Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
The Russians have had two lots of stored munitions explode within the past few days inside Russia just over the border with Ukraine. People were evacuated from Timonovo and Soloti in the first explosion. "Smoking Kills" has been heeded, both explosions were the result of the current hot conditions. Hotter than either Syria or Afghanistan?
When I worked at AWE Foulness we did a lot of trials on stored munitions. Drop and graze tests were done from various heights with explosives at a range of temperatures.
The ones that went bang were the really cold ones while the same explosive at 40C just bounced. I'm surprised the Russians don't know that, their trawlers bristling with aerials were always fishing just off the island 😊
piemonster
Full Member
Not sure itll make any difference at all over the military reality tbh.Whatever that turns out to be.
The military reality is still stalemate, imo.
timba
Free MemberIf that’s the case then it’ll carry no more weight than the annexation of Crimea since 2014.
Absolutely. But in russian eye's they'll become Russian and they'll never give them up after that.
I see Turkish gas purchases have doubled this year so far too. I was wondering what Erdogan's angle was tbh. Guess kinda obvious tbh.
But in russian eye’s they’ll become Russian and they’ll never give them up after that.
It'll just come down to military force.
thols2
Free Member
But in russian eye’s they’ll become Russian and they’ll never give them up after that.It’ll just come down to military force.
Ukraine aren't going to push out Russia. Himars etc are good, but it's just taking pot shots. The gold standard is taking back land.
The military reality is stalemate, imo.
Whilst the lines on the map aren't moving much right now, I'm not sure that 'stalemate' really covers it.
The cracks in Russia's operation are only getting bigger and they seems to be resorting to more and more desperate measures (using 1960's machinery from storage, sending raw, untrained recruits straight into the front line etc) just to maintain the status quo.
Their casualties remain unsustainably high. The HIMARS strikes on Russia ammo dumps have also greatly reduced their ability to capitalise on their artillery advantage.
The Ukrainians however, are getting very very good at causing the Russians maximum pain with whatever resources they have and now have better trained troops returning from time spent in the UK and elsewhere, ready to use all the new toys NATO have given them.
Eventually it will come down to morale and will to fight and in this instance you should always bet on the home team. Especially now they've seen what happens to civilians in areas Russia captures.
There are things that could change these calculations (full Russian mobilization, or Belarus sending troops for instance) and things are likely to look pretty bleak for a while yet but I still think the most likely outcome is a Russia collapse on the battlefield, I'm not going to pretend I know when though and continued support from the 'West' will be essential if this is to happen.
The military reality is still stalemate, imo.
I dont think well have a real answer on that for some time. Im still not seeing anything less than a multi year war.
I don't see it, stopping an offensive, is a massively different proposition from going on the offensive.
I also think people over play the morale of Russian soldiers. Their government doesn't care about their morale.
Their casualties remain unsustainably high.
If the Ukraine casualty figures were true the Russians would have packed up and gone home. I'd suggest they are somewhere in the middle of the 1000-43k range, and that the Ukrainians have probably lost a similar amount. (even Zelensky admitted losing nearly 200 a day at one point.)
And I would also point back to the british army generals comments about Russian ability to regenerate being unlimited.
So if we face a slow down over winter, it's not just the Ukrainians that come back stronger.
If parts do go back. I'd think that would be more down to a successful guerilla campaign in occupied areas. But that's a long long long game. The above story I mentioned about declaring people refugees as soon as they enter occupied areas probably has something to do with that tbh. Will stop people crossing over so easily to help with that too. Still potential on the Kherson side of the river I guess mind.
Absolutely. But in russian eye’s they’ll become Russian and they’ll never give them up after that
This is the thing I really don't understand about all this, right from the outset.
Does Putin genuinely believe everything he says about liberating Ukraine from Nazis, the people of Crimea wanting to become Russian etc, etc?
Or is it just rhetoric for home consumption to justify something he knows is unjustifiable?
