Russian Invasion of Ukraine[In Progress]

[paxmao]

Achieving even kills is crazy devastating for Ukraine, simply because of population difference. After loosing the territory with the people on them, and considering everyone that left, UA population is at less than 30MM, while Russia is at 150MM. Meaning with everything else being equal, UA needs to sustain 5x more drones than RU just to stay equal and have a chance to freeze the conflict at current lines. Put in another way, even if Ukraine somehow manages to achieve 4 kills for every 1 loss they're still doomed to loose. That's why to objective outside observer Ukraine's position is futile and set to fail from the start, and no weapon (outside some weapon of mass destruction) can change that.  
Same with USA (335MM) vs China (1.413MM), US would need to sustain over 4x kills just to "level" the playing field.

This gotta be the stupidest math in this thread so far, and that's a high (or is it low?) bar to clear.

I am not sure, I would need to re-read all BA's posts because he may hold the record, and I am not ready for such a experience.

The Rude guy here draws conclusions with absolute disregard for caveats, wrong assumptions, logic flaws... I tend to answer just to the core of the issues, I just cannot go over all the seemly random assertions shamelessly dumped in walls an walls of text.

The core of this is if population size matters. The answer is yes, it matters, but it is just a factor because in modern war technology, good intel and good strategies eat the numbers for breakfast. Now, I am going back to the trench, I suspect a wall of text is going to be fired at me - with the accuracy of a Soviet WW II gun of course.

[1714760622]

1714760622

[1714760622]

1714760622

[1714760622]

1714760622

[1714760622]

1714760622

[DaRude]

[lots of stuff...]


Of course the estimates of losses are all over the place, but the consensus seems to be that artillery brings the most casualties in this conflict, and so far Russia has fired more artillery shells than Ukraine (there are reports that RU scaled back now but is either still outpacing Ukraine by a bit or both sides fire equal amounts of shells now). RU has also been firing exponentially more missiles to the rear, UA only now just started to fire on Crimea (which as you pointed out is considered breakthrough in UA), and UA is pretty much forbidden from attacking inside Russia elsewhere with provided missiles. Judging by videos and reports, drone attacks have been at par at first but Russia seems to have scaled up faster now. UA had more anti-tank weapons and lit up more thanks in the begging of the conflict.

To achieve higher kill rate, from your link, the US coalition strength was "Over 950,000 soldiers" and Iraq at "Over 650,000 soldiers" so they had overwhelming manpower, and a total control of airspace, both of which Ukraine lacks. Are you seriously trying to compare Ukraine to USA and Russia to Iraq, and claim that resourceful uber Ukrainian super soldiers (and ghosts of Kyiv) sustained an average kill rate of 5:1 for continuous 19 month? And will now increase that ratio even further to over 5 RU killed for every 1 UA loss, with some groundbreaking gamechanger weapon? I mean i saw anecdotal reports that Russians were attacking with shovels as Ukrainians are mowing them down with machine guns, but surely no one actually believed that right? Maybe Ukraine could achieve such odds against indigenous tribesman of amazon or Papua New Guinea, but the sober reality is that there's just no weapon in existence that would allow Ukraine to achieve such ratios against Russia. That's why no one really thought that Ukraine could defeat Russia on the battlefield. Objectively, UA's only realistic chance was for economical/political collapse inside RU, but we now see that China would not allow that to happen.

Russia dodges G7 price cap sanctions on most of its oil exports

Russia has succeeded in avoiding G7 sanctions on most of its oil exports, a shift in trade flows that will boost the Kremlin’s revenues as crude rises towards $100 a barrel.

Almost three-quarters of all seaborne Russian crude flows travelled without western insurance in August, a lever used to enforce the G7’s $60-a-barrel oil price cap, according to an analysis of shipping and insurance records by the Financial Times.

That is up from about 50 per cent this spring, according to data from freight analytics company Kpler and insurance companies. The rise implies that Moscow is becoming more adept at circumventing the cap, allowing it to sell more of its oil at prices closer to international market rates.

The Kyiv School of Economics (KSE) has estimated that the steady increase in crude prices since July, combined with Russia’s success in reducing the discount on its own oil, means that the country’s oil revenues are likely to be at least $15bn higher for 2023 than they would have been.

The shift is a double blow for western efforts to restrict Russia’s revenues from oil sales — which make up the biggest part of the Kremlin’s budget — following its full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Not only is a higher proportion of Russian oil being sold outside the cap, but Moscow’s increasing independence as a seller has coincided with a strong rally in oil prices, which topped $95 a barrel for the first time in 13 months this week.

Now back to the real world,

Women with a medical or pharmaceutical education must register at military enlistment offices from Oct. 1, Fedir Venislavskyi, President Volodymyr Zelensky's representative in parliament, said on Sept. 7.

This will mean that these women, like Ukrainian men aged between 18 and 60, will not be able to leave the country without special permission.

