Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why does he need to worry about a rigged election?
Russian presidential elections aren't rigged in the traditional sense, they're more akin to middle eastern sham elections where only one candidate runs.

Basically the Russian voting process itself is relatively clean/accurate even by western standards. The electoral issues present themselves in the candidate selection process as anyone who might actually be capable of challenging Putin is either in jail or the ground by the time an election rolls round.

The singular exception to this for historical reasons is the Communist party as they have always held such high support in Russia that crushing them would likely trigger civil war. While the idea of Russia electing a president from the CCP in the year 2024 sounds ludicrous they have given him a good run for his money in the past (30% of the vote in 2000 compared to his 53%, and that was with mini-Putin candidates fielded to steal their vote share). In fact historically Putin's dominance over the CCP usually came from the voters in the worse off parts of Russia who blames the CCP for how bad their areas are, but these are the same areas where Putin has spent two years conscripting his cannon fodder and so he is taking no chances for 2024.
 
I'm not disagreeing with you there, but every few months since the invasion started people have been saying "Russian loses are unsustainable" and yet every month Russia loses more and more without stopping.
In fairness unsustainable doesn't dictate a timeframe. The majority of American soldiers sent to Vietnam were sent after the US government knew the war was lost, but the first four presidents told that also knew that casualties could be sustained until the end of their term so they could avoid being the first president to ever lose a war.

Russia have a 3:1 advantage in fighting age population over Ukraine but they're maintaining a more than a 3:1 casualty rate compared to Ukraine (and of the casualties sustained a 5:1 "he died" rate compared to Ukraine). These figures are completely unsustainable if nothing else changes but that's the kicker, it will take years to run out of people in Russia (a theoretical obviously) and they're hoping that something will change (like western interest in propping up Ukraine) by then.
 
I’m not really sure what the point of this conversation is. There isn’t a nice way out of this for Ukraine, but they have decided it’s better to fight than be subjugated.

If people find that hard to understand maybe they should invite a few Russians over to **** their wife and abuse their children.

Don't be so down on yourself, despite saying "I don't see the point" you then said exactly what we were discussing - It's hard for Ukraine, its getting harder & they need more help as they still want to fight - so you see, you did understand the point after all, good job dude!

These figures are completely unsustainable if nothing else changes but that's the kicker, it will take years to run out of people in Russia (a theoretical obviously) and they're hoping that something will change (like western interest in propping up Ukraine) by then.

Yeap, thats the really concerning issue we were chatting about, and the only way I can see out of that for Ukraine is far more immediate help whilst they still want to fight, rather than keeping this going for a few years more, but I'm really not sure they'll get it in the levels they need, even with the "wonder weapons" people are so confident will win this thing (not in the limited numbers expected anyway).
 
Don't be so down on yourself, despite saying "I don't see the point" you then said exactly what we were discussing - It's hard for Ukraine, its getting harder & they need more help as they still want to fight - so you see, you did understand the point after all, good job dude!

What is your point? Russia is going to keep throwing men at the problem….

That changes things how?
 
In fairness unsustainable doesn't dictate a timeframe. The majority of American soldiers sent to Vietnam were sent after the US government knew the war was lost, but the first four presidents told that also knew that casualties could be sustained until the end of their term so they could avoid being the first president to ever lose a war.

Russia have a 3:1 advantage in fighting age population over Ukraine but they're maintaining a more than a 3:1 casualty rate compared to Ukraine (and of the casualties sustained a 5:1 "he died" rate compared to Ukraine). These figures are completely unsustainable if nothing else changes but that's the kicker, it will take years to run out of people in Russia (a theoretical obviously) and they're hoping that something will change (like western interest in propping up Ukraine) by then.

One problem there though is Ukraine needs to be able to fight with a level of experience and professionalism to maintain that edge, as you chuck more and more essentially cannon fodder conscripts at it that edge is eroded.

At 3:1, even 5:1 Ukraine is on borrowed time.

A lot of the reason Ukraine has held up so well is due to brigades like the 92nd and 93rd who've vast experience due to the last 10 years and well trained but their ranks are thinning of veterans and they are exhausted.


Largely what I've been saying for awhile, as I've mentioned before the air advantage though I'm not so sure - it would be prohibitive to supply Ukraine with the kind of capability to support Western style dominance and ability to operate from the sky and anything less risks forcing Russia to turn their attention to bolstering their capability in the air which could work against Ukraine - the same could be achieved if Ukraine had weight of mobile medium range air defences and supplies of ammo sufficient to suppress Russian defences to support working through minefields, etc.
 
Last edited:
Former CIA chief says the Ukranian southern offensive failed because they were told to use a NATO style blitzkrieg/thunder-run ground offensive without actually having the ability to set the conditions. The doctrine only works if you either have vastly overwhelming numbers of soldiers and equipment or when you have air superiority and you bombed out most of the enemy defences before the thunder run starts.

The Kharkiv thunder run worked because the Russians had poor defences setup there at the time and the Ukranians also overwhelmed them as they did not expect any action there, so were poorly prepared for it. NATO was lured into a false sense of security by thinking Ukraine would just repeat this in the South, without having a proper understanding that in the South we're expecting action and as such spent many months building a very deep layered trench and minefield defensive system not dissimilar to what was seen in Stalingrad.

Failure to recognise the scope of the problem is what led to poor results. Ukraine did not receive anywhere near enough equipment to be able to set the conditions for a successful offensive, neither through an overwhelming ground force, nor through air superiority destroying the enemy defences.


 
Last edited:
The real question is.....Will any of this change? The top story on the BBC portrays a bleak vision of operational reality. As I banged along on my little drum for a while (and was called a Russian troll for)......if the powers that be knew that it would come to a grinding end, and ifs true about Russias offer at start of conflict...

Then basically 500,000+ people are now dead/wounded for American self interest. Sure the Russians deserve it for invading, can't be surprised when you're shot on land that isn't yours.....but for the poor Ukrainian ******** that were sent to their deaths for no reason..urgh.
 
Probably because he knows the US is at a standoff with funding due to maga idiots and Europe...well , Europe is doing what Europe does with defense matters, square root of bugger all in the grand scheme of things.

But is it really about funding or people? Zeleknsky himself said that recruitment is now a huge issue.

I would be curious to know what the fatality rate on both sides actually is. Talks of 70k on Ukrainian side must be rubbish surely at this stage if there is recruitment issues?
 
I would be curious to know what the fatality rate on both sides actually is. Talks of 70k on Ukrainian side must be rubbish surely at this stage if there is recruitment issues?
People keep focusing on numbers of dead troops on each side. Fatality rate isnt really the major issue as sad as it is. The issue will be wounded and injured. Yes there will be a lot that heal and return to the front. However, there will also be a large number, a number that far surpasses that of fatalities, of troops that are too physically injured/missing limbs/mentally broken to return to combat.
Whilst the "stats" for fatalities appears to be much higher for Russia. I suspect that number for wounded and unable to return to combat is much closer. Considering all the video evidence to show how Russia generally treat their wounded...


Also a point that I have brought up before on the Wests slow/reluctance to release "game changing" arms. I have long suspected that they are being released at just the right speed that they want to, to keep this war grinding on. I sometimes question the sincerity/motivation of western powers when it comes to this war and its outcome.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom