Russia v Ukraine

[SasaS]

Of course they are worried about escalation, that is why they didn't establish a no-fly zone.

 

They are also continuously worried about how Ukraine is using the weapons they have provided.

 

But after supplying close to 250 units of long range barrel artillery and hundreds or tanks and armoured vehicles, shells, air-defense systems, drones etc, sending HIMARS units without the longest range rockets is hardly going to be seen as a massive escalation. Which is why they decided to send them after all.

 

I think we are more or less at a point where Russia is throwing in everything conventional they have and nothing conventional provided by Nato which is not directly operated by Nato and does not shoot targets not in Ukraine would be seen as meaningful further escalation.

[Red Phoenix]

20 minutes ago, SasaS said:

I think we are more or less at a point where Russia is throwing in everything conventional they have and nothing conventional provided by Nato which is not directly operated by Nato and does not shoot targets not in Ukraine would be seen as meaningful further escalation.

 

Maybe. I still don't see how Ukraine are winning this though. They're running low on experienced troops if some of the reports are right, they're also running low on weapons/ammo and Russians are still destroying weapons supplies as this goes on. So it's like we're watching the Ukrainian defence slowly collapse over time.

 

I'd like the utopian version of this like I said : Ukraine gets all territory back, they also end up with a properly working democracy and all sides of the Ukrainian public get over their divisions and Ukraine ends up being a great place free from the manipulation of others. That doesn't seem to be realistic at this point though.

[SasaS]

3 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

Maybe. I still don't see how Ukraine are winning this though. They're running low on experienced troops if some of the reports are right, they're also running low on weapons/ammo and Russians are still destroying weapons supplies as this goes on. So it's like we're watching the Ukrainian defence slowly collapse over time.

 

I'd like the utopian version of this like I said : Ukraine gets all territory back, they also end up with a properly working democracy and all sides of the Ukrainian public get over their divisions and Ukraine ends up being a great place free from the manipulation of others. That doesn't seem to be realistic at this point though.

I also read somewhere there is nobody on any level of Ukrainian society doubting they will win. Nobody can force them to fight for their freedom. Nobody should be stopping them from fighting for their freedom. If the West wants to support them, it should support them all the way, or tell them, no, you are on your own.

 

And they will still win, it will only take longer and cost them much, much more. But there is no way in hell Russia is winning this war.

[Red Phoenix]

1 minute ago, SasaS said:

I also read somewhere there is nobody on any level of Ukrainian society doubting they will win. Nobody can force them to fight for their freedom. Nobody should be stopping them from fighting for their freedom. If the West wants to support them, it should support them all the way, or tell them, no, you are on your own.

 

And they will still win, it will only take longer and cost them much, much more. But there is no way in hell Russia is winning this war.

 

Well we'll surely have a better idea on what's happening soon enough because Russia will either reach Slavyansk/Kramatorsk and take them or they won't. Surely those two are going to be a big deciding factor in how this turns out.

[Ne Moe Imya]

Why?

I think it's very likely that Russia will end up with Slovyansk and Kramatorsk before the end of July, but it's also very likely that Ukraine will begin to mop them up afterwards.

 

I simply do not understand the thinking that Russia is guaranteed a piece of Ukraine when all is said and done. It's said as if it's simply obvious, and it would be absurd to think otherwise but Ukraine is going to crush Russia's army in the long term and I simply don't see how you can't see that.

 

Russia is right now about two months past their high water mark in this war, their Wehrmacht-in-Stalingrad, if you will. It's been all retreating and dying since then. I mean sure, when they pulled out of Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy they had some extra troops to throw into the Donbas, but here we are two months later and they've taken ... Severodonetsk? One medium-sized city? Haven't even taken Lysychansk yet (though they surely will in the days to come).

 

As time goes on, the balance of forces is going to move more and more strongly into Ukraine's hands. They have run out of ammo for their pre-war ex-Soviet weapons, and the Western systems are still pouring in and coming online. So yes, this is a bit of a low ebb, at least in the tiny corner of the Donbas they're fighting over right now, but they're still going to win over the longer term (say, by next spring) unless something really unexpected happens.

 

The only way it won't happen is if we get bored or begin an appeasement process to avoid making Russia angry (as if they could do any more than they are already!) and stop shipping them the arms they need to win. It's as simple now as "get the Ukrainians the weapons they need and they will win," period. All we have to do is stay the course.

[Red Phoenix]

55 minutes ago, Ne Moe Imya said:

Why?

I think it's very likely that Russia will end up with Slovyansk and Kramatorsk before the end of July, but it's also very likely that Ukraine will begin to mop them up afterwards.

 

I simply do not understand the thinking that Russia is guaranteed a piece of Ukraine when all is said and done. It's said as if it's simply obvious, and it would be absurd to think otherwise but Ukraine is going to crush Russia's army in the long term and I simply don't see how you can't see that.

 

Russia is right now about two months past their high water mark in this war, their Wehrmacht-in-Stalingrad, if you will. It's been all retreating and dying since then. I mean sure, when they pulled out of Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy they had some extra troops to throw into the Donbas, but here we are two months later and they've taken ... Severodonetsk? One medium-sized city? Haven't even taken Lysychansk yet (though they surely will in the days to come).

 

As time goes on, the balance of forces is going to move more and more strongly into Ukraine's hands. They have run out of ammo for their pre-war ex-Soviet weapons, and the Western systems are still pouring in and coming online. So yes, this is a bit of a low ebb, at least in the tiny corner of the Donbas they're fighting over right now, but they're still going to win over the longer term (say, by next spring) unless something really unexpected happens.