Or is it for western consumption making us think twice about how far he will go to protect these 'Russians'?
piemonster
Full Member
The military reality is still stalemate, imo.I dont think well have a real answer on that for some time. Im still not seeing anything less than a multi year war.
Might not be a traditional stalemate, but I think we are at the stage of a king and bishop chasing a kind and bishop. ie, play continues till the players realise, no-one can win.
I don’t see it, stopping an offensive, is a massively different proposition from going on the offensive.
I think everybody involved in any serious way knows this, I think everyone here taking wild guesses does too.
But it does not mean the only outcome is stalemate. It might be, it might not, the overall picture is so complex Ive no idea how you could settle on a conclusion to the end point.
It could end simply with Ukraine outlasting Russia, or Russia outlasting western support, or breakthrough military succeses one way or the other. Im not discounting the possibility of a stalemate leading to a frozen conflict, Id put money on it being a targeted end point. Just that its not inevitable by any stretch.
piemonster
Full Member
Ive no idea how you could settle on a conclusion to the end point.
The lack of movement on the maps is the biggest indicator for me. But yeah, it's just an opinion. I was hoping this recent positive news coming out of Ukraine would result is some land taken back, but it's not even made a dent yet. Which as I say is the gold standard. Only positive is that Russian gains are getting increasingly smaller too.
The thing is, Russia doesn’t care about military morale, right up to the point where it really has to.
Well, they do have a track record with costly wars leading to dramatic changes at home.
That was 100 years ago mind you.
*this is not a serious comment
I know its done the rounds now, bit the Yale paper trying to asses the economic realities for Russia is well worth the read
I'll confess to not reading the whole paper and having to look "fungible" up, but the slide pack at the end is useful reading
The first auction has been held for an oligarch's yacht, the Axioma, after its owner defaulted on a $20mn loan. The bank will get its loan amount and the balance will be disbursed by the courts, however, it's unlikely to make even the loan amount once the sealed bids have been opened
Maybe we should crowdfund a STW super yacht!!!!
The big difference in stalemate is Ukraine is defending itself. The Russian population has been fed the lie about “special military operation” which will unravel.
That was 100 years ago mind you.
Afghanistan in the 80's springs to mind as a more recent and relevant example.
The failure there was a huge blow to the legitimacy of the USSR and was a major component in the collapse of the Soviet system happening when it did.
I was hoping this recent positive news coming out of Ukraine would result is some land taken back, but it’s not even made a dent yet.
It looks like the Russian army is getting weaker and the Ukrainian army stronger. What Ukraine seems to be doing is making it difficult or impossible for Russia to supply its army. Just because lines on a map haven't changed yet doesn't mean much. Russia may be able to hold onto the territory it seized, it may not, we don't know at this point. This time next year we will probably have a better idea.
If you are going back 100 years then on the other front that was a stalemate for years and years with front lines not really moving for ages. And then someone won. The final bit was very brief after a long drawn out conflict.
Winter is approaching, at which point the logistical problems of the Russians will really start to bite. They have laid waste to the areas they have advanced across, and I doubt there are many natural resources or a supportive local population to help them.
Troop morale is reportedly dismal now, imagine what it will be when the weather changes.
Ukraine does not want to over-extend by trying to take back too much territory now, it wants to drain away Russian resources until it has no option but to cede ground.
Historically, when/if a collapse comes, it will come very very quickly, one day it will look like an intractable stalemate with no end in sight, the next things will suddenly be moving very fast.
The casualty rates on both sides suggest this won't just run for years, the rate of attrition is just too high.
So it comes down to who cracks first, and right now I just can't see the Ukrianians doing so, not when they have thier homes and families to protect.
hatter
Full Member
Historically, when/if a collapse comes, it will come very very quickly,
If the tories don't come up with a viable plan, the UK could be one of the first to 'collapse'.
If the tories don’t come up with a viable plan, the UK could be one of the first to ‘collapse’.
