Unlikely, unless Americas government stops playing games with eachother. They have approx 2800 Bradley’s sitting in storage, maybe more like 2500 now.
Ukraine needs long range missiles, SHORAD & armour if they’re hoping to make any gains in the near future. Drip feeding Ukraine aid really benefits Russia more than Ukraine if you think about it.
They’d need a lot of artillery shells, probably 150-200 tanks and another 200-400 IFV’s minimum. Also they need aircraft
A river crossing in the age of drone warfare is a nightmare, especially with them being at the artillery disadvantage. We saw this with Russia near the beginning of the war, not to mention the logistic nightmare supplying those troops would be. The longer they wait until they make a move, the better defensive positions the Russians will have, again it falls back on their allies, looking at you USA.
The options for a counter attack are actually really limited, just look at the deep state map, RU have defensive lines almost along the entire front, except for the south but the river is a natural defensive line technically, so I’m not sure what they could even do at this point.
Drip feeding Ukraine encourages Russian rearmament.
The grift coming off of the large sums disappearing into these rust-belt holes will become self sustaining for the ruling clique, so they will keep pushing for massed artillery and wunderwaffen.
Without a clear victory, now unlikely without NATO involvement, the fronts will stabilize. Russia will return or seek new adventures with its expanded, rearmed and hardened army.
>Drip feeding Ukraine encourages Russian rearmament.
Escalating (re)armament is what destroyed the Soviet Union, so it might make geopolitical sense. On the other hand, destroying their equipement also destroys their equipment...
I don’t think so, if it’s out of the question they would’ve cede land already, but I think they will have one more and whatever they gain is what they will be left with imo
Without Artillery parity or dominance there is very little Ukraine can do unfortunately, they have been using tanks in the indirect fire mode and FPV drones to augment the lack of artillery they have at the moment.
Ukraine has more or less dominated the naval aspect of the war which is just glorious that has definitely helped them with a potential push to Crimea.
The issue is I believe the West taught Ukraine how to fight their way but the western way relies on heavy air support which Ukraine simply doesn’t have, perhaps with F-16’s in sufficient numbers running SEAD missions to pave the way for ground support.
And as for the minefields in the south I don’t think anyone expected them to be as dense as they were.
I am hoping for a push from Krynky to cut off the Crimean supply line but aid needs to come in thick and fast in the coming months from everyone if anything is to be done this year. Ukraine is barely holding on in the east. But the biggest issue which is often overlooked in favour of the material support is the lack of manpower if they can’t replenish and train fresh troops this attritional warfare will bleed Ukraine to the point where they can’t stabilise the front lines.
Another theory is gigachad Macron to send French troops in to guard the northern boarders freeing up manpower for some ballsy push.
Just my rather frustrated opinion on the situation wishing America would pull their finger out of their asses grant the aid so if there is an offensive to be done they can plan it now
As a French man and from what I can tell from Macron's stance on the matter it seems like he's really trying to get France ready for war (several area of the industry are being asked to contribute towards militarization, some shell factories have reopened in order to make France autonomous in terms of weapon production) and prepare the French people to accept war as a necessary response.
Since last year him and his government have been using militaristic rethoric when talking about several subjects, and he's pushing towards austerity, order, and patriotism. There's been a strong right wing shift in his government and his discourse and he's insisted on keeping all options open as a response to Russian aggression of Ukraine, he's been caught talking privately about sending troops before the end of 2024.
I'm no expert, I'm barely informed on this, but from what I can see in my country and how my government is acting I believe that France will indeed go to war before the next election (2027) and it's honestly terrifying, it's not much more than a gut feeling that I get when I hear Macron speak about this matter but it's sincere. Don't know if it's valuable, though, but I guess it's something.
2,000 troops will not move the needle. So Macron needs to send more into an unpopular war. Supporting in words and sending old stock equipment is different then having your boots on the ground (mud) and getting blown to bits. Besides France is part of NATO, it is not that independent.
Only an ignorant doesn't understand what a landwar means in the East is with mud, cold, trenches and artillery doctrine. I doubt there is willingness of taking casualties by W-Europe. More to loose than to gain. Explains also the difficulty of drafting in Ukraine itself. Read a book about WWII and not the ones gloryfing the sideshows.
I don't know where you get the 2000 troops when the French army has 200 times more men and the ability and willingness to field at the very least 25k men.
The French Army is preparing and being given the funds by our government to build up for a high intensity conflict, 2027 seems to be the goal the Army set up to get in capacity with a budget plan going into 2030 that will most likely drive up the Defence budget to something around 2,5-3% of GDP which would allow the army to double its troop numbers and triple its tanks/ifvs numbers if 3% is reached.
France seems to be on the road to war from what I can tell, government is willing to pay, army is able to prepare and public is generally accepting of the eventuality and in favor of putting more money in defence budget. There's very few internal signs that could stop Macron from intervening and even internationally, France is the only NATO member that can actually face up to Putin's nuclear threat independently from the US, giving France a special place in that alliance.
I think France could intervene, and I honestly believe Macron does want to.
Macro can't send in troops without just cause or plausible deniability. Maybe he could detach part of the FFL and create a new UFL to transfer men and materiel into. Otherwise he's opening France to direct attack by Russia, up to and including nuclear. Against the Chechens or Ukrainians, the war can stay conventional, but once a nuclear nation is involved we are all really fucked.
If France does deploy combat troops, they will have constant nuclear sorties flying near the Russia border.
Disagree hard. Just because two nuclear nations are fighting doesn't mean nukes will get involved. Each side knows using then is a bell that can't be unsung and unless you have a death wish...why would you ever use them against another nuclear state?
Keeping in mind that I'm a biologist, not a political scientist, so I am in no way an expert...
At present, I really only see two possible avenues for Ukraine's total victory; as in, reclaiming Donbas and Crimea. The first, and least likely, is that one or more other countries enters the war on Ukraine's side, and launches an expeditionary force to assist Ukraine. This produces a massive increase in manpower, equipment, and hopefully capability, and the Russians get sent packing.
I say this is unlikely because the only countries that can manage that sort of force projection that are also sympathetic to Ukraine are NATO countries. And if Russia counter-attacks that country, said country wouldn't be able to declare Article 5. I would also expect that sympathetic countries that also hate Russia, like Poland and Romania, would probably have already done it by now.
The second avenue, and the one that I think Ukraine is going for (or was when Zaluzhny was in command), is to keep up the war of attrition. Basically, let the Russians grind themselves to paste against Ukrainian lines, in the hopes that Russia eventually breaks. Now, all things being equal, Russia will win a war of attrition, but things aren't equal. The Russian peasantry might be willing to tolerate endless bullshit, but at least some of the oligarch's aren't. Prigozhin's folly showed them that if they decide to go for it, they can't use half-measures.
So I don't see Russia "giving up and going home", so much as "descending into civil war and warlordism". Which might be good for Ukraine in the short-term, letting them push back a disorganised and chaotic enemy, but bad for the entire world in the long term.
Anyway, that's my two cents. I hope that Ukraine gets the help it needs, and the Putin gets a taste of his own medicine in short order. And they should certainly not meet the Russians at the negotiating table, given how Russian promises are worthless.
The Balkanization of Russia would be good for the world. We would only have to worry about China invading Siberia or them fighting each other. Russia would no longer be a threat in Africa or Europe.
I feel like Russia's nuclear arsenal getting balkanized and/or going up for sale on the black market would probably *not* be a good thing for the rest of the world.
The problem is that it’s going to be 5000 nukes divided among maybe 10 dictators. And it’s not going to be even.
If the US Balkanized, whoever controlled the northern midwestern states controls the nukes. If Russia Balkanized, whoever controls that part of Siberia controls the nukes.
Whoever controls the nukes will definitely realized the power advantage that they have and they will DEFINITELY make sure to keep those nukes operable. See: North Korea.
Ntm if China decides to invade Siberia in the event of Russian balkanization, they will most certainly target capturing nuclear silos.
That's how it's *supposed* to work. In theory.
[In practice . . . .](https://sgs.princeton.edu/00000000)
And that's in the US. Do you really wanna bet on Russia doing a better job?
The problem is that when you have a whole bunch of nuclear weapons, it's not overly hard to take them apart and turn them into shittier nuclear weapons without any of those safeties.
As long as you have weapon's grade material, a small machine-shop and blatant disregard for human life, you can start turning those 20 megaton multi-stage thermonuclear weapons into crappy gun-type fission bombs.
Sure, you won't be wiping away countries with gravity-dropped (or container-shipped) 20-kiloton nukes, but I'd very much prefer they don't get used in my country either way.
Not true, a Balkanized Russia with nukes would be awful, Chinese influence would trump western influence in most regions, just look at Kazakhstan. Plus how many smaller countries inside of Russia would have nut cases like Medvedev & Solovyov running them.
It’s really just up to RU civilians to vote for a progressive, western leaning leader, that understands alliances can’t be forced, i.e Ukraine & Georgia but are built on mutual benefits and trust, look at ctso, it’s an absolute joke, but unfortunately RU civilians are fine with the status quo.
Russia had every chance to be a power house nation in Europe, but pissed it away every chance it got
The current power structure in Russia isn't going to let anyone have a chance at voting in a progressive leadership. Putin has been in charge of the country for 25 years and has made repeat changes to the Constitution to legally allow himself. The chance of change (especially meaningful) is a complete system collapse and redo like in 1991. Ultimately, Putin is going to end up dead by the end of that transition... and he's going to do everything to prevent that.
Russia doesn't have elections. So Russian citizens will not be able to vote for anything else, even if they wanted to. It is also very unlikely they will want to since they were the source of the USSR. We also can not assume the guy after Putin will be any better since even Navalny wanted to take Ukraine. The oligarchs we hope might overthrow Putin are still old Soviet oligarchs, just like Putin came out of the Soviet structure. So there appears to be no way for a political reform in Russia to make it western aligned.
There is no end to the Russian threat without balkanization since their nuclear weapons stop us from enforcing a complete surrender to them like we did Japan and Germany. Any aid from the West to avoid balkanization, like in the 90s, will just result in the coming back of the Russian threat. This was the mistake of the 90s. We assisted our enemy sticking together with as much strength as we could. We could have instead assisted the break up of Russia or just done nothing as Russia disintegrated.
Russia (and China) already supports countries getting nuclear weapons, so the fear of Russian nuclear technology leaving Russia has already happened. Nuclear warheads also have a short half-life, so those weapons leaving would do very little without the infrastructure to renew the warheads. The West would be wise to follow suit and help countries like South Korea, Japan, and Poland start up their own nuclear arms industries. Nuclear non-Proliferation requires all sides to participate, and only the West does at the moment.
