| 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. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8230 Posts
On August 21 2025 00:04 Gescom wrote: >You've just not been paying attention. That's correct! It was a legit question from me though. Why so hostile? Moreover, if Russia is driving golf carts around, why is the war still ongoing? Don't worry, this is Kwarks default state. He's an asshole, but rarely wrong | ||
|
Yurie
11998 Posts
On August 21 2025 00:04 Gescom wrote: >You've just not been paying attention. That's correct! It was a legit question from me though. Why so hostile? Moreover, if Russia is driving golf carts around, why is the war still ongoing? Due to lack of the equipment to do large offensives we instead see what would classically be considered special forces style of fighting. Send in a squad of people to get through the enemy line in a weak spot. Attack the defenses from the back. If this works you have a larger gap and try to wrap the next spot from the back and keep going. The reason a style like that works is that both armies are at 1/3 of the force needed to fully man the VERY long front line. So they can spot and artillery shell any large scale offensive. A medium scale one they can hurt with drones. A small one might not be spotted during night if using anti infrared equipment and thus causes more issues, this is the current Russian strategy in most places. | ||
|
0x64
Finland4601 Posts
On August 21 2025 00:14 KwarK wrote: Because they have a lot of golf carts and a man in a golf cart is still dangerous. Maybe Trump will start taking things seriously when they start running out of golf carts? | ||
KwarK
United States43435 Posts
On August 21 2025 01:07 Excludos wrote: Don't worry, this is Kwarks default state. He's an asshole, but rarely wrong I didn't even call him an idiot. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43435 Posts
On August 21 2025 01:03 Manit0u wrote: I think the better explanation is that they still have soldiers and Putin won't let it end unless he gets what he wants or is forced to end it. Edit: To elaborate more on this: the dictatorial regime can't allow itself to be viewed as weak or unable to accomplish goals when it's built around "our country stronk, our leader stronk" narrative. A single failure like that would quite often mean the end of such regime. So far Russia doesn't have much to show for it after 3 years of exhausting war (captured additional 0.97% of Ukraine). In the mean time they managed to ruin domestic economy, effectively lose an entire generation or two of people for the future (and in a country whose population has been shrinking for the past 30 years). Even if Russia would actually get what it wants it'll probably still be a loss for them long term. Examples include: 1905 revolt after Russo Japanese war. 1917 revolt after failures in WW1. 1989 collapse after Afghan war. Obviously some of the goals such as preventing NATO expansion, preventing European rearmament, limiting the hostile troops on Russian borders, growing Russian power and so forth are already fucked forever. So in terms of those war goals there's no longer any possible victory, if NATO expansion was truly a concern Russia would have been better off encouraging Ukraine to join NATO than invading it. Invading it got two strong historically neutral border states into NATO, being a good neighbour would have made NATO seem pointless. We have to set aside all of the bullshit about what Russia says its war aims are because Russia lies. And not covertly and tactically, Russia lies flagrantly, shamelessly, and for the sheer joy of lying. They'll show Putin looking at an old map which clearly has the word Ukraine written on it and declaring to the camera that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is justified because this map doesn't have the word Ukraine on it. They'll put a guy covered with Nazi tattoos on camera and have him talk about how Ukraine is dominated by Jewish Nazis who must be exterminated. They think it is funny. But Putin also believes he can still win this, for a given value of win. If in 50 years time the Ukrainian language, history, and cultural identity are all wiped out then the Russian empire might be stronger for it. They've done it before many times to countless peoples of what is now the Russian empire, including in Ukraine itself such as the Cossacks. That's the kind of permanent historical victory Putin is after, the kind where future historians will say how terrible it was that the Ukrainians were all killed but there's nothing that can be done now as the people living there are all Russian. The Soviet invasion of Finland is a good example of this, Finland doesn't want Karelia back anymore, it's full of Russians and they'd have to be removed to make it worth having. The USSR did extremely poorly in that war but they got Karelia and they still have it today. Putin is an egomaniac who is angling for the history books, he wants to be the great restorer, the anti-Gorbachev, remembered alongside Peter the Great. There are also misaligned incentives. Putin believes, rightly or wrongly, that his personal rule is all that is keeping Russia from descending back into chaos. That could well be true, albeit mostly because Putin has deliberately cultivated a chaotic kleptocracy with rival feuding power bases, no clear line of succession, and no real ideology outside of his own. He has fostered the chaos to make himself essential. But if he believes that failure in the invasion of Ukraine could threaten his own primacy then continuing the war is