/threaddrift
Some German government person was talking about the 5 LNG terminals currently being built
The big energy exporters of tomorrow aren’t going to be those countries rich in natural gas, but the ones that have plenty of wind, sun and water
I had to omit the spokesmans unfortunate name
We do have plenty of wind... both actual and the other kind.
I also spotted a claim that Europe now gets more gas as LNG from the US than Russia. Be good to see verification of that if anyone else saw it.
Oh, so the Russians are just taking a bit of a breather.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1562392844635197440
Translated: "Our offensive operations are getting almost nowhere at enormous cost in men and materials and if we don't pause them soon we'll soon be staring down the barrel of a mutiny"
If Twitter is believed Ukraine is getting 6 NASAMS, which if I’m reading it correctly should offer real protection against Russias fairy indiscriminate targeting of Ukrainian cities with long range weapons.
I’m not sure, but it seems to be additional to a previous commitment.
Yes, that report is correct https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3138105/nearly-3-billion-in-additional-security-assistance-for-ukraine/
I also spotted a claim that Europe now gets more gas as LNG from the US than Russia. Be good to see verification of that if anyone else saw it.
This is true, there's a graph kicking about, shows the russian supply decreasing and the US supply increasing like for like.
Aye, and if accurate it’s not just a case of Russian supplies collapsing, but US supplies meeting part way. Can’t recall what scale they used, e.g. logarithmic, which would put it in a very different light.
Different subject but
States the officer training (for Ukrainians at Sandhurst) as taking 44 weeks (300+ days) so a little over 10 months. I don’t know what that timeframe looks like now.
In other news last month our (UK) fuel purchases from Russia were a negligible £33m. That will start to sting at their end if we can keep it up.
A few thoughts on where things are now regarding the stalemate.
It's fairly obvious that this is going to drag on into next year (at the earliest I'd say). The Russians still have the advantage in terms of men and big guns. Albeit their guns are relatively dumb compared to the likes of HIMARS. However from what we've seen/heard the RA suffer from the following:
- Poor quality troops. Badly trained, badly led, low morale
- Poor quality weapons. Old artillery and tanks, poorly maintained
- Bad leadership. From the top down. Even to having no real NCO cadre. Top down decision making leads to slow and unimaginative tactics on the ground
- Inability to apply combine arms warfare (combined with failure to achieve even air superiority) severely negates any advantages in kit and manpower
- A logistics system that is based in the early 20th century. Old, poorly maintained (again) trucks, loaded/unloaded by hand, in turn dependent upon railways to get munitions/kit/rations to the hubs. Slow, inefficient and (as we have seen multiple times) vulnerable to attack and destruction.
- Meddling political leadership and muddied aims
- Having to hold non-sovereign land (whatever they might say)
So in essence we have an army of occupation that is badly led, with poor kit, bad morale and run with a pretty inept logistics operation. Never a good long-term proposition that.
Against that we have the Ukrainians as follows:
- Increasingly high quality troops. Motivated and battle hardened. Well trained becoming the norm too
- High quality weapons. Increasing numbers of. Crucially, ability to accurately hit RA logistics and infrastructure far behind the front lines
- Good quality leadership. The UA has been training with NATO for years and large numbers of their troops are being trained as we speak
- Ability to fight combined arms warfare (see above) means thay can maximise impact of fighting, particularly with the high end artillery they now have
- Focused political leadership. Defined goals, supported by the soldiers and the populace (for the most part), including in the occupied territories
- Good quality logistics (certainly better than the RA)
- Looking to retake sovereign land with majority of population supporting them
So, once we look past the RA's superiority in terms of manpower and arms, we see a scenario whereby the UA should get stronger (more, better trained soldiers; more arms; more motivation), whilst the RA slowly atrophies, particularly with their poor logistics compounded by the increasing difficulty they'll have in paying for new weapons and/or repairing existing ones and the low morale of their troops.