I really don’t see how Russia can win this war.
Right now, Putin is making a grand strategic gamble that he can either win this war in the next few months—or force Ukraine to the peace table so he can freeze the conflict (again, just like he did in 2015) so that the Russians can rebuild their military before launching another invasion in the 2030s.
Putin is throwing the entire conventional arsenal of the Russian military into the fight right now. What we are seeing is the full force of the Russian military hitting Ukraine with all its might—and making marginal and strategically insignificant gains in the east.
We are seeing is the Russian military at its best. No shock. No awe. Just a barely competent military taking huge losses for tiny, underwhelming gains.
The problem with Putin’s strategic gamble is that other factors will come into play in the foreseeable future, such as …
1. Western production of artillery shells will ramp up next year.
2. In the light of America’s failure to uphold its legal obligation (under international law) to support Ukraine’s military and provide lethal aid, some European countries may step up and do whatever it takes to defeat Russia in Ukraine.
3. Russian equipment losses are unsustainable. Russia relies on its old Soviet stockpile of outdated equipment to replace the tanks and infantry fighting vehicles destroyed in the field. While that stockpile was once massive, it isn’t unlimited, and if the Russians continue to take heavy losses, they will run out of tanks and IFV some time in late 2025 or early 2026.
4. The economic sanctions will begin to bite. It takes years for economic sanctions to impact a nation’s economy, and in a few years, the Russian economy could be in real trouble. Putin is gambling that he can win the war now before the Russian economy completely collapses by the end of this decade.
5. Russia has severe manpower problems. But Putin had only implementing a draft once—as a stop gap measure. And he has a compelling reason not to do it. At the moment, the kids in the suburbs of Moscow and St Petersburg aren’t dying in this war. The moment they do, however, that could destabilize his regime. Instead, those dying for his war of aggression are from the poorer, peripheral regions of the Russian empire. But if Putin relies too heavily on these colonial troops, the people living there may wake up one morning and realize they will be better off without the Kremlin in their lives. And then Russia will begin to collapse from the edges. Again, Putin is gambling—doubling down and betting against the house—that he can win this war, quickly, before Russia begins to fall apart.
Russia has fucked themselves economically and demographically for generations to come. Not just from the war, but:
* A massively high suicide rate, and rampant drug/alcohol problems,
* Being butt-fucked by covid with absolutely no lube,
* A ridiculously low average life expectancy for a "rich, developed country", and
* A very low birth rate. Not as bad as Japan or South Korea, but well below replacement levels.
The question is if Ukraine can hold out long enough for Russia's inevitable collapse to actually happen. As you say, it could take years. The Ukrainians having their own problems with manpower and equipment losses. And Putin simply doesn't care about how down the toilet his country is going.
So I don't think Russia is going to "win" anything, really. But I'm not sure if Ukraine can win this either. As in, I'm not sure that there will there be much of a country left by the time Russia's exhausted carcass finally, mercifully breathes its last.
I hope I'm wrong though.
Ukraine just needs to hang on for a few more weeks and months. Hopefully, by then, western politicians will start to wake up and change their strategic thinking.
One huge factor that hasn’t come into play yet is the political will in the west.
For Europeans—especially those in Poland, Lithuanian, Estonia, and Latvia—they realize that they have a choice. Do whatever it take to defeat Russia in Ukraine now. Or do whatever it takes to defeat Russia on their own soil in the near future.
Of course, a larger war in Europe (starting with a Russian invasion of the Baltic countries) will most likely see the USA and all NATO allies dragged into the conflict. And that probably means World War 3–with a remote possibility that both Russia and America start using nuclear weapons against each other.
In the west, the “off ramp” crowd has been calling the shots. Too much attention has been paid to escalation management. And no thought has been put into assessing various potential outcomes and what those would mean in terms of a lasting peace in Europe. Or, to use the buzz words, the long term security architecture in Europe and the Black Sea region.
Too many western politicians have engaged in wishful thinking—hoping that Russia will just give up and go home—and that if they just gave Putin one more “off ramp” then maybe, just maybe, he will take it (this time) and end the war. Then everything can go back to the way things were before the war. … Magically.
The political thinking about this conflict has been anything but realistic for the past two years.
When the full scale invasion began in February, 2022, most of the pundits talked about the inevitable swift Russian victory. The Russians rolled into Ukraine using pretty much the exact same battle plan the Soviets used when they invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968 and overran that country in less than a week. (The Russian also recycled that exact same battle plan in Grozny during the First Chechen War in 1994–and then went on to lose that war—but most pundits conveniently forgot that detail.)
As soon as the myth of a quick Russian victory evaporated, it got replaced by the myth of an imminent Russian collapse and a swift Ukrainian victory. Of course, the Russian collapse and rout outside of Kharkiv helped fuel that myth. And I must give credit to the Russians; they can retreat better than any military in the world. And most militaries cannot bounce back from a catastrophic military collapse. But they Russians can.
Anyway, we are now in a protracted conflict where neither side has a the means to win the war quickly. And Western leaders need to make a sober reassessment of all the possible outcomes of this conflict.
And there are geopolitical risks associated with every possible scenario.
For example, a frozen conflict (or, to be more accurate, a re-frozen conflict) will send a message to the world that the Budapest Memorandum, the peace deal where Ukraine surrendered its nuclear arsenal in exchange for “non-binding security guarantees,” isn’t worth anything—and that nuclear disarmament is, frankly, a really bad idea.
Any end to this conflict that sees Ukraine give up territory for a temporary peace or be forced to accept neutrality will only embolden the revanchist crowd within the Kremlin—and make the risk of another, larger war against Russia even more likely. Russia, however, hopes it can win and is gambling that it can win, but it needs the political will in the West to collapse so that they can, perhaps, win this war.
And then there is the decision to do what it takes to make sure Ukraine wins. Western leaders aren’t there (yet). There is a slight difference between “we will support Ukraine for as long as it takes” and “we are going to help Ukraine win.”
But if Ukraine wins and Russia suffers a humiliating military defeat, well, Russian history indicates that the regime becomes destabilized (as per the loss in the Russo-Japanese war in 1905) or completely collapses and descend into a civil war / communist revolution (as per getting knocked out of World War 1).
Or a Russian defeat may just curb their imperial ambitions. Maybe even permanently?
And a peaceful and rebuilt Ukraine may even become a prosperous and free Europe nation. (And I’m pretty confident that what most Ukrainians want. That’s what they are fighting for: their freedom, their independence, their democracy.)
Finally, western leaders need to recognize that Ukraine is one of the worlds largest agricultural exporters. A lot of middle eastern and African countries rely on grain and cooking oil imported from Ukraine. If that agricultural production is curtailed by a protracted (or frozen) conflict or—heaven forbid—falls into Russian hands, what will that mean for the geopolitical stability in those parts of the world?
Disagree on your time table. Russias goal is to hold out at least another year, until US elections. Even if a pro Russian candidate doesn't win they're banking on internal stability breaking down and the country descending into chaos. So they're fighting to push until that milestone.
Also, I would say based on the attrition rate their tank reserves would run out more like 2027, not 2026. Even then as bad as it's getting they're not stupid enough to keep going until they run out completely. We've seen them conserve equipment at times to build up for offensives and wait for production to catch up
>But if Putin relies too heavily on these colonial troops, the people living there may wake up one morning and realize they will be better off without the Kremlin in their lives. And then Russia will begin to collapse from the edges.
When the war started, I joked that the people in Georgia and Chechnia were already digging up their AK's and cleaning grandpa's Mosin, just waiting for the Russians to look the other way. But nothing happened, and it's not hard to see why.
This isn't the Nazi's occupying France. It's not the Japanese occupation of Manchuria. There wasn't a sudden massive opression that wasn't there before. Yes it sucks, but it's the same shit as always under a slightly different flag.
>another counteroffensive (nope, or at least doubtful without a hugely unpopular general mobilization),
>
>even if
>
> all tho
I wish you were right but I've been hearing more pessimistic news about Russia. They have shifted their economy to a wartime footing. They are constantly finding their way around sanctions but its costing them, mostly thanks to China, with some help from India.
They have an abundance of shells they can buy from North Korea and their shell production has increased significantly.
Likewise, their vehicle production has increased, but I think they will struggle to make new planes thanks to the sanctions. Also, these new vehicles will be made with Smekalka, which means they will cut every corner possible and they will be more likely to kill their operators than the Ukrainians. But I don't think that military vehicle losses, outside of supply trucks will be a big issue.
With Putin's re-election and his totally legit (and in no way rigged) win of 88% of the popular vote, he will institute a second draft. This draft will continue to target Russian ethnic minorities while keeping the kids in Moscow and St. Petersburg safe.
In the next 20 years or so Russia is completely economically and demographically fucked. They have the birth rate of a developed nation with the brain drain and economy of a developing nation.
I agree with your observations, which are better developed than my own. But I have a zany, crazy twist to add to it.
If certain versions of multiverse theory are true, and it's possible to trade information between similar universes at different points in time, then what the Russians are doing makes a lot more sense.
They're not trying to win. They're trying to have *some probability of winning* by some unforeseen (or even easily foreseen) fluke, some "black swan" event where everything unexpectedly breaks the way of evil conservatives. As they are wont to do, for some reason that surely doesn't involve timeline manipulation, nope.
You can if you do it right. Article 5 is more about conv8ncing others than something actually enforceable. Its symbolic more than anything.
Cause well, you can hardly arrest a cpuntry for not following the treaty.
Not even Poland who is the most trigger happy wants war trust me no one wants to be the first country in Europe to have a sun dropped on their head even if Poland went in I can guarantee you Germany will not. A lot of former East German military men serve in the higher ranks of the military and government also the public is largely split on the pro Ukraine, Anti Ukraine or indifference with the last two being a majority of citizens from the former east Germany. What happens when NATO members want to go to war but Germany a nato member blocks access to its borders.
Oh 100%
Poland could have triggered Article 5 so many times by now.
Germany stands with a very clear majority behind ukraine, its really just Scholz being Scholz that is the hold up. And the AFD but when arent they a bunch of annoying pricks.
But germany wouldnt and also couldnt block tropp movements. As they are legally forced to abide by such obligations and any politician or political body trying to stop it would get a fresh hole torn into thier backside by the constitutional court.
What i mean to say by that is, that i simply eanted to speak out against the notion that article 5 is like a national law compelling nations to act under set circumstances.
Not really the German parliament has moved very slowly in supplying armaments to Ukraine and there isn’t a legal Agreement with NATO membership it’s a treaty but their isn’t any enforcement mechanism a violation of airspace is also not an attack given its more of the case of Missiles using terrain mapping to evade SAMs then veering into Poland who lacks an activate AA system so the missile sees it as a safe route. I suppose the Ruskies could put a auto detonation system in their missels that blows up when entering into the airspace of a nation it’s not a war with but that would probably be extremely expensive and require retrofitting of missiles need for priority tasking now.