rational for him, even if it's irrational for Russia as a whole. It could be a huge sunk cost fallacy but he'll keep it going rather than concede defeat. And he'll turn around and say "well I had to because if I go down you all go down" as if he wasn't the one who destroyed the Russian constitution and make himself an integral part of it. On an unrelated note, I was thinking more on this comment. On August 20 2025 19:20 Manit0u wrote: History teaches us that you can't really make a peace deal with Russia. Chechnya learned it the hard way, signed peace with Russia only to have Grozny leveled 3 years later. Not to mention Russians mining the "safe passage" they created for people fleeing the city etc. The only deal Russians didn't break was when they joined forces with the Nazi Germany to occupy Poland (and they didn't break it because the Nazis betrayed them first). I think part of the problem here is that people who don't know Russian history literally don't get this. Not only do they always break non aggression pacts, they actually sign them as the first step to aggression. Every single time. If you're in Eastern Europe and a Russian foreign minister approaches you looking to sign some kind of pact to respect current borders and settle any disputes through mediation then you need to start digging trenches immediately. Not hyperbole, it's just what they do. If you know you know. If you don't then you'll be going "well the terms of this proposed treaty seem pretty fair, Ukraine abandons all their fortifications and dismantles their military and Russia promises to respect their sovereignty forever so they don't need their military". | ||
|
Billyboy
1371 Posts
On August 20 2025 11:28 ETisME wrote: Yeah those are questions you should be asking yourself what are the answers to. These aren't even narrative. It's fact with figures to reference to. Even the conservative K/d ratio to be even is 1:4, which it is roughly just 1:3 now, let alone a counter offence potential. 3 years of constant flow of money, arms supplies, resources etc are plenty and it's still losing terrain one after the other. At some point you gotta ask what's option B? If you don't want an option B then sure donate your entire networth and go join the front as volunteers. Otherwise don't act shocked there's plenty wondering why there hasn't been an option B yet and that it's making progress. Sure, but they have lost territory of 1% in 3 years, pretty insignificant right? The people supplying them all have robust economies that are doing fine and are most of the biggest in the world. Russia on the other hand is bank rolling this war on their own. They can purchase things from their "allies" but there is no gifts or loans. And I put allies in "" because they showed how much support they will give to them when they are in trouble (Syria and Iran) so they are not going to get anything without a very high price. It is factual that Russia is doing much worse, it is fact that offense is more expensive than defense, it is fact that you lose more troops, it is fact that they had a whole bunch of legacy equipment, it is also fact that most of that is gone, it is fact that they built up a huge war chest, it is fact that most of that is gone, it is fact that their oil sales are down and at a much lower price, it is fact that their capacity has shrunk do to kinetic sanctions from Ukraine (drones and missiles), they are also using tons more fuel themselves. It is factual that Russia is attracting their soldiers with huge monetary bonuses and very high salaries. Where is all that money coming from? How much infrastructure within your boarders do you let slip to fund the war? It is fact that Ukraine is hitting that infrastructure. It is fact that Russia is making WAY less and spending WAY WAY more. It is also fact that USSR collapsed in large part because of Afghanistan. It is fact that this is way more expensive in every way. Heck the US pulled out of Afghanistan in large part due to the cost and they were not even fighting the expensive peer to peer army. Will Russia collapse tomorrow, or a year from now, or a decade from now. I do not know. But acting like they are not facing huge economic pressure is completely removed from reality. There is no way a cost benefit analysis would show this as a win. How long will they keep going to gain like 1% per even 2 years at this huge long term cost? And why? It is purely a ego thing, no one actually believes Ukraine was going to ever attach Russia, with or without NATO. Whereas Ukraine has tons of current reasons, and the EU (even America if they had a sensible leader) have tons of current and historical reasons to stop them. How much weaker and poorer is Russia now then in 2022? And where are you getting your information? Because I have no seen any links or anything but it seems like just talk that is the Russian narrative (big tough Russia can never be stopped) and what Trump says. Do you think either of those are remotely accurate? Is everyone else, all these economists wrong? There is tons of pressure on Russia to stop, the only pressure on Ukraine is will Trump chicken out (which I mean is pretty likely even if it benefits the US to participate and sell arms) and if he does will the EU be able to pick up the slack (looks like they can). So the question becomes can the Ukraine, supported by the EU, England, Canada, Japan, Australia out last Russia. I would think they can. And I do not see the pace picking up. If anything it will go down, hell Russia announced it will be spending less on its military next year. | ||
|
Copymizer