So, in terms of the current situation the UA are working to create the conditions for an offensive at some point in the future. They're targeting RA logistics, command centres, radar and infrastructure. All this will not only compromise the RA in the short term, it also affects their ability to plan and refocus and the constant hits - combined with the degradation of supplies to them - will further hit morale.
In essence then, far from a stalemate, we have a situation whereby the RA is slowly deteriorating and the UA is improving. In time this will lead to a balance being reached whereby the UA can attack with a high chance of success. And when that happens the collapse could well be faster than we could imagine.
Point is the UA isn't in a hurry per se. They'll keep chipping away at the edifice in order to be able to define the terms of engagement and when they're ready, they'll go forward. This will take many months, possibly years. The important thing is that we in the West don't waver in our support for them I guess
So, in terms of the current situation the UA are working to create the conditions for an offensive at some point in the future.
The ability to go on the offensive and what defines an offensive is the key here tbh.
Is an offensive just taking back kherson oblast west of the dnipro. Is it to push back to pre february lines. Is it to push back entirely take all territory including Crimea?
An offensive can be defined in many ways tbh.
Problem with offensives though, is that's it's easier to defend rather than attack.
If Ukraine were able to go on the offensive at the current rate of russian movement, it'll probably take 100 years to gain back all their territory.
Some kinda Russian collapse is probably more likely than Ukraine forcing out the Russians. (Which isn't impossible tbh, and I guess is a viable strategy also, but it's a bit on the hopeful side.)
I should make it clear too, that despite my negativity, I support supplying Ukraine till the cows come home, how they approach this is entirely up to them(barring escalation to a wider war) and we should facilitate that.
Looks to me like they are weakening the ability of RA to hold territory, and they will continue to do so until they think it's weak enough for them to roll in and make big gains quickly. Otherwise, they'll lose too many troops.
The ability to go on the offensive and what defines an offensive is the key here tbh.
The other day a Ukrainian spokesperson said that they have already started their offensive, meaning that the attacks on Russian airfields, bridges, supply depots, etc. can be considered offensive actions. That may be partly or mostly motivated by a need to reduce political pressure to actually sent tanks and troops in to evict the Russians, but there is an important point nonetheless. The Ukrainian attacks are steadily degrading Russian strength without sacrificing thousands of Ukrainian soldiers' lives. It's not impossible that Russia will be forced to retreat without a fight, but I think it's more likely that Ukraine will keep degrading Russian strength until the Russians are so weak that Ukraine can successfully drive them out of strategic locations without taking heavy casualties and force the Russians to withdraw rather than being cut off completely.
Edit. I type too slow, Molgrips said it first.
This is unconfirmed but it's pretty consistent with how insane the Russian military is.
https://twitter.com/VDV_Textbooks/status/1562703199718756352
https://twitter.com/crimmins_rob/status/1562781579680051200
Again, unconfirmed, but not a good sign for Russia if they're having to do this.
https://twitter.com/golub/status/1562699300093980673
Yet more signs of strain from Russia.
https://twitter.com/MarkGaleotti/status/1562811655230468101
https://twitter.com/MarkGaleotti/status/1562812418145026048
Also some LNR units are refusing to fight, their attitude is, they’ve taken Luhansk - no need to help in Donetsk.
