Russia v Ukraine

[Strontium]

I don't think Gnash is a bot, but he's either retired or he has a very understanding boss.

[Gnasher]

30 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

Gnasher, genuine question, are you sat in a former tractor factory in Belarus?

 

Yawn. Yet again.  The posts above are the BBC and Financial Times. 

[Gnasher]

Jeremy Bowen the Russian shill who posted this from a tractor factory in Belarus.

 

it's the same article from further up and Bowen's right, it's excellent. 

 

 

[SasaS]

That article was actually a bit baffling to me, unless it was a deliberate part of the "new narrative".  I've also seen opinions that this left bank activities is Ukraine somehow rushing to disaster, as if they are throwing thousands across the river in some attempt nobody understands.

 

According to various reports, they are deliberately keeping only up to an infantry battalion on the other side, so Russians cannot inflict huge casualties through carpet bombing, and Russians have trouble putting together counterattacks because the AFU forces across the river are well protected from ground attacks by a massive shield consisting of drones and artillery. Also, it is a bit confusing that they would be sending inexperienced troops without a clear understanding of their mission across, instead of some trained assault forces.  

[TheHowieLama]

War protester (allegedly)

 

A Russian teenager on Thursday shot dead a classmate and injured five others before killing herself in a school in Bryansk near the Ukrainian border, investigators said, AFP reported.

"A 14-year-old girl brought a pump-action shotgun to school, which she used to shoot her classmates. As a result, two died, one of them the shooter, and there are five wounded," the Investigative Committee said in a statement.

"The motives behind the crime and all the circumstances are being established," the Instigative Committee, which probes major crimes, said.

[TheSire]

18 hours ago, Gnasher said:

 

Honest question 'why is it the Russians turn to start a big winter offensive?

Because ukraine have mostly switched to a defensive posture + Russia only know to push and take the initiative.

[Section_31]

Soldier, "life on front lines not nice" shocker.

 

Those carry on films set in the battle of the somme had me completely hoodwinked.

 

"The end of your trench is flooded you're gonna get trench foot, so why don't you come up my end!"

 

Oooooooohmaaaaaaatron!

[TheHowieLama]

22 hours ago, SasaS said:

It's time for a separate thread Should Zelensky Remain As a Ukrainian Leader?

 

Whatabout!!!

 

Russia's upper house of parliament on Thursday set March 17, 2024, as the date for the next presidential elections, AFP reported.

Putin, who has been in power in Russia either as president or prime minister since 2000, has not officially announced if he will stand in the vote.

[Gnasher]

3 hours ago, SasaS said:

That article was actually a bit baffling to me, unless it was a deliberate part of the "new narrative".  I've also seen opinions that this left bank activities is Ukraine somehow rushing to disaster, as if they are throwing thousands across the river in some attempt nobody understands.

 

According to various reports, they are deliberately keeping only up to an infantry battalion on the other side, so Russians cannot inflict huge casualties through carpet bombing, and Russians have trouble putting together counterattacks because the AFU forces across the river are well protected from ground attacks by a massive shield consisting of drones and artillery. Also, it is a bit confusing that they would be sending inexperienced troops without a clear understanding of their mission across, instead of some trained assault forces.  

 

Wow, someones mentioned the actual content within the article instead of silly snipes. I thank you for that.

 

On your last point about the inexperienced troops, is it not because with the losses suffered these crack troops are not there in enough numbers? Both sides are facing a manpower shortage which is getting worse the longer this war drags on. One of Zelenskys former aids estimated Ukrainian losses at near 200 thousand (although he fell out with Zelensky so could be exaggerating to forward his own ambitions). But if anywhere near true that's almost a fifth of the Ukrainian army. Plus add seriously injured on top. Surely the recent firing of the recruitment officers and the women being sent east gives some indication that they've hit troop number issues?

 

Russia are also taking massive hits but unlike their mothers (rumours mothers of troops are being paid back in Russia to stop them protesting about their sons) in the Sting song Putin and the Kremlin couldn't give a fuck about em and they've got more of them to lose than Ukraine..

[Gnasher]

2 hours ago, Section_31 said:

Soldier, "life on front lines not nice" shocker.

 

Those carry on films set in the battle of the somme had me completely hoodwinked.

 

"The end of your trench is flooded you're gonna get trench foot, so why don't you come up my end!"