Under martial law, they must stay in Ukraine as they may be called up at any moment for military service.

According to the report, amendments to the law were made on Aug. 18 and entered into force on Aug. 25.

From now on, people with clinically cured tuberculosis, viral hepatitis,  slowly progressing blood diseases, thyroid gland diseases with minor functional disorders, and those who are HIV-positive but without symptoms, are considered still fit for military service.

In addition, people suffering from mild mental disorders, neurotic disorders, slowly progressive diseases of the central nervous system and others have been added to the list.

On Aug. 30, President Volodymyr Zelensky announced a mass review of decisions by military medical commissions to issue medical certificates of disability or unfitness for military service, which have been made since the start of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022.

No I am comparing Ruzzia with Ruzzia. They shelled more, had more manpower, more equipment, better air forces and yet... they lost Kherson and the region. Is this real life enough for you?

Another of those funny syllogisms that you frequently fall into:"Ruzzia shells more, shells kill, ergo Ruzzia kills more". HIMARS has been a game changer, you speak about volume of shelling, but I will take a HIMARS rather than 30 pieces of Soviet equipment shooting with rusty barrels and likely to miss a target by 20 meters or more (which is actually the case in the front). The quality counts - the reports speak of more than 25 Ruzzian artillery pieces destroyed per day in artillery duels. Guess what is destroying them?

I think that many weapons have been a game changer (e.g. drone economics) and before you say anything about mines, notice that these do not fly and do not change anything... unless you are still WW II gaming.

But perhaps the clear proof of what is happening, and that is actually reality, is that Ruzzia has stopped any minimally significant gain while Ukraine is taking territory. That is what is happening "in real life".

Re recruiting, I have that information yes... but it is a duma decree, plus some sources...

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-recruiting-soldiers-mental-asylum-ukraine-war-1739963

Russia Recruits Soldiers From Mental Health Unit to Make Up Troop Shortfall

F16 will also change the game. Those GBUs modified to "fly" may be just to risky to launch any longer.

All these things together are effectively game changers. Also for Ukraine, as attacking in large formations or with over abundance of mechanized means is no longer a good option.

Yes yes lets concentrate on how this one sniper is so great and killed 100s, just don't talk about overall state of affairs, and lets pretend as if i'm arguing that simple numerical majority is what wins wars. You're picking some specific UA weapon/system and claim how great it is. That might even be true but regardless of how great these miracle systems might be, it's simply impossible for them to be so great that they make up for all other casualties and bring OVERALL kill ratio (meaning all kills including planes, choppers, ships, submarines, drones, tanks, missiles, mines, handguns, knifes etc etc etc...) to over 5x in Ukraine's advantage. And without that Ukraine just can't win on the battlefield. From your example US actually did achieve 10x+ casualty rates in Iraq and Afghanistan. But even the most craziest UA propagandists make up casualty numbers at maximum 3x over RU, so even if we consider those ridiculous numbers, that would still mean that UA is loosing 2x faster of its relative population to RU, which is clearly not sustainable. The grim reality is that if RU casualties are less than 5x of UA (which is globally acknowledged) this means that UA is loosing % of their population faster.

[paxmao]

[lots of stuff...]


Of course the estimates of losses are all over the place, but the consensus seems to be that artillery brings the most casualties in this conflict, and so far Russia has fired more artillery shells than Ukraine (there are reports that RU scaled back now but is either still outpacing Ukraine by a bit or both sides fire equal amounts of shells now). RU has also been firing exponentially more missiles to the rear, UA only now just started to fire on Crimea (which as you pointed out is considered breakthrough in UA), and UA is pretty much forbidden from attacking inside Russia elsewhere with provided missiles. Judging by videos and reports, drone attacks have been at par at first but Russia seems to have scaled up faster now. UA had more anti-tank weapons and lit up more thanks in the begging of the conflict.

To achieve higher kill rate, from your link, the US coalition strength was "Over 950,000 soldiers" and Iraq at "Over 650,000 soldiers" so they had overwhelming manpower, and a total control of airspace, both of which Ukraine lacks. Are you seriously trying to compare Ukraine to USA and Russia to Iraq, and claim that resourceful uber Ukrainian super soldiers (and ghosts of Kyiv) sustained an average kill rate of 5:1 for continuous 19 month? And will now increase that ratio even further to over 5 RU killed for every 1 UA loss, with some groundbreaking gamechanger weapon? I mean i saw anecdotal reports that Russians were attacking with shovels as Ukrainians are mowing them down with machine guns, but surely no one actually believed that right? Maybe Ukraine could achieve such odds against indigenous tribesman of amazon or Papua New Guinea, but the sober reality is that there's just no weapon in existence that would allow Ukraine to achieve such ratios against Russia. That's why no one really thought that Ukraine could defeat Russia on the battlefield. Objectively, UA's only realistic chance was for economical/political collapse inside RU, but we now see that China would not allow that to happen.