Denmark2102 Posts
| ||
|
Yurie
11998 Posts
On August 21 2025 02:50 Copymizer wrote: You forgot to mention they're also attacking on motorbikes now for the past 6 months which is the easiest targets for FPV's and drone munition drops. I'm pretty sure when winter kicks in and its gonna be freezing temperature we will see the frontline move even less as Russia is exhausted, unless they get plenty of equipment again from north korea and iran I don't see Iran doing anything soon. The Israel conflict recently showed how fragile they are, probably wanting to stock up on more stuff to stamp out the next rebellion before it gets going. | ||
|
SC-Shield
Bulgaria835 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11712 Posts
On August 21 2025 05:42 SC-Shield wrote: I don't know if you have watched Superman (2025) film, but there is a troll farm made of monkeys there. Everytime I see a wave of Russian supporters on Facebook from my country, this is what I imagine and we have a large supply of such idiots. Mostly older generation and lots of fake profiles. So when you discussed cost, I'm curious how much Russia is spending on trolls to persuade population to stop supporting Ukraine. To be fair, that is basically their win condition, and so far the Russian desinformation and destabilization war has achieved things that the soviet union would never ever have dreamed of. So investing a lot in their most effective asset sounds like a very smart idea. | ||
|
Billyboy
1371 Posts
On August 21 2025 02:50 Copymizer wrote: You forgot to mention they're also attacking on motorbikes now for the past 6 months which is the easiest targets for FPV's and drone munition drops. I'm pretty sure when winter kicks in and its gonna be freezing temperature we will see the frontline move even less as Russia is exhausted, unless they get plenty of equipment again from north korea and iran My understanding is the Iran Russia relationship is very strained. Iran is pissed about Syria, they are pissed about the big nothing burger of help when Israel attacked, they are pissed about the "effectiveness" of the Russian equipment, and then pissed about how they have stole the IP of the Shaed drone and now manufacturing them completely on their own, and likely with the production will sell them where Iran hoped too. Being a Russian ally is not a two way street, and I think everyone but the ultra desperate know that now. | ||
|
ETisME
12631 Posts
On August 21 2025 02:13 Billyboy wrote: Sure, but they have lost territory of 1% in 3 years, pretty insignificant right? The people supplying them all have robust economies that are doing fine and are most of the biggest in the world. Russia on the other hand is bank rolling this war on their own. They can purchase things from their "allies" but there is no gifts or loans. And I put allies in "" because they showed how much support they will give to them when they are in trouble (Syria and Iran) so they are not going to get anything without a very high price. It is factual that Russia is doing much worse, it is fact that offense is more expensive than defense, it is fact that you lose more troops, it is fact that they had a whole bunch of legacy equipment, it is also fact that most of that is gone, it is fact that they built up a huge war chest, it is fact that most of that is gone, it is fact that their oil sales are down and at a much lower price, it is fact that their capacity has shrunk do to kinetic sanctions from Ukraine (drones and missiles), they are also using tons more fuel themselves. It is factual that Russia is attracting their soldiers with huge monetary bonuses and very high salaries. Where is all that money coming from? How much infrastructure within your boarders do you let slip to fund the war? It is fact that Ukraine is hitting that infrastructure. It is fact that Russia is making WAY less and spending WAY WAY more. It is also fact that USSR collapsed in large part because of Afghanistan. It is fact that this is way more expensive in every way. Heck the US pulled out of Afghanistan in large part due to the cost and they were not even fighting the expensive peer to peer army. Will Russia collapse tomorrow, or a year from now, or a decade from now. I do not know. But acting like they are not facing huge economic pressure is completely removed from reality. There is no way a cost benefit analysis would show this as a win. How long will they keep going to gain like 1% per even 2 years at this huge long term cost? And why? It is purely a ego thing, no one actually believes Ukraine was going to ever attach Russia, with or without NATO. Whereas Ukraine has tons of current reasons, and the EU (even America if they had a sensible leader) have tons of current and historical reasons to stop them. How much weaker and poorer is Russia now then in 2022? And where are you getting your information? Because I have no seen any links or anything but it seems like just talk that is the Russian narrative (big tough Russia can never be stopped) and what Trump says. Do you think either of those are remotely accurate? Is everyone else, all these economists wrong? There is tons of pressure on Russia to stop, the only pressure on Ukraine is will Trump chicken out (which I mean is pretty likely even if it benefits the US to participate and sell arms) and if he does will the EU be able to pick up the slack (looks like they can). So the question becomes can the Ukraine, supported by the EU, England, Canada, Japan, Australia out last Russia. I would think they can. And I do not see the pace picking up. If anything it will go