Panto_Villan

If we only got 8m for him I’d be very disappointed tbh now they know they are going up.

I wonder what his wages are like compared to Ollie. If we’re looking for someone to bully defenders and not score then maybe he’d be a cheaper option. I actually think he’s got decent potential to develop further at PL level if he’s spends a year starting games at PL level. I’d love to see a buyback clause if Forest go up and we sell him. Either way I wish him the best, because I feel the club hasn’t really managed his career very well prior to this loan.

It's only you that I have actual arguments with in this thread, mostly because you're very keen to correct other people while also being horribly misinformed. This entire argument started when someone said Russia has had a good week. You flat out told him he was wrong, and that was impossible because respected sources like the Pentagon, ISW and MOD said the Russians had culminated and weren't actually making gains (spoiler: they didn't). You're the one that needs to provide sources because you're the one going wading into discussions and incorrectly telling people they are wrong. But all you needed to do is just say "Oh, you're right actually, but I don't think those gains are going to change the course of the war" and there's no argument. Problem is you always double down every time even when clearly wrong. You seem to be convinced that literally everything you say must be right because Ukraine is winning the war overall - even though nobody is actually disputing that. It feels like you think the only reason someone might want to discuss signs that Ukraine might be having a tough time on the battlefield is either because they're pro-Putin or because they're still not over the fact you predicted Russia wouldn't take Ukraine and so we're all desperately hoping Ukraine will fail so we can save face and discredit you. Rather than, y'know, because we're interested in discussing what's going on in one of the biggest geopolitical events of recent times. Sure, at the start of the war I thought Ukraine would fight hard but ultimately Kiev would fall to Russia's larger and stronger army. I don't mind admitting when I'm wrong; and in this case I've rarely been happier to be wrong about anything. However it's incredibly ironic you claim I have no sources for my views. From what I recall, your views were based entirely on what one of your mates told you about the Russian army. My views were based on those respected sources like the ISW / Pentagon / MOD that you now put so much stock by. Mocking someone for reading about a topic and listening to the opinions of experts doesn't reflect as well on you as you think it does. As you asked for sources, here's a report from the ISW shortly before the invasion explaining that the Russian militiary could "likely achieve their military objectives of destroying the Ukrainian military’s ability to continue fighting and encircling major Ukrainian cities" in the case of a full invasion (page 13). Can you cite the publications your mate has had published?

Oh, I wasn’t using the word debate in a confrontational way. Just saying you were putting forward your thoughts and reasoning for consideration and I did the same thing. One thing to bear in mind is that Ukrainian artillery is a lot more accurate and used far less indiscriminately than the Russian kind so I’m not sure there will be many limitations on reclaiming territory in that regard. There seems to be plenty of videos of Ukrainian artillery flattening Ukrainian buildings that Russian forces are using for cover already. I do wonder how many civilians are actually left in many of these places too. Certainly the big cities have many but I think any situation where the Ukrainians can encircle an occupied city, you’d think it’d probably indicate the Russians are doing so badly they’d want to surrender anyway?

Right. So you can’t quote a source then? So first you argued that the Russians had culminated and weren’t making any gains at all. Then you argued that the gains didn’t count because the Ukrainians weren’t taking many losses due to their orderly withdrawals from the ceded territories. Now you’re arguing they are taking heavy losses, but that it’s fine because the Ukrainians are better placed to absorb massive losses than Russia is. Congratulations on arguing yourself around to the position I laid out in my first posts (and also in the debate I had with Blandy earlier this week), which was the Russians have recently changed tactics and enjoyed some minor but steady tactical victories over the past week where the attrition rate may be much higher for Ukrainian forces than it was previously, but the overall strategic picture probably still favours the Ukrainians due to their greater capability and willingness to absorb losses. Shame it took about twenty posts for you to realise that you actually agreed with me all along.

Can you cite even one press release from the past five days from any of those bodies that says the Ukrainians are not suffering high casualties but the Russians are? We all know the gains are incremental (though steady). The concern from many people, including a lot of strongly pro-Ukrainian commentators, is that the Russians have changed their tactics and now the Ukrainians are taking very high casualties. The whole “tactical withdrawal to bleed your enemies” only works if they’re bleeding more than you. Otherwise you’ve just suffered a series of blood-soaked defeats.

