Thoughts and Comments on Current Russian,Ukrainian Conflict/War

[afadeev]

And in other news, German far-right (AfD) is paying Putin back for all the funding support by calling on Germany government to stop transfer of Panthers to Ukraine.
Similar to Russia blaming Ukraine for "forcing" it to invade the neighbor in 2022, AfD is now proposing that it was Poland's fault for "forcing" Germany to invade it in 1939.

Oh, yeah, and Steven Segal is back in the news too. Fun times:

 

[Dotini]

The battle for this town is heating up, but hasn't been addressed in the Russo-Ukraine war thread for weeks. About 30,000 Ukraine troops are well entrenched there, but the town is being encircled and the soldiers there may be forced to surrender or die very soon. The US has urged retreat, but Zelensky is refusing to flee. The enemy now has physical occupation or fire control of all roads leading in or out, so an orderly retreat does not seem possible.

 

[tim cubbedge]

The US has urged retreat, but Zelensky is refusing to flee.

What is your source?

 

[CalebJ]

Also a source for Russia having 'physical occupation or fire control of all roads leading in or out'?

 

[CalebJ]

Also...
Why isn't this added into the thread that's already on topic?

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Also...
Why isn't this added into the thread that's already on topic?

He can’t post in that thread anymore.

 

[Peartree]

From CNBC:

Russian officials recently claimed that Moscow’s forces have almost entirely encircled Bakhmut. On Wednesday, one special forces commander said Russian troops now occupied several streets in the city.

Ukraine disputes how far Russia has advanced into Bakhmut, although it concedes – in line with Western defense analysts – that Russian forces are edging in on the city, after making small but incremental advances in the surrounding area.

“The Russians are desperate to advance ahead of the one year anniversary of this aggression. They are really using everything they have in and around Bakhmut,” Yuriy Sak, an advisor to Ukraine’s defense ministry, told CNBC Wednesday.

Sak said Russian forces were taking “staggering losses” in the process, as they deploy newly mobilized and inexperienced soldiers — many of whom were called up in the partial mobilization announced by Russian President Vladimir Putin last September — into the fighting around Bakhmut.

“They don’t have time to even prepare the newly mobilized soldiers. So they’re throwing them [in] as cannon fodder and there are so many images of fields around Bakhmut littered by the corpses of Russians,” he noted.

“The next couple of weeks will really be decisive, that’s one thing we can say with certainty,” he added.

Shea said that the balance of forces was obviously tipped in Russia’s favor, noting that “the Ukrainians can less afford to lose troops than Russia. Russia is sacrificing conscripts in all this, whereas Ukraine has its best troops in the Donbas, their battle-hardened troops.”

Ukraine has denied its soldiers are in danger of being imminently surrounded in Bakhmut. On Thursday morning, the General Staff of Ukraine’s armed forces said in an update that Russian troops were “trying to take full control of Donetsk and Luhansk,” but that the Ukrainian contingent had repelled attacks on Bakhmut and nearby settlements.

Full article here: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/09/bak...ssia-claims-its-soldiers-are-in-the-city.html

 

[smstachwick]

My guess is that Ukraine is allowing the Russians to exhaust their supplies and men before either counterattacking or withdrawing to the next defensible position. If withdrawal is the plan, they’re probably working on setting up an exit strategy and rearguard right now.

 

[cwbullet]

He can’t post in that thread anymore.

That is why I merged the topics. The precedent is not to start a new thread just because you have banned in the prior thread.

 

[smstachwick]

That is why I merged the topics. The precedent is not to start a new thread just because you have banned in the prior thread.

A good precedent, I’d say. We don’t need that garbage elsewhere.

In actual news though:

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/zelenskyy-ukraine-intercepted-plans-to-destroy-moldova
I don’t know if Moldova is actually a target for Russia’s conquest or if they were more looking to open up a Western front in Ukraine, but either way this makes it clear that their ambitions do not end in Donbas and they probably don’t even stop at Ukraine in its entirety. If they can cement a hold on those two countries (and that word if is doing a lot of work here) and then stoke a coup in Romania to install a pro-Russian government and withdraw from NATO, they get the natural barrier formed by the Carpathian Mountains.

 

[jderimig]

A good precedent, I’d say. We don’t need that garbage elsewhere.

In actual news though:

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/zelenskyy-ukraine-intercepted-plans-to-destroy-moldova
I don’t know if Moldova is actually a target for Russia’s conquest or if they were more looking to open up a Western front in Ukraine, but either way this makes it clear that their ambitions do not end in Donbas and they probably don’t even stop at Ukraine in its entirety. If they can cement a hold on those two countries (and that word if is doing a lot of work here) and then stoke a coup in Romania to install a pro-Russian government and withdraw from NATO, they get the natural barrier formed by the Carpathian Mountains.

In war no public government information can be trusted. In peace time some can.

 

[Antares JS]

It wouldn't surprise me. Moldova has the whole Transnistria thing going on, very similar to what Russia stoked in the Donbas.

 

[smstachwick]

In war no public government information can be trusted. In peace time some can.