 

Oooooooohmaaaaaaatron!

 

I think you've missed the gist of that article. The people being sent east to the meat mincer are not "soldiers". 

[M_B]

35 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Russia are also taking massive hits but unlike their mothers (rumours mothers of troops are being paid back in Russia to stop them protesting about their sons) in the Sting song Putin and the Kremlin couldn't give a fuck about em and they've got more of them to lose than Ukraine..

 

I was going to say, it won't be the loss of manpower that loses Russia the war, it will be the loss of material (tanks and arty), but actually I don't really know - The russians have likely lost 350k dead or wounded and are still losing 1k per day in an operation that was only meant to last a few days. The figure could conceiveably reach 500k or even 600k next year, which is millions of bereaved wives, mothers, sons, daughters...... etc etc.

 

Can he really keep a lid on those losses? We'll see.

[Gnasher]

5 minutes ago, M_B said:

 

I was going to say, it won't be the loss of manpower that loses Russia the war, it will be the loss of material (tanks and arty), but actually I don't really know - The russians have likely lost 350k dead or wounded and are still losing 1k per day in an operation that was only meant to last a few days. The figure could conceiveably reach 500k or even 600k next year, which is millions of bereaved wives, mothers, sons, daughters...... etc etc.

 

Can he really keep a lid on those losses? We'll see.

 

I read somewhere Putin is paying mothers of Russian soldiers/civilians sent to Ukraine to stop them protesting. Obviously nothing can be confirmed but it wouldn't surprise me. 

[M_B]

2 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

 

I read somewhere Putin is paying mothers of Russian soldiers/civilians sent to Ukraine to stop them protesting. Obviously nothing can be confirmed but it wouldn't surprise me. 

 

Yeah, I read that too. It was mothers and wives protesting about their husbands and sons not being rotated from the front. When you are sent to the front by Russia, it appears you stay there till you die or the war ends.

 

It was clever because it wasn't an anti war protest, so they couldn't be arrested.

 

 

The reason numbers of losses are important for Russia, I believe, is that this isn't the Great Patriotic War; it's Putin's Special Operation. And whereas the Great Patriotic War could absorb huge losses in the name of the motherland, this conflict cannot surely command the same degree of sacrifice. That's why I disagree with the argument that Russia's manpower is limitless; it is certainly abundant, but there will come a point when Russians turn around and wonder if the losses are worth it.

 

 

[TheSire]

1 hour ago, Gnasher said:

 

Wow, someones mentioned the actual content within the article instead of silly snipes. I thank you for that.

 

On your last point about the inexperienced troops, is it not because with the losses suffered these crack troops are not there in enough numbers? Both sides are facing a manpower shortage which is getting worse the longer this war drags on. One of Zelenskys former aids estimated Ukrainian losses at near 200 thousand (although he fell out with Zelensky so could be exaggerating to forward his own ambitions). But if anywhere near true that's almost a fifth of the Ukrainian army. Plus add seriously injured on top. Surely the recent firing of the recruitment officers and the women being sent east gives some indication that they've hit troop number issues?

 

Russia are also taking massive hits but unlike their mothers (rumours mothers of troops are being paid back in Russia to stop them protesting about their sons) in the Sting song Putin and the Kremlin couldn't give a fuck about em and they've got more of them to lose than Ukraine..

I think the losses are both severely injured and deaths, with most being injuries. This is the same with both sides although apparently Russia are terrible at saving troops when hit on the battlefield due to equipment shortages etc.

[SasaS]

2 hours ago, Gnasher said:

 

Wow, someones mentioned the actual content within the article instead of silly snipes. I thank you for that.

 

On your last point about the inexperienced troops, is it not because with the losses suffered these crack troops are not there in enough numbers? Both sides are facing a manpower shortage which is getting worse the longer this war drags on. One of Zelenskys former aids estimated Ukrainian losses at near 200 thousand (although he fell out with Zelensky so could be exaggerating to forward his own ambitions). But if anywhere near true that's almost a fifth of the Ukrainian army. Plus add seriously injured on top. Surely the recent firing of the recruitment officers and the women being sent east gives some indication that they've hit troop number issues?

 

Russia are also taking massive hits but unlike their mothers (rumours mothers of troops are being paid back in Russia to stop them protesting about their sons) in the Sting song Putin and the Kremlin couldn't give a fuck about em and they've got more of them to lose than Ukraine..