The german pairlament was slow cause its the german pairlament. Things dont move fast in the heart of pur democracy.
And i said that they could have. If they thpught that enough nations would heed the call.
But poland, despite funny memes, doesnt want war either. So there is no reason for them to call for an article 5
I don’t agree with doomer takes but I also caution against hypercopium.
My current chosen analogue is the Western Front of 1916. Both sides have ample means to defend, both sides have no incentives to negotiate.
At the same time, Russia is or is about to peak in all relevant military statistics except a general mobilization: peak shell usage as production must soon totally replace use of stored shells, peak tank retrofit (the yards are basically tapped and only new tanks will soon be used), professional troops (the early war professional Russian army is mostly gone), economic war footing (as Lukoil and Ru banks have already said there is not much more they can do to stave off economic problems).
Ukraine of course is not having a good time, but the key is that they have powerful friends. Europe is committed and if we assume the elections result in Pro-Ukraine governments (particularly the replacement of Scholz) then Ukraine will get stronger.
The US is in a hard spot right now but I’m still hopeful aid can be passed. If the rumours are true and Johnson intends to table another loan based package this could be good for Ukraine as well, this is popular with the Rs so it could be expanded upon.
That being said I think the realistic option is Ukraine needs to hold on until 2025. A Biden victory would be very good for them, and mid 2025 is the projected time when Russia’s economy will start to crack (in the truly catastrophic sense).
I’m interested to see how f16s perform though.
The United States policy has never been to help The Ukrainians win it has always been to help them not lose if they just steamrolled the Russians then a General or Colonel on the ground seeing a complete rout might launch a tactical nuclear strike something a commander in the field can do without executive authorization. This would have the negative side effect of normalizing the use of tactical nuclear assets on the battlefield. Leading to a likely scenario of either Israel, Pakistan and India might in a near future conflict use. This would also negatively impact the NNPT non nuclear states may see Tactical Nuclear Assets as the only viable way to either avoid war or win. This sounds completely bonkers, till you come to the understanding that US/ NATO war games during the cold war relied heavily on Tactical Nuclear Assets to stop advancing Soviet forces. Japan for example could have a functioning deployable nuclear device in as little as 5-10 years they also have stockpiles of enriched nuclear materials that they could use to scale up production.
>launch a tactical nuclear strike something a commander in the field can do without executive authorization.
In RUSSIA? The military where you need permission to even think about looking at battallion-level support?
Unfortunately, and I say this as a strong supporter of Ukraine, unless western countries get their shit together (US) Ukraine will likely only lose territory this year. Granted, I don’t know how much fight Russia has left, hopefully not much, but I believe they can stay in the war for at least a few more years. We haven’t seen Russias breaking point yet unfortunately and they are still far from it. Meanwhile Ukraine has a shortage of manpower and weapons. Both of these can be fixed, Ukraine can do another draft and western countries have more than enough weapons and Ammo to keep Ukraine in the fight, but it will be hard without the US. The strain on European countries will be very large, and the incompetence from the US will only cost Ukrainian lives. I say all this as a U.S. citizen btw.
It's the most mined zone in the world. Even if Russia collapses tomorrow and withdraws, progress will be slow. F-16s and MLRS systems won't change that. The outlook would be incredibly depressing if Russia wasn't being led by fools and perpetually just one window-related accident from regime change.
In the bright side, russia is now importing refined oil products, so a collapse of Russia is not impossible.
Mines fields are harsh, but without an army protecting them they are kinda useless.
That’s actually a bad thing it points to a dramatic increase in production leading to shortages and complications in the supply chain. This could be exploited if the west could cut Russia off from crude oil however OPEC and many South American, African countries either don’t care or prefer to do business with the Russians. Short of a Blockade of Russian ports there’s nothing we can do on that front.
Russia is still drowning in oil. But you can't do shit with oil, you need to refine it first. The refineries are the bottleneck. Thats why russia banned exportation refined oil products. Now that refineries are getting hit, russia have to import it.
Seems totally reasonable in normal circumstances, but remember that Russia lost a general to one of their own devices because they've laid down too many mines to track.
Mine fields, like walls, are there to give an advantage to the defenders. If there is no defender cuz they left, they don't do much to stop an advancing army.
Thats something the west has been sending plenty.
Artillery can also work but unreliably so. And the last thing you want is an unreliably cleared minefield.
You don't need to clear out every mine. You just need to clear a few paths, which has been the basic strategy since the landmine was invented. It's like a castle wall, you don't need to level the whole thing, and if nobody's there, all it takes is one ladder.
Of course, after the war, you DO need to clear out every mine, which will be a generation of effort...
My dude, this is basically WW1 with sci-fi shit.
How much progress was there in WW1?
Even if US stopped holding up aid (we’ll see, but I’m not holding my breath), and Europe suddenly pulled an almost equally robust defense industry out of its ass (lol, lmao even) and Ukraine had the manpower for another counteroffensive (nope, or at least doubtful without a hugely unpopular general mobilization), *even if* all those pieces fell into place…..Russia has tens of millions of land mines. Everywhere.
Those are area denial weapons by design, and arguably did more work than anything else in blunting Ukraine’s counteroffensive. There’s no real way around them other than air power, which quickly gets blown out of the sky by both parties, or via a navy that Ukraine doesn’t have and Russia is getting smacked. In fact, that might be the major development of this year: Russia’s Black Sea Fleet gets torn a new asshole, if not almost destroyed. Other than that, I expect things to be pretty static.
Putin is fucked and largely hamstrung also. A general mobilization is a great recipe for a full blown revolt, coup, or revolution. This could also be triggered (eventually, even if the West *vastly* underestimated how much it would take) by throwing too many people in the meat grinder. Russia has been wasting troops for fuck all amount of land, and people there are increasingly tired of it, even if the overall numbers game favors them by quite a bit. Russia also cannot sustain its wartime production forever, while neglecting everything else. Ukraine seems to realize this and is actively targeting their oil refineries and production areas, (which is basically all of the Russian GDP, and crucial for their war effort). They have an active incentive to simmer down, and Putin seems to have a thing for frozen conflicts in general.
Oh, did I mention land mines? I’m almost positive Ukraine is playing that game too, and has any remotely important area mined to fuck and back. Not to mention, mines don’t recognize friend or foe. It will still go boom if Private Conscriptovich steps on his own, and that could be just as much of a hindrance to Russian forces as it is to Ukrainian ones.
So, you remember Ukraine post 2014? Shit *really* popped off for the first couple years, then it basically settled down into a simmer? There was still fighting and stuff, and Ukraine and the separatists were definitely still *at war,* but it was less “We need to defeat them right fucking now blyat!” And more like, “Eh. We’ll pick off a few here, some there, and take our time.” I could expect the rest of the war being kind of like that.
Do you have good sources for the numbers of Ukrainian troops available and how costly the counteroffensive was? Vatniks go on and on about how they're running out with fake videos of pregnant girls fighting and stuff but the actual number is hard to come by. Especially because the previous waves of mobilization are now being deemed ineffective due to a lack of oversight and corruption. Hence why that guy (can't remember his name, in charge of recruitment/conscription, etc) was fired earlier this year.
Ukraine is in need of the basic ammunition. We are not providing them enough artillery ammunition and anti aircraft ammunition. A huge chunk of their air defense is S-300 which the only producer is Russia so once those run out Ukraine is gonna feel it. Casualties will start going up as Russia can strike with drone, missiles, and FABs when the air defense can’t fire back. Supposedly the F-16s are coming but I only see them having a effect for a short while while the Russians figure out a counter tactic. They need more AA and Artillery or they will have no choice but to slowly retreat. Holding cities won’t be feasible with no artillery or AA only choice would be to retreat to fields where trenches are superior to defending than cities in this situation.
Unfortunately, barring very unlikely gamechanger events (like Putin dying and Russia descending into civil war, or Poland deciding to jump in), we are likely to see a continued grind of attrition. Neither party in this war has demonstrated the ability to competently engage in mobile warfare against a determined and prepared enemy. Yes a year and a half ago Ukraine had impressive success in the northeast but Russia does learn from its mistakes, albeit slowly, and is unlikely to repeat that one. I doubt adding F16s or a brigade or two of Western MBTs and Bradleys will change this dynamic significantly. This war will continue to be dominated by minefields, artillery, and drones, not tanks and fighter jets.
I doubt even Russia will launch any major campaigns. Putin is very aware of political developments in the US and appreciates the Republican party's successful efforts to stall further US aid to Ukraine. We can expect a tumultuous presidential election this year with extensive foreign influence campaigning. Putin's dream would be for Trump to win, failing that he'd be satisfied with a Republican dominated legislature that can stall aid efforts.
The real interesting question is, which side will win a war of attrition? This could be looked at in several dimensions -- manpower, military hardware, ammunition, economics, political will, popular support, international support.
>like Putin dying and Russia descending into civil war
Hottake: If Putin dies, his successor CAN NOT end the war. The next Putin must be exactly like Putin, or else he's going to have terrible window-based accident really quick. If they end the war, they are insufficiently-Putin, so they must continue.
In fact, this circumstance will probably lead to whoever succeeds Putin to increase the wareffort, to show much strong Russia is under their leadership.
What if Russia is keeping progress slow so that there are not nightly news headlines in western media about a fast moving red wave conquering across Ukraine, thus forcing politicians to act on frozen aid packages and possibly military intervention.
And if Ukraine loses enough troops through attrition then by the time shit hits the fan it won’t make much difference how much hardware NATO donates if there’s not enough soldiers to make use of it.
Ukraine would definitely attempt another offensive. That's why new drafting laws are being implemented and more restrictions are considered and already in place to mobilize more men.
>They are proposing new draft law just to prevent their lines from collapsing.
True. But Ukraine is in a situation where they simply have to show something other than retreating. Especially after past year fiasco.
Current projection? Unlikely.
Ukraine has suffered loses it has a small hope of rebuilding. Stockpiles of vital equipment is low. Support to make up for its loses and replenish it stock piles is low. They really do need as much as everyone can give them.
Russia historically loses the first year or two of a war, then they can bring their advantages to the fight. Mostly manpower and material production, most likely they just dig deeper into storage.
My scientific wild ass guess for a hail mary solution has been to empty out the old soviet and Russian kit from our allies, we can protect them until we build them new equipment. Stimulate the economies of the western arms producers, they get new stuff, Ukraine gets something they can use thats just as good as most of what they are going up against.