While we can never be certain of anything, we can make inferences based on Russia’s past and current behavior. Resolving frozen conflicts through stoking anti-democratic nationalist/separatist movements is not new for them. Overt aggression is a more recent development but it’s not inconceivable that that‘s another means they’ve put on the table.

Therefore I’d call Zelenskyy’s claims at least plausible, if not fully confirmed

 

[cwbullet]

Reportedly, Russia is loosing a lot of it new troops and Armor units. It might not be a good idea to rush the new guys to the front.

 

[PhilC]

It wouldn't surprise me. Moldova has the whole Transnistria thing going on, very similar to what Russia stoked in the Donbas.

It could be that Russia is just thawing out one of its frozen conflicts to further distract Ukraine. Keep them worried about risks in the north to Belarus and west to Transnistria while the real action is in the east.

 

[cwbullet]

It could be that Russia is just thawing out one of its frozen conflicts to further distract Ukraine. Keep them worried about risks in the north to Belarus and west to Transnistria while the real action is in the east.

Transnistria is a little different. It is a breakaway republic that was initiated by Russia and is not recognized by the majority of the world. It is similar to Crimea.

 

[boatgeek]

It could be that Russia is just thawing out one of its frozen conflicts to further distract Ukraine. Keep them worried about risks in the north to Belarus and west to Transnistria while the real action is in the east.

Russia only has a few thousand troops there. The risk is that if they get too shirty, Ukraine may just send a HIMARS or two down to soften them up so Moldova can finish the job.

 

[PhilC]

Transnistria is a little different. It is a breakaway republic that was initiated by Russia and is not recognized by the majority of the world. It is similar to Crimea.

Lets not forget that its breakaway involved a two year war in the early 90s, supported by Russia. There was a ceasefire but no permanent resolution which is why I still see it as a frozen conflict.

 

[Greg Furtman]

While I'm all for supplying Ukraine with everything they need to defeat Russia, F16s will present the most expensive as well as the most vulnerable platform we can give them.

F16 require well supplied, centralized and sophisticated air field infrastructure, not the distributed airfields and impromptu runways that UA AF has used to survive to date. That centralized infrastructure will become obvious and vulnerable target for Russian ballistic missiles, from which Ukraine has no defense at the present time. So now you overlay the expanse requirements for effective multi-tiered AAA coverage of those assets.

It seems to me that if Ukraine gets any jet fighters they should be the Saab JAS 39 Gripen. Small, designed to use roads & highways as runways, and they can be rearmed in the field.

 

[boatgeek]

Remember when it was a big deal in November that Russia had hit 100K casualties after 8 months of war? Well, we're up to nearly 200K just three months later. In the last week, Ukraine has been estimating* close to 1K/day on average. Numbers of armored vehicles are in similar straits, and Russia has relatively little ability to produce more.

We talk a lot about Ukraine's ability to sustain a war long-term, but not as much about Russia's.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...-and-equipment-lost-as-repeated-assaults-fail
* Recognizing that we should always add a helping of salt any time one belligerent reports on casualties they have inflicted on another belligerent.

 

[blackwing94]

Peter Zeihan comments on Ukraine war. He's seems to be usually gloom and doom, but interesting.

 

[afadeev]

It seems to me that if Ukraine gets any jet fighters they should be the Saab JAS 39 Gripen. Small, designed to use roads & highways as runways, and they can be rearmed in the field.

Logically - I agree with your point that Gripen is a better fit.
Politically and practically, however, it's the least likely outcome.

For one thing, Sweden has already rejected this option back in December:
https://eurasiantimes.com/no-saab-gripens-for-ukraine-sweden-jas-39-fighter/
For another, there just aren't that many Gripens to go around. Only ~270 have ever been built since the 1990s (in all A–F variants), so the inventory is tight. Compared to 3,000+ F16s.

Ward Carroll had an excellent segment on that subject with Justin Bronk of RUSI a while back:

 

[afadeev]

And just on queue, Ward Carroll and Justin Bronk of RUSI reprised the "Which NATO Fighter is Best for Ukraine?" debate:

 

[Sooner Boomer]

This makes me feel hopeful, and at the same time frustrated that I can't do something like this to help on a basic, humanitarian level.

 

[Matt_The_RocketMan]

Here's my problem with these reports, I rarely ever hear the other side's casualties, looses of equipment, ect... from what ive heard in retrospect is that the country is more of a Eastern war zone that is being fought over than it is a habitable country to live in... I dont want the war to prolong, for either side. But it seems like the West just keeps giving into the Meat Grinder, almost how WW1 was... stationary fronts thousands from both sides fight over a couple miles of land.... In actual terms id like to know what exactly we keep funding the Ukrainians, where as why we cant fund this to close our own borders.... lots of questions aside from where this conflict will go, and it always seems like the news report is saying one side is loosing but, in reality Ukraine keeps asking for more and more... seems more like a Proxy war to me.

 

[Funkworks]

... I rarely ever hear the other side's casualties, looses of equipment, ect ...

That's part of the problem: Putin is very secretive.

