Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[avfc1982am]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Equally I can see no point or purpose in Russia taking these places - I mean they then have a presence in a destroyed, ruined city with a population that now hates them. If they stay there then they have to rebuild it or move the civilians out. And if they move the civilians out, the Russians then become sitting duck targets for Ukraine to retake the place.

This is where I am at...Forget the current situation and the short term because I don't think you can grasp the long term issues Russia are going to have from looking at the picture now. I've mentioned this many times now but eventually Russia will have to leave. Either the death of Putin, the death of his government, or the renegotiation of western diplomacy with Russia will ensure Ukraine take much if not most of the land back they are current losing. It's an inevitable situation.

Eventually the population of Russia will no longer have an appetite for this war and then it is down to the 40m Ukrainians to either stick to their guns(sorry poor pun) or give in and concede the land. This rarely happens after such carnage and atrocities have been committed. Especially against a population the size of Ukraine because too many citizens will have lost loved ones to ever forgive or forget.

The simplest analogy I can think of would be that Russia brought the expensive car and now they are going to have to maintain it by hook or by crook, spending everything to keep it going. If they don't sooner or later it will devalue, break down, get stolen or become a wreckage not worth maintaining. That maintenance is going to be at least a constant occupying force of over a 100k troops and just as much hardware to keep the machine rolling. 

[sidcow]

Ukrainian defence minister Oleksiy Reznikov has said they have today started receiving Harpoon missiles from Norway and those longer range Howitzers from America. They can therefore now threaten Russian Ships and hit Russian Artillery at much further distances. 

[magnkarl]

4 hours ago, Panto_Villan said:

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.

I don’t know why you think everyone here is in this thread to win an argument against you. I’m certainly not, and instead of asking people to find sources to try to disprove your vague ‘Can you prove to me that Russia is x’, maybe you should find them yourself?

Remember when you were claiming Russia was going to win this war quickly? You had no sources for this either.

There’s articles from as late as yesterday in this thread that disprove your fairy vocal argument that Russia is winning.

Edited May 28, 2022 by magnkarl

[avfc1982am]

 

[ender4]

So if Russians take the whole of Donbas region (which I guess they are pretty close to doing), then at that point Russia probably want to negotiate an end to the war with them keeping Donbas and a ceasefire line between Donbas and the rest of Ukraine. 
 

I assume Ukraine won’t want to agree a ceasefire at the this point, but the pressure on them from Germany, USA and some other European countries to end the war is going to be massive.

If that happens, then Russia basically ‘wins’ the war.

This is all my speculation, I have no idea what might actually happen.

Edited May 28, 2022 by ender4

[HAL]

Don't see the USA caring how long the war goes on for aslong as Russia takes losses

[bickster]

28 minutes ago, ender4 said:

I assume Ukraine won’t want to agree a ceasefire at the this point, but the pressure on them from Germany, USA and some other European countries to end the war is going to be massive.

The USA will not be going down that road at all. DOn't confuse Henry Kissinger and the New York Times for the American Govt. Germany (and France) are figuratively drunk at an AA meeting. Scholtz is not even doing himself any favours on the home front either. Macron less so

[Genie]

If Ukraine formally accept the Donbas region is lost and officially redraw the border with Russia could they then join NATO as they wouldn’t have this disputed area anymore?

Bad news from Russia’s point of view. 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, ender4 said:

So if Russians take the whole of Donbas region (which I guess they are pretty close to doing), then at that point Russia probably want to negotiate an end to the war with them keeping Donbas and a ceasefire line between Donbas and the rest of Ukraine. 

I assume Ukraine won’t want to agree a ceasefire at the this point, but the pressure on them from Germany, USA and some other European countries to end the war is going to be massive.

If that happens, then Russia basically ‘wins’ the war.

This is all my speculation, I have no idea what might actually happen.

I agree completely with the first part, but not with the bit about the USA. I also don’t think Russia can “win”, any more than I think Ukraine can win. The reason is that even if it came to pass that some kind of deal was put together that Russia could keep their newly won territory, it wouldn’t hold. Further, because of what they have done much of the Eastern EU is now even more wary of Russian aggression against them, so there is a strong drive not to let Russia off the hook for their invasion, war crimes and destruction.

I don’t know how this ends other than with Putin gone.

[bickster]

 

[Panto_Villan]

5 hours ago, magnkarl said:

I don’t know why you think everyone here is in this thread to win an argument against you. I’m certainly not, and instead of asking people to find sources to try to disprove your vague ‘Can you prove to me that Russia is x’, maybe you should find them yourself?

Remember when you were claiming Russia was going to win this war quickly? You had no sources for this either.

There’s articles from as late as yesterday in this thread that disprove your fairy vocal argument that Russia is winning.

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?

[avfc1982am]

Navalny going in deep on Putin and the Russian Government. At least not all Russians are scared of the regime. 

 

[Mandy Lifeboats]

On the "Who will win?" debate. 