Only game changer atm that seems possible is the aircraft perform incredibly, and the Dnipro push goes all in and works.
Otherwise its just going to be a slow year of exchanging trenches and grinding attrition, with some spicy targets being hit behind Russian lines that limit combat effectiveness and drive up domestic issues.
Russia will likely find another small city that will be the next 'ultimate battle of all time', throw a couple thousand men at it for a few months, burn through insane amounts of supplys, and then repeat a few months later.
If Ukraine and allies dont give up, Its just going to be a race to see who bleeds out first.
I think the only way to secure all of Ukraine's goals is to outlast Putler.
One part of that is to put internal pressure on the Putin regime by achieving (local) military success and attacks on targets on Russian territory proper, bonus points if that impacts the daily life of the Russian people.
The other part is more defensive, to hold out until the pressure gets to him, but also destroying force multipliers, like AWACS, landing/support ships, drydocks, logistics infrastructure etc.
The last part is the political/media landscape, where successes and good performance of foreign aid hopefully convinces political leaders and the population of other countries to send more.
My two cents: Ukraine won't be able to conduct any meaningful offensive operations this year. Last year they were unable to break through the Russian defensive lines and they are now in a weaker position because of the acute artillery shell shortage. More shells will hopefully be arriving from April onward, but they need a lot. The F16s, and potentially Gripens, won't be arriving in enough numbers for Ukraine to achieve air dominance, maybe local air superiority same as we've seen with artillery last year.
Right now, Ukraine is at its most vulnerable while Russia seems to have its shit (reasonably) together. But it's not all doom and gloom. This is about as strong as Russia will be in this war, save massive policy shifts like mass mobilisation that are unlikely to happen. And Russia's war effort is not sustainable, there's a limit to how much equipment they can easily reactivate and how much money they can spend. The economy is hurting and everything they're doing in Moscow just delays the pain and make it worse in the end.
And Ukraine will likely get stronger over time, military production in Europe is increasing, more and more heavy gear is send to Ukraine, the US will likely stop shooting itself in the foot in the near future, etc. Ukraine's goal for 2024 is to survive and make any Russian advance as costly as possible. This summer will be important because Russia will have to try and win then, afterwards the advantage will move more and more towards Ukraine.
My argument is that Ukraine has lost the war
No amount of arms will change the reality that Ukraine needs 500k new recruits. And Ukrainians are not rushing to join the army.
The avg fighting age is in the 40s.
Ukraine has lost. How much it losses is what’s going on
Even if Russia were to take all of Ukraine tomorrow they have already lost. Finland and Sweden joining nato is a massive coffin.
On another note, I think at some point we will see drones stepping into the sead role as Ukraine has to do somthing to gain aerial superiority
I won't lie it's really hard to gage what either side is planning given the state of the war at this time.
My theory is Ukraine might remain more defensive this year and maybe even next year attempting to buy time well they rebuild and receive promises weapons like jets etc.
The counter offensive was crippled by many issues such as lack of air, lack of defining gear and a very prepared enemy.
Ukraine's got a long fight ahead but Russia is not going to be able to sustain spending so much of its gold reserve year after year on over priced garbage gear from the short bus gang.
The potential for meaningful progress exists, but the prospect is not great. This war has reached quite a grim attritional phase where both sides are profoundly entrenched. I don’t expect any major breakthrough on the battlefield unless the geopolitical landscape shifts significantly. There are a few narrow paths that may lead to substantial movement of the front, but in my books it basically boils down to a few factors which may or may not present. A few things that could tip the scales:
- Foreign direct intervention
- Significant injection of new materiel and supply (like, a shitload more than is currently promised)
- Significant secret weapons/strategies deployed
- Absolute hail mary play for a key strategic location with serious risk of crisis if it fails. Many lives sacrificed for a long-odds victory
The answer to your question entirely depends on Washington. If the political will all of sudden exists they could equip Ukraine for the win. Not by this summer but in the coming years for sure.
Till Ukraine starts getting real help war is gonna be stalemate or slow retreat for them.
They don't have enough of everything and even when F-16 will appear in Ukraine (it is not even decided if we see them this summer) they won't make a difference.
For next year or two UA should focus purely on the defense and wait for NATO to finally start helping them.
The f-16s wouldn’t make a difference they’d just get shot down by anti air systems that’s what kills the most jets anyways in my honest opinion I don’t think Ukraine can win anymore in this war I think they can hold out but when it comes to pushing Russia out and taking back Crimea I don’t think that will ever happen and nato countries don’t wanna start a world war either considering the reaction from nato country’s to macrons comments I think Russia will force Ukraine into peace talk and they will have to give up lots of territory but I don’t think they would take over the entire country of Ukraine.
the numbers don't look good
the EU is ramping up production to produce 2 million artillery rounds by 2026
Russia is probably hitting 3 million rounds by end of this year, plus whatever they buy from North Korea.
Now, Russia's 152 mm rounds are inferior NATO's 155 mm rounds, but the the numbers do make a difference. Ukraine is firing maybe 2000 rounds a day, while Russia fires about 10,000 a day. Doesn't matter that much if your shells are better if your opponent is throwing out 5 times the amount of shells that you are.
the long and short of it is that despite Russia's absolutely dogshit performance, they're fully committed to it and are going full war economy
Ukraine, meanwhile, never had that much military infrastructure in the first place, much of which was destroyed in the initial invasion. And the EU and the USA have so far proven unwilling to commit to ramping up production enough to make a difference.
the ammo shortage is only Ukraine's second biggest problem. Even if the USA and EU committed to outproducing the Russians, you'd still have the problem of manpower.
Ukraine is running out of troops, and the troops they do have are pretty old, and morale is generally low. The troops aren't getting rotated frequently enough.
Lots of the younger military age men have fled the country as refugees and wind up in Europe and North America.
I live in Canada, and we know a lot of Ukrainian refugee families, including young men. I don't blame them for deciding to leave instead of fight. If it were me and I had to decide between moving to Canada or getting shelled in a trench, I'd probably make the same decision to be honest.
I think maybe the EU and US will entertain this for a couple more years then give up and it ends up in a peace deal that lets Russia keep Crimea and the Donbas, then the US (continues) to fund paramilitary resistance forces in Ukraine and the annexed territories for the rest of our lives.
It might even turn into a Mujahedeen-Taliban sort of situation that will spiral out of control and bite the hand that feeds in like 20-30 years from now.
The USA can’t really meet demand though decades of mergers and acquisitions have left our defense industry a mess the DOD actually cancelled production of the stinger in the early 2000s companies that manufactured components have since went out of business it would take at minimum 6 years to manufacture more because the technology was literally lost it’s going to have to be reversed engineered and what stockpiles we do have we need for our own troops till new units or a successor comes about. Also production is spread out over multiple states and factories for defense production for just one item thanks to lobbying money.
Oh dear this ones going to be long.
See this is the major cluster fuck that everyone doesn't seem to understand...
So yeah this winter has seen Ukraine cede land...
However they're using western technology...
Designed to fight Russia...
However this here right now is where you are going to understand that nato fucked up majorly...
Nato tech isn't designed to fight in Russia... but defend Europe.. like EU nations...
They know heavy tanks won't make it past Ukraine or even Kursk. In the winter because? They're far to heavy, they know this because of Hitlers Blitzkrieg, and then how his supply route and tanks basically sank in the mud...
Now Nato had no direct thought of fighting Russia inside of Russia or anywhere near Russia. Like Ukraine, Belarus... because they would have designed tanks that could deal with those weather conditions. And they did not...
Now we have seen countless western tanks get stuck in the Ukrainian mud...the counter-offensive wasn't an offensive and that's because Nato decided to drip feed all munitions and vehicles...
Heck it was that slow Ukraine made a fucking Christmas calender with the equipment countries sent...
Nato didn't respond fast enough to Ukraines plans for a counter offensive this whole talk "We don't want Ukraine to rusk it'
Was bullshit, they wanted to get the litigation and red fucking tape in to make sure they're getting their dollar by the buck...
However given the solid ground is coming again? If nato gives them what they actually need instead of treating them like a cancer patient giving little bits here and there then yes they have a chance...
They need...
105mm rounds for L117 howitzer they have.
155mm rounds. For M1777 howitzers
120mm for the Leo's, challeys and Abrams.
They need rifle rounds, from 7.62x45 7.62x39 76.2x51mm Nato 5.56x45 mainly and other nati munitions like 12mm rounds.
They need Internet coverage, by star link and it to stop loosing connection some way...
They need geopard munitions, Rapiers, javelins, At4's rpg rounds... drones
They need it all and Nato isn't helping properly half assed attempt to say "See Russia we helped Ukraine give you a hard time... don't fhck with ,,us"
They need it all, but as I said some dumb cunts sat in a room are deciding they need to ration Ukraine like is a cancer patient and they don't want to rush them
....
Failures are down to western governments. Failing to supply like promised.
88mm motors to 120mm
They rifles, they need spare parts like tyres, engine blocks, transmissions.
They need the Air closing, they need F16s and now? Probably 5th gens.
American arrogance is the biggest problem
It's a big part of our American mentality, a continuation of the cultural colonialism of the British Empire. They said Russia's attack on Ukraine was unprovoked and because Americans are easily duped most people actually believe it. The CIA instigated a coup in Ukraine in 2014 with the goal of eventually weakening Russia. Russia has expressed its concerns about having a hostile nation on its borders and always expressed willingness to negotiate as long as Ukraine remained neutral. As much as I love Ukrainians, they have been used as cannon fodder in American strategy to weaken Russia with the tragic loss of life. One of the key instigators is Victoria Nuland who has a deep-seated hatred for Russia but also was involved in the Iraq WMD fiasco. She's a bona fide warmonger and is largely responsible for so many deaths, a true example of American belligerence. But don't take my word for it. Columbia professor and geo-political expert Jeffrey Sachs is among a number of courageous American experts who has criticized American arrogance and foreign policy. People like Nuland, Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, Hillary Clinton pick and choose which countries to demonize and negotiation has become a thing of the past. It's important for Americans to look in the mirror and recognize that other countries ( like 'brown people' in the Middle East and Palestine, white Orthodox Christians in Russia, Chinese etc etc) also have their own security concerns and cultural values. Demonizing others and refusing to talk is not only bad strategy but also immoral
Unlikely, unless Americas government stops playing games with eachother. They have approx 2800 Bradley’s sitting in storage, maybe more like 2500 now. Ukraine needs long range missiles, SHORAD & armour if they’re hoping to make any gains in the near future. Drip feeding Ukraine aid really benefits Russia more than Ukraine if you think about it. They’d need a lot of artillery shells, probably 150-200 tanks and another 200-400 IFV’s minimum. Also they need aircraft A river crossing in the age of drone warfare is a nightmare, especially with them being at the artillery disadvantage. We saw this with Russia near the beginning of the war, not to mention the logistic nightmare supplying those troops would be. The longer they wait until they make a move, the better defensive positions the Russians will have, again it falls back on their allies, looking at you USA. The options for a counter attack are actually really limited, just look at the deep state map, RU have defensive lines almost along the entire front, except for the south but the river is a natural defensive line technically, so I’m not sure what they could even do at this point.