down, hell Russia announced it will be spending less on its military next year. This is where the contradictory is. If Russia is as damaged as implied, there's no reason why Ukraine with a stronger EU backing security guarantee, cannot recover faster than Russia. If we are to follow Kwark incredible mindset, the only option for Ukraine is to take down Russia, since Russia will always want to swallow up Ukraine according to him. Obviously just taking down invasion wouldn't be enough. Ukraine has no counter offensive capabilities, at least I don't see it, even with both US and EU support. There's not enough men, especially ones that are experienced have been on the battlefield since the start. All these years with close to 0 negotiation attempts, is still putting Ukraine on a worse position, yes even if it's just 1% or stagnant. And there will always be pressure on both Ukraine and Russia to stop the war. Both internal or external. As for EU stepping up, well Germany saying they can't afford to deploy troops for security guarantee says it all about their ability/willingness to commit. So if Ukraine don't have the counter offensive ability, then how do you see Ukraine getting all the lost terrain without Russia collapsing? | ||
|
ETisME
12631 Posts
On August 20 2025 22:56 Simberto wrote: Thing is, it is very obvious that what Russia is currently doing is not sustainable forever. Just because you have been hearing it for two years doesn't mean that it should have already happened if it is to happen. I still don't believe anyone who claims any firm timelines, especially if those are very short-term. That is basically always sensationalistic bullshit. Countries on war footing can take increasingly worse deals to mortgage their future for the now. They can do this for a pretty long time, as long as the population goes along with it. And in a sufficiently autocratic system, the population can go along with it (or not be able to do anything about it) for a very long time. But basically all data very clearly shows that Russia is using everything at a faster rate than they produce it. They are using more manpower and more equipment than they produce, and that means that eventually stocks will run low, which leads to hard questions. Russia economy is definitely not doing well, in fact that's one of the few things we are certain of. but I doubt the world even want a collapsed Russia regime, including the EU. (Except China) You'd be surprised how many threads on weibo and new site about the potential of China securing key lands from Russia and better relocating their armies. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43435 Posts
| ||
|
ETisME
12631 Posts
On August 21 2025 14:34 KwarK wrote: You keep saying 0 negotiation attempts but Ukraine can’t negotiate with a country not interested in negotiation. You repeat your misunderstandings and refuse to update them with reality. I pointed out a few times when they had peace negotiation. Is that reality to you? I said 0 negotiation under Biden and EU, so obviously even if the number is indeed 0 under them, it would still be more than 0. In the account of "can't negotiate" or "won't negotiate", you are still incorrect. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43435 Posts
On August 21 2025 14:42 ETisME wrote: I pointed out a few times when they had peace negotiation. Is that reality to you? In the account of "can't negotiate" or "won't negotiate", you are still incorrect. Why did China not simply negotiate with the Japanese troops during the Rape of Nanking? | ||
|
ETisME
12631 Posts
On August 21 2025 14:44 KwarK wrote: Why did China not simply negotiate with the Japanese troops during the Rape of Nanking? Yeah a little history lesson for you. Trautmann Mediation China deferred the response too late, and only accepted the proposal to start peace negotiation when Nanjing was about to fall. By then it was too late and Japan refused that as a basis of negotiation since Japan is winning overwhelming, Nanjing then was fallen. Japan gave a new proposal that KMT China couldn't accept, and sometime later ended all negotiation (it was Japan chose to end all negotiation) Negotiation didn't end by China or because raping of Nanjing happened. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43435 Posts
| ||
|
ETisME
12631 Posts
On August 21 2025 15:06 KwarK wrote: “Japan refused negotiation” sounds like an excuse. China should have negotiated harder. Were they just dumb? Japan wanted to bayonet babies. China had babies. Just make a deal. Ah you are now learning negotiation. i.e. offer and counter offer. You don't always strike a deal in a negotiation, just like Russia and Ukraine situation. Negotiation is just negotiation. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43435 Posts
On August 21 2025 15:14 ETisME wrote: Ah you are now learning negotiation. i.e. offer and counter offer. So why didn't China simply stop the massacre with negotiation? The simple historical reality that I'm going to assert is true from now on when dealing with you is that Japan was ready to make a very reasonable deal and leave China alone but Boris Johnson stopped China from accepting the Japanese deal. Japan only invaded China because China didn't want to negotiate. | ||
| ||
|
|
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
WardiTV Invitational
WardiTV Invitational
The PondCast
OSC
OSC
All Star Teams
INnoVation vs soO
sOs vs Scarlett
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
All Star Teams
MMA vs DongRaeGu
Rogue vs Oliveira
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
