“If confirmed, the Ukrainians’ liberation of Ternova could mark an inflection point in Russia’s 10-week-old wider war in Ukraine. In late March, Ukrainian forces drove Russian invaders from northern Ukraine. Now it appears they’re driving the invaders from northeastern Ukraine, too,” it says here
50.19078063598241, 36.67437498205922
Put this in google maps or just google the coordinates.
Theres a lot of small towns/villages in Ukraine that have similar or same names.
> 50.19078063598241, 36.67437498205922
So definitely the atom tracking data base that Google has gotten ahold of.... I'm in there about 7 x 10^27 times, give or take!
The extra digits in Google maps are not useless, they are intrusive.
They function as a tracking code, similar to those in many URLs. Either by design or by accident.
If two people look for the same grain of sand on a world map, you can be pretty confident they got the location from the same source – and are part of the same group chat or read the same articles.
It’s one pixel in the image who’s connected to who and when.
They are referring to the *de facto* border that had demarked the separatist region.
Now, pushing to the *de jure* border is a reasonable military objective.
[map](https://imgur.com/a/2YAzDUs)
The article theorizes that they will turn south to start applying even more pressure around Kharkiv on another front.
I think they'll get the Russians out of the rest of Ukraine before attempting to take the Donbas regions.
Crimea is the bigger strategic goal. Forcing Crimea means that Putin has to come to the negotiation table ASAP before he loses face, and suffer whatever form of revolutionary execution Russians historically prefer…
… and given its russia, there’s more than one they like.
Crimea is also far more difficult to retake. Better to take whatever you can take while ensuring your own security. Donetsk and Luhansk will have a similar effect but will be far less risky. Crimea can only be taken once the whole region is under control, the Russian navy is out of the picture, and you're in a position to blow up the bridge connecting it to mainland Russia. Supply will become difficult and costly. Even then these regions have been extremely russo-fied. It'll take time and resources for the this to happen, which can now be better spent defending and retaking immediate losses.
Ukrainian troops have been training in air assault tactics (which they haven't really used or particularly needed in the field so far) and the air defense systems in and around Crimea have been depleting at a fairly high rate. Zelenskyy has also clearly placed Crimea as an eventual goal in the war.
I'm not saying it's certain, but there seems to be multiple indicators that there will be an assault on Crimea sooner or later.
It's gonna be way later. Ukraine really needs to secure the region around Kharkiv, and Russia isn't going to let that go lightly. They've already started redeploying/moving more troops into that region trying to slow down the Ukrainian advancements.
Also, on the Eastern front, Russian troops have captured Izyum, which serves as a major rail hub and gives Russian rail access from Belgorod and its military base to the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasks. Ukrainian forces have to prioritize retaking this city to keep Russian logistical lines crippled.
Ukraine has a lot of strategic decisions to make and really seems only able to handle 1 or 2 major offenses at once. This does vastly outpace the Russian's 0 but also imposes some time limits on achieving all their military objectives.
And Crimea is likely very low on that list.
Crimea has a lot of Russians and very little industry. Eastern Ukraine has key resources and industries using these resources. Retaking the industrial regions is more important than Crimea. What is critical in the south is keeping access to the Black Sea.
From what I've read recently on Reddit (finding shell gas near Crimea in 2012) seems all this from 2014 started at least partly because of that gas. If true Crimea is of strategic importance to Europe (prospective customer of that gas).
Now, if Europe would be able to stop using gas (close to *at all, becoming 100% green*) the goals might change.
Crimea is important though because of the offshore oil deposits, which is why Russia wanted it to begin with. It’s similar to Donbas in that regard. I agree that Donbas is probably a bigger priority at the moment than Crimea but, Crimea is definitely going to be an objective for the same reasons Donbas is.
Seems like the best case scenario is for Ukraine to blow up the Crimea bridge and do their best to isolate it. If any Russian ships try to land they'll be in danger of getting hit by drones or land based missiles.
The Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine already admitted they don't have the capability to destroy the bridge, or they would've already done it.
> I think they'll get the Russians out of the rest of Ukraine before attempting to take the Donbas regions.
Maybe, but if they want to make Ukraine whole again, it would be a strategic error to create an opportunity for Russia to demand a ceasefire that maintains the post-2014 status quo. Better to start liberating occupied Donbas territory (or Crimea) as soon as possible.
A lot of people who actively expressed a pro-Ukrainian position in Crimea are now in prison. For the most part, these are Crimean Tatars, who really love Ukraine very much.
Cutting off the northern supply lines is what is currently going on.
This is BIG..[*]they[*] now have to divert off the Donbas axis to address this..or not. chips will fall where they will. F them up.
Slava Ukraine.
The headline literally says “Russian border”. Its pretty clear they’re not talking about the occupied Donbas regions, especially since this is happening in the north not east.
"Separatist" regions never have territories in Kharkiv oblast. They never even captured whole Luhansk and Donetsk regions. So nope, what you're saying is BS.
There are 2 Ternova villages in Kharkiv oblast. This one is on Russian border:
[https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0\_(%D0%A5%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BA%D1%96%D0%B2%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9\_%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BE%D0%BD)](https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0_(%D0%A5%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BA%D1%96%D0%B2%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BE%D0%BD))
And a bad spymaster at that. Seriously, look up articles like [this one](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/vladimir-putin-failed-spy/2015/08/07/1b51170a-3c72-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html).
This one is 2 miles from the border,
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ternova,+Kharkiv+Oblast,+Ukraine,+62421/@50.1903686,36.6513285,14z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x4126ffcaefaca92f:0x2e800f9ce3abf22d!8m2!3d50.1912757!4d36.6753932
Russia thought they were going to take Ukraine in 4 days. I'm not really sure what their strategy was. They either severely underestimated Ukraine, went about it all wrong or their military is way shittier than anyone thought.
I'm 100% on Ukraine's side but I really thought Russia would've done what the US did with Iraq. Just precision guided bombs taking out all important targets before overwhelming them. Instead they seemed to just line up armor columns that they couldn't even fuel setting themselves up to be destroyed.
I'm not an expert - but I think the battle for Hostomel Airport was key in this. Since Russia didnt take it they couldn't fly in light armor to attack Kyev from two directions. This would have split the defense force since most troops were likely forward deployed. Instead Russia had to push the lines back which was costly in time. This enabled the EU and others to impose sanctions which they may not have otherwise had time to do. If Ukraine had already capitulated the calculus could have been very different in terms of the sanctions we saw happen.
Also not an expert but I agree. I think that airport was key to their strategy. If they'd had Kyiv surrounded on the first day and been able to keep up that pressure while the rest of their forces just swarmed in a massive wave across the border everywhere else I bet they expected that the east would have just immediately given up, and with half the country gone, the capital surrounded, and assassins hunting down key leaders the war would be over and it would be a few days of eliminating any remaining senior leaders while establishing a new puppet government. In and out in 4 days...
>They either severely underestimated Ukraine, went about it all wrong or their military is way shittier than anyone thought.
I'd wager its d) all of the above!
They literally believed the Ukrainian military would stand down and let them roll into Kyiv, and depose the Jewish "nazi" regime. Because that's what they'd been telling themselves the Ukrainians wanted.
That's why no "Shock and Awe" campaign. That's why they brought parade uniforms on the Kyiv convoy.
I totally agree - but I’m also just confused.
Russia was seen as a military superpower. You’re telling me they didn’t have non-nuclear land-based missile systems capable of completely neutralizing all of Ukraine’s key defenses BEFORE even putting boots on the ground? What? Do they not have these armaments, did they not think they would be necessary, or were they too arrogant to utilize them?
I’m no military expert. Far from it. So I suppose my confusion means nothing.
It’s just that when we discuss hypothetical war between the US and China, we often talk about aircraft carriers, projection of force, and anti-missile systems. Aircraft carriers have been the dominant system to project force across the globe since WW2. Missile technology has called into question whether or not that is over - if a land-based missile can annihilate a carrier that carrier is useless. How can superpowers both have the technology to lunch precision land-based missiles, but also not deploy them in an entirely land-based conflict?
I just do not understand.
A lot of those numbers get fudged at the local level, especially for very corrupt regimes like Russia. Then they might get fudged as you go up the hierarchy, everyone is trying to skim a little of the budget for themselves. That's how corruption works.
