| 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
Serbia6286 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
Norway8084 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
Serbia6286 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
11847 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
Norway8084 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 States42752 Posts
| ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5564 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
12407 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. | ||
| ||
|
|
WardiTV Summer Champion…
The PondCast
WardiTV Summer Champion…
Replay Cast
LiuLi Cup
Online Event
SC Evo League
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
CSO Contender
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