As a 3 star armchair general, I really don't look at the russian army and how it's performed and think "what these guys need is more poorly trained grunts who don't want to be there". Their logistics are shithouse, their command and communication structures seem to be a mess, they've not got enough hardware and a bunch of what they do have doesn't work... The only way it seems to make sense is if they're intentionally pivoting away from what we'd call modern warfare, since it turns out they suck at it, and they're going to go with a high-manpower low-tech low-equipment approach longterm. Basically say "this is the only thing we've got that works, so rather than fix the other stuff that doesn't we're going to do more of it"
As a 3 star armchair general, I really don’t look at the russian army and how it’s performed and think “what these guys need is more poorly trained grunts who don’t want to be there”. Their logistics are shithouse, their command and communication structures seem to be a mess, they’ve not got enough hardware and a bunch of what they do have doesn’t work… The only way it seems to make sense is if they’re intentionally pivoting away from what we’d call modern warfare, since it turns out they suck at it, and they’re going to go with a high-manpower low-tech low-equipment approach longterm. Basically say “this is the only thing we’ve got that works, so rather than fix the other stuff that doesn’t we’re going to do more of it”
Pretty good assessment. As a good friend and astute leader reminded me today that both Russia and many defence commentators have clearly never studied the Measure of Fighting Power, where morale carries equal weight to doctrine and capability.
As a 3 star armchair general, I really don’t look at the russian army and how it’s performed and think “what these guys need is more poorly trained grunts who don’t want to be there”. Their logistics are shithouse, their command and communication structures seem to be a mess, they’ve not got enough hardware and a bunch of what they do have doesn’t work… The only way it seems to make sense is if they’re intentionally pivoting away from what we’d call modern warfare, since it turns out they suck at it, and they’re going to go with a high-manpower low-tech low-equipment approach longterm. Basically say “this is the only thing we’ve got that works, so rather than fix the other stuff that doesn’t we’re going to do more of it”
Arm chair field marshal, here.
Protracted invasons are not so much the front line offensive, it's the ability to re-fuel, re-supply and re-feed the front line...
The supply logistics come at huge cost... if the logistics are disrupted to any extent, it's just a war of attrition, I can't see the Ukrainiens giving up any time soon, and I can't see their allies slowing down the supplies of more modern weapons sytstems and ammo - afer all it's in not in the long term interest of Europe or the US to allow russia to proceed.
You mean the 'run as fast as possible at the enemy, whilst shouting' BANG ' approach may be back in fashion?
Brilliant.
I really can see the Russian front lines crumbling in the face of a sudden sustained breach with combimed air, armor and infantry assults. Holding against counter attack would be harder, and keeping the flow of support without heavy lift helos in abundance also a test.
I think so, and I hope so.. Ukraine just needs to hold ground and not push back too fast, to allow the the russians logistics supplying the front, time to slowly erode to a point where Ukraine can push back hard once the russians are sufficiently weakened.
Putin clearly never read the art of war, which is somewhat ironic as china are probably thier only hope now.
Armchair Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff here. Big Colin Powell-esque thumbs up to my more junior colleagues. In a war of attrition, the side that best controls the resources, the means of production and the logistics will ultimately prevail.
Putin’s kleptocratic, corrupt regime means that they're operating from a diminished standpoint on all of the above from the word go.
Mainly so because his major strategic blunder was thinking that his (admittedly effective) disruption and disinformation campaign, combined with his making much of EU dependent on cheap gas and oil, would mean that any effective Western opposition would be minimal. Even though some of the military support has been lacklustre, it has still been significant enough to make an increasingly tangible difference. Combine that with the punitive effect of sanctions and he really is buggered. His only hope is that Western support reduces through the winter, but I suspect that won't happen. And if we hold firm then he really is in the stinky stuff next year..
Putin clearly never read the art of war.
Of course not. Putin is the 4D chess grandmaster. What could some klutz from a couple of thousand years ago teach him? The cheek of it.
Of course not. Putin is the 4D chess grandmaster. What could some klutz from a couple of thousand years ago teach him? The cheek of it.
In siege warfare? probably quite a lot, hehehe 😉
Combine that with the punitive effect of sanctions and he really is buggered
Regardless of what you read in Western media, sanctions are biting and some communities fear the backlash
More than 20,000 Jews, in a population of 165,000, have left Russia since the war began. "Historically, when economies tank, governments often look for minorities to blame – and Russian Jews know this could be the case again" https://theconversation.com/jews-are-leaving-russia-again-is-history-repeating-itself-189090
Stumbled across this video which gives a pretty good summary of the situation at present. Seems reasonably unbiassed and acurate???
