| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6342 Posts
On August 12 2025 07:41 ETisME wrote: Potentially a much larger land loss from Ukraine soon. https://english.elpais.com/international/2025-08-11/russia-achieves-its-largest-advance-on-the-frontlines-in-ukraine-since-2024.html The Donbass was never strategically important posts incoming. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8264 Posts
On August 13 2025 03:48 zeo wrote: The Donbass was never strategically important posts incoming. "Russia is doing better than ever and the economy is booming" posts incoming. I'm sure if you just throw a few more hundred thousand men on the fire, all your problems will finally go away. Any day now | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6342 Posts
On August 13 2025 03:50 Excludos wrote: "Russia is doing better than ever and the economy is booming" posts incoming. I'm sure if you just throw a few more hundred thousand men on the fire, all your problems will finally go away. Any day now Ah yes, the side losing a bajillion men a month is just walking 18km into empty and undefended newly built one billion USD defensive networks because the other side with a supposed million man army has no casualties and just got tired of killing Russians. Yeah, lets take units directly from the front lines of other areas to stop the breakthrough. No need for reserves that are totally there and exist. Everything is fine lol  | ||
|
Yurie
12114 Posts
On August 13 2025 03:48 zeo wrote: The Donbass was never strategically important posts incoming. The war is not won or lost by a few hundred square km. It is won or lost on manpower, position and equipment. As far as I know there are no formations remaining that can use a breakthrough to generate massive gains and thus each gain becomes largely irrelevant since Ukraine can reform the next line. Yes Ukraine is losing land slowly and at great Russian cost. The question is and remains, how long can Russia replace the manpower and equipment lost by doing those pushes. On the other side Ukraine has a lot of land to lose while still winning the war, the question for them is how long they can maintain manpower (the EU will make sure they get equipment). EU will be deeply unhappy if Ukraine loses the war. But from a long term perspective, financing Ukraine is cheaper than building the military to counter Russia and maintaining that military long term. So there is no reason the financing will stop. It is not an existential war for the EU, it is somewhat important though and the financing level seems to be enough to drain Russia but not for Ukraine to win before Russia gives up. I have not seen anything changing these trends since the failed Ukrainian summer offensive where they tried to get to the coast. From a strategic EU perspective, any Russian soldier dying or getting heavily injured is another person that cannot finance or fight in the next Russian war. It is now approaching another lost generation for Russia. And the very unpopular boots on the ground is not even required. If Russia was not going to be a peaceful trade partner, then this war is probably the best thing that (realistically) could have happened for NATO. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8264 Posts
On August 13 2025 05:53 zeo wrote: Ah yes, the side losing a bajillion men a month is just walking 18km into empty and undefended newly built one billion USD defensive networks because the other side with a supposed million man army has no casualties and just got tired of killing Russians. Yeah, lets take units directly from the front lines of other areas to stop the breakthrough. No need for reserves that are totally there and exist. Everything is fine lol They didn't "walk" anywhere? They threw enough men into the grinder and got some kilometers of land out of it. Congrats I suppose? Hope you're proud. Hey, while we're at it, let's murder another generation of men? You're winning son! It's only costing Russia its entire future The only clown face here is you failing to grasp simple concepts despite being explained numerous times. This war is not won or lost through meters of land grabbed. This war isn't ending with Russia marching into Kyiv. But at this point, you must either be lobotomised for still not getting this, or you're arguing in bad faith. You can let me know which one it is | ||
KwarK
United States44131 Posts
| ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5830 Posts
https://x.com/AndrewPerpetua/status/1955234821396979964 https://map.ukrdailyupdate.com/?lat=48.400969&lng=37.166748&z=11&d=20311&c=1&l=0 | ||
|
ETisME
12740 Posts
On August 13 2025 05:54 Yurie wrote: The war is not won or lost by a few hundred square km. It is won or lost on manpower, position and equipment. As far as I know there are no formations remaining that can use a breakthrough to generate massive gains and thus each gain becomes largely irrelevant since Ukraine can reform the next line. Yes Ukraine is losing land slowly and at great Russian cost. The question is and remains, how long can Russia replace the manpower and equipment lost by doing those pushes. On the other side Ukraine has a lot of land to lose while still winning the war, the question for them is how long they can maintain manpower (the EU will make sure they get equipment). EU will be deeply unhappy if Ukraine loses the war. But from a long term perspective, financing Ukraine is cheaper than building the military to counter Russia and maintaining that military long term. So there is no reason the financing will stop. It is not an existential war for the EU, it is somewhat important though and the financing level seems to be enough to drain Russia but not for Ukraine to win before Russia gives up. I have not seen anything changing these trends since the failed Ukrainian summer offensive where they tried to get to the coast. From a strategic EU perspective, any Russian soldier dying or getting heavily injured is another person that cannot finance or fight in the next Russian war. It is now approaching another lost generation for Russia. And the very unpopular boots on the ground is not even required. If Russia was not going to be a peaceful trade partner, then this war is probably the best thing that (realistically) could have happened for NATO. Good on you to admit EU is just using Ukraine as a cannon fodder. At the end of the day, Russia has their own profit loss analysis as well. It has plenty of disposable men for war. It's not like they are throwing their high value productivity labour. The more land they capture, the more bargain power they have, and any land they get to keep are going to be with them for decades to come. The biggest loser is Ukraine no matter what, and that's the reality of a small country when your trusted allies are not all in with them and prefer to drag it out as a proxy war. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5830 Posts
| ||
|
Excludos
Norway8264 Posts
On August 13 2025 16:00 maybenexttime wrote: This is such a stupid and tired take. What more could the EU be doing short of directly joining the war? Sending a LOT more equipment and support. Also we should never have let North Koreans just waltz into Ukraine for free. How does that shit not have escalating consequences? We should be sending troops into Kyiv to support the back ranks of the Ukranian army, freeing up more of their men to fight at the front. Our EU and Nato leader's backbones are made of rubber, and we should be calling it out. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17775 Posts
On August 13 2025 10:12 ETisME wrote: Good on you to admit EU is just using Ukraine as a cannon fodder. At the end of the day, Russia has their own profit loss analysis as well. It has plenty of disposable men for war. It's not like they are throwing their high value productivity labour. The more land they capture, the more bargain power they have, and any land they get to keep are going to be with them for decades to come. The biggest loser is Ukraine no matter what, and that's the reality of a small country when your trusted allies are not all in with them and prefer to drag it out as a proxy war. No one has ever denied that US/EU is basically using UA as a proxy. Ukraine also knows this and accepted the fact, they even said during previous "negotiations" that one of their goals after the war is to become the iron wall between the EU and Russia that no one will want to invade. And no, Russia does not have "plenty of disposable men for war". They have used the disposable men earlier in the conflict, they've lost over a million medium income highly skilled workers who fled the country and what they're throwing into the grinder now are men who would otherwise be their labor force in farming, factories and all sorts of other jobs. The country can't subside only on highly educated and high income job, it'll fall apart if there's not enough either unskilled physical labor, construction workers, plumbers, electricians, farmers etc. And that's exactly who is dying in this war for Russia. Also, Ukraine is not a "small country", it's almost twice the size of Germany for example. | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8760 Posts
On August 13 2025 10:12 ETisME wrote: Good on you to admit EU is just using Ukraine as a cannon fodder. At the end of the day, Russia has their own profit loss analysis as well. It has plenty of disposable men for war. It's not like they are throwing their high value productivity labour. The more land they capture, the more bargain power they have, and any land they get to keep are going to be with them for decades to come. The biggest loser is Ukraine no matter what, and that's the reality of a small country when your trusted allies are not all in with them and prefer to drag it out as a proxy war. at least you are happily admitting Russia throwing away _disposable meat_ into the grinder in order to kill Ukrainian freedom/autonomy is a goal equivalent to the EU funding freedom fighters. interests are just interests after all. and freedom is not free. not for Ukrainians. and most definitely not for the Russians happily and (most certainly!) willingly giving their lives. for a man and his vision that is just and a cost benefit analysis worthy of proud mother Russia and the glorious days of central planning. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5830 Posts