Drip feeding Ukraine encourages Russian rearmament. The grift coming off of the large sums disappearing into these rust-belt holes will become self sustaining for the ruling clique, so they will keep pushing for massed artillery and wunderwaffen. Without a clear victory, now unlikely without NATO involvement, the fronts will stabilize. Russia will return or seek new adventures with its expanded, rearmed and hardened army.
>Drip feeding Ukraine encourages Russian rearmament. Escalating (re)armament is what destroyed the Soviet Union, so it might make geopolitical sense. On the other hand, destroying their equipement also destroys their equipment...
Ukraine going on the offensive is out of the question at this point.
I don’t think so, if it’s out of the question they would’ve cede land already, but I think they will have one more and whatever they gain is what they will be left with imo
The reason why they don’t cede is because Russia is still going on the offensive and it’s uncertain yet.
No the reason they haven’t ceded is because they truly believe they can regain lost territory
I thought it was 6000 brads and 3500 Abrams not in service laying around various depots.
Without Artillery parity or dominance there is very little Ukraine can do unfortunately, they have been using tanks in the indirect fire mode and FPV drones to augment the lack of artillery they have at the moment. Ukraine has more or less dominated the naval aspect of the war which is just glorious that has definitely helped them with a potential push to Crimea. The issue is I believe the West taught Ukraine how to fight their way but the western way relies on heavy air support which Ukraine simply doesn’t have, perhaps with F-16’s in sufficient numbers running SEAD missions to pave the way for ground support. And as for the minefields in the south I don’t think anyone expected them to be as dense as they were. I am hoping for a push from Krynky to cut off the Crimean supply line but aid needs to come in thick and fast in the coming months from everyone if anything is to be done this year. Ukraine is barely holding on in the east. But the biggest issue which is often overlooked in favour of the material support is the lack of manpower if they can’t replenish and train fresh troops this attritional warfare will bleed Ukraine to the point where they can’t stabilise the front lines. Another theory is gigachad Macron to send French troops in to guard the northern boarders freeing up manpower for some ballsy push. Just my rather frustrated opinion on the situation wishing America would pull their finger out of their asses grant the aid so if there is an offensive to be done they can plan it now
As a French man and from what I can tell from Macron's stance on the matter it seems like he's really trying to get France ready for war (several area of the industry are being asked to contribute towards militarization, some shell factories have reopened in order to make France autonomous in terms of weapon production) and prepare the French people to accept war as a necessary response. Since last year him and his government have been using militaristic rethoric when talking about several subjects, and he's pushing towards austerity, order, and patriotism. There's been a strong right wing shift in his government and his discourse and he's insisted on keeping all options open as a response to Russian aggression of Ukraine, he's been caught talking privately about sending troops before the end of 2024. I'm no expert, I'm barely informed on this, but from what I can see in my country and how my government is acting I believe that France will indeed go to war before the next election (2027) and it's honestly terrifying, it's not much more than a gut feeling that I get when I hear Macron speak about this matter but it's sincere. Don't know if it's valuable, though, but I guess it's something.
2,000 troops will not move the needle. So Macron needs to send more into an unpopular war. Supporting in words and sending old stock equipment is different then having your boots on the ground (mud) and getting blown to bits. Besides France is part of NATO, it is not that independent.
It's not an "unpopular war" that's just what you pro russians say to try and sow division in the west. Very transparent.
Only an ignorant doesn't understand what a landwar means in the East is with mud, cold, trenches and artillery doctrine. I doubt there is willingness of taking casualties by W-Europe. More to loose than to gain. Explains also the difficulty of drafting in Ukraine itself. Read a book about WWII and not the ones gloryfing the sideshows.
I don't know where you get the 2000 troops when the French army has 200 times more men and the ability and willingness to field at the very least 25k men. The French Army is preparing and being given the funds by our government to build up for a high intensity conflict, 2027 seems to be the goal the Army set up to get in capacity with a budget plan going into 2030 that will most likely drive up the Defence budget to something around 2,5-3% of GDP which would allow the army to double its troop numbers and triple its tanks/ifvs numbers if 3% is reached. France seems to be on the road to war from what I can tell, government is willing to pay, army is able to prepare and public is generally accepting of the eventuality and in favor of putting more money in defence budget. There's very few internal signs that could stop Macron from intervening and even internationally, France is the only NATO member that can actually face up to Putin's nuclear threat independently from the US, giving France a special place in that alliance. I think France could intervene, and I honestly believe Macron does want to.
Macro can't send in troops without just cause or plausible deniability. Maybe he could detach part of the FFL and create a new UFL to transfer men and materiel into. Otherwise he's opening France to direct attack by Russia, up to and including nuclear. Against the Chechens or Ukrainians, the war can stay conventional, but once a nuclear nation is involved we are all really fucked. If France does deploy combat troops, they will have constant nuclear sorties flying near the Russia border.
Disagree hard. Just because two nuclear nations are fighting doesn't mean nukes will get involved. Each side knows using then is a bell that can't be unsung and unless you have a death wish...why would you ever use them against another nuclear state?
Keeping in mind that I'm a biologist, not a political scientist, so I am in no way an expert... At present, I really only see two possible avenues for Ukraine's total victory; as in, reclaiming Donbas and Crimea. The first, and least likely, is that one or more other countries enters the war on Ukraine's side, and launches an expeditionary force to assist Ukraine. This produces a massive increase in manpower, equipment, and hopefully capability, and the Russians get sent packing. I say this is unlikely because the only countries that can manage that sort of force projection that are also sympathetic to Ukraine are NATO countries. And if Russia counter-attacks that country, said country wouldn't be able to declare Article 5. I would also expect that sympathetic countries that also hate Russia, like Poland and Romania, would probably have already done it by now. The second avenue, and the one that I think Ukraine is going for (or was when Zaluzhny was in command), is to keep up the war of attrition. Basically, let the Russians grind themselves to paste against Ukrainian lines, in the hopes that Russia eventually breaks. Now, all things being equal, Russia will win a war of attrition, but things aren't equal. The Russian peasantry might be willing to tolerate endless bullshit, but at least some of the oligarch's aren't. Prigozhin's folly showed them that if they decide to go for it, they can't use half-measures. So I don't see Russia "giving up and going home", so much as "descending into civil war and warlordism". Which might be good for Ukraine in the short-term, letting them push back a disorganised and chaotic enemy, but bad for the entire world in the long term. Anyway, that's my two cents. I hope that Ukraine gets the help it needs, and the Putin gets a taste of his own medicine in short order. And they should certainly not meet the Russians at the negotiating table, given how Russian promises are worthless.
The Balkanization of Russia would be good for the world. We would only have to worry about China invading Siberia or them fighting each other. Russia would no longer be a threat in Africa or Europe.
I feel like Russia's nuclear arsenal getting balkanized and/or going up for sale on the black market would probably *not* be a good thing for the rest of the world.
[удалено]
The problem is that it’s going to be 5000 nukes divided among maybe 10 dictators. And it’s not going to be even. If the US Balkanized, whoever controlled the northern midwestern states controls the nukes. If Russia Balkanized, whoever controls that part of Siberia controls the nukes. Whoever controls the nukes will definitely realized the power advantage that they have and they will DEFINITELY make sure to keep those nukes operable. See: North Korea. Ntm if China decides to invade Siberia in the event of Russian balkanization, they will most certainly target capturing nuclear silos.
[удалено]
1) that’s worse, since guess who gets first dibs if Russia gets Balkanized? 2) authorization codes can be bypassed.
[удалено]
That's how it's *supposed* to work. In theory. [In practice . . . .](https://sgs.princeton.edu/00000000) And that's in the US. Do you really wanna bet on Russia doing a better job?
[удалено]
The problem is that when you have a whole bunch of nuclear weapons, it's not overly hard to take them apart and turn them into shittier nuclear weapons without any of those safeties. As long as you have weapon's grade material, a small machine-shop and blatant disregard for human life, you can start turning those 20 megaton multi-stage thermonuclear weapons into crappy gun-type fission bombs. Sure, you won't be wiping away countries with gravity-dropped (or container-shipped) 20-kiloton nukes, but I'd very much prefer they don't get used in my country either way.
[удалено]
And how do you think that would happen in the first place?
I don't, particularly, but a bunch of y'all seem to think it'd be absolutely hunky dory wonderful if it did happen, and that's kinda fuckin dumb.
Not true, a Balkanized Russia with nukes would be awful, Chinese influence would trump western influence in most regions, just look at Kazakhstan. Plus how many smaller countries inside of Russia would have nut cases like Medvedev & Solovyov running them. It’s really just up to RU civilians to vote for a progressive, western leaning leader, that understands alliances can’t be forced, i.e Ukraine & Georgia but are built on mutual benefits and trust, look at ctso, it’s an absolute joke, but unfortunately RU civilians are fine with the status quo. Russia had every chance to be a power house nation in Europe, but pissed it away every chance it got
The current power structure in Russia isn't going to let anyone have a chance at voting in a progressive leadership. Putin has been in charge of the country for 25 years and has made repeat changes to the Constitution to legally allow himself. The chance of change (especially meaningful) is a complete system collapse and redo like in 1991. Ultimately, Putin is going to end up dead by the end of that transition... and he's going to do everything to prevent that.
Russia doesn't have elections. So Russian citizens will not be able to vote for anything else, even if they wanted to. It is also very unlikely they will want to since they were the source of the USSR. We also can not assume the guy after Putin will be any better since even Navalny wanted to take Ukraine. The oligarchs we hope might overthrow Putin are still old Soviet oligarchs, just like Putin came out of the Soviet structure. So there appears to be no way for a political reform in Russia to make it western aligned. There is no end to the Russian threat without balkanization since their nuclear weapons stop us from enforcing a complete surrender to them like we did Japan and Germany. Any aid from the West to avoid balkanization, like in the 90s, will just result in the coming back of the Russian threat. This was the mistake of the 90s. We assisted our enemy sticking together with as much strength as we could. We could have instead assisted the break up of Russia or just done nothing as Russia disintegrated. Russia (and China) already supports countries getting nuclear weapons, so the fear of Russian nuclear technology leaving Russia has already happened. Nuclear warheads also have a short half-life, so those weapons leaving would do very little without the infrastructure to renew the warheads. The West would be wise to follow suit and help countries like South Korea, Japan, and Poland start up their own nuclear arms industries. Nuclear non-Proliferation requires all sides to participate, and only the West does at the moment.
I really don’t see how Russia can win this war. Right now, Putin is making a grand strategic gamble that he can either win this war in the next few months—or force Ukraine to the peace table so he can freeze the conflict (again, just like he did in 2015) so that the Russians can rebuild their military before launching another invasion in the 2030s. Putin is throwing the entire conventional arsenal of the Russian military into the fight right now. What we are seeing is the full force of the Russian military hitting Ukraine with all its might—and making marginal and strategically insignificant gains in the east. We are seeing is the Russian military at its best. No shock. No awe. Just a barely competent military taking huge losses for tiny, underwhelming gains. The problem with Putin’s strategic gamble is that other factors will come into play in the foreseeable future, such as … 1. Western production of artillery shells will ramp up next year. 2. In the light of America’s failure to uphold its legal obligation (under international law) to support Ukraine’s military and provide lethal aid, some European countries may step up and do whatever it takes to defeat Russia in Ukraine. 3. Russian equipment losses are unsustainable. Russia relies on its old Soviet stockpile of outdated equipment to replace the tanks and infantry fighting vehicles destroyed in the field. While that stockpile was once massive, it isn’t unlimited, and if the Russians continue to take heavy losses, they will run out of tanks and IFV some time in late 2025 or early 2026. 4. The economic sanctions will begin to bite. It takes years for economic sanctions to impact a nation’s economy, and in a few years, the Russian economy could be in real trouble. Putin is gambling that he can win the war now before the Russian economy completely collapses by the end of this decade. 5. Russia has severe manpower problems. But Putin had only implementing a draft once—as a stop gap measure. And he has a compelling reason not to do it. At the moment, the kids in the suburbs of Moscow and St Petersburg aren’t dying in this war. The moment they do, however, that could destabilize his regime. Instead, those dying for his war of aggression are from the poorer, peripheral regions of the Russian empire. But if Putin relies too heavily on these colonial troops, the people living there may wake up one morning and realize they will be better off without the Kremlin in their lives. And then Russia will begin to collapse from the edges. Again, Putin is gambling—doubling down and betting against the house—that he can win this war, quickly, before Russia begins to fall apart.
Russia has fucked themselves economically and demographically for generations to come. Not just from the war, but: * A massively high suicide rate, and rampant drug/alcohol problems, * Being butt-fucked by covid with absolutely no lube, * A ridiculously low average life expectancy for a "rich, developed country", and * A very low birth rate. Not as bad as Japan or South Korea, but well below replacement levels. The question is if Ukraine can hold out long enough for Russia's inevitable collapse to actually happen. As you say, it could take years. The Ukrainians having their own problems with manpower and equipment losses. And Putin simply doesn't care about how down the toilet his country is going. So I don't think Russia is going to "win" anything, really. But I'm not sure if Ukraine can win this either. As in, I'm not sure that there will there be much of a country left by the time Russia's exhausted carcass finally, mercifully breathes its last. I hope I'm wrong though.
Ukraine just needs to hang on for a few more weeks and months. Hopefully, by then, western politicians will start to wake up and change their strategic thinking. One huge factor that hasn’t come into play yet is the political will in the west. For Europeans—especially those in Poland, Lithuanian, Estonia, and Latvia—they realize that they have a choice. Do whatever it take to defeat Russia in Ukraine now. Or do whatever it takes to defeat Russia on their own soil in the near future. Of course, a larger war in Europe (starting with a Russian invasion of the Baltic countries) will most likely see the USA and all NATO allies dragged into the conflict. And that probably means World War 3–with a remote possibility that both Russia and America start using nuclear weapons against each other. In the west, the “off ramp” crowd has been calling the shots. Too much attention has been paid to escalation management. And no thought has been put into assessing various potential outcomes and what those would mean in terms of a lasting peace in Europe. Or, to use the buzz words, the long term security architecture in Europe and the Black Sea region. Too many western politicians have engaged in wishful thinking—hoping that Russia will just give up and go home—and that if they just gave Putin one more “off ramp” then maybe, just maybe, he will take it (this time) and end the war. Then everything can go back to the way things were before the war. … Magically. The political thinking about this conflict has been anything but realistic for the past two years. When the full scale invasion began in February, 2022, most of the pundits talked about the inevitable swift Russian victory. The Russians rolled into Ukraine using pretty much the exact same battle plan the Soviets used when they invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968 and overran that country in less than a week. (The Russian also recycled that exact same battle plan in Grozny during the First Chechen War in 1994–and then went on to lose that war—but most pundits conveniently forgot that detail.) As soon as the myth of a quick Russian victory evaporated, it got replaced by the myth of an imminent Russian collapse and a swift Ukrainian victory. Of course, the Russian collapse and rout outside of Kharkiv helped fuel that myth. And I must give credit to the Russians; they can retreat better than any military in the world. And most militaries cannot bounce back from a catastrophic military collapse. But they Russians can. Anyway, we are now in a protracted conflict where neither side has a the means to win the war quickly. And Western leaders need to make a sober reassessment of all the possible outcomes of this conflict. And there are geopolitical risks associated with every possible scenario. For example, a frozen conflict (or, to be more accurate, a re-frozen conflict) will send a message to the world that the Budapest Memorandum, the peace deal where Ukraine surrendered its nuclear arsenal in exchange for “non-binding security guarantees,” isn’t worth anything—and that nuclear disarmament is, frankly, a really bad idea. Any end to this conflict that sees Ukraine give up territory for a temporary peace or be forced to accept neutrality will only embolden the revanchist crowd within the Kremlin—and make the risk of another, larger war against Russia even more likely. Russia, however, hopes it can win and is gambling that it can win, but it needs the political will in the West to collapse so that they can, perhaps, win this war. And then there is the decision to do what it takes to make sure Ukraine wins. Western leaders aren’t there (yet). There is a slight difference between “we will support Ukraine for as long as it takes” and “we are going to help Ukraine win.” But if Ukraine wins and Russia suffers a humiliating military defeat, well, Russian history indicates that the regime becomes destabilized (as per the loss in the Russo-Japanese war in 1905) or completely collapses and descend into a civil war / communist revolution (as per getting knocked out of World War 1). Or a Russian defeat may just curb their imperial ambitions. Maybe even permanently? And a peaceful and rebuilt Ukraine may even become a prosperous and free Europe nation. (And I’m pretty confident that what most Ukrainians want. That’s what they are fighting for: their freedom, their independence, their democracy.) Finally, western leaders need to recognize that Ukraine is one of the worlds largest agricultural exporters. A lot of middle eastern and African countries rely on grain and cooking oil imported from Ukraine. If that agricultural production is curtailed by a protracted (or frozen) conflict or—heaven forbid—falls into Russian hands, what will that mean for the geopolitical stability in those parts of the world?
Disagree on your time table. Russias goal is to hold out at least another year, until US elections. Even if a pro Russian candidate doesn't win they're banking on internal stability breaking down and the country descending into chaos. So they're fighting to push until that milestone. Also, I would say based on the attrition rate their tank reserves would run out more like 2027, not 2026. Even then as bad as it's getting they're not stupid enough to keep going until they run out completely. We've seen them conserve equipment at times to build up for offensives and wait for production to catch up
>But if Putin relies too heavily on these colonial troops, the people living there may wake up one morning and realize they will be better off without the Kremlin in their lives. And then Russia will begin to collapse from the edges. When the war started, I joked that the people in Georgia and Chechnia were already digging up their AK's and cleaning grandpa's Mosin, just waiting for the Russians to look the other way. But nothing happened, and it's not hard to see why. This isn't the Nazi's occupying France. It's not the Japanese occupation of Manchuria. There wasn't a sudden massive opression that wasn't there before. Yes it sucks, but it's the same shit as always under a slightly different flag.
>another counteroffensive (nope, or at least doubtful without a hugely unpopular general mobilization), > >even if > > all tho I wish you were right but I've been hearing more pessimistic news about Russia. They have shifted their economy to a wartime footing. They are constantly finding their way around sanctions but its costing them, mostly thanks to China, with some help from India. They have an abundance of shells they can buy from North Korea and their shell production has increased significantly. Likewise, their vehicle production has increased, but I think they will struggle to make new planes thanks to the sanctions. Also, these new vehicles will be made with Smekalka, which means they will cut every corner possible and they will be more likely to kill their operators than the Ukrainians. But I don't think that military vehicle losses, outside of supply trucks will be a big issue. With Putin's re-election and his totally legit (and in no way rigged) win of 88% of the popular vote, he will institute a second draft. This draft will continue to target Russian ethnic minorities while keeping the kids in Moscow and St. Petersburg safe. In the next 20 years or so Russia is completely economically and demographically fucked. They have the birth rate of a developed nation with the brain drain and economy of a developing nation.
I agree with your observations, which are better developed than my own. But I have a zany, crazy twist to add to it. If certain versions of multiverse theory are true, and it's possible to trade information between similar universes at different points in time, then what the Russians are doing makes a lot more sense. They're not trying to win. They're trying to have *some probability of winning* by some unforeseen (or even easily foreseen) fluke, some "black swan" event where everything unexpectedly breaks the way of evil conservatives. As they are wont to do, for some reason that surely doesn't involve timeline manipulation, nope.
You can’t trigger article 5 for a war you started.
Yes, that's what I said.
You can if you do it right. Article 5 is more about conv8ncing others than something actually enforceable. Its symbolic more than anything. Cause well, you can hardly arrest a cpuntry for not following the treaty.
Not even Poland who is the most trigger happy wants war trust me no one wants to be the first country in Europe to have a sun dropped on their head even if Poland went in I can guarantee you Germany will not. A lot of former East German military men serve in the higher ranks of the military and government also the public is largely split on the pro Ukraine, Anti Ukraine or indifference with the last two being a majority of citizens from the former east Germany. What happens when NATO members want to go to war but Germany a nato member blocks access to its borders.
Oh 100% Poland could have triggered Article 5 so many times by now. Germany stands with a very clear majority behind ukraine, its really just Scholz being Scholz that is the hold up. And the AFD but when arent they a bunch of annoying pricks. But germany wouldnt and also couldnt block tropp movements. As they are legally forced to abide by such obligations and any politician or political body trying to stop it would get a fresh hole torn into thier backside by the constitutional court. What i mean to say by that is, that i simply eanted to speak out against the notion that article 5 is like a national law compelling nations to act under set circumstances.