Russia will win in the short term.  There will be a settlement in which they will gain land and they have degraded Ukrainian infrastructure. 

The medium term victory is dependent upon whether Finland and Sweden join NATO.  If they do it will be a huge blow to Russia. If they are vetoed by Turkey it will leave NATO in the awkward position of only needing a single country wanting to appease Russia and expansion will fail.  

Russia will lose in the long term.  The West has already won an economic/ proxy war against the USSR. Since then, most of the Warsaw Pact has joined NATO.  It takes a long time, but the Russian economy can't rival Europe, let alone Europe, USA, Australia, Japan and South Korea. 

 

[bickster]

Lots of contracted soldiers might be attempting to leave the Russian Army this week. At the outbreak, many signed three month contracts, thinking it would be the walk in the park that Russia assumed it would be but are now desperate to leave as their contracts are up. What happens remains to be seen but this could be interesting

[sidcow]

2 hours ago, bickster said:

Lots of contracted soldiers might be attempting to leave the Russian Army this week. At the outbreak, many signed three month contracts, thinking it would be the walk in the park that Russia assumed it would be but are now desperate to leave as their contracts are up. What happens remains to be seen but this could be interesting

That would be great. It could be true as well as there must be a new series of X Factor due soon. Wagner could be off. 

 

[bickster]

4 minutes ago, sidcow said:

That would be great. It could be true as well as there must be a new series of X Factor due soon. Wagner could be off. 

 

This isn’t Wagner, these are regular conscripts that at the start of the war couldn’t be sent into battle but signed a three month extension making them contracted soldiers who could be sent to battle

[magnkarl]

On 28/05/2022 at 21:16, Panto_Villan said:

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?

The thing is, you were given fairly credible sources about Russia being a paper tiger at the start of this, and came at anyone posting positive videos about Ukraine wins with ‘that’s just stupid’ because their views contradict yours in Russia’s capability. If you can't remember the posts, I urge you to look back at them to read up on other aspects of my post than just a conversation I had with a friend who is currently jailed in Russia. There were plenty of other lines to my reasoning, but sadly you've once again just cut that out of your argument.

Your source ISW is writing this today about the ‘good week’ and your claim that Russia is taking ‘a fair bit of land’.

May 28th report

Quote

The Russians are paying a price for their current tactical success that is out of proportion to any real operational or strategic benefit they can hope to receive. Severodonetsk itself is important at this stage in the war primarily because it is the last significant population center in Luhansk Oblast that the Russians do not control. Seizing it will let Moscow declare that it has secured Luhansk Oblast fully but will give Russia no other significant military or economic benefit.

So yes, I can tell you with a fairly large certainty that Russia is, has and will lose more soldiers than Ukraine every day of the week, and then you can split hairs about not having Russian sources or whatever with some mildly descriptive insult.

Meanwhile Ukraine has counter attacked around Kherson, pushed across the Inhulet river and pushed back at Popasna, liberating far more territory than Russia has net gained this week. 

Russia is reinforcing their troops with t62s while Ukraine gets reinforced with M777s, Neptunes, UAVs, NSMs and more tech than Russia even realised is out there. Does it cost Ukraine soldiers? Yes it does. Will Ukraine stop defending their homes because Kissinger and the old geopolitical guard, including Macron and Scholtz, and many of the ‘itk’s’ want them to? Not a chance in hell.

I’ll repeat myself. Severodonetsk is simply a holding action for Ukraine, just like Mariupol was for Kiev. Putin has committed all his available offensive capability in Luhansk, meaning that he’s now either going to have to reinforce Kherson with troops from there and concede Severodonetsk, or keep going for Severodonetsk and lose Kherson. It’s Izium/Kharkiv and Kiev/Mariupol all over again, and as usual Russia hasn’t learned.

Without a full mobilisation, in which Putin will actually have to conscript the children of the elites in St. Petersburg and Moscow and not just kids from Sakhalia and other far flung rural areas to die in his ridiculous war, Russia will eventually falter. Just like Kherson is turning into a catch 22 for Putin, full mobilisation will likely turn out in the same way. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Sadly a lot of the people that came out and bragged about Russia's capability and amazing weaponry at the start of this war has gone into some weird self defeating 'I told you so!'-mode every time Russia moves forward one inch, even if it's mainly just occupying land Ukraine has left for them. Fox, Chomsky, Kissinger, STWC, Galloway. Pick your poison.

Edited May 30, 2022 by magnkarl

[avfc1982am]

Little update from today small counter offences by Ukrainian troops. Small gains but some good news. It does appear that Russian forces aren't advancing much at all. 

 

[magnkarl]

An old yet familiar foe is starting to rumble in the East of Russia. Turns out that losing many of its young men isn't a good thing for the communist party..