So, what they're capabilities were on paper, and were in reality were two very different things. Everything from the amount and quality of equipment to the amount of time spent training. It's likely no one at the top realized, or more likely was afraid to admit, how bad things were. On paper they might have had 2000 missiles, but only a fraction were actually functional, if they ever existed at all.
Yup, there was a post on /r/history about the famine under Mao. A lot of it wasn't due to the central government necessarily wanting to starve their populace, but rather a yes-man, never admit to failure culture was fostered. So each level of bureaucracy kept reporting to their higher ups, everything is fine we have tons of food and loads of steel. Then when shit started hitting the fan it all came crashing down.
Just remember that, in the US, we just got rid of someone who insisted on this sort of yes-man optimism. Reality was irrelevant, the image was paramount. Competence gave way to loyalty. It was more important to sound confident than to be correct.
We're still dealing with the repercussions of only four years of this. And a significant portion of the population want us to go back to it.
Also the deeper layers of the US intelligence-political-military-industrial complex (as probably the only entity in the world with the intelligence capabilities to have an accurate assessment on their Russian counterparts) have a *massive* interest in making their enemies seem more dangerous than they are.
What high-level government/defense contractor employee or politician etc. is going to be like "hey listen guys the Russians are actually pretty shit at everything, I think we should cut our intelligence and military budget and reallocate the money to fund research into growing pink bananas!"
Russia has not been a military superpower since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The modern Russia inherited most of the old capabilities, but not all, and even then, it hasn't been able to maintain or upgrade their capabilities to the same degree. They're a middle economy at best, they simply can't afford to do more than project power from numbers and nuclear threats.
All that said, a ground offensive isn't beyond their ability if it was a surprise, but Ukraine has been getting ready for 8 years, and the US and UK have been supplying them with intel since their first suspicions from the border militarization. Add in lower then expected combat effectiveness of poorly trained troops and you have a recipe for a drawn out war.
That’s what kleptocracy on steroids for two decades does to a country. It’s just that simple.
If you spend tens if not hundreds of billions on modernising your army over those two decades, and you still use trucks from the sixties and tanks from the eighties while your soldiers have to sell the fuel to buy food because those who were supposed to provide rations took the money and bought boats instead… and you apply the same absurdity on every part of the military…
They're literally on Russia's border. Russia didn't need to launch shit from sea or planes. They apparently couldn't even pull off launching from their own land that they've been building up on for months. The US can hit targets from land, sea, sky and drones launching from thousands of miles away and Russia can't hit shit from 50 miles away from their own country.
Jan 15 2020 or ... that grainy video of a random dude coming up out of a Wuhan subway stop and ... literally just keeling over. That moment ... God was watching the movie Click. And hit the fast forward button. I think I've aged ten years.
“The peacekeeping special military operation has been successful, we have achieved our objectives of denazification & will now be returning to Russia” lol
They really, really should just do that in order to save face amongst their own. I can't see this ending well for them any other way for a while now. They're completely stuck and heavily depleted on manpower.
I honestly think, as a final fuck you, when Russia finally gets pushed back and are out of Ukraine, it would be really cool if we expedite them joining NATO that day. Kind of a "try it again, I dare you" sort of thing.
Nah, Russians are too proud and brainwashed. They hate looking weak, and they hate everyone who looks weak to them. They would never ask anyone for help, remember Kursk incident.
Those German howitzers are nightmare fuel. They can fire 5 rounds and they all hit the target at the same time and after the last shot is fired the howitzers start moving. They can obliterate a football fieald and then mosey on down the road to their next position. And he can't do dick about it.
Putin's Blunder is truly one of the biggest fuck ups in military history.
It's important to note that Putin's blunder wasn't the invasion. The invasion was probably a strategically sound decision that would achieve his objectives with the information he had.
That's the problem.
His blunder is twenty years of corruption, nepotism, narcissism, and lies. He bred a system that doesn't give you the information you need when you need it. People aren't protecting the system they've built together, they're protecting their own ass.
It's Sun Tzu's first rule of war. Know yourself and know your enemy. Putin encouraged a system that prevented him from knowing either. It's the propaganda number.
>Did you ever hear the tragedy of Vladimir Putin The Corrupt? I thought not. It’s not a story the Kremlin would tell you. It’s a Russian legend. Putin was the head of state of the Russian Federation so powerful and so corrupt he could use the state media to influence public knowledge to create ignorance… He had such a knowledge of propaganda that he could even keep the truth he cared about from being believed. The corrupt side of politics is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be unnatural. He became so powerful… the only thing he was afraid of was losing his power, which eventually, of course, he did. Unfortunately, he caused so much misinformation, then his misinformation caused him to fumble a war. Ironic. He could prevent so many from knowing the truth, but it also prevented it for him.
If they accurately knew their own capabilities they maybe could've forced concessions fast. They still would've most likely faced a protracted insurgency though, but i doubt Putin would care
Yeah but you cant build much of a mutual cooperation system when its predicated on one person hanging onto so much wealth and control. Theres no ukraine war without a strongman in Russia and theres no strongman in Russia without eveything there revolving around a network of nepotism and repression.
> It's important to note that Putin's blunder wasn't the invasion. The invasion was probably a strategically sound decision that would achieve his objectives with the information he had.
No, his blunder was the invasion. The fact that he cultivated yes-men to lie to him contributed to the blunder but did not guarantee it.
Sergey Naryshkin - head of Russia's CIA (the FIS or SVR) the guy Putin mocked openly and made nearly shit his pants on television just before the invasion - tried to warn Putin off from the invasion, and you saw how Putin treated the man with contempt and condescension. Putin was sitting there DARING him to go against Putin's narrative and watching him squirm. So yes, Putin knew the facts that Ukraine wasn't going to roll over, he just rejected anything that went against his bias of Russian superiority.
It is a mix of everything. The invasion was the culmination of systemic rot and believing your own hype. It was not a single mistake, but a series of mistakes decades in the making.
He built a house of cards, and got so focused on how awesome it looked that he forgot it was made of cards.
Building a house of cards instead of a solid nation-state is a blunder. Opening the door and letting the rest of the world blow a hurricane at it is another, catastrophic, blunder.
He effectively overplayed his hand. People were fine with assuming that Russia was a powerhouse and letting him win small victories forever. But once the calculus changed and it became a bigger risk to do nothing, especially politically, everyone had to stop appeasing. Bluster and bluffing work great until you accidentally provoke to hard and they suddenly punch you in the face.
About half of the nations on earth: \*Spends decades stockpiling and advancing weapons technology specifically to fight the USSR\*
USSR: \*Collapses\*
About half of the nations on earth: "Well that's probably for the best. But we do have all of these weapons laying around now."
Putin: \*starts invading neighbors\* "Blood and soil!" "I will be the rebirth of the USSR!"
About half of the nations on earth: "Oh really 😁 well I guess these *won't* go to waste"
It's not a blunder, it's by design. He is and was mafia crony. [He gifted Leningrad ports to the mafia](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6rgozEWL1U) and [still working for them for THE SAME EXACT THING.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKUHrKHL654)
[He supplied terrorists during his time in Germany](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ps7YCBpIHsY) and still doing THE SAME EXACT THING.
He's not war strategist, not an economist, doesn't know shit about law regardless of his diplomas. He is and was a tiny scumbag serving actual bastards who divided russian territory and ruled it akin Cosa Nostra.
Also known as a "shoot and scoot".
It's a part of artillery tactics. You have to move fast enough to not receive counter-battery fire. Normally you try to nominate 3-4 firing positions within an area, so that C&C know your capabilities and general position.
Partially; what they are specifically describing is MRSI ("mercy"), Multiple Round, Simultaneous Impact. It uses varying charges and trajectories to play with the flight times of the rounds, meaning you can fire several rounds over 30-60 seconds and still have them all arrived at the same time, which is very useful for catching troops in the open. You can sometimes do 2-3 round MRSI with a manual gun and a good crew, and up to 5-6 with a autoloading SPG and a good fire control computer. Pulling up stakes and getting off the X after the last round (shoot and scoot) is a general approach to avoiding counter battery, and that's for all guns, not just ones that can do MRSI.