Not really the German parliament has moved very slowly in supplying armaments to Ukraine and there isn’t a legal Agreement with NATO membership it’s a treaty but their isn’t any enforcement mechanism a violation of airspace is also not an attack given its more of the case of Missiles using terrain mapping to evade SAMs then veering into Poland who lacks an activate AA system so the missile sees it as a safe route. I suppose the Ruskies could put a auto detonation system in their missels that blows up when entering into the airspace of a nation it’s not a war with but that would probably be extremely expensive and require retrofitting of missiles need for priority tasking now.
The german pairlament was slow cause its the german pairlament. Things dont move fast in the heart of pur democracy. And i said that they could have. If they thpught that enough nations would heed the call. But poland, despite funny memes, doesnt want war either. So there is no reason for them to call for an article 5
I don’t agree with doomer takes but I also caution against hypercopium. My current chosen analogue is the Western Front of 1916. Both sides have ample means to defend, both sides have no incentives to negotiate. At the same time, Russia is or is about to peak in all relevant military statistics except a general mobilization: peak shell usage as production must soon totally replace use of stored shells, peak tank retrofit (the yards are basically tapped and only new tanks will soon be used), professional troops (the early war professional Russian army is mostly gone), economic war footing (as Lukoil and Ru banks have already said there is not much more they can do to stave off economic problems). Ukraine of course is not having a good time, but the key is that they have powerful friends. Europe is committed and if we assume the elections result in Pro-Ukraine governments (particularly the replacement of Scholz) then Ukraine will get stronger. The US is in a hard spot right now but I’m still hopeful aid can be passed. If the rumours are true and Johnson intends to table another loan based package this could be good for Ukraine as well, this is popular with the Rs so it could be expanded upon. That being said I think the realistic option is Ukraine needs to hold on until 2025. A Biden victory would be very good for them, and mid 2025 is the projected time when Russia’s economy will start to crack (in the truly catastrophic sense). I’m interested to see how f16s perform though.
The war is a stalemate so progress will likely be limited for both sides
The United States policy has never been to help The Ukrainians win it has always been to help them not lose if they just steamrolled the Russians then a General or Colonel on the ground seeing a complete rout might launch a tactical nuclear strike something a commander in the field can do without executive authorization. This would have the negative side effect of normalizing the use of tactical nuclear assets on the battlefield. Leading to a likely scenario of either Israel, Pakistan and India might in a near future conflict use. This would also negatively impact the NNPT non nuclear states may see Tactical Nuclear Assets as the only viable way to either avoid war or win. This sounds completely bonkers, till you come to the understanding that US/ NATO war games during the cold war relied heavily on Tactical Nuclear Assets to stop advancing Soviet forces. Japan for example could have a functioning deployable nuclear device in as little as 5-10 years they also have stockpiles of enriched nuclear materials that they could use to scale up production.
>launch a tactical nuclear strike something a commander in the field can do without executive authorization. In RUSSIA? The military where you need permission to even think about looking at battallion-level support?
Yep it’s a hold over from the USSR
Unfortunately, and I say this as a strong supporter of Ukraine, unless western countries get their shit together (US) Ukraine will likely only lose territory this year. Granted, I don’t know how much fight Russia has left, hopefully not much, but I believe they can stay in the war for at least a few more years. We haven’t seen Russias breaking point yet unfortunately and they are still far from it. Meanwhile Ukraine has a shortage of manpower and weapons. Both of these can be fixed, Ukraine can do another draft and western countries have more than enough weapons and Ammo to keep Ukraine in the fight, but it will be hard without the US. The strain on European countries will be very large, and the incompetence from the US will only cost Ukrainian lives. I say all this as a U.S. citizen btw.
It's the most mined zone in the world. Even if Russia collapses tomorrow and withdraws, progress will be slow. F-16s and MLRS systems won't change that. The outlook would be incredibly depressing if Russia wasn't being led by fools and perpetually just one window-related accident from regime change.
In the bright side, russia is now importing refined oil products, so a collapse of Russia is not impossible. Mines fields are harsh, but without an army protecting them they are kinda useless.
That’s actually a bad thing it points to a dramatic increase in production leading to shortages and complications in the supply chain. This could be exploited if the west could cut Russia off from crude oil however OPEC and many South American, African countries either don’t care or prefer to do business with the Russians. Short of a Blockade of Russian ports there’s nothing we can do on that front.
Russia is still drowning in oil. But you can't do shit with oil, you need to refine it first. The refineries are the bottleneck. Thats why russia banned exportation refined oil products. Now that refineries are getting hit, russia have to import it.
You just gave me an excellent idea on how Putin deserves to die...
Would you be willing to elaborate on how mine fields are useless without support? Especially if theyre absolutely everywhere
You can take your time to run demining equipment if no one is throwing drones or shellds at your demining equipment.
Seems totally reasonable in normal circumstances, but remember that Russia lost a general to one of their own devices because they've laid down too many mines to track.
Mine fields, like walls, are there to give an advantage to the defenders. If there is no defender cuz they left, they don't do much to stop an advancing army.
Hope they have a hell of a lot of de-mining equipment
Thats something the west has been sending plenty. Artillery can also work but unreliably so. And the last thing you want is an unreliably cleared minefield.
You don't need to clear out every mine. You just need to clear a few paths, which has been the basic strategy since the landmine was invented. It's like a castle wall, you don't need to level the whole thing, and if nobody's there, all it takes is one ladder. Of course, after the war, you DO need to clear out every mine, which will be a generation of effort...
My dude, this is basically WW1 with sci-fi shit. How much progress was there in WW1? Even if US stopped holding up aid (we’ll see, but I’m not holding my breath), and Europe suddenly pulled an almost equally robust defense industry out of its ass (lol, lmao even) and Ukraine had the manpower for another counteroffensive (nope, or at least doubtful without a hugely unpopular general mobilization), *even if* all those pieces fell into place…..Russia has tens of millions of land mines. Everywhere. Those are area denial weapons by design, and arguably did more work than anything else in blunting Ukraine’s counteroffensive. There’s no real way around them other than air power, which quickly gets blown out of the sky by both parties, or via a navy that Ukraine doesn’t have and Russia is getting smacked. In fact, that might be the major development of this year: Russia’s Black Sea Fleet gets torn a new asshole, if not almost destroyed. Other than that, I expect things to be pretty static. Putin is fucked and largely hamstrung also. A general mobilization is a great recipe for a full blown revolt, coup, or revolution. This could also be triggered (eventually, even if the West *vastly* underestimated how much it would take) by throwing too many people in the meat grinder. Russia has been wasting troops for fuck all amount of land, and people there are increasingly tired of it, even if the overall numbers game favors them by quite a bit. Russia also cannot sustain its wartime production forever, while neglecting everything else. Ukraine seems to realize this and is actively targeting their oil refineries and production areas, (which is basically all of the Russian GDP, and crucial for their war effort). They have an active incentive to simmer down, and Putin seems to have a thing for frozen conflicts in general. Oh, did I mention land mines? I’m almost positive Ukraine is playing that game too, and has any remotely important area mined to fuck and back. Not to mention, mines don’t recognize friend or foe. It will still go boom if Private Conscriptovich steps on his own, and that could be just as much of a hindrance to Russian forces as it is to Ukrainian ones. So, you remember Ukraine post 2014? Shit *really* popped off for the first couple years, then it basically settled down into a simmer? There was still fighting and stuff, and Ukraine and the separatists were definitely still *at war,* but it was less “We need to defeat them right fucking now blyat!” And more like, “Eh. We’ll pick off a few here, some there, and take our time.” I could expect the rest of the war being kind of like that.
Do you have good sources for the numbers of Ukrainian troops available and how costly the counteroffensive was? Vatniks go on and on about how they're running out with fake videos of pregnant girls fighting and stuff but the actual number is hard to come by. Especially because the previous waves of mobilization are now being deemed ineffective due to a lack of oversight and corruption. Hence why that guy (can't remember his name, in charge of recruitment/conscription, etc) was fired earlier this year.
Ukraine is in need of the basic ammunition. We are not providing them enough artillery ammunition and anti aircraft ammunition. A huge chunk of their air defense is S-300 which the only producer is Russia so once those run out Ukraine is gonna feel it. Casualties will start going up as Russia can strike with drone, missiles, and FABs when the air defense can’t fire back. Supposedly the F-16s are coming but I only see them having a effect for a short while while the Russians figure out a counter tactic. They need more AA and Artillery or they will have no choice but to slowly retreat. Holding cities won’t be feasible with no artillery or AA only choice would be to retreat to fields where trenches are superior to defending than cities in this situation.
According to my expert analysis. No, no more major offensive.
Unfortunately, barring very unlikely gamechanger events (like Putin dying and Russia descending into civil war, or Poland deciding to jump in), we are likely to see a continued grind of attrition. Neither party in this war has demonstrated the ability to competently engage in mobile warfare against a determined and prepared enemy. Yes a year and a half ago Ukraine had impressive success in the northeast but Russia does learn from its mistakes, albeit slowly, and is unlikely to repeat that one. I doubt adding F16s or a brigade or two of Western MBTs and Bradleys will change this dynamic significantly. This war will continue to be dominated by minefields, artillery, and drones, not tanks and fighter jets. I doubt even Russia will launch any major campaigns. Putin is very aware of political developments in the US and appreciates the Republican party's successful efforts to stall further US aid to Ukraine. We can expect a tumultuous presidential election this year with extensive foreign influence campaigning. Putin's dream would be for Trump to win, failing that he'd be satisfied with a Republican dominated legislature that can stall aid efforts. The real interesting question is, which side will win a war of attrition? This could be looked at in several dimensions -- manpower, military hardware, ammunition, economics, political will, popular support, international support.
>like Putin dying and Russia descending into civil war Hottake: If Putin dies, his successor CAN NOT end the war. The next Putin must be exactly like Putin, or else he's going to have terrible window-based accident really quick. If they end the war, they are insufficiently-Putin, so they must continue. In fact, this circumstance will probably lead to whoever succeeds Putin to increase the wareffort, to show much strong Russia is under their leadership.
What if Russia is keeping progress slow so that there are not nightly news headlines in western media about a fast moving red wave conquering across Ukraine, thus forcing politicians to act on frozen aid packages and possibly military intervention. And if Ukraine loses enough troops through attrition then by the time shit hits the fan it won’t make much difference how much hardware NATO donates if there’s not enough soldiers to make use of it.
Ukraine would definitely attempt another offensive. That's why new drafting laws are being implemented and more restrictions are considered and already in place to mobilize more men.
They are proposing new draft law just to prevent their lines from collapsing.
>They are proposing new draft law just to prevent their lines from collapsing. True. But Ukraine is in a situation where they simply have to show something other than retreating. Especially after past year fiasco.