Russia dodges G7 price cap sanctions on most of its oil exports

Russia has succeeded in avoiding G7 sanctions on most of its oil exports, a shift in trade flows that will boost the Kremlin’s revenues as crude rises towards $100 a barrel.

Almost three-quarters of all seaborne Russian crude flows travelled without western insurance in August, a lever used to enforce the G7’s $60-a-barrel oil price cap, according to an analysis of shipping and insurance records by the Financial Times.

That is up from about 50 per cent this spring, according to data from freight analytics company Kpler and insurance companies. The rise implies that Moscow is becoming more adept at circumventing the cap, allowing it to sell more of its oil at prices closer to international market rates.

The Kyiv School of Economics (KSE) has estimated that the steady increase in crude prices since July, combined with Russia’s success in reducing the discount on its own oil, means that the country’s oil revenues are likely to be at least $15bn higher for 2023 than they would have been.

The shift is a double blow for western efforts to restrict Russia’s revenues from oil sales — which make up the biggest part of the Kremlin’s budget — following its full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Not only is a higher proportion of Russian oil being sold outside the cap, but Moscow’s increasing independence as a seller has coincided with a strong rally in oil prices, which topped $95 a barrel for the first time in 13 months this week.

Now back to the real world,

Women with a medical or pharmaceutical education must register at military enlistment offices from Oct. 1, Fedir Venislavskyi, President Volodymyr Zelensky's representative in parliament, said on Sept. 7.

This will mean that these women, like Ukrainian men aged between 18 and 60, will not be able to leave the country without special permission.

Under martial law, they must stay in Ukraine as they may be called up at any moment for military service.

According to the report, amendments to the law were made on Aug. 18 and entered into force on Aug. 25.

From now on, people with clinically cured tuberculosis, viral hepatitis,  slowly progressing blood diseases, thyroid gland diseases with minor functional disorders, and those who are HIV-positive but without symptoms, are considered still fit for military service.

In addition, people suffering from mild mental disorders, neurotic disorders, slowly progressive diseases of the central nervous system and others have been added to the list.

On Aug. 30, President Volodymyr Zelensky announced a mass review of decisions by military medical commissions to issue medical certificates of disability or unfitness for military service, which have been made since the start of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022.

No I am comparing Ruzzia with Ruzzia. They shelled more, had more manpower, more equipment, better air forces and yet... they lost Kherson and the region. Is this real life enough for you?

Another of those funny syllogisms that you frequently fall into:"Ruzzia shells more, shells kill, ergo Ruzzia kills more". HIMARS has been a game changer, you speak about volume of shelling, but I will take a HIMARS rather than 30 pieces of Soviet equipment shooting with rusty barrels and likely to miss a target by 20 meters or more (which is actually the case in the front). The quality counts - the reports speak of more than 25 Ruzzian artillery pieces destroyed per day in artillery duels. Guess what is destroying them?

I think that many weapons have been a game changer (e.g. drone economics) and before you say anything about mines, notice that these do not fly and do not change anything... unless you are still WW II gaming.

But perhaps the clear proof of what is happening, and that is actually reality, is that Ruzzia has stopped any minimally significant gain while Ukraine is taking territory. That is what is happening "in real life".

Re recruiting, I have that information yes... but it is a duma decree, plus some sources...

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-recruiting-soldiers-mental-asylum-ukraine-war-1739963

Russia Recruits Soldiers From Mental Health Unit to Make Up Troop Shortfall

F16 will also change the game. Those GBUs modified to "fly" may be just to risky to launch any longer.

All these things together are effectively game changers. Also for Ukraine, as attacking in large formations or with over abundance of mechanized means is no longer a good option.

Yes yes lets concentrate on how this one sniper is so great and killed 100s, just don't talk about overall state of affairs, and lets pretend as if i'm arguing that simple numerical majority is what wins wars. You're picking some specific UA weapon/system and claim how great it is. That might even be true but regardless of how great these miracle systems might be, it's simply impossible for them to be so great that they make up for all other casualties and bring OVERALL kill ratio (meaning all kills including planes, choppers, ships, submarines, drones, tanks, missiles, mines, handguns, knifes etc etc etc...) to over 5x in Ukraine's advantage. And without that Ukraine just can't win on the battlefield. From your example US actually did achieve 10x+ casualty rates in Iraq and Afghanistan. But even the most craziest UA propagandists make up casualty numbers at maximum 3x over RU, so even if we consider those ridiculous numbers, that would still mean that UA is loosing 2x faster of its relative population to RU, which is clearly not sustainable. The grim reality is that if RU casualties are less than 5x of UA (which is globally acknowledged) this means that UA is loosing % of their population faster.

Ukraine does not need a x5 advantage, that is just a number you made up and keep repeating. Is false logic and sad math but also unrelated to the dynamics of modern warfare. Nor any warfare.