 

[boatgeek]

View attachment 563291

Here's my problem with these reports, I rarely ever hear the other side's casualties, looses of equipment, ect... from what ive heard in retrospect is that the country is more of a Eastern war zone that is being fought over than it is a habitable country to live in... I dont want the war to prolong, for either side. But it seems like the West just keeps giving into the Meat Grinder, almost how WW1 was... stationary fronts thousands from both sides fight over a couple miles of land.... In actual terms id like to know what exactly we keep funding the Ukrainians, where as why we cant fund this to close our own borders.... lots of questions aside from where this conflict will go, and it always seems like the news report is saying one side is loosing but, in reality Ukraine keeps asking for more and more... seems more like a Proxy war to me.

If you look at Russian sources, they've already taken Kyiv, they've destroyed every HIMARS launcher at least three times, and they've taken no casualties at all while doing it. There's isn't enough salt in the world...

There are currently stationary fronts because the fields between roads are impassable mud, and concentrating all of your armor running up a road under artillery fire and over mines is how the Russians keep losing 1000 soldiers a day. The Russian strategy is to level towns to the ground, so it makes sense that Ukraine tries to hold towns even after they've been reduced to rubble--if they didn't, the Russians would level the next town on.

I think that most people would agree that it's a proxy war for the West. What's unusual is that it's not Russian proxies doing the fighting now. From NATO's perspective, we have an opportunity to help the Russians destroy their army for a couple of tens of billions of dollars, a little front-line equipment, a bunch of equipment we were about to scrap anyway, and no NATO military casualties. That's a bargain in warfighting terms, even before you get to moral arguments. If Russia gets tired of destroying their army, they can withdraw from Ukraine.

As far as where the conflict is going, it's hard to say. Every week, there's a new major Russian offensive on the horizon that's going to change the game, and every week Bakhmut and Vulhedar continue to hold. I wouldn't say that Ukraine is winning, but Russia certainly isn't either.

 

[afadeev]

That's part of the problem: Putin is very secretive.

Not a lot of dictators are on Twitter or Insta, for whatever reason.
Xi, Kim Jun-whatever, Putin - none feel the need to explain themselves to anyone. At all. Ever.

It's a feature, not a bug.

 

[Matt_The_RocketMan]

If you look at Russian sources, they've already taken Kyiv, they've destroyed every HIMARS launcher at least three times, and they've taken no casualties at all while doing it. There's isn't enough salt in the world...

There are currently stationary fronts because the fields between roads are impassable mud, and concentrating all of your armor running up a road under artillery fire and over mines is how the Russians keep losing 1000 soldiers a day. The Russian strategy is to level towns to the ground, so it makes sense that Ukraine tries to hold towns even after they've been reduced to rubble--if they didn't, the Russians would level the next town on.

I think that most people would agree that it's a proxy war for the West. What's unusual is that it's not Russian proxies doing the fighting now. From NATO's perspective, we have an opportunity to help the Russians destroy their army for a couple of tens of billions of dollars, a little front-line equipment, a bunch of equipment we were about to scrap anyway, and no NATO military casualties. That's a bargain in warfighting terms, even before you get to moral arguments. If Russia gets tired of destroying their army, they can withdraw from Ukraine.

As far as where the conflict is going, it's hard to say. Every week, there's a new major Russian offensive on the horizon that's going to change the game, and every week Bakhmut and Vulhedar continue to hold. I wouldn't say that Ukraine is winning, but Russia certainly isn't either.

How come we actually haven't had an assessment from Ukraine from their losses and not from the Russian media? I mean I understand what you mean, their media is corrupt, but if you go to the source, ie body bags, cant you just count these losses? I mean from our side we can guestamate as to how many died and armory was destroyed, but on the other hand you can actually go to the source on the Ukrainian side and count it... so how come we dont? Id prefer knowing both sides of casualties, even if one side spins it in there favor.... lots of questions being asked and a lot of excuses made to make them seem less bad... bias or not id like to hear from both sides....

 

[Steve Shannon]

If you look at Russian sources, they've already taken Kyiv, they've destroyed every HIMARS launcher at least three times, and they've taken no casualties at all while doing it. There's isn't enough salt in the world...

There are currently stationary fronts because the fields between roads are impassable mud, and concentrating all of your armor running up a road under artillery fire and over mines is how the Russians keep losing 1000 soldiers a day. The Russian strategy is to level towns to the ground, so it makes sense that Ukraine tries to hold towns even after they've been reduced to rubble--if they didn't, the Russians would level the next town on.

I think that most people would agree that it's a proxy war for the West. What's unusual is that it's not Russian proxies doing the fighting now. From NATO's perspective, we have an opportunity to help the Russians destroy their army for a couple of tens of billions of dollars, a little front-line equipment, a bunch of equipment we were about to scrap anyway, and no NATO military casualties. That's a bargain in warfighting terms, even before you get to moral arguments. If Russia gets tired of destroying their army, they can withdraw from Ukraine.

As far as where the conflict is going, it's hard to say. Every week, there's a new major Russian offensive on the horizon that's going to change the game, and every week Bakhmut and Vulhedar continue to hold. I wouldn't say that Ukraine is winning, but Russia certainly isn't either.

Yeah, Russia is waging a war of attrition on theirself.