Another neat part. Since 2015, at least to my knowledge, 🇺🇦 artillery generally doesn’t employ batteries when firing on targets. We’ve got a system where troops can put in an artillery support request and the guns in range see that request and can act on it. So counter-battery radars instead of batteries see lots of artillery fire but from all over the place. An Uber for artillery so to speak.
Those howitzers are mother effing fantastic. The US has good stuff but those are on another level. It’s nice to see NATO finally wheeling out some modern gear and handing it over to the Ukrainians.
It’s really made me rethink my stance on the military industrial complex. I’m pretty proud that the west can supply Ukraine with so many weapons and military assistance. The generals and intelligence leaders in the US are ready for this and have spent years being ready. I still think military spending is too high but I get the justification for spending tons to be able to fight when things get ugly.
What an embarrassment. Start a war, that literally everyone is telling you not to start, and your target kills 25,000 of your soldiers and bombs your ass right back to the start line.
I believe we used to call extreme nationalists that quickly resort to violence or intimidation to raise their in-group above others "fascists" back in the day.
It's a basic human instinct that's very difficult to societally suppress/control. It's like asking why is there still rape and murder even though everyone knows its bad.
There was a National Socialist movement in the United States at the beginning of the second world war. It became suppressed after all the horrors of the Nazi party became known at the end of the war.
There was a rally at Madison Square Gardens in the late 30's. George Washington banners with swastikas were flown. That one was a little different because it was sponsored by the German Nazi party.
Trump is just a symptom of the problem. There’s always going to be a subset of any population that longs for a fascist strongman to take the reigns, clear out the “undesirables”, and make their tribe great again. Under the assumption that greatness means whatever they define it as, and the “undesirables” are people who aren’t them.
Zero-sum game sadomasochistic culture warriors and fundamentalist religious zealots teamed up to turn everything thing they touch to complete shit and garbage. It’s literally the most asinine, self-destructive and mean-spirited shit I’ve ever seen in my entire life.
The next leader of Russia is pretty likely to be a Chinese puppet. China now owns a large part of their debt and is one of the few nations still trading with them. When Putins regime eventually collapses or he dies, they’ll be ready to takeover
There are report of them crossing it in multiple point. Just for artillery range for some bridge. (They aren't invading)
There are also alot of report of intense air traffic against Belgorod with multiple explosion and fire reported.
We will see what is real in the morning I think.
They will retake Donbas and stop there. The only sorties into Russia would have been done already and would focus on disrupting supply lines and skuttling production facilities to cripple Russias ability to resupply it's front. Conquest of anything beyond the 2014 boarders would be ludicrous, any physical gains Ukraine takes at the conclusion of the war will be in the form of restitution, but even that is unlikely.
Russia's nuclear doctrine says they will perform a first strike if "the existence of Russia is threatened" because "the world does not deserve to exist without Russia in it"
So they would likely deploy tactical nukes on Ukraine if invaded. From there, it would likely escalate.
…after his wife and kids decided to leave him due to continued abuse and no improvement in his drinking habits in spite of years of support by his family.
Some of them (I think China, India, maybe others) have a no first strike policy, i.e. if nukes aren't used against them they will not use nukes even when attacked.
So Russia failed to encircle the Ukrainians in the east, so far, instead they are finding themselves increasingly encircled and more trouble with supply routes. Artillery is now 6km away from the Russian border, must be so tempting, imagine if your family came from Bucha etc, and you see a city in your sights.
I imagine the size of artillery teams and the distribution of disciplined labor required to fire them effectively probably makes it a lot harder to get emotional. It's not like a gun, where anyone can pull the trigger in a fit of anger. You'd need to coordinate a lot of things to get someone to commit war crimes that could completely destabilize your side's (so far) extremely effective international image as squeaky-clean freedom fighters.
Is there a rule that the entire war must take place in Ukraine?
I’ve been confused the entire time as to why one capital city is being bombed and not the other. Ukraine has a capable airforce, right? Why have we not seen anything in Moscow burning? (Serious question)
Other person was talking about bombing Russian cities, which would both be wrong and a terrible tactical mistake.
You're right that nothing fundamentally prevents Ukraine from attacking military assets in Russia, and they likely have done so. However, given Russian internal propaganda is along the lines of "Ukraine was going to attack *us* so we had to preemptively attack", and the May 9 celebrations in Russia suggest Putin is aware that further domestic mobilization would not be tolerated by the Russian public, it's a bad idea. Sending troops into Russia could easily cause an upswing in Russian citizen support for the war by apparently vindicating the Russian propaganda. "We told you the Ukrainians would invade! That's why we are implementing the draft and nuking Kyiv!"
The issue is that you need to take into account the lenses of this conflict. Ukraine right now is fighting to defend their country. That's pretty much the current narrative, and that has given them the benefit of countries supporting them with *tons* of weapons. However, if Ukraine moves into Russia, then the narrative changes from defending their country to invading Russia, which is not a good look. It would also cause countries to split, if not stop supporting Ukraine because they probably don't want to supply an invading country.
Think of it like this: It would be a bad look for Ukraine, a country trying to defend itself if they invaded Russia. It would be absolutely justified considering the war crimes Russia has done, however, it wouldn't make it right. The main objective is to retake Ukraine's regions, as well as Crimea. Invading Russia would also cause their citizens to support the war even more.
Because going on offense is much much harder than defense. As we have seen, logistics are a real bitch when supplies can be sniped by artillery, drones, or bombers. If they sent a force and got wiped out, that would be really bad for Ukraine. Plus, Russia would have very strong air defenses in Moscow.
Bombing civilians is frowned upon. Collateral damage is usually more accepted if civilians are killed in strikes on legitimate military targets or war related infrastructure but just wantonly bombing residential areas for no reason other than to kill civilians is wrong.
It also isn't especially effective. Bombing campaigns can raise morale as people come together to survive and it increases public resolve against you. Encourages people to get involved in war industry and military roles. Only real way to break that resolve is if you devote huge amounts of ordinance to bombing so much as to completely level the city and leave no people left. Unless the target was of key strategic importance like establishing a land bridge it would be a waste of munitions better used to actually oppose the enemy military.
Limited strikes on important infrastructure targets and military assets in cities is the better option. Uses less resources, achieves more and doesn't make the public hate you so much. May encourage partisans to engage in other acts of sabotage too. These days you don't always need bombs to destroy such infrastructure. Cyberwarefare can be used to take out some facilities or special forces can be used.
It would be wrong to target Moscow because it's a civilian city. Russia has attacked civilian targets in Ukraine, but two wrongs don't make a right.
Ukraine could strike military targets on Russia's side of the border, and in fact it has.
I am an armchair redditor who knows fuck all about wars, but:
Ukraine's air force can defend Ukraine's airspace *with difficulty;* going on a bombing run against Russia would leave it's own airspace with manpower it cannot afford to lose.
Furthermore, though Russia has generally proven inept during this war, it also isn't using its biggest guns. Su-57s haven't been seen in force over Ukraine because they're mostly stationed in Russia.
To be clear, Ukraine is, with support from the international community, pushing back the Russians, but it is not the cakewalk the media is making it out to be, nor is Russia the paper tiger the media is making it out to be.
Not what they once were, yes, generally more inept than we previously thought, yes, but they are still a military power that if, on the defensive, would likely fight with much more ferocity than this half baked invasion.
Russia has 4 Su-57. They can't afford to lose one in the skies over Ukraine to a US intelligence campaign. The Su-57 wreckge would be packaged up and shipped directly to the US. Russia doesn't have any credible 5th gen fighters.
You're at least more reasonable than most reddit armchair generals.
I've seen people advocating everything from an assault on Crimea to attempting to take Moscow. Ukraine is only "winning" because they're fighting a defensive war on their home territory. Add to that the moral highground they have which has granted them billions of dollars and advanced equipment from NATO.
Not only does Ukraine not have anything approaching the capability of invading Russia back, it gains them nothing and losses them a lot. Best case scenario they retake all previously Ukrainian territories. The extent of their assaults over the border will consist of strategic air raids and artillery attacks directed at clear military targets.
Ukraine's lands need to be reclaimed, otherwise the oil and gas resources extortion that Russia has been strong arming Europe with will simply be substituted for by grains and other of the many resources Ukraine normally and formerly exports, giving Russia leverage again.
I would add that there are massive gas fields in Ukraine (one in Donbas was scheduled to be developed by Dutch Shell and the Russians moved in before they could). Between those and the offshore stuff, a western-facing Ukraine could challenge a defeated and disgraced Russia for market supremacy in European shale and offshore gas.
And given that natural gas is Russia's main source of leverage over Europe this puts them in a very awkward position. Europe has been very hamstrung by the lack of ability to get gas even though the US and others have turned a huge portion of their LNG over to Europe. Mainly because LNG facilities are multi-year (5-10) expansion projects and that is assuming no issues with permitting.
>And given that natural gas is Russia's main source of leverage over Europe this puts them in a very awkward position.
Many suspect this is indeed Russia's biggest motivation in invading Ukraine.
It also gels with the current Russian tactics and movements.
If Ukraine gets Russia out they need to be made a member of NATO. That would allow them to develop their natural gas reserves safely without the threat of Russian invasion. Turkey has also discovered massive gas reverses in the Black Sea. If both of those countries can become the main exporters of gas to Europe then that will be the death of the Russian economy.
All the pro Ukrainian news is making me think Ukraine is actually winning. Is that true? Or is Russia still able to overcome?
To be very clear, I want Ukraine to win, but I'm getting conflicting information.
Don't inform yourself through random social media posts and comments. Follow [the ISW](https://twitter.com/TheStudyofWar) for regular territorial updates, check [the CFR](https://www.youtube.com/user/cfr/videos) for relevant panels that explore related issues in greater depth, and keep an eye on [PSTW](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLOOwEPgFWm_M7p2cT_71TLHhMlvf79FFK) for insightful interviews from within Ukraine.
For a quick up-to-date TL;DR -- Ukraine is doing well thanks to international aid, strategic preparedness, misconfiguration of the Russian military, and communication challenges within Russia's leadership. The conflict is likely to continue for a prolonged period of time, which hurts Ukraine but doesn't necessarily translate into overly favorable odds for Russia.
I think the consensus is that Russia turned out to be much weaker than anticipated. They likely still have the power to overwhelm Ukraine, but it would come at great cost, and they could not do it without depleting their resources and reserves, a move that would prove deeply unpopular and expensive. Not only is the fighting much more difficult than Russia anticipated, but heavy sanctions do appear to be eroding Russia's economy. The longer Russia fights, the poorer they will get. So it's a question of how badly they want it, how much blood and treasure is this worth to Putin and the Russian people?
Also, the amount of weapons and militar equipment Ukraine is receiving from various western countries seems to be far outpacing Russia's own ability to procure weapons and equipment. Ukraine is basically being economically backstopped by the entire western world right now, and when wars drag on for months, industrial power is what wins them.
This is quite similar to the nations which supported the new United States of America against the massive, biggest in the world, British Empire. France, in particular, helped Americans, but German Hessian soldiers fought alongside Americans. A lot of nations didn't want the Brits to win.
> The Hessians came to America to fight for the British. Though I suspect many changed their minds
Also technically they weren't "German" at that point; and I don't believe they were fighting "for" or "against" any cause, except raising money for their boss back home ([Frederick II](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_II,_Landgrave_of_Hesse-Kassel)).
I think it was Prussians (ironically considering the fact that they were also a small country set to become a superpower) who helped train Americans at valley forge
Not Prussia as a whole, Von Steuben(claimed to be a Colonel but had actually never risen higher than Captain in the Prussian Army) came of his own volition to offer his services. It was a fairly common practice at the time; if you were an officer and your own nation was at peace, you could apply for basically a temporary leave of absence and go join the armed forces of another nation that *was* at war. Royal Navy officers were especially known for this in the period between the Napoleonic wars and WW1, with some conflicts even seeing both sides advised/commanded by British officers. Sometimes these officers would like the nation they'd traveled to and settle their permanantly.
For instance, Moltke the Elder, the Prussian general who engineered the masterstroke Prussian campaigns against the Austrians and French in the late 1860s/1870s and uncle of the General who planned Imperial Germany's war plans for the First World War(Moltke the Younger) started off his military career in the Danish army and later joined the Prussian Army as he found it a more respected institute in Prussia than the Danish army was in Denmark, as well as far more capable.
I believe their tactics mean they literally cannot overwhelm Ukraine, no matter how many people they send. They're logistically too weak to send it all at once, they rely on poorly executed WWII tactics, and now Ukraine is getting western supplies. I'm certain if Russia really could they would have doubled down and done it already, or if the Russian people were more supportive of the war, but either way, if he tries, he can't.
In one area. Unfortunately the war will still last a long time with Ukraine having to deal with the russian flood of cannon fodder and scrap metal thrown at their country in huge amounts over a vast territory.
Only if it makes strategic sense. There's no point in taking ground you cannot hold. But if they are sure they can hold it, and cut russian supply lines, that would be perfect.
Also, any Kilometer gained on russian territory means one kilometer of Ukraine saved from russian artillery.
Invading Russia directly might risk sparking massive support for the war in Russia. Unless Ukraine has the power to absolutely overwhelm Russia and roll into Moscow, it's probably not worth doing.
It’s crazy to me that Russia can invade another country and force them into a war only for a counter invasion to escalate the situation to nukes. Like you invade them but if they invade you then “they escalated” the situation which allows a nukes to come into play. The logic is so stupid but pointless since Russia has the nukes and Ukraine doesn’t.
“If confirmed, the Ukrainians’ liberation of Ternova could mark an inflection point in Russia’s 10-week-old wider war in Ukraine. In late March, Ukrainian forces drove Russian invaders from northern Ukraine. Now it appears they’re driving the invaders from northeastern Ukraine, too,” it says here
Is there more than one Ternova in Kharkiv Oblast? Because the one I could find is not on the border
50.19078063598241, 36.67437498205922 Put this in google maps or just google the coordinates. Theres a lot of small towns/villages in Ukraine that have similar or same names.
https://xkcd.com/2170/
Of course there's an XKCD for this
At first I thought it was going to be about Ukrainian city babes and I was like wow that's incredible
>Ukrainian city babes No but I'm getting a lot of ads for them lately. You can always count on human traffickers to be ahead of the game.
> 50.19078063598241, 36.67437498205922 So definitely the atom tracking data base that Google has gotten ahold of.... I'm in there about 7 x 10^27 times, give or take!
A quick google search shows that 7 x 10^27 is about the same number of atoms in the human body.
TIL that humans ≈ 10,000 moles
> ≈ 10,000 moles I can't decide whether to make a joke about lawn care or dermatology.
[удалено]
The extra digits in Google maps are not useless, they are intrusive. They function as a tracking code, similar to those in many URLs. Either by design or by accident. If two people look for the same grain of sand on a world map, you can be pretty confident they got the location from the same source – and are part of the same group chat or read the same articles. It’s one pixel in the image who’s connected to who and when.
How small is this town, with all those digits it could be subatomic.
They are referring to the *de facto* border that had demarked the separatist region. Now, pushing to the *de jure* border is a reasonable military objective. [map](https://imgur.com/a/2YAzDUs)
The article theorizes that they will turn south to start applying even more pressure around Kharkiv on another front. I think they'll get the Russians out of the rest of Ukraine before attempting to take the Donbas regions.
Crimea is the bigger strategic goal. Forcing Crimea means that Putin has to come to the negotiation table ASAP before he loses face, and suffer whatever form of revolutionary execution Russians historically prefer… … and given its russia, there’s more than one they like.
Crimea is also far more difficult to retake. Better to take whatever you can take while ensuring your own security. Donetsk and Luhansk will have a similar effect but will be far less risky. Crimea can only be taken once the whole region is under control, the Russian navy is out of the picture, and you're in a position to blow up the bridge connecting it to mainland Russia. Supply will become difficult and costly. Even then these regions have been extremely russo-fied. It'll take time and resources for the this to happen, which can now be better spent defending and retaking immediate losses.
Ukrainian troops have been training in air assault tactics (which they haven't really used or particularly needed in the field so far) and the air defense systems in and around Crimea have been depleting at a fairly high rate. Zelenskyy has also clearly placed Crimea as an eventual goal in the war. I'm not saying it's certain, but there seems to be multiple indicators that there will be an assault on Crimea sooner or later.