On August 13 2025 18:12 Excludos wrote: Sending a LOT more equipment and support. Also we should never have let North Koreans just waltz into Ukraine for free. How does that shit not have escalating consequences? We should be sending troops into Kyiv to support the back ranks of the Ukranian army, freeing up more of their men to fight at the front. Our EU and Nato leader's backbones are made of rubber, and we should be calling it out. What equipment that we have are we not sending? Currently Ukraine's biggest issue is the lack of manpower. While I agree that we should send troops, most European citizens disagree and the governments have to contend with that. This isn't about some cynical calculation on the EU's part. It's a political reality. Let's say several European countries send their troops. What happens next is they lose the elections to a bunch of Russian puppets and the whole thing collapses... @Manit0u I am denying that. It's an idiotic take. Biden's government was afraid of Russia using nuclear weapons or the conflict spiraling into a direct war between Russia and NATO. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44131 Posts
On August 13 2025 16:00 maybenexttime wrote: This is such a stupid and tired take. What more could the EU be doing short of directly joining the war? As you say, it's a stupid and tired take. Ukrainians want to fight for their freedom, they'd be fighting Russia regardless because they know damn well what will happen to them if they don't. They know that they'll still be forced to fight in Russia's wars. The EU is giving them a fighting chance at winning, not using them as cannon fodder. If all the EU wanted to do was watch them die then they could do that for free. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8264 Posts
On August 13 2025 18:51 maybenexttime wrote: What equipment that we have are we not sending? Currently Ukraine's biggest issue is the lack of manpower. While I agree that we should send troops, most European citizens disagree and the governments have to contend with that. This isn't about some cynical calculation on the EU's part. It's a political reality. Let's say several European countries send their troops. What happens next is they lose the elections to a bunch of Russian puppets and the whole thing collapses... @Manit0u I am denying that. It's an idiotic take. Biden's government was afraid of Russia using nuclear weapons or the conflict spiraling into a direct war between Russia and NATO. Lack of manpower is definitively an issue, don't get me wrong, but something I've covered before is that Ukraine doesn't even have small arms to cover all the men they do have. And that's the least we could do. What would really help the war are more artillery, missiles, and drones (either more financial support, or, the best idea in my opinion, start up our own mass production of dirt cheap fpv and long range drones. The west is currently so far behind in the drone game it's genuinely embarrassing. We should be learning from this conflict and be on top of this development. Yet, somehow, the best we can do are either $200k black hornets (Which are genuinely good for recon, but at a price point only special forces can afford) or the large $115 million Eurodrone which would literally be pointless over Ukraine as it's too costly and too easy to shoot down. Anyways, bit of digression. My point is there is plenty we could do with, for instance, Norway's 1000 billion war profits, and we're not. Had we (as in all of EU) gone all in from the start, this conflict would be over now. The loss of lives is blood on our hands for sitting on them. | ||
|
MJG
United Kingdom1451 Posts
On August 13 2025 03:48 zeo wrote: The Donbass was never strategically important posts incoming. How's the 3 day invasion going? | ||
|
pmp10
3396 Posts
On August 13 2025 16:00 maybenexttime wrote: This is such a stupid and tired take. What more could the EU be doing short of directly joining the war? They could start by confiscating the $300 billion Euro worth of Russian assets and closing sanctions workarounds. If not even that is an option, then EU will have serious problems making a difference. This is especially important since Ukraine might need security guarantees sooner rather than later. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44131 Posts
On August 13 2025 20:33 pmp10 wrote: They could start by confiscating the $300 billion Euro worth of Russian assets and closing sanctions workarounds. If not even that is an option, then EU will have serious problems making a difference. This is especially important since Ukraine might need security guarantees sooner rather than later. They did confiscate the 300b euro of Russian assets. They're already holding them hostage and giving Ukraine billions of proceeds from the confiscated assets. They're refusing to return them unless Russia withdraws and even then they'll likely to be carved up during the settlement. You should know this. But it's also not something the EU can do, those assets are held by a bunch of different banks in a bunch of different states with their own legal frameworks. States confiscated those assets. Edit: The more I think about your post the more it confuses me. You knew there was 300b of Russian assets in the EU. You knew they'd been there for the entire duration of the war. You knew they were under the control of European banks. You knew the European banks weren't giving them back. You believed they hadn't been confiscated. What did you imagine had happened with them that wasn't confiscation? | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5830 Posts
| ||
|
LightSpectra
United States2787 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
WardiTV Weekly
RSL Revival
RSL Revival
Bombastic Starleague
Kung Fu Cup
OSC
CrankTV Team League
Bombastic Starleague
Replay Cast
The PondCast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