“It is better to be on hand with ten men than absent with ten thousand.” — Timur

(born in 1336)

To gain territory you need to attrite and degrade the enemy response. This does not require massive number nor a "x5". A basic example: you blow up the Kerch bridge, all supplies to Crimea have to make a dangerous route of hundreds of kilometres more. You have killed 0 people, but the frontline is not getting ammo and they are forced to retreat.

Once you understand these dynamics, you will be able to understand why the "kill ratio" is not the limiting factor for a victory.

 

[tvbcof]

To gain territory you need to attrite and degrade the enemy response. This does not require massive number nor a "x5". A basic example: you blow up the Kerch bridge, all supplies to Crimea have to make a dangerous route of hundreds of kilometres more. You have killed 0 people, but the frontline is not getting ammo and they are forced to retreat.
...

I don't want to piss in your Cheerios, but when the 'Ukrainians' went full al-Qaeda and did the suicide truck bombing back in 2022 it stopped rail traffic for a whole two days or something IIRC.  Vehicle traffic was inconvenienced by having to share a span while the collapsed one was re-built.

Supposedly there was a later British attack with Storm Shadow missiles, but info on that is sparse at best.  May even be just another 'Institute for the Study War' (familiar neo-con Jewish clans working their American gimps) fantasy.

In any event if/when necessary there are ferry boats that can work the straights as they have for about 100 years.  But even then, why bother?  The alternate route through now-Russian Federation properties adjacent to Crimea and all the way over and up into the Motherland are not much more dangerous than any highway in the West.

[DaRude]

[lots of stuff...]


Of course the estimates of losses are all over the place, but the consensus seems to be that artillery brings the most casualties in this conflict, and so far Russia has fired more artillery shells than Ukraine (there are reports that RU scaled back now but is either still outpacing Ukraine by a bit or both sides fire equal amounts of shells now). RU has also been firing exponentially more missiles to the rear, UA only now just started to fire on Crimea (which as you pointed out is considered breakthrough in UA), and UA is pretty much forbidden from attacking inside Russia elsewhere with provided missiles. Judging by videos and reports, drone attacks have been at par at first but Russia seems to have scaled up faster now. UA had more anti-tank weapons and lit up more thanks in the begging of the conflict.

To achieve higher kill rate, from your link, the US coalition strength was "Over 950,000 soldiers" and Iraq at "Over 650,000 soldiers" so they had overwhelming manpower, and a total control of airspace, both of which Ukraine lacks. Are you seriously trying to compare Ukraine to USA and Russia to Iraq, and claim that resourceful uber Ukrainian super soldiers (and ghosts of Kyiv) sustained an average kill rate of 5:1 for continuous 19 month? And will now increase that ratio even further to over 5 RU killed for every 1 UA loss, with some groundbreaking gamechanger weapon? I mean i saw anecdotal reports that Russians were attacking with shovels as Ukrainians are mowing them down with machine guns, but surely no one actually believed that right? Maybe Ukraine could achieve such odds against indigenous tribesman of amazon or Papua New Guinea, but the sober reality is that there's just no weapon in existence that would allow Ukraine to achieve such ratios against Russia. That's why no one really thought that Ukraine could defeat Russia on the battlefield. Objectively, UA's only realistic chance was for economical/political collapse inside RU, but we now see that China would not allow that to happen.

Russia dodges G7 price cap sanctions on most of its oil exports

Russia has succeeded in avoiding G7 sanctions on most of its oil exports, a shift in trade flows that will boost the Kremlin’s revenues as crude rises towards $100 a barrel.

Almost three-quarters of all seaborne Russian crude flows travelled without western insurance in August, a lever used to enforce the G7’s $60-a-barrel oil price cap, according to an analysis of shipping and insurance records by the Financial Times.

That is up from about 50 per cent this spring, according to data from freight analytics company Kpler and insurance companies. The rise implies that Moscow is becoming more adept at circumventing the cap, allowing it to sell more of its oil at prices closer to international market rates.

The Kyiv School of Economics (KSE) has estimated that the steady increase in crude prices since July, combined with Russia’s success in reducing the discount on its own oil, means that the country’s oil revenues are likely to be at least $15bn higher for 2023 than they would have been.

The shift is a double blow for western efforts to restrict Russia’s revenues from oil sales — which make up the biggest part of the Kremlin’s budget — following its full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Not only is a higher proportion of Russian oil being sold outside the cap, but Moscow’s increasing independence as a seller has coincided with a strong rally in oil prices, which topped $95 a barrel for the first time in 13 months this week.

Now back to the real world,

Women with a medical or pharmaceutical education must register at military enlistment offices from Oct. 1, Fedir Venislavskyi, President Volodymyr Zelensky's representative in parliament, said on Sept. 7.

This will mean that these women, like Ukrainian men aged between 18 and 60, will not be able to leave the country without special permission.

Under martial law, they must stay in Ukraine as they may be called up at any moment for military service.

According to the report, amendments to the law were made on Aug. 18 and entered into force on Aug. 25.

From now on, people with clinically cured tuberculosis, viral hepatitis,  slowly progressing blood diseases, thyroid gland diseases with minor functional disorders, and those who are HIV-positive but without symptoms, are considered still fit for military service.

In addition, people suffering from mild mental disorders, neurotic disorders, slowly progressive diseases of the central nervous system and others have been added to the list.

On Aug. 30, President Volodymyr Zelensky announced a mass review of decisions by military medical commissions to issue medical certificates of disability or unfitness for military service, which have been made since the start of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022.

No I am comparing Ruzzia with Ruzzia. They shelled more, had more manpower, more equipment, better air forces and yet... they lost Kherson and the region. Is this real life enough for you?

Another of those funny syllogisms that you frequently fall into:"Ruzzia shells more, shells kill, ergo Ruzzia kills more". HIMARS has been a game changer, you speak about volume of shelling, but I will take a HIMARS rather than 30 pieces of Soviet equipment shooting with rusty barrels and likely to miss a target by 20 meters or more (which is actually the case in the front). The quality counts - the reports speak of more than 25 Ruzzian artillery pieces destroyed per day in artillery duels. Guess what is destroying them?

I think that many weapons have been a game changer (e.g. drone economics) and before you say anything about mines, notice that these do not fly and do not change anything... unless you are still WW II gaming.

But perhaps the clear proof of what is happening, and that is actually reality, is that Ruzzia has stopped any minimally significant gain while Ukraine is taking territory. That is what is happening "in real life".

Re recruiting, I have that information yes... but it is a duma decree, plus some sources...

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-recruiting-soldiers-mental-asylum-ukraine-war-1739963

Russia Recruits Soldiers From Mental Health Unit to Make Up Troop Shortfall

F16 will also change the game. Those GBUs modified to "fly" may be just to risky to launch any longer.

All these things together are effectively game changers. Also for Ukraine, as attacking in large formations or with over abundance of mechanized means is no longer a good option.

Yes yes lets concentrate on how this one sniper is so great and killed 100s, just don't talk about overall state of affairs, and lets pretend as if i'm arguing that simple numerical majority is what wins wars. You're picking some specific UA weapon/system and claim how great it is. That might even be true but regardless of how great these miracle systems might be, it's simply impossible for them to be so great that they make up for all other casualties and bring OVERALL kill ratio (meaning all kills including planes, choppers, ships, submarines, drones, tanks, missiles, mines, handguns, knifes etc etc etc...) to over 5x in Ukraine's advantage. And without that Ukraine just can't win on the battlefield. From your example US actually did achieve 10x+ casualty rates in Iraq and Afghanistan. But even the most craziest UA propagandists make up casualty numbers at maximum 3x over RU, so even if we consider those ridiculous numbers, that would still mean that UA is loosing 2x faster of its relative population to RU, which is clearly not sustainable. The grim reality is that if RU casualties are less than 5x of UA (which is globally acknowledged) this means that UA is loosing % of their population faster.

Ukraine does not need a x5 advantage, that is just a number you made up and keep repeating. Is false logic and sad math but also unrelated to the dynamics of modern warfare. Nor any warfare.

“It is better to be on hand with ten men than absent with ten thousand.” — Timur

(born in 1336)

To gain territory you need to attrite and degrade the enemy response. This does not require massive number nor a "x5". A basic example: you blow up the Kerch bridge, all supplies to Crimea have to make a dangerous route of hundreds of kilometres more. You have killed 0 people, but the frontline is not getting ammo and they are forced to retreat.

Once you understand these dynamics, you will be able to understand why the "kill ratio" is not the limiting factor for a victory.

You keep fighting a straw man that you yourself created. Numerical majority doesn't matter AS LONG AS your kill ratio is higher than opponents numerical majority ratio. And you're in trouble on the battlefield if your kill ratio doesn't compensate for your lower numerical force. The logic of “It is better to be on hand with ten men than absent with ten thousand.” is because ten men on hand can do more damage (have higher kill ratio) than absent with ten thousand. You "attrite and degrade" opponent on a battlefield by reducing their manpower (or their equipment which ultimately directly leads to loss in manpower). Of course you can also push propaganda to destroy the morale (willingness to fight) enough in hopes for a political change but that wouldn't be a battlefield victory, and all current polls indicate it's extremely unlikely to occur.

As stated by others look at the map and you'll see that Kerch bridge is not the only supply route and not a single point of failure that you're making it out to be. There are other alternatives including land bridge, ferries, (even airdrops might be at least a temporary stopgap solution as has been done few times in history). In fact as i'm sure you're well aware, Kerch bridge was only opened in 2018-2019 good 4 years after Russia took Crimea, so Crimea was somehow taken and then supplied for four years before the bridge was built and without alternative land corridor in place now. Regardless, the point of taking out supply routes, is to reduce combat effectiveness of the enemy so to cause unbearable losses to the opponent. Or of course just to push propaganda that opponents lines will collapse because now they'll get melted ice cream with their rations because supplies are going over longer/more dangerous alternative supply routes. The illusion that Russian will just withdraw while having lower losses in % of population, is just that, an illusion pushed by dishonest propagandist, who ironically at the same time attempt to claim that Russia doesn't care for their soldiers lives, which of course is mutually exclusive. The only point of that would be a huge morale booster for your own troops/population, to keep them hopelessly fighting even longer.