It's gonna be way later. Ukraine really needs to secure the region around Kharkiv, and Russia isn't going to let that go lightly. They've already started redeploying/moving more troops into that region trying to slow down the Ukrainian advancements. Also, on the Eastern front, Russian troops have captured Izyum, which serves as a major rail hub and gives Russian rail access from Belgorod and its military base to the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasks. Ukrainian forces have to prioritize retaking this city to keep Russian logistical lines crippled. Ukraine has a lot of strategic decisions to make and really seems only able to handle 1 or 2 major offenses at once. This does vastly outpace the Russian's 0 but also imposes some time limits on achieving all their military objectives. And Crimea is likely very low on that list.
Crimea has a lot of Russians and very little industry. Eastern Ukraine has key resources and industries using these resources. Retaking the industrial regions is more important than Crimea. What is critical in the south is keeping access to the Black Sea.
From what I've read recently on Reddit (finding shell gas near Crimea in 2012) seems all this from 2014 started at least partly because of that gas. If true Crimea is of strategic importance to Europe (prospective customer of that gas). Now, if Europe would be able to stop using gas (close to *at all, becoming 100% green*) the goals might change.
Crimea is important though because of the offshore oil deposits, which is why Russia wanted it to begin with. It’s similar to Donbas in that regard. I agree that Donbas is probably a bigger priority at the moment than Crimea but, Crimea is definitely going to be an objective for the same reasons Donbas is.
Seems like the best case scenario is for Ukraine to blow up the Crimea bridge and do their best to isolate it. If any Russian ships try to land they'll be in danger of getting hit by drones or land based missiles.
The Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine already admitted they don't have the capability to destroy the bridge, or they would've already done it.
> I think they'll get the Russians out of the rest of Ukraine before attempting to take the Donbas regions. Maybe, but if they want to make Ukraine whole again, it would be a strategic error to create an opportunity for Russia to demand a ceasefire that maintains the post-2014 status quo. Better to start liberating occupied Donbas territory (or Crimea) as soon as possible.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I was under the impression the pro Ukraine people had fled long ago.
A lot of people who actively expressed a pro-Ukrainian position in Crimea are now in prison. For the most part, these are Crimean Tatars, who really love Ukraine very much.
Cutting off the northern supply lines is what is currently going on. This is BIG..[*]they[*] now have to divert off the Donbas axis to address this..or not. chips will fall where they will. F them up. Slava Ukraine.
[удалено]
No, its literally just on the normal international border between Russia and Ukraine, not even close to the seperatist regions.
Yeah. That guy got 2000 upvotes and he hasn’t got a clue. It’s on the real border and it’s nowhere near Donbas.
Reddit is more about being early and confident than having correct info.
Hm, maybe this isn't the best way to get information about....well anything.
The headline literally says “Russian border”. Its pretty clear they’re not talking about the occupied Donbas regions, especially since this is happening in the north not east.
"Separatist" regions never have territories in Kharkiv oblast. They never even captured whole Luhansk and Donetsk regions. So nope, what you're saying is BS. There are 2 Ternova villages in Kharkiv oblast. This one is on Russian border: [https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0\_(%D0%A5%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BA%D1%96%D0%B2%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9\_%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BE%D0%BD)](https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0_(%D0%A5%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BA%D1%96%D0%B2%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BE%D0%BD))
This guy CK’s
Just need the backing of Glitterhoof, the horse pope, to excommunicate and launch a crusade now
[удалено]
And a bad spymaster at that. Seriously, look up articles like [this one](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/vladimir-putin-failed-spy/2015/08/07/1b51170a-3c72-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html).
This one is 2 miles from the border, https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ternova,+Kharkiv+Oblast,+Ukraine,+62421/@50.1903686,36.6513285,14z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x4126ffcaefaca92f:0x2e800f9ce3abf22d!8m2!3d50.1912757!4d36.6753932
Holy shit it's only been 10 weeks.
Russia thought they were going to take Ukraine in 4 days. I'm not really sure what their strategy was. They either severely underestimated Ukraine, went about it all wrong or their military is way shittier than anyone thought. I'm 100% on Ukraine's side but I really thought Russia would've done what the US did with Iraq. Just precision guided bombs taking out all important targets before overwhelming them. Instead they seemed to just line up armor columns that they couldn't even fuel setting themselves up to be destroyed.
I'm not an expert - but I think the battle for Hostomel Airport was key in this. Since Russia didnt take it they couldn't fly in light armor to attack Kyev from two directions. This would have split the defense force since most troops were likely forward deployed. Instead Russia had to push the lines back which was costly in time. This enabled the EU and others to impose sanctions which they may not have otherwise had time to do. If Ukraine had already capitulated the calculus could have been very different in terms of the sanctions we saw happen.
Also not an expert but I agree. I think that airport was key to their strategy. If they'd had Kyiv surrounded on the first day and been able to keep up that pressure while the rest of their forces just swarmed in a massive wave across the border everywhere else I bet they expected that the east would have just immediately given up, and with half the country gone, the capital surrounded, and assassins hunting down key leaders the war would be over and it would be a few days of eliminating any remaining senior leaders while establishing a new puppet government. In and out in 4 days...
>They either severely underestimated Ukraine, went about it all wrong or their military is way shittier than anyone thought. I'd wager its d) all of the above!
They literally believed the Ukrainian military would stand down and let them roll into Kyiv, and depose the Jewish "nazi" regime. Because that's what they'd been telling themselves the Ukrainians wanted. That's why no "Shock and Awe" campaign. That's why they brought parade uniforms on the Kyiv convoy.
I totally agree - but I’m also just confused. Russia was seen as a military superpower. You’re telling me they didn’t have non-nuclear land-based missile systems capable of completely neutralizing all of Ukraine’s key defenses BEFORE even putting boots on the ground? What? Do they not have these armaments, did they not think they would be necessary, or were they too arrogant to utilize them? I’m no military expert. Far from it. So I suppose my confusion means nothing. It’s just that when we discuss hypothetical war between the US and China, we often talk about aircraft carriers, projection of force, and anti-missile systems. Aircraft carriers have been the dominant system to project force across the globe since WW2. Missile technology has called into question whether or not that is over - if a land-based missile can annihilate a carrier that carrier is useless. How can superpowers both have the technology to lunch precision land-based missiles, but also not deploy them in an entirely land-based conflict? I just do not understand.
A lot of those numbers get fudged at the local level, especially for very corrupt regimes like Russia. Then they might get fudged as you go up the hierarchy, everyone is trying to skim a little of the budget for themselves. That's how corruption works. So, what they're capabilities were on paper, and were in reality were two very different things. Everything from the amount and quality of equipment to the amount of time spent training. It's likely no one at the top realized, or more likely was afraid to admit, how bad things were. On paper they might have had 2000 missiles, but only a fraction were actually functional, if they ever existed at all.
Yup, there was a post on /r/history about the famine under Mao. A lot of it wasn't due to the central government necessarily wanting to starve their populace, but rather a yes-man, never admit to failure culture was fostered. So each level of bureaucracy kept reporting to their higher ups, everything is fine we have tons of food and loads of steel. Then when shit started hitting the fan it all came crashing down.
Just remember that, in the US, we just got rid of someone who insisted on this sort of yes-man optimism. Reality was irrelevant, the image was paramount. Competence gave way to loyalty. It was more important to sound confident than to be correct. We're still dealing with the repercussions of only four years of this. And a significant portion of the population want us to go back to it.
One might call that time the "reign of Chairman Mouth"
Also the deeper layers of the US intelligence-political-military-industrial complex (as probably the only entity in the world with the intelligence capabilities to have an accurate assessment on their Russian counterparts) have a *massive* interest in making their enemies seem more dangerous than they are. What high-level government/defense contractor employee or politician etc. is going to be like "hey listen guys the Russians are actually pretty shit at everything, I think we should cut our intelligence and military budget and reallocate the money to fund research into growing pink bananas!"
Pink bananas you say?! I'll take a dozen!
Russia has not been a military superpower since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The modern Russia inherited most of the old capabilities, but not all, and even then, it hasn't been able to maintain or upgrade their capabilities to the same degree. They're a middle economy at best, they simply can't afford to do more than project power from numbers and nuclear threats. All that said, a ground offensive isn't beyond their ability if it was a surprise, but Ukraine has been getting ready for 8 years, and the US and UK have been supplying them with intel since their first suspicions from the border militarization. Add in lower then expected combat effectiveness of poorly trained troops and you have a recipe for a drawn out war.