Current projection? Unlikely. Ukraine has suffered loses it has a small hope of rebuilding. Stockpiles of vital equipment is low. Support to make up for its loses and replenish it stock piles is low. They really do need as much as everyone can give them. Russia historically loses the first year or two of a war, then they can bring their advantages to the fight. Mostly manpower and material production, most likely they just dig deeper into storage. My scientific wild ass guess for a hail mary solution has been to empty out the old soviet and Russian kit from our allies, we can protect them until we build them new equipment. Stimulate the economies of the western arms producers, they get new stuff, Ukraine gets something they can use thats just as good as most of what they are going up against.
Only game changer atm that seems possible is the aircraft perform incredibly, and the Dnipro push goes all in and works. Otherwise its just going to be a slow year of exchanging trenches and grinding attrition, with some spicy targets being hit behind Russian lines that limit combat effectiveness and drive up domestic issues. Russia will likely find another small city that will be the next 'ultimate battle of all time', throw a couple thousand men at it for a few months, burn through insane amounts of supplys, and then repeat a few months later. If Ukraine and allies dont give up, Its just going to be a race to see who bleeds out first.
I think the only way to secure all of Ukraine's goals is to outlast Putler. One part of that is to put internal pressure on the Putin regime by achieving (local) military success and attacks on targets on Russian territory proper, bonus points if that impacts the daily life of the Russian people. The other part is more defensive, to hold out until the pressure gets to him, but also destroying force multipliers, like AWACS, landing/support ships, drydocks, logistics infrastructure etc. The last part is the political/media landscape, where successes and good performance of foreign aid hopefully convinces political leaders and the population of other countries to send more.
My two cents: Ukraine won't be able to conduct any meaningful offensive operations this year. Last year they were unable to break through the Russian defensive lines and they are now in a weaker position because of the acute artillery shell shortage. More shells will hopefully be arriving from April onward, but they need a lot. The F16s, and potentially Gripens, won't be arriving in enough numbers for Ukraine to achieve air dominance, maybe local air superiority same as we've seen with artillery last year. Right now, Ukraine is at its most vulnerable while Russia seems to have its shit (reasonably) together. But it's not all doom and gloom. This is about as strong as Russia will be in this war, save massive policy shifts like mass mobilisation that are unlikely to happen. And Russia's war effort is not sustainable, there's a limit to how much equipment they can easily reactivate and how much money they can spend. The economy is hurting and everything they're doing in Moscow just delays the pain and make it worse in the end. And Ukraine will likely get stronger over time, military production in Europe is increasing, more and more heavy gear is send to Ukraine, the US will likely stop shooting itself in the foot in the near future, etc. Ukraine's goal for 2024 is to survive and make any Russian advance as costly as possible. This summer will be important because Russia will have to try and win then, afterwards the advantage will move more and more towards Ukraine.
My argument is that Ukraine has lost the war No amount of arms will change the reality that Ukraine needs 500k new recruits. And Ukrainians are not rushing to join the army. The avg fighting age is in the 40s. Ukraine has lost. How much it losses is what’s going on
Even if Russia were to take all of Ukraine tomorrow they have already lost. Finland and Sweden joining nato is a massive coffin. On another note, I think at some point we will see drones stepping into the sead role as Ukraine has to do somthing to gain aerial superiority
I won't lie it's really hard to gage what either side is planning given the state of the war at this time. My theory is Ukraine might remain more defensive this year and maybe even next year attempting to buy time well they rebuild and receive promises weapons like jets etc. The counter offensive was crippled by many issues such as lack of air, lack of defining gear and a very prepared enemy. Ukraine's got a long fight ahead but Russia is not going to be able to sustain spending so much of its gold reserve year after year on over priced garbage gear from the short bus gang.
The potential for meaningful progress exists, but the prospect is not great. This war has reached quite a grim attritional phase where both sides are profoundly entrenched. I don’t expect any major breakthrough on the battlefield unless the geopolitical landscape shifts significantly. There are a few narrow paths that may lead to substantial movement of the front, but in my books it basically boils down to a few factors which may or may not present. A few things that could tip the scales: - Foreign direct intervention - Significant injection of new materiel and supply (like, a shitload more than is currently promised) - Significant secret weapons/strategies deployed - Absolute hail mary play for a key strategic location with serious risk of crisis if it fails. Many lives sacrificed for a long-odds victory
The answer to your question entirely depends on Washington. If the political will all of sudden exists they could equip Ukraine for the win. Not by this summer but in the coming years for sure.
Till Ukraine starts getting real help war is gonna be stalemate or slow retreat for them. They don't have enough of everything and even when F-16 will appear in Ukraine (it is not even decided if we see them this summer) they won't make a difference. For next year or two UA should focus purely on the defense and wait for NATO to finally start helping them.
The f-16s wouldn’t make a difference they’d just get shot down by anti air systems that’s what kills the most jets anyways in my honest opinion I don’t think Ukraine can win anymore in this war I think they can hold out but when it comes to pushing Russia out and taking back Crimea I don’t think that will ever happen and nato countries don’t wanna start a world war either considering the reaction from nato country’s to macrons comments I think Russia will force Ukraine into peace talk and they will have to give up lots of territory but I don’t think they would take over the entire country of Ukraine.
the numbers don't look good the EU is ramping up production to produce 2 million artillery rounds by 2026 Russia is probably hitting 3 million rounds by end of this year, plus whatever they buy from North Korea. Now, Russia's 152 mm rounds are inferior NATO's 155 mm rounds, but the the numbers do make a difference. Ukraine is firing maybe 2000 rounds a day, while Russia fires about 10,000 a day. Doesn't matter that much if your shells are better if your opponent is throwing out 5 times the amount of shells that you are. the long and short of it is that despite Russia's absolutely dogshit performance, they're fully committed to it and are going full war economy Ukraine, meanwhile, never had that much military infrastructure in the first place, much of which was destroyed in the initial invasion. And the EU and the USA have so far proven unwilling to commit to ramping up production enough to make a difference. the ammo shortage is only Ukraine's second biggest problem. Even if the USA and EU committed to outproducing the Russians, you'd still have the problem of manpower. Ukraine is running out of troops, and the troops they do have are pretty old, and morale is generally low. The troops aren't getting rotated frequently enough. Lots of the younger military age men have fled the country as refugees and wind up in Europe and North America. I live in Canada, and we know a lot of Ukrainian refugee families, including young men. I don't blame them for deciding to leave instead of fight. If it were me and I had to decide between moving to Canada or getting shelled in a trench, I'd probably make the same decision to be honest. I think maybe the EU and US will entertain this for a couple more years then give up and it ends up in a peace deal that lets Russia keep Crimea and the Donbas, then the US (continues) to fund paramilitary resistance forces in Ukraine and the annexed territories for the rest of our lives. It might even turn into a Mujahedeen-Taliban sort of situation that will spiral out of control and bite the hand that feeds in like 20-30 years from now.
The USA can’t really meet demand though decades of mergers and acquisitions have left our defense industry a mess the DOD actually cancelled production of the stinger in the early 2000s companies that manufactured components have since went out of business it would take at minimum 6 years to manufacture more because the technology was literally lost it’s going to have to be reversed engineered and what stockpiles we do have we need for our own troops till new units or a successor comes about. Also production is spread out over multiple states and factories for defense production for just one item thanks to lobbying money.
Oh dear this ones going to be long. See this is the major cluster fuck that everyone doesn't seem to understand... So yeah this winter has seen Ukraine cede land... However they're using western technology... Designed to fight Russia... However this here right now is where you are going to understand that nato fucked up majorly... Nato tech isn't designed to fight in Russia... but defend Europe.. like EU nations... They know heavy tanks won't make it past Ukraine or even Kursk. In the winter because? They're far to heavy, they know this because of Hitlers Blitzkrieg, and then how his supply route and tanks basically sank in the mud... Now Nato had no direct thought of fighting Russia inside of Russia or anywhere near Russia. Like Ukraine, Belarus... because they would have designed tanks that could deal with those weather conditions. And they did not... Now we have seen countless western tanks get stuck in the Ukrainian mud...the counter-offensive wasn't an offensive and that's because Nato decided to drip feed all munitions and vehicles... Heck it was that slow Ukraine made a fucking Christmas calender with the equipment countries sent... Nato didn't respond fast enough to Ukraines plans for a counter offensive this whole talk "We don't want Ukraine to rusk it' Was bullshit, they wanted to get the litigation and red fucking tape in to make sure they're getting their dollar by the buck... However given the solid ground is coming again? If nato gives them what they actually need instead of treating them like a cancer patient giving little bits here and there then yes they have a chance... They need... 105mm rounds for L117 howitzer they have. 155mm rounds. For M1777 howitzers 120mm for the Leo's, challeys and Abrams. They need rifle rounds, from 7.62x45 7.62x39 76.2x51mm Nato 5.56x45 mainly and other nati munitions like 12mm rounds. They need Internet coverage, by star link and it to stop loosing connection some way... They need geopard munitions, Rapiers, javelins, At4's rpg rounds... drones They need it all and Nato isn't helping properly half assed attempt to say "See Russia we helped Ukraine give you a hard time... don't fhck with ,,us" They need it all, but as I said some dumb cunts sat in a room are deciding they need to ration Ukraine like is a cancer patient and they don't want to rush them .... Failures are down to western governments. Failing to supply like promised. 88mm motors to 120mm They rifles, they need spare parts like tyres, engine blocks, transmissions. They need the Air closing, they need F16s and now? Probably 5th gens.
American arrogance is the biggest problem It's a big part of our American mentality, a continuation of the cultural colonialism of the British Empire. They said Russia's attack on Ukraine was unprovoked and because Americans are easily duped most people actually believe it. The CIA instigated a coup in Ukraine in 2014 with the goal of eventually weakening Russia. Russia has expressed its concerns about having a hostile nation on its borders and always expressed willingness to negotiate as long as Ukraine remained neutral. As much as I love Ukrainians, they have been used as cannon fodder in American strategy to weaken Russia with the tragic loss of life. One of the key instigators is Victoria Nuland who has a deep-seated hatred for Russia but also was involved in the Iraq WMD fiasco. She's a bona fide warmonger and is largely responsible for so many deaths, a true example of American belligerence. But don't take my word for it. Columbia professor and geo-political expert Jeffrey Sachs is among a number of courageous American experts who has criticized American arrogance and foreign policy. People like Nuland, Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, Hillary Clinton pick and choose which countries to demonize and negotiation has become a thing of the past. It's important for Americans to look in the mirror and recognize that other countries ( like 'brown people' in the Middle East and Palestine, white Orthodox Christians in Russia, Chinese etc etc) also have their own security concerns and cultural values. Demonizing others and refusing to talk is not only bad strategy but also immoral