[paxmao]

To gain territory you need to attrite and degrade the enemy response. This does not require massive number nor a "x5". A basic example: you blow up the Kerch bridge, all supplies to Crimea have to make a dangerous route of hundreds of kilometres more. You have killed 0 people, but the frontline is not getting ammo and they are forced to retreat.
...

I don't want to piss in your Cheerios, but when the 'Ukrainians' went full al-Qaeda and did the suicide truck bombing back in 2022 it stopped rail traffic for a whole two days or something IIRC.  Vehicle traffic was inconvenienced by having to share a span while the collapsed one was re-built.

Supposedly there was a later British attack with Storm Shadow missiles, but info on that is sparse at best.  May even be just another 'Institute for the Study War' (familiar neo-con Jewish clans working their American gimps) fantasy.

In any event if/when necessary there are ferry boats that can work the straights as they have for about 100 years.  But even then, why bother?  The alternate route through now-Russian Federation properties adjacent to Crimea and all the way over and up into the Motherland are not much more dangerous than any highway in the West.

This is me questioning why people do not seem to understand the concept of "example" within a theoretical discussion and if BA's latest answer is an very effective attempt to win the "poorest math award" on this thread

[Branko]

But perhaps the clear proof of what is happening, and that is actually reality, is that Ruzzia has stopped any minimally significant gain while Ukraine is taking territory. That is what is happening "in real life".

According to New York Times (famous for its pro-Russia stance) since Ukraine counteroffensive started, Russia took 860 square kilometers, and
Ukraine took 370 square kilometers.
At that rate, what your math says, when will Ukraine take back all territory?

[suchmoon]

According to New York Times (famous for its pro-Russia stance) since Ukraine counteroffensive started, Russia took 860 square kilometers, and
Ukraine took 370 square kilometers.

That's a peculiar claim since NYT's most recent article on territorial gains doesn't have such numbers. I don't suppose you have a link?

[Branko]

According to New York Times (famous for its pro-Russia stance) since Ukraine counteroffensive started, Russia took 860 square kilometers, and
Ukraine took 370 square kilometers.

That's a peculiar claim since NYT's most recent article on territorial gains doesn't have such numbers. I don't suppose you have a link?

Well, your link says Ukraine 143 square MILES, Russia 331

If you have trouble calculating, try this link

https://www.google.com/search?q=square+miles+to+km

[suchmoon]

Well, your link says Ukraine 143 square MILES, Russia 331

If you have trouble calculating, try this link

https://www.google.com/search?q=square+miles+to+km

From the start of the year. This presumably includes the "capture" of Bakhmut, the last significant Russian advance. Since the start of the Ukrainian counteroffensive in mid-2023 the gains have been mostly one way.



So let's try again:

According to New York Times (famous for its pro-Russia stance) since Ukraine counteroffensive started, Russia took 860 square kilometers, and
Ukraine took 370 square kilometers.

Not true, is it?

[paxmao]

At this moment, several of the proxy indicators for the intensity of combat and even the official figures from both sides seem to indicate that Ukraine is pressing ahead stronger that in the last month. There is also media quietness in general, so only a few unofficial sources indicate that more armoured means are being used in the Verbove / Robotina section of the Zapo front, but also that there is movement in the banks of the dnipro.

Meanwhile, the usual youtube Kremlin propagandists speak of "meatgrinders", "massive losses" without mention to Ukrainian advances, which is a clear indication on who is got the initiative.

Oh... good luck trying to get anything resembling truth from any of this guys.

[Branko]

Well, your link says Ukraine 143 square MILES, Russia 331

If you have trouble calculating, try this link

https://www.google.com/search?q=square+miles+to+km

From the start of the year. This presumably includes the "capture" of Bakhmut, the last significant Russian advance. Since the start of the Ukrainian counteroffensive in mid-2023 the gains have been mostly one way.



So let's try again:

According to New York Times (famous for its pro-Russia stance) since Ukraine counteroffensive started, Russia took 860 square kilometers, and
Ukraine took 370 square kilometers.

Not true, is it?

If you want to split hairs, when battle of Bakhmut ended, and when counteroffensive started?

[suchmoon]

If you want to split hairs, when battle of Bakhmut ended, and when counteroffensive started?

You're the one making the claim, enlighten us.