The concern was always the implied encirclement from those gains rather than the gains themselves. Anyway, sounds like we’re going to find out shortly whether the Ukrainians are able to hold onto territory when they choose to fight for it properly (read the whole linked mini thread). I do hope you guys are correct.

You're misunderstanding my point about Kiev. I'm not equating the losses or the scale of the victory; I'm simply pointing out that the phrase "tactical withdrawal" can cover a whole manner of sins. A withdrawal just involves retreating forces while maintaining contact with the enemy. The Russians definitely made a tactical withdrawal from Kiev. They'd suffered extensive losses beforehand but that's irrelevent; the definition of the word "withdrawal" doesn't change if you've taken losses beforehand. Fundamentally your own position that ceding territory is a good thing rests on the assumption that Ukraine isn't suffering heavy casualties and is retreating in an orderly fashion, whereas the Russians are continuing to suffer massive casualties. Much as I'd love there to be concrete evidence that that's happening at the moment, I can't see any proof of that (unlike during the rest of the war). In fact, several things have happened which suggest the situation may have changed. Not has definitely changed, but may have changed. Which means we need to consider the alternative scenarios that might arise if it has. It may be scaremongering by people trying to score internet argument points, but that in itself isn't enough for me to dismiss the possibility that recent events aren't going as well as Ukraine wants them to. But hopefully the Russians have just had a few good days and normal service will resume shortly.

I think the key thing part of the quoted sentence was "and scored".

Yeah, Coutinho had to go down to £125k a week (ish) to fit in our pay structure and I can believe we've offered Kamara similar wages to come join. That's £500k a month. Little Phil was earning that every week before he came here.

What you've described is just "taking territory" though, no? The Russians made a tactical retreat around Kiev but it still resulted in Ukraine retaking all that territory, which was a victory for Ukraine. The fact of the matter is Ukraine would ideally prefer not to have vacated that territory in the Donbass but has chosen to because they feel like trying to hold it in the face of a Russian advance would cause them unacceptable casualties. That's a victory for Russia. Sure, it's perfectly valid to suggest that maybe the territory being taken is not particularly large or consequential and that the Russians are paying far more in blood for every mile taken than the Ukrainians are. Personally I'm not as convinced about that as I was a week ago (particularly regarding the Russians taking more casualties than the Ukrainians right now). The counter-narrative is that the Ukrainians are holding towns and villages while they are pounded into rubble by overwhelming Russian artillery, and are pretty much shattered when the Russians move in and are thus forced to retreat to new defensive lines. Then process repeats and the losses continue. Given that Zelensky is complaining about high casulaties and the Ukrainians are going backwards, the alternate scenario (or some combination of the two) seems equally plausible. It suggests a few cracks have appeared in the Ukrainian war effort and I'm not yet sure how significant they are. It could be a portent of a new phase of the war, or it could signal absolutely nothing and we'll see the Russian attacks burn out and another major Russian disaster unfold. But I'm watching with a bit of concern at the moment and I'm surprised anyone can look at current events and think things are unfolding completely to plan. Incidentally, in the Donbas it seems like a lot of the assaults are happening at night and the Russians locally actually have better night fighting capabilities than the Ukranians do. It's another example of how the situation is perhaps more complex than initially imagined, whether it be because the Russians are adapting their tactics or because the Ukrainian special forces are busy around Kharkiv and their Donbas troops are less well equipped.

Please no

I don't see how the Russians can still be taking territory if their attacks have apparently culminated? Either they still have sufficient combat power to force Ukraine to retreat or they don't. Clearly they do.