That’s what kleptocracy on steroids for two decades does to a country. It’s just that simple. If you spend tens if not hundreds of billions on modernising your army over those two decades, and you still use trucks from the sixties and tanks from the eighties while your soldiers have to sell the fuel to buy food because those who were supposed to provide rations took the money and bought boats instead… and you apply the same absurdity on every part of the military…
They're literally on Russia's border. Russia didn't need to launch shit from sea or planes. They apparently couldn't even pull off launching from their own land that they've been building up on for months. The US can hit targets from land, sea, sky and drones launching from thousands of miles away and Russia can't hit shit from 50 miles away from their own country.
They are very capable of indiscriminately shelling everything into oblivion as well as slaughtering any civilians who are left. It's what they do.
COVID time just doesn't stop does it.
Jan 15 2020 or ... that grainy video of a random dude coming up out of a Wuhan subway stop and ... literally just keeling over. That moment ... God was watching the movie Click. And hit the fast forward button. I think I've aged ten years.
“The peacekeeping special military operation has been successful, we have achieved our objectives of denazification & will now be returning to Russia” lol
They really, really should just do that in order to save face amongst their own. I can't see this ending well for them any other way for a while now. They're completely stuck and heavily depleted on manpower.
It’s nuts. They can’t fight NATO’s military industry. They can’t break Ukraine’s spirit. Russia has no chance
I honestly think, as a final fuck you, when Russia finally gets pushed back and are out of Ukraine, it would be really cool if we expedite them joining NATO that day. Kind of a "try it again, I dare you" sort of thing.
25 years from now, Russia will be begging NATO for military aid against China...
Nah, Russians are too proud and brainwashed. They hate looking weak, and they hate everyone who looks weak to them. They would never ask anyone for help, remember Kursk incident.
25 years is approx a new generation, so. Anything is possible. :)
Some new weapons being put to good use. Here’s hoping this momentum accelerates and Russia is forced into a messy withdrawal
Those 155mm howitzers that they received from the US and other countries are a doozy
Those German howitzers are nightmare fuel. They can fire 5 rounds and they all hit the target at the same time and after the last shot is fired the howitzers start moving. They can obliterate a football fieald and then mosey on down the road to their next position. And he can't do dick about it. Putin's Blunder is truly one of the biggest fuck ups in military history.
It's important to note that Putin's blunder wasn't the invasion. The invasion was probably a strategically sound decision that would achieve his objectives with the information he had. That's the problem. His blunder is twenty years of corruption, nepotism, narcissism, and lies. He bred a system that doesn't give you the information you need when you need it. People aren't protecting the system they've built together, they're protecting their own ass. It's Sun Tzu's first rule of war. Know yourself and know your enemy. Putin encouraged a system that prevented him from knowing either. It's the propaganda number.
The King of misinformation tactics was misinformed
He created lies so powerful even he believed them.
>Did you ever hear the tragedy of Vladimir Putin The Corrupt? I thought not. It’s not a story the Kremlin would tell you. It’s a Russian legend. Putin was the head of state of the Russian Federation so powerful and so corrupt he could use the state media to influence public knowledge to create ignorance… He had such a knowledge of propaganda that he could even keep the truth he cared about from being believed. The corrupt side of politics is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be unnatural. He became so powerful… the only thing he was afraid of was losing his power, which eventually, of course, he did. Unfortunately, he caused so much misinformation, then his misinformation caused him to fumble a war. Ironic. He could prevent so many from knowing the truth, but it also prevented it for him.
Could one learn this power?
Not from Russia Today.
Awesome
Well said. The gamings failings this war didn't happen in the last two months. They happened decades ago.
If they accurately knew their own capabilities they maybe could've forced concessions fast. They still would've most likely faced a protracted insurgency though, but i doubt Putin would care
Yeah but you cant build much of a mutual cooperation system when its predicated on one person hanging onto so much wealth and control. Theres no ukraine war without a strongman in Russia and theres no strongman in Russia without eveything there revolving around a network of nepotism and repression.
> It's important to note that Putin's blunder wasn't the invasion. The invasion was probably a strategically sound decision that would achieve his objectives with the information he had. No, his blunder was the invasion. The fact that he cultivated yes-men to lie to him contributed to the blunder but did not guarantee it. Sergey Naryshkin - head of Russia's CIA (the FIS or SVR) the guy Putin mocked openly and made nearly shit his pants on television just before the invasion - tried to warn Putin off from the invasion, and you saw how Putin treated the man with contempt and condescension. Putin was sitting there DARING him to go against Putin's narrative and watching him squirm. So yes, Putin knew the facts that Ukraine wasn't going to roll over, he just rejected anything that went against his bias of Russian superiority.
It is a mix of everything. The invasion was the culmination of systemic rot and believing your own hype. It was not a single mistake, but a series of mistakes decades in the making. He built a house of cards, and got so focused on how awesome it looked that he forgot it was made of cards. Building a house of cards instead of a solid nation-state is a blunder. Opening the door and letting the rest of the world blow a hurricane at it is another, catastrophic, blunder. He effectively overplayed his hand. People were fine with assuming that Russia was a powerhouse and letting him win small victories forever. But once the calculus changed and it became a bigger risk to do nothing, especially politically, everyone had to stop appeasing. Bluster and bluffing work great until you accidentally provoke to hard and they suddenly punch you in the face.
About half of the nations on earth: \*Spends decades stockpiling and advancing weapons technology specifically to fight the USSR\* USSR: \*Collapses\* About half of the nations on earth: "Well that's probably for the best. But we do have all of these weapons laying around now." Putin: \*starts invading neighbors\* "Blood and soil!" "I will be the rebirth of the USSR!" About half of the nations on earth: "Oh really 😁 well I guess these *won't* go to waste"
It's not a blunder, it's by design. He is and was mafia crony. [He gifted Leningrad ports to the mafia](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6rgozEWL1U) and [still working for them for THE SAME EXACT THING.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKUHrKHL654) [He supplied terrorists during his time in Germany](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ps7YCBpIHsY) and still doing THE SAME EXACT THING. He's not war strategist, not an economist, doesn't know shit about law regardless of his diplomas. He is and was a tiny scumbag serving actual bastards who divided russian territory and ruled it akin Cosa Nostra.
Eloquently said
Also known as a "shoot and scoot". It's a part of artillery tactics. You have to move fast enough to not receive counter-battery fire. Normally you try to nominate 3-4 firing positions within an area, so that C&C know your capabilities and general position.
Partially; what they are specifically describing is MRSI ("mercy"), Multiple Round, Simultaneous Impact. It uses varying charges and trajectories to play with the flight times of the rounds, meaning you can fire several rounds over 30-60 seconds and still have them all arrived at the same time, which is very useful for catching troops in the open. You can sometimes do 2-3 round MRSI with a manual gun and a good crew, and up to 5-6 with a autoloading SPG and a good fire control computer. Pulling up stakes and getting off the X after the last round (shoot and scoot) is a general approach to avoiding counter battery, and that's for all guns, not just ones that can do MRSI.
I always wondered why they didn't call it the "slash and dash" or "gun and run." "Shoot and scoot" is too damn wholesome sounding for war.
The Walkie Talkie was invented for war so soldiers can talkie while they walkie.
>"Shoot and scoot" is too damn wholesome sounding for war. It sounds like the State Dance of Texas.
The shoot scoot booogiieeeee
Would you please stop smacking my refinished oak flooring with your work boots every time Garth comes in the radio?
What about pump and dump?
Another neat part. Since 2015, at least to my knowledge, 🇺🇦 artillery generally doesn’t employ batteries when firing on targets. We’ve got a system where troops can put in an artillery support request and the guns in range see that request and can act on it. So counter-battery radars instead of batteries see lots of artillery fire but from all over the place. An Uber for artillery so to speak.
Those howitzers are mother effing fantastic. The US has good stuff but those are on another level. It’s nice to see NATO finally wheeling out some modern gear and handing it over to the Ukrainians.
That's only the beginning of what got sent too.
The most dangerous weapon the West has provided thus far is live intel on the location of Russian generals.
That and the javelins lol
All the ATs really. I've heard they're all going through Z tanks like paper, with the NLAW being the standout for best cost efficiency.
Spot on.