[DaRude]

Some current news on the subject. Funny that republicans just want to separate Ukraine funding so it could be voted on separately instead of lumping it together with US budget, but of course it's being spun differently.  Think we all know that Ukrainian aid will pass in some form this time around, but of course its only a start and will have to repeat again in November/December and then every few months leading closer and closer to US presidential election

Pentagon makes last-minute push to save Ukraine aid as shutdown looms

Pentagon officials are making a last-minute lobbying push on Capitol Hill Saturday to prevent Congress from stripping aid to Ukraine from a funding agreement
...
Defense Department officials stressed to House and Senate leadership on both sides of the aisle the importance of approving aid to Kyiv as Ukraine continues to try to fight off Russia’s invasion, the people said. House Republicans are trying to advance a government funding bill that leaves out funding for Ukraine, alarming officials in Kyiv but paving the way for averting a government shutdown otherwise set to start at 12:01 a.m.

 “Republicans are forcing us to choose between supporting Ukraine and averting a shutdown, and the administration is very concerned,” a congressional aide said.
...
With less than 12 hours to go until government appropriations lapse, the House is taking up legislation that includes disaster funding and keeps federal operations going at current spending levels, but includes none of the $20 billion President Biden has said is necessary to support Ukraine in its war against Russia. Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) advanced the legislation after months of GOP infighting over funding the government, hoping to prevent the Republican-controlled House from shouldering the blame for a shutdown.
...
Defense undersecretary, sent a letter to House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) decrying a “funding cutoff” for Ukraine.

“DOD has exhausted nearly all available security assistance funding for Ukraine,” the letter states.
...
with so little time to avert a shutdown, the Senate will now face immense pressure to pass the House bill even without aid for Ukraine.

 Supporters of Ukraine say failure to pass the aid will encourage Russian President Vladimir Putin and likely lead European allies to pare back their support for the war.
...
 “They are willing, and they are able, to abandon our allies,” DeLauro said of the GOP. “Let us continue to support Ukraine’s fight for freedom.”

There are also elections in Slovakia

With Kremlin apologist leading the polls, Slovakia vote threatens country’s support for Ukraine

Slovaks have been voting in a knife-edge parliamentary election on Saturday that could radically reshape Slovakia’s approach to Ukraine and create deep rifts within NATO and the European Union.

The frontrunner, former Prime Minister Robert Fico, has made no secret of his affinity for the Kremlin during the election campaign. He has criticized the West for supporting Ukraine and adopted a strong anti-US message, even accusing Slovakia’s President Zuzana Čaputová of being an “American agent.” He has said that if elected, he would stop sending weapons to Ukraine and block Ukraine’s NATO ambitions.
...

And now to Serbia

NATO bolsters forces in Kosovo as US urges Serbia to withdraw from border

White House calls Serbian military deployment ‘very destabilizing.’

NATO said on Friday it is increasing its peacekeeping presence in northern Kosovo as a result of escalating tensions with neighboring Serbia, as the U.S. called on Serbia to withdraw a military buildup on the border with Kosovo.

The heightening of tensions comes after about 30 heavily armed Serbs stormed the northern Kosovo village of Banjska last Sunday. A Kosovo policeman and three of the attackers were killed in gun battles.

“We need NATO because the border with Serbia is very long and the Serbian army has been recently strengthening its capacities,” Kosovo Prime Minister Albin Kurti told the Associated Press. “They have a lot of military equipment from both the Russian Federation and China” he said.
...

Of course there is also Africa, Armenia etc...



Soviet Union collapsed because they overestimated their strength, and had no mechanism to scale down, so the west just opened as many fronts as they could to smartly overextend the Soviets. Ironically i believe this is exactly what we're seeing now.

[paxmao]

Some current news on the subject. Funny that republicans just want to separate Ukraine funding so it could be voted on separately instead of lumping it together with US budget, but of course it's being spun differently.  Think we all know that Ukrainian aid will pass in some form this time around, but of course its only a start and will have to repeat again in November/December and then every few months leading closer and closer to US presidential election

Pentagon makes last-minute push to save Ukraine aid as shutdown looms

Pentagon officials are making a last-minute lobbying push on Capitol Hill Saturday to prevent Congress from stripping aid to Ukraine from a funding agreement
[...]
 “Republicans are forcing us to choose between supporting Ukraine and averting a shutdown, and the administration is very concerned,” a congressional aide said.
[...]
 “They are willing, and they are able, to abandon our allies,” DeLauro said of the GOP. “Let us continue to support Ukraine’s fight for freedom.”

There are also elections in Slovakia

With Kremlin apologist leading the polls, Slovakia vote threatens country’s support for Ukraine

Slovaks have been voting in a knife-edge parliamentary election on Saturday that could radically reshape Slovakia’s approach to Ukraine and create deep rifts within NATO and the European Union.

The frontrunner, former Prime Minister Robert Fico, has made no secret of his affinity for the Kremlin during the election campaign. He has criticized the West for supporting Ukraine and adopted a strong anti-US message, even accusing Slovakia’s President Zuzana Čaputová of being an “American agent.” He has said that if elected, he would stop sending weapons to Ukraine and block Ukraine’s NATO ambitions.
[...]