You're shifting your argument. Someone pointed out that Russia had taken a fair bit of ground this week, and you claimed they were wrong and actually they had culminated. They clearly have not. They're steadily pushing the Ukrainians back in the areas they've heavily committed troops. The Ukrainians would happily hold those piles of rubble if they thought they could safely do so, but they don't and so they're ceding territory. Therefore you're incorrect to tell LondonLax above that the Russians hadn't had a good week and their attacks had already culminated. Sure, there's still plenty of readings that the war favours the Ukrainians overall. But you could also point out that despite the massive losses already inflicted on the Russians and all the Western hardware we've sent over, they're continuing to take territory from the Ukrainians. The Ukrainians have had to stop all counter-offensives to focus on defending the Donbas and yet they're still losing territory. They haven't been able to push the Russians out of the area above Kharkiv, there's been absolutely no progress towards reclaiming Kherson, Mauripol has fallen and the Donbas is slowly falling to the Russians. Zelensky et al are sounding a lot less optimistic than they were a couple of weeks ago. Perhaps the tsunami of NATO weapons and fresh troops is going to decisively turn the war in the favour of the Ukrainians and allow them to reclaim their territory in the coming weeks - although we've been hearing that for a while. Alternatively, perhaps the Ukrainians are going to find that large-scale counter-attacks against an enemy with greater air power is going to be extremely difficult and perhaps impossible, especially now they've had time to dig in. And then the Russians will end up keeping a chunk of Ukraine when the war is over. Personally I think the war does still favour Ukraine in the longer term but I think the events of this week are still a handy dose of realism. The Russians certainly aren't beaten yet, and this war isn't going to be one-way traffic.

That doesn’t really change the facts though. The prior assumptions were that the Kharkiv front for the Russians was collapsing, and they had culminated in the Donbas. Instead Russia reinforced north of Kharkiv and the Ukrainians couldn’t push them back over the border, let alone threaten the Russian supply lines in the east, and new attacks in the Donbas continue to take towns and villages from Ukraine. Sure, you can argue about the overall strategic significance of that but you can’t deny the Russians are the ones taking ground at the moment, which some people seem to be doing. I think we’ll need to wait another week or two to see trends emerge fully, but if the present situation continues it won’t bode well for Ukraine.

I mean the recent update seems to disagree. Russians making progress in the Donbas, albeit slow progress, Ukraine making no further progress around Kharkiv. That’s been the situation for the last 3-4 days. Whether it’s a blip or a sign of something greater is up for discussion but the Russians are certainly the ones taking ground right now. Source: https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-may-26 High level summary “Russian forces have made steady, incremental gains in heavy fighting in eastern Ukraine in the past several days, though Ukrainian defenses remain effective overall”

I feel like Villalad has been playing the long con on us. Who knew he had so many accounts?

Indeed, I really hadn't appreciated quite what a strategic advantage it was for Turkey before I read the wiki article. You learn something new every day.

Actually reading on wikipedia what the convention actually says, there's some very strict limits on warships being sent through for any purpose at a time of war (which Turkey have declared is happening). So NATO flat-out can't get a task force through even if it wanted to. I had no idea it was that restricted to be honest. I guess we could send some unarmed merchant ships through and declare them under NATO protection but anything resembling a warship won't be getting anywhere near Ukraine.

Jeez. There's not going to be too much dead weight in our team at the rate we're going. £25m+ players everywhere! Except Coutinho obviously. Better upgrade him ASAP.

I think if they're travelling specifically as part of a humanitarian escort for civilian ships then I think they probably would be allowed, right? Because they're not warships that are party to the conflict. Whether Turkey would choose to allow it is another matter entirely.

Yeah, I think that's a possibility.

My own perspective is a bit different - the Ukrainians are fighting to protect and reclaim their country. I think high losses are more acceptable to them than they are for Russia. Currently there's plenty of support for the war in Russia but there's always a "rally around the flag" effect at the start of a war and we've only been going three months. If thousands and thousands of Russians keep coming home in bodybags every month while the economy falls apart due to sanctions, I think Russians will become disillusioned with the war - particularly if the casualties suffered necessitate a more general mobilisation where people who don't particularly want to fight are getting called up to die in a war that they have no hope of winning. Which will be happening soon if current trends continue. So while I appreciate it's not easy to reclaim territory I suspect what'll happen is the level of casualties being taken is going to cripple Russia before it does Ukraine, and it'll lead to the Russians desperately trying to negotiate for peace when they realise this war is bleeding them dry for no gain.

One nice thing about Leon being in terrible form is that we've not had to hear from his dad in a while.

I think their best chance of getting way with it would be Boris going, and I don't know why anyone wants that to happen. He's a dead man walking going into the election among all but the most hardcore Tory voters so I think the best outcome (both for country and even the Tory party) is he keeps weathering scandal after scandal and then proceeds to gets annihilated in the election.