 

I read the article before.

 

This is a mission for better trained troops because it involves crossing the river, attacking Russian positions, inflicting considerable casualties, not panicking when under fire and in general representing a significant threat to Russians, as per the probable mission objective - fix Russian troops in the wider areas and probe their weaknesses, looking for possibilities of creating a more stable bridgehead. You also need to be experienced in recon - you are working closely with the drone and artillery support.

 

AFU has held the Krinky positions and expanding there since about October. The reports are estimating we are talking about some 400 assault troops tops. Ukrainian 3d Assault Brigade which pushed the Russians back from the flanks around Bakhmut, has between 7k and 9k soldiers for example. It's only one of several such formations, so they would be able to send at least regular marines level troops there for such a mission.   

 

 

[SasaS]

2 hours ago, M_B said:

 

I was going to say, it won't be the loss of manpower that loses Russia the war, it will be the loss of material (tanks and arty), but actually I don't really know - The russians have likely lost 350k dead or wounded and are still losing 1k per day in an operation that was only meant to last a few days. The figure could conceiveably reach 500k or even 600k next year, which is millions of bereaved wives, mothers, sons, daughters...... etc etc.

 

Can he really keep a lid on those losses? We'll see.

 

I think that may be an overestimation of current Russian losses, estimates are they have around 400,000 troops in and around Ukraine, they would not be able to sustain such losses and/or generate replacement forces at that rate over a several month period.  

 

[Gnasher]

12 minutes ago, SasaS said:

 

I read the article before.

 

 

 

This is a mission for better trained troops because it involves crossing the river, attacking Russian positions, inflicting considerable casualties, not panicking when under fire and in general representing a significant threat to Russians, as per the probable mission objective - fix Russian troops in the wider areas and probe their weaknesses, looking for possibilities of creating a more stable bridgehead. You also need to be experienced in recon - you are working closely with the drone and artillery support.

 

AFU has held the Krinky positions and expanding there since about October. The reports are estimating we are talking about some 400 assault troops tops. Ukrainian 3d Assault Brigade which pushed the Russians back from the flanks around Bakhmut, has between 7k and 9k soldiers for example. It's only one of several such formations, so they would be able to send at least regular marines level troops there for such a mission.   

 

 

 

Yeah I understand the mission and the perils of crossing a river but its a 600 mile fighting front. Your elite troops cant be everywhere, especially after 18 months of war and plenty of losses and injuries. Unless they're sending semi trained civilians out to test the water so to speak.

[SasaS]

34 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

 

Yeah I understand the mission and the perils of crossing a river but its a 600 mile fighting front. Your elite troops cant be everywhere, especially after 18 months of war and plenty of losses and injuries. Unless they're sending semi trained civilians out to test the water so to speak.

 

I don't think they would last as long across the river.

[cochyn]

 

The cracks are beginning to show in Russia's 'unity of purpose' for the SMO: Russian moms and babushkas demanding answers as to why their boys are dying for nothing. Couple that with growing demonstrations by the womenfolk of the mobilised as to why their men are being used as mere cannon fodder in a foreign war. When Putin loses the babas, he loses the war.

 

[M_B]

2 hours ago, SasaS said:

 

I think that may be an overestimation of current Russian losses, estimates are they have around 400,000 troops in and around Ukraine, they would not be able to sustain such losses and/or generate replacement forces at that rate over a several month period.  

 

 

Obviously nobody knows for sure, but it's possible. The number of wounded tends to be 4 to 5 times greater than the number of dead. I wouldn't be surprised at all.

 

They are really pushing for Avdiivka at the moment and have been for a while. It's costing them dearly.

 

Their tank losses are interesting too - 2200 at the moment which is two thirds of the tanks they massed for the invasion. That being said, they have ramped up production and are finally producing sufficient numbers to replace their daily losses, but I wonder how long they can keep that up for.

 

In my view the war will come down to US support. Russia can't match Western industrial output, but Russia are beginning to win the propaganda war in the States, and that is all they need to do. At this point I'm pessimistic about the Americans, because I think the Republicans will scupper US aid; that will then damage NATO, because European countries will question America's resolve in fighting a european war - will Americans really defend Lithuania from Russian invasion? Of course they won't.