And now to Serbia

NATO bolsters forces in Kosovo as US urges Serbia to withdraw from border

White House calls Serbian military deployment ‘very destabilizing.’
[...]

Of course there is also Africa, Armenia etc...

Soviet Union collapsed because they overestimated their strength, and had no mechanism to scale down, so the west just opened as many fronts as they could to smartly overextend the Soviets. Ironically i believe this is exactly what we're seeing now.

What is unclear is who those "fronts" may be playing in favour of. My guess is that Putin is trying some payback where he can harm European interests for a cheap price, but there is plenty of time for pay-back. One thing at a time, let's first continue to allow Ruzzia to self-demilitarise itself.

Regarding US funding, we all know there are many Republicans that are keen on allowing Putin to achieve something that could be interpreted as victory. Things sometimes are seen different once you are in government if they ever get there, but for now, Ukraine has enough to have the initiative.

RE Serbia, the "front" was already open, is not really that new. I guess Serbia is just checking how big may the appetite of the US to replay Balkans war II.

Regardless, the war in Ukraine requires an strategy shift. The best outcome at this point would be taking Tokmak, which would fall short of a more decisive outcome that could make Ruzzia rethink their plans.

My guess is that with sufficient aviation and the right munitions, the front dynamics could be changed, but that will not happen until Ukraine gets proper support, instead of timid packages.

[suchmoon]

Soviet Union collapsed because they overestimated their strength, and had no mechanism to scale down, so the west just opened as many fronts as they could to smartly overextend the Soviets. Ironically i believe this is exactly what we're seeing now.

Again with this rewrite of history bullshit...

Soviet Union collapsed because it was an utter shitshow of corruption, incompetence, authoritarianism, and alcoholism. Not that different from Putin's Russia. There was no global conspiracy to "overextend" it, or even if there was one it would have no chance against the largest country in the world with the most natural resources if said country was not a dysfunctional mess.

Western countries were smart enough to develop various flavors of free-ish markets instead of five year plans and state-owned everything. Which is what most of Eastern Europe did too over the last 30 years while Russia managed just a slight variation of soviet shitshow with some oligarchs sprinkled on top. It's still the largest and richest country in the world... with economy smaller than Texas (coincidentally ~30 million Russians, the equivalent of the entire population of Texas, have no indoor plumbing).

Sounds like you're a true believer of Kremlin's "new world order"... I got sad news for you though, it will end badly for you and your compatriots. A 1990s-style decade of turmoil seems probable, before you'll get another shot at building a civilized society and proper economy. Doing the same dictatorship thing over and over again is not going to yield a different result now or ever.

[Branko]

(coincidentally ~30 million Russians, the equivalent of the entire population of Texas, have no indoor plumbing).

That's about 10 million less than people who would starve to death in USA if not for food stamps

[suchmoon]

(coincidentally ~30 million Russians, the equivalent of the entire population of Texas, have no indoor plumbing).

That's about 10 million less than people who would starve to death in USA if not for food stamps

Whenever you post something I can't help but imagine you as the guy in this poster:



But hey, if you aspire to poop in an outhouse just because 'murricans have food stamps, who am I to argue.

[BADecker]

If you want to see what is really happening in Ukraine, here it is. And it's about to slide over into the Western Hemisphere.

Douglas Macgregor - 750,000 Lifted in Ukraine - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MGFX8I5W0M.

[paxmao]

(coincidentally ~30 million Russians, the equivalent of the entire population of Texas, have no indoor plumbing).

That's about 10 million less than people who would starve to death in USA if not for food stamps

Whenever you post something I can't help but imagine you as the guy in this poster:



But hey, if you aspire to poop in an outhouse just because 'murricans have food stamps, who am I to argue.

The issue here is that some people in this thread are somehow thinking of Ruzzia as the USSR - the soviet times. It is well said that the USSR was mostly dysfunctional, but it did have at least, in a very general sense, some level of interest in the wellbeing of Ruzzians. People will queue for potatoes, but they would mostly have at least one potato per person and a place to sleep, with another 4 of their family, but warm.

Am I may hear some ask how that can be "good", and my answer is that before they had the Tzars, which did not give much of a deer's excrement for the general population, so, believe it or not, an improvement.

Now, we have... Putin & Co. Which effectively do not give a deer's poo for the general wellbeing of the population, but have certainly kept the highly effective and non-at-all dysfunctional mass control systems of the communism. Kremlin tea or window fly experience are only for the chosen few, but filtration and torture are for the many. As o now, people may speak about the massive traffic jams or the closing of airports, but they dare not speak in public of the "SVO" as they may just get a first row ticket to the front of said event for doing so.

But still, some in here are still talking about "poverty" and comparing Ruzzia with US or the west as they were still talking about the Soviet Union in economy, influence and power. That is gone - as the stockpiles of Soviet equipment are now going to never be replaced.