when the men who are already there doesn't even have ammunition for themselves.
I agree Zelenskyy will of course always paint a bleaker picture than perhaps necessary, to hammer home the need for help and try to push for increased support. But in this he is correct. There is no shortage of evidence showing how bad their equipment struggles are
The worst thing about it is that this would never happen if Trump wouldn't suddenly cut off the intelligence and satellite imagery for the Ukrainians. Effectively making them blind.
I wonder if they timed it just now to make use of US intelligence sharing freeze. Assuming it even mattered.
I think both Russia and Ukraine knew this year will be when negotiation starts and ends, even before Trump got into power. Russia did their huge recruitment effort last year, and Ukraine wanted the Kursk to be a bargaining chip.
If you only followed mainstream media, you would have thought Kursk showed Ukraine still got some fierce in them. When they failed to encirclement/ capture the strategically important spots like the powerplants, this was a failure more than anything else.
- Ukraine might just land one of the worst position possible on the negotiation table. It started too late, and it has been losing for too long, and is still losing.
The worst outcome is if the negotiation drags on long enough to the point where Ukraine's army breaks spirit. Ukraine is not getting enough recruits and some of their armies had been fighting since the invasion began, and no rotation means their spirit are going to collapse sooner or later.
With all the investments and loans send to Ukraine, it's really time to go all in or just cut loss. France is at least being pro-active (in fact it was the only nation to propose sending troops to aid Ukraine a couple months back). All the big fancy number aids being announced by other nations, unless they can deliver immediately and solve manpower issue, to me it's all PR stunts.
Their negotiating positions are irreconcilable. No negotiations any time soon.
I wonder if they timed it just now to make use of US intelligence sharing freeze. Assuming it even mattered.
I think both Russia and Ukraine knew this year will be when negotiation starts and ends, even before Trump got into power. Russia did their huge recruitment effort last year, and Ukraine wanted the Kursk to be a bargaining chip.
If you only followed mainstream media, you would have thought Kursk showed Ukraine still got some fierce in them. When they failed to encirclement/ capture the strategically important spots like the powerplants, this was a failure more than anything else.
- Ukraine might just land one of the worst position possible on the negotiation table. It started too late, and it has been losing for too long, and is still losing.
The worst outcome is if the negotiation drags on long enough to the point where Ukraine's army breaks spirit. Ukraine is not getting enough recruits and some of their armies had been fighting since the invasion began, and no rotation means their spirit are going to collapse sooner or later.
With all the investments and loans send to Ukraine, it's really time to go all in or just cut loss. France is at least being pro-active (in fact it was the only nation to propose sending troops to aid Ukraine a couple months back). All the big fancy number aids being announced by other nations, unless they can deliver immediately and solve manpower issue, to me it's all PR stunts.
Their negotiating positions are irreconcilable. No negotiations any time soon.
Russia not accepting peace keeping forces or Ukraine joining defensive alliances is the most critical point. The rest I think they could hammer out in a negotiation.
EPT