 

The only way it won't happen is if we get bored or begin an appeasement process to avoid making Russia angry (as if they could do any more than they are already!) and stop shipping them the arms they need to win. It's as simple now as "get the Ukrainians the weapons they need and they will win," period. All we have to do is stay the course.

 

I guess we'll see if this drags on long enough but I find it doubtful that NATO countries are prepared to ship in enough weapons and ammo to enable Ukrainians to defeat Russia if they take most or all of Donbas. After going several pages of arguing again I'm mostly done for the time being I think anyway. I know people disagree with some of what I'm saying and I'm not going to change anyone's mind, especially on the idea of Ukraine winning. If anyone heavily believes that fair enough.

[Ne Moe Imya]

Fair enough. And for what it's worth, I might disagree with you about some things but I appreciate that you are arguing in good faith.

[Red Phoenix]

3 minutes ago, Ne Moe Imya said:

Fair enough. And for what it's worth, I might disagree with you about some things but I appreciate that you are arguing in good faith.

 

Thanks and I think you're doing the same too. I don't really think anyone's deliberately out to wind others up either, after almost 300 pages though and some of us having different views we're probably just repeating arguments here and there which can get tiring.

[Numero Veinticinco]

RP, escalate into what? An escalation would be something like NATO country officially joining the war, Russia attacking another country. Having better ability to defend yourself isn’t going to escalate thing outside of maybe Russia being even more attacking. 
 

The point isn’t to win the war. It’s to 1) stop Russia walking through Ukraine and taking all of it. 2) making Ukraine enough of a challenge that there’s any reason for Russia to negotiate beyond ‘no deal, we are taking your entire country’. 3) to damage the capability of the Russian military and economy. 
 

My main issue with your positions is that, although argued in good faith, it would lead to positive reinforcement for Russia and it’s actions, it would lead to the capitulation against the will of the people of Ukraine, and it would give Russia a stronghold to go on and push into other places. It would lead to death, destruction, and rewards for aggressive wars. I don’t want that. 

[Red Phoenix]

2 hours ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

My main issue with your positions is that, although argued in good faith, it would lead to positive reinforcement for Russia and it’s actions, it would lead to the capitulation against the will of the people of Ukraine, and it would give Russia a stronghold to go on and push into other places. It would lead to death, destruction, and rewards for aggressive wars. I don’t want that. 

 

To be honest I'm not sure what we're even disagreeing on at this point because this :

 

2 hours ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

The point isn’t to win the war. It’s to 1) stop Russia walking through Ukraine and taking all of it. 2) making Ukraine enough of a challenge that there’s any reason for Russia to negotiate beyond ‘no deal, we are taking your entire country’. 3) to damage the capability of the Russian military and economy.

 

Is exactly what I'm ok with. The escalation issue would be from Russia attacking another country or a NATO country entering the war like you said. As long as neither of those happen I'm hoping things turn out as well as they can.

[Numero Veinticinco]

2 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

To be honest I'm not sure what we're even disagreeing on at this point because this :

 

 

Is exactly what I'm ok with. The escalation issue would be from Russia attacking another country or a NATO country entering the war like you said. As long as neither of those happen I'm hoping things turn out as well as they can.

Oh, we disagree. At least with some of the things you've said about sanctions, weapons supply, etc. These are very dangerous things. And now that I know what you mean by escalation, I don't see how the MLRS style weapons would cause an escalation in those terms. 

[Red Phoenix]

11 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Oh, we disagree. At least with some of the things you've said about sanctions, weapons supply, etc. These are very dangerous things. And now that I know what you mean by escalation, I don't see how the MLRS style weapons would cause an escalation in those terms. 

 

Ok, well after being in here so often since around 3pm saturday I'm needing a break from it. I'm sure that if I'm bringing up those subjects at some other point we'll carry on talking about it then though.

[cochyn]

Russia bombs a strategic shopping centre, full of shoppers.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-61941287

 

NATO announcing increasing it's battle-ready contingent of forces along the eastern front from 40,000 to 300,000 troops.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-61954516

 

Not looking good, and no sign at all of Russia backing down.. quite the opposite.

[Gnasher]

 

 

 

[Pete]

This is all heading to one horrific conclusion where no one wins.   

[Numero Veinticinco]

22 minutes ago, cochyn said:

 

 

NATO announcing increasing it's battle-ready contingent of forces along the eastern front from 40,000 to 300,000 troops.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-61954516

This is good news. I’d prefer it to be 500,000 but it’s a good deterrent. It’s really important when you’ve got somebody who is hellbent on attacking other countries that you have extreme strength. 

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

35 minutes ago, cochyn said:

Russia bombs a strategic shopping centre, full of shoppers.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-61941287

 

Just seen this on the news. Totally senseless slaughter. Cunts. Putin needs to hurry up and cark it.

[Bjornebye]

Bastards

 

 

 

 

[SasaS]

 

[SasaS]

Bump.

 

A big(ger) update (with pictures) from Tom, he seems to believe there are some actual results of the Kherson offensive (I am sceptical myself) and that Ukrainians are still trying to trade space for time and saving troops in the east.

 

https://medium.com/@x_TomCooper_x/ukraine-war-25-26-27-and-28-june-2022-a8cbb1c9266b

[TheHowieLama]

Biden forcing Turkey to accept Finland and Sweden into NATO.

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 minute ago, TheHowieLama said:

Biden forcing Turkey to accept Finland and Sweden into NATO.

Absolute bro behaviour, sleepy uncle Joe. 

[TheHowieLama]

So... talking.

 

 

[SasaS]

Russia has allegedly given up on Snake Island and evacuated.

[Bjornebye]