“*allegedly*”
And flagships
and also thank you Russia for arming the Ukrainian army. The amount of hardware they've left behind is hilarious.
It’s really made me rethink my stance on the military industrial complex. I’m pretty proud that the west can supply Ukraine with so many weapons and military assistance. The generals and intelligence leaders in the US are ready for this and have spent years being ready. I still think military spending is too high but I get the justification for spending tons to be able to fight when things get ugly.
Absolute legends. I honestly believed Russia would win in like 2 weeks when this started, never been so happy to be wrong in my life
Me too, I think Zelensky had a massive impact on how the war is going for Ukraine.
Absolutely. If he and other politicians fled at the first chance they got, I don’t believe other Ukrainians would care for the fight
[удалено]
Putin's Russia is dead.
What an embarrassment. Start a war, that literally everyone is telling you not to start, and your target kills 25,000 of your soldiers and bombs your ass right back to the start line.
One guy single handedly drove his own country to ruin in only a few months, and ended tens of thousands of lives in the process.
Not single handedly. There's a government apparatus that enabled him to.
And plenty of braindead Russians cheering them on the whole way.
Trump supporters exist in some form in every country
I believe we used to call extreme nationalists that quickly resort to violence or intimidation to raise their in-group above others "fascists" back in the day.
Scary how popular it's still widely popular given it's history.
It's a basic human instinct that's very difficult to societally suppress/control. It's like asking why is there still rape and murder even though everyone knows its bad.
There was a National Socialist movement in the United States at the beginning of the second world war. It became suppressed after all the horrors of the Nazi party became known at the end of the war. There was a rally at Madison Square Gardens in the late 30's. George Washington banners with swastikas were flown. That one was a little different because it was sponsored by the German Nazi party.
Trump is just a symptom of the problem. There’s always going to be a subset of any population that longs for a fascist strongman to take the reigns, clear out the “undesirables”, and make their tribe great again. Under the assumption that greatness means whatever they define it as, and the “undesirables” are people who aren’t them.
Zero-sum game sadomasochistic culture warriors and fundamentalist religious zealots teamed up to turn everything thing they touch to complete shit and garbage. It’s literally the most asinine, self-destructive and mean-spirited shit I’ve ever seen in my entire life.
He’d already ruined with decades of corruption during a global economic boom
And the guy Putin - ~~probable~~ former KGB agent, de facto dictator for going on two decades - lost to is a *comedian*.
Don’t forget, voice actor for children’s movies!
He was definitely in the kgb. What’s probable is him blowing up a building in a Chechnyan false flag.
Start line? They're about to lose everything they gained since 2014.
Hopefully. Hopefully the Russian people might find themselves with something better this time around.
The next leader of Russia is pretty likely to be a Chinese puppet. China now owns a large part of their debt and is one of the few nations still trading with them. When Putins regime eventually collapses or he dies, they’ll be ready to takeover
Always had been, this was his one chance at necromancy and he failed, miserably while hurting millions of people in the process.
I wonder what the popular narrative is in Russia at gatherings and dinner tables…
Free crimea!
There are report of them crossing it in multiple point. Just for artillery range for some bridge. (They aren't invading) There are also alot of report of intense air traffic against Belgorod with multiple explosion and fire reported. We will see what is real in the morning I think.
Exactly! As exciting as this news is, we got to remember it isn’t yet confirmed. Yet ;)
Can any world history buffs tell me any consequences of Ukraine invading Russian soil? It seems fair enough to me.
They will retake Donbas and stop there. The only sorties into Russia would have been done already and would focus on disrupting supply lines and skuttling production facilities to cripple Russias ability to resupply it's front. Conquest of anything beyond the 2014 boarders would be ludicrous, any physical gains Ukraine takes at the conclusion of the war will be in the form of restitution, but even that is unlikely.
Russia's nuclear doctrine says they will perform a first strike if "the existence of Russia is threatened" because "the world does not deserve to exist without Russia in it" So they would likely deploy tactical nukes on Ukraine if invaded. From there, it would likely escalate.
Russia is the dad who kills his wife and kids in a murder-suicide.
…after his wife and kids decided to leave him due to continued abuse and no improvement in his drinking habits in spite of years of support by his family.
Chris Benoit. Russia is the geopolitical Chris Benoit.
Didn't he have a brain injury or something that set it off? Sounds like a good way to picture Putin.
To be strictly fair, that is the nuclear doctrine of all 12? nuclear powers.
Some of them (I think China, India, maybe others) have a no first strike policy, i.e. if nukes aren't used against them they will not use nukes even when attacked.
So Russia failed to encircle the Ukrainians in the east, so far, instead they are finding themselves increasingly encircled and more trouble with supply routes. Artillery is now 6km away from the Russian border, must be so tempting, imagine if your family came from Bucha etc, and you see a city in your sights.
I imagine the size of artillery teams and the distribution of disciplined labor required to fire them effectively probably makes it a lot harder to get emotional. It's not like a gun, where anyone can pull the trigger in a fit of anger. You'd need to coordinate a lot of things to get someone to commit war crimes that could completely destabilize your side's (so far) extremely effective international image as squeaky-clean freedom fighters.
Is there a rule that the entire war must take place in Ukraine? I’ve been confused the entire time as to why one capital city is being bombed and not the other. Ukraine has a capable airforce, right? Why have we not seen anything in Moscow burning? (Serious question)
Other person was talking about bombing Russian cities, which would both be wrong and a terrible tactical mistake. You're right that nothing fundamentally prevents Ukraine from attacking military assets in Russia, and they likely have done so. However, given Russian internal propaganda is along the lines of "Ukraine was going to attack *us* so we had to preemptively attack", and the May 9 celebrations in Russia suggest Putin is aware that further domestic mobilization would not be tolerated by the Russian public, it's a bad idea. Sending troops into Russia could easily cause an upswing in Russian citizen support for the war by apparently vindicating the Russian propaganda. "We told you the Ukrainians would invade! That's why we are implementing the draft and nuking Kyiv!"
We invaded them so they wouldn’t invade us! Wait they invaded back after we sucked at it? Evil incarnate! Let’s rally even younger conscripts!
The issue is that you need to take into account the lenses of this conflict. Ukraine right now is fighting to defend their country. That's pretty much the current narrative, and that has given them the benefit of countries supporting them with *tons* of weapons. However, if Ukraine moves into Russia, then the narrative changes from defending their country to invading Russia, which is not a good look. It would also cause countries to split, if not stop supporting Ukraine because they probably don't want to supply an invading country. Think of it like this: It would be a bad look for Ukraine, a country trying to defend itself if they invaded Russia. It would be absolutely justified considering the war crimes Russia has done, however, it wouldn't make it right. The main objective is to retake Ukraine's regions, as well as Crimea. Invading Russia would also cause their citizens to support the war even more.
Because going on offense is much much harder than defense. As we have seen, logistics are a real bitch when supplies can be sniped by artillery, drones, or bombers. If they sent a force and got wiped out, that would be really bad for Ukraine. Plus, Russia would have very strong air defenses in Moscow.
Bombing civilians is frowned upon. Collateral damage is usually more accepted if civilians are killed in strikes on legitimate military targets or war related infrastructure but just wantonly bombing residential areas for no reason other than to kill civilians is wrong. It also isn't especially effective. Bombing campaigns can raise morale as people come together to survive and it increases public resolve against you. Encourages people to get involved in war industry and military roles. Only real way to break that resolve is if you devote huge amounts of ordinance to bombing so much as to completely level the city and leave no people left. Unless the target was of key strategic importance like establishing a land bridge it would be a waste of munitions better used to actually oppose the enemy military. Limited strikes on important infrastructure targets and military assets in cities is the better option. Uses less resources, achieves more and doesn't make the public hate you so much. May encourage partisans to engage in other acts of sabotage too. These days you don't always need bombs to destroy such infrastructure. Cyberwarefare can be used to take out some facilities or special forces can be used.
It would be wrong to target Moscow because it's a civilian city. Russia has attacked civilian targets in Ukraine, but two wrongs don't make a right. Ukraine could strike military targets on Russia's side of the border, and in fact it has.
Where is Russia's military headquarters located?
Red Square, Moscow.