 

[Panto_Villan]

10 hours ago, magnkarl said:

The thing is, you were given fairly credible sources about Russia being a paper tiger at the start of this, and came at anyone posting positive videos about Ukraine wins with ‘that’s just stupid’ because their views contradict yours in Russia’s capability. If you can't remember the posts, I urge you to look back at them to read up on other aspects of my post than just a conversation I had with a friend who is currently jailed in Russia. There were plenty of other lines to my reasoning, but sadly you've once again just cut that out of your argument.

Your source ISW is writing this today about the ‘good week’ and your claim that Russia is taking ‘a fair bit of land’.

May 28th report

So yes, I can tell you with a fairly large certainty that Russia is, has and will lose more soldiers than Ukraine every day of the week, and then you can split hairs about not having Russian sources or whatever with some mildly descriptive insult.

Meanwhile Ukraine has counter attacked around Kherson, pushed across the Inhulet river and pushed back at Popasna, liberating far more territory than Russia has net gained this week. 

Russia is reinforcing their troops with t62s while Ukraine gets reinforced with M777s, Neptunes, UAVs, NSMs and more tech than Russia even realised is out there. Does it cost Ukraine soldiers? Yes it does. Will Ukraine stop defending their homes because Kissinger and the old geopolitical guard, including Macron and Scholtz, and many of the ‘itk’s’ want them to? Not a chance in hell.

I’ll repeat myself. Severodonetsk is simply a holding action for Ukraine, just like Mariupol was for Kiev. Putin has committed all his available offensive capability in Luhansk, meaning that he’s now either going to have to reinforce Kherson with troops from there and concede Severodonetsk, or keep going for Severodonetsk and lose Kherson. It’s Izium/Kharkiv and Kiev/Mariupol all over again, and as usual Russia hasn’t learned.

Without a full mobilisation, in which Putin will actually have to conscript the children of the elites in St. Petersburg and Moscow and not just kids from Sakhalia and other far flung rural areas to die in his ridiculous war, Russia will eventually falter. Just like Kherson is turning into a catch 22 for Putin, full mobilisation will likely turn out in the same way. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Sadly a lot of the people that came out and bragged about Russia's capability and amazing weaponry at the start of this war has gone into some weird self defeating 'I told you so!'-mode every time Russia moves forward one inch, even if it's mainly just occupying land Ukraine has left for them. Fox, Chomsky, Kissinger, STWC, Galloway. Pick your poison.

You've missed the point of my post(s) again. I'm going to try and explain this without any implied criticism of you and your views, so hopefully we don't have to spend the rest of eternity arguing with each other. 

Look, I very much dislike misinformation. Differing interpretations of facts are what debate / discussion is about, but it's essential to have a common set of facts to work from. I'll call out misinformation I see posted in this thread even if I 100% agree with the point it is being used to support. This argument came about because you posted that the Russians weren't making any gains at all, and that the Ukrainians weren't taking heavy losses. That's simply not true and even you don't seem to believe that any more, so as far as I'm concerned the argument is over. I didn't point it out so I could call you stupid and gloat about being right, it's just that it's impossible to have a serious discussion about the strategic implications of Russia's tactical gains if you are denying they even happened. It's not personal and it doesn't have to be a big thing. I'll happily challenge someone like @bickster on his sources when they don't look right to me, and we just compare notes and move on. There's been several occasions in various threads when I've been wrong and learned something new as a result.

Unfortunately, you usually interpret me challenging your supporting arguments / sources as an attack on your overall position, and instead of accepting the correction you write big posts supporting your overall position even though I already agree with it. At the highest level our views are not particularly different. There's no point posting the ISW report because I've already read it and it supports the views I already hold, so it doesn't prove me wrong. I think this is the main area of confusion between us; I point out incorrect information and you launch into a big defence about how Ukraine is likely going to win the war. Yes, you're right. Ukraine is likely going to win the war. But you shouldn't be posting misinformation to support that view and implying I'm a Russian sympathiser when I point it out.

Also, while you're clearly very enthusiastic about the Ukrainian cause most people are going to apply a bit of caution to any scenario with as many uncertainties as a war. Pre-war you were certain that Ukraine would win a war against Russia, which given the stance of the ISW / Pentagon etc was a pretty major outlier. When the early Ukrainian tactical victories started coming in you very quickly got aboard the "Ukraine's going to win the war!" train, even though almost every respected analyst was urging caution because there hadn't been enough evidence to extrapolate the course of an entire war from a few days of fighting. You were also enthusiastically posting every update into this thread, and obviously some of it ended up being misinformation, and I was calling that out where it had been disproved. Maybe you took that to be more personal than it was intended to be. As my views tracked pretty closely with a number of sources you now consider reliable I found it pretty frustrating that you'd continually imply I was some kind of Russian agent for expressing the sort of caution they were.

Anyway, while I will continue to correct any misinformation I see posted in this thread I'm happy to wipe the slate clean with you if you want. I get the feeling we both think the other is trying to score points off them. Hopefully this post helps explain what I'm actually trying to achieve.