 

 

[SasaS]

9 hours ago, M_B said:

 

Obviously nobody knows for sure, but it's possible. The number of wounded tends to be 4 to 5 times greater than the number of dead. I wouldn't be surprised at all.

 

They are really pushing for Avdiivka at the moment and have been for a while. It's costing them dearly.

 

Their tank losses are interesting too - 2200 at the moment which is two thirds of the tanks they massed for the invasion. That being said, they have ramped up production and are finally producing sufficient numbers to replace their daily losses, but I wonder how long they can keep that up for.

 

In my view the war will come down to US support. Russia can't match Western industrial output, but Russia are beginning to win the propaganda war in the States, and that is all they need to do. At this point I'm pessimistic about the Americans, because I think the Republicans will scupper US aid; that will then damage NATO, because European countries will question America's resolve in fighting a european war - will Americans really defend Lithuania from Russian invasion? Of course they won't.

 

 

 

They may lose more than a thousand in a day, but I doubt it is consistent level of losses.

 

In my view, Russian casualties too often tend to be extrapolated from or based on Ukrainian estimates which are always inflated. There are few reports now they have manpower issues and they are not able to generate new forces at such pace that they would be able to easily replace something like half of their actually fighting force every tree or four months, just with limited conscription drives (my assumption is that about half of the 400k I mentioned are doing the actual fighting).

 

 I am more optimistic about continuation of American support, they would really have to be stupid to quit, first of all, they have already invested (and most likely given certain guarantees) and discontinuing would force a total write off of already provided aid, also, keeping Russia focused and bleeding in Ukraine is in their interest plus I don't think they can afford another fiasco so soon after Afghanistan - that would destroy their credibility.

 

The support I read is something like five or ten percent of their military budget, not even overall budget, and most of it is either in stocks of equipment which would become obsolete and had to be destroyed and written off, or in government orders to American manufacturing companies or in training, which you always want since it is long term beneficial for you (future customers). Don't think that hard isolationism or helping Russia is all of a sudden a dominant feature of Republican foreign policy, it is used for hardballing Democrats and Biden, and to please Trump who I think may really be a Russian asset on some level and whose toxicity they are constantly unable to shake off.

[Section_31]

The idea that Ukraine is doing badly is bonkers. It's like England invading Wales and getting no further than Queensferry in two years, scores of senior officers being killed, hundreds of aircraft and tanks being lost, and an attempted domestic coup having to be quashed, all against the backdrop of people having expected us to take Cardiff on day two and then go on the rampage in Scotland and Ireland. 

[SasaS]

I agree, but think we are increasingly faced with typical short-termism or Western politics, which only looks at the next six months or the next election cycle -  depots and emergency funds have been emptied and now is the time for some structural changes in defense policies, which may have a political cost.

 

It appears easier to change the media messaging and magically invent the world which does not exist, in which it will suddenly be possible to find a long term viable deal with a force of dubious rationality intent on changing the existing world order through outright military means.

[TheSire]

10 hours ago, M_B said:

 

Obviously nobody knows for sure, but it's possible. The number of wounded tends to be 4 to 5 times greater than the number of dead. I wouldn't be surprised at all.

 

They are really pushing for Avdiivka at the moment and have been for a while. It's costing them dearly.

 

Their tank losses are interesting too - 2200 at the moment which is two thirds of the tanks they massed for the invasion. That being said, they have ramped up production and are finally producing sufficient numbers to replace their daily losses, but I wonder how long they can keep that up for.

 

In my view the war will come down to US support. Russia can't match Western industrial output, but Russia are beginning to win the propaganda war in the States, and that is all they need to do. At this point I'm pessimistic about the Americans, because I think the Republicans will scupper US aid; that will then damage NATO, because European countries will question America's resolve in fighting a european war - will Americans really defend Lithuania from Russian invasion? Of course they won't.

 

 

It really pisses me off to see America handing anything over to Israel even without being asked, for it literally to be used to fucking kill defenceless people and flatten any sign of civilization in Gaza.

[TheHowieLama]

3 hours ago, TheSire said:

It really pisses me off to see America handing anything over to Israel even without being asked, for it literally to be used to fucking kill defenceless people and flatten any sign of civilization in Gaza.

 

The hold being discussed is on both Ukraine and Israel.