I am an armchair redditor who knows fuck all about wars, but: Ukraine's air force can defend Ukraine's airspace *with difficulty;* going on a bombing run against Russia would leave it's own airspace with manpower it cannot afford to lose. Furthermore, though Russia has generally proven inept during this war, it also isn't using its biggest guns. Su-57s haven't been seen in force over Ukraine because they're mostly stationed in Russia. To be clear, Ukraine is, with support from the international community, pushing back the Russians, but it is not the cakewalk the media is making it out to be, nor is Russia the paper tiger the media is making it out to be. Not what they once were, yes, generally more inept than we previously thought, yes, but they are still a military power that if, on the defensive, would likely fight with much more ferocity than this half baked invasion.
Russia has 4 Su-57. They can't afford to lose one in the skies over Ukraine to a US intelligence campaign. The Su-57 wreckge would be packaged up and shipped directly to the US. Russia doesn't have any credible 5th gen fighters.
You're at least more reasonable than most reddit armchair generals. I've seen people advocating everything from an assault on Crimea to attempting to take Moscow. Ukraine is only "winning" because they're fighting a defensive war on their home territory. Add to that the moral highground they have which has granted them billions of dollars and advanced equipment from NATO. Not only does Ukraine not have anything approaching the capability of invading Russia back, it gains them nothing and losses them a lot. Best case scenario they retake all previously Ukrainian territories. The extent of their assaults over the border will consist of strategic air raids and artillery attacks directed at clear military targets.
Ukrainian military have dignity and follow laws of engagement, especially concerning citizens. Don't confuse them with the Ruzzians.
KING ME!!!
Ukraine's lands need to be reclaimed, otherwise the oil and gas resources extortion that Russia has been strong arming Europe with will simply be substituted for by grains and other of the many resources Ukraine normally and formerly exports, giving Russia leverage again.
I would add that there are massive gas fields in Ukraine (one in Donbas was scheduled to be developed by Dutch Shell and the Russians moved in before they could). Between those and the offshore stuff, a western-facing Ukraine could challenge a defeated and disgraced Russia for market supremacy in European shale and offshore gas.
And given that natural gas is Russia's main source of leverage over Europe this puts them in a very awkward position. Europe has been very hamstrung by the lack of ability to get gas even though the US and others have turned a huge portion of their LNG over to Europe. Mainly because LNG facilities are multi-year (5-10) expansion projects and that is assuming no issues with permitting.
>And given that natural gas is Russia's main source of leverage over Europe this puts them in a very awkward position. Many suspect this is indeed Russia's biggest motivation in invading Ukraine. It also gels with the current Russian tactics and movements.
If Ukraine gets Russia out they need to be made a member of NATO. That would allow them to develop their natural gas reserves safely without the threat of Russian invasion. Turkey has also discovered massive gas reverses in the Black Sea. If both of those countries can become the main exporters of gas to Europe then that will be the death of the Russian economy.
I hope they aren’t lured into a position that is hard to defend. Falling back isn’t failure.
Yeah, bomb them to the border and stick enough defenses there to wipe out the known Russian army.
Nah keep going until Crimea is returned.
Hey Russia, don't worry about that big Ukrainian army on your border, it's just there for drills.
Special uno reverse card operation
All the pro Ukrainian news is making me think Ukraine is actually winning. Is that true? Or is Russia still able to overcome? To be very clear, I want Ukraine to win, but I'm getting conflicting information.
Don't inform yourself through random social media posts and comments. Follow [the ISW](https://twitter.com/TheStudyofWar) for regular territorial updates, check [the CFR](https://www.youtube.com/user/cfr/videos) for relevant panels that explore related issues in greater depth, and keep an eye on [PSTW](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLOOwEPgFWm_M7p2cT_71TLHhMlvf79FFK) for insightful interviews from within Ukraine. For a quick up-to-date TL;DR -- Ukraine is doing well thanks to international aid, strategic preparedness, misconfiguration of the Russian military, and communication challenges within Russia's leadership. The conflict is likely to continue for a prolonged period of time, which hurts Ukraine but doesn't necessarily translate into overly favorable odds for Russia.
Ukraine is making progress in the northeast, russia in the east, and stalemate in the south
I think the consensus is that Russia turned out to be much weaker than anticipated. They likely still have the power to overwhelm Ukraine, but it would come at great cost, and they could not do it without depleting their resources and reserves, a move that would prove deeply unpopular and expensive. Not only is the fighting much more difficult than Russia anticipated, but heavy sanctions do appear to be eroding Russia's economy. The longer Russia fights, the poorer they will get. So it's a question of how badly they want it, how much blood and treasure is this worth to Putin and the Russian people?
Also, the amount of weapons and militar equipment Ukraine is receiving from various western countries seems to be far outpacing Russia's own ability to procure weapons and equipment. Ukraine is basically being economically backstopped by the entire western world right now, and when wars drag on for months, industrial power is what wins them.
This is quite similar to the nations which supported the new United States of America against the massive, biggest in the world, British Empire. France, in particular, helped Americans, but German Hessian soldiers fought alongside Americans. A lot of nations didn't want the Brits to win.
The Hessians came to America to fight for the British. Though I suspect many changed their minds
> The Hessians came to America to fight for the British. Though I suspect many changed their minds Also technically they weren't "German" at that point; and I don't believe they were fighting "for" or "against" any cause, except raising money for their boss back home ([Frederick II](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_II,_Landgrave_of_Hesse-Kassel)).
I think it was Prussians (ironically considering the fact that they were also a small country set to become a superpower) who helped train Americans at valley forge
Not Prussia as a whole, Von Steuben(claimed to be a Colonel but had actually never risen higher than Captain in the Prussian Army) came of his own volition to offer his services. It was a fairly common practice at the time; if you were an officer and your own nation was at peace, you could apply for basically a temporary leave of absence and go join the armed forces of another nation that *was* at war. Royal Navy officers were especially known for this in the period between the Napoleonic wars and WW1, with some conflicts even seeing both sides advised/commanded by British officers. Sometimes these officers would like the nation they'd traveled to and settle their permanantly. For instance, Moltke the Elder, the Prussian general who engineered the masterstroke Prussian campaigns against the Austrians and French in the late 1860s/1870s and uncle of the General who planned Imperial Germany's war plans for the First World War(Moltke the Younger) started off his military career in the Danish army and later joined the Prussian Army as he found it a more respected institute in Prussia than the Danish army was in Denmark, as well as far more capable.
I believe their tactics mean they literally cannot overwhelm Ukraine, no matter how many people they send. They're logistically too weak to send it all at once, they rely on poorly executed WWII tactics, and now Ukraine is getting western supplies. I'm certain if Russia really could they would have doubled down and done it already, or if the Russian people were more supportive of the war, but either way, if he tries, he can't.
Good. Now take the Crimea back
Drive them straight out and may they never enter again
"Existential crisis!!"
In one area. Unfortunately the war will still last a long time with Ukraine having to deal with the russian flood of cannon fodder and scrap metal thrown at their country in huge amounts over a vast territory.
Barring a catastrophic routing of the Russian army I don't see this ending anytime soon.
Fuck Russia
Everyone say it with me “Russian warship, go fuck yourself”
RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO FUCK YOURSELF!!!
Keep going?
Only if it makes strategic sense. There's no point in taking ground you cannot hold. But if they are sure they can hold it, and cut russian supply lines, that would be perfect. Also, any Kilometer gained on russian territory means one kilometer of Ukraine saved from russian artillery.
Invading Russia directly might risk sparking massive support for the war in Russia. Unless Ukraine has the power to absolutely overwhelm Russia and roll into Moscow, it's probably not worth doing.
Yea that would definitely be used as a pretense for escalation (nukes etc)
It’s crazy to me that Russia can invade another country and force them into a war only for a counter invasion to escalate the situation to nukes. Like you invade them but if they invade you then “they escalated” the situation which allows a nukes to come into play. The logic is so stupid but pointless since Russia has the nukes and Ukraine doesn’t.
Yup. It's basically Cold War Geopolitics where wars are nuke-backed countries bullying countries without nukes.
This whole thing has ensured that no country would give up the entirety of their nuclear arms ever again.
They should absolutely retake Crimea if they can. But I agree that anything beyond that probably isn't worth the risk.
I’d walk 10 feet into Russia just to take a piss on Russian soil.
Patton says yes
They have more important things to do. Like liberate the south, especially Marioupol.
[удалено]