Russia is burning off gas from Portovaya, a Nordstream 1 compressor station. Experts think that 9000 tonnes of CO2 is being "flared-off" daily and, although it's part of the industry, it seems to be an excessive amount.
Two-fingers to the EU maybe, "Look at my gas!" while contributing to it being fourth-largest contributor to greenhouse gases and chucking soot all over the North Pole?
Slight side-track:
Israeli aircraft launched cruise missiles and guided bombs against a target in Syria on Friday.
TASS reported that Russian-made defences shot down two out of four cruise missiles and seven out of sixteen bombs, ~50%.
Hmmm. Why aren't they as effective in Ukraine? #arms-sales
A senior Chinese official told the UN on Friday that just one incident might cause a serious nuclear accident “with irreversible consequences for the ecosystem and public health of Ukraine and its neighbouring countries”.
Let's hope that Russia listen to the Chinese, they've ignored everyone else
Israeli aircraft launched cruise missiles and guided bombs against a target in Syria on Friday.
TASS reported that Russian-made defences shot down two out of four cruise missiles and seven out of sixteen bombs, ~50%.
Hmmm. Why aren’t they as effective in Ukraine? #arms-sales
How fast were the cruise missiles? I think most of them are subsonic whereas HIMARS missiles are probably travelling at Mach 2 or more. If the Israeli missiles were launched from aircraft, the Russian radars would have a lot of time to track them and prepare whereas a HIMARS missile will probably only have a flight time of a minute or two so it's hard to detect them and get a lock in time to launch defensive missiles.
Also, Ukraine has been supplied with anti-radar missiles so they can attack the Russian radar sites before launching HIMARS missiles. Israel isn't going to attack Russian radar sites.
There's also the "TASS reported" aspect to consider
Arm chair field marshal, here.
Armchair lance corporal notes that despite everything Russia now occupies 20% of Ukraine, have stolen a lot of their wheat and are in the process of stealing most of their electricity. Reports of the demise of the red army seem to be over optimistic.
Russia now occupies 20% of Ukraine, have stolen a lot of their wheat and are in the process of stealing most of their electricity.
Looting is a war crime. What are your thoughts on war crimes again?
Looting is a war crime.
Indeed it is. So what? Does that influence the degree of control exercised by Russia in Ukraine? Or are you just trolling?
Or are you just trolling?
No, I'm curious about your thoughts on war crimes.
DrJ
Free Member
That’s a war crimeMay well be. So?
The other thread exists for shit throwing
Reports of the demise of the red army seem to be over optimistic
You shouldn't conflate a strong Russian Army with strong thievery
In 1915 the Russian Army looted Vistula Land as it retreated, which reduced Polish loyalty to Russia. We'll see if history repeats in the occupied Donbas region of Ukraine
Reports of the demise of the red army seem to be over optimistic.
The Red Army ceased to exist when the USSR collapsed. The Russian Army is a shadow of what the Red Army was.
You shouldn’t conflate a strong Russian Army with strong thievery
True, but that doesn't alter my main point - that the Russians are not on the point of being kicked out of Ukraine.
True, but that doesn’t alter my main point – that the Russians are not on the point of being kicked out of Ukraine
I think that's also true, but I think that there'll be a tipping point of some sort and the Russian Army will go. Whether that's a big change in the Kremlin or a simple collapse in morale due to poor logistics and targetted attacks behind the lines
timba
Free Member
True, but that doesn’t alter my main point – that the Russians are not on the point of being kicked out of UkraineI think that’s also true, but I think that there’ll be a tipping point of some sort and the Russian Army will go. Whether that’s a big change in the Kremlin or a simple collapse in morale due to poor logistics and targetted attacks behind the lines
Wishfully thinking doesn't win wars. I think this conflict will last decades tbh.
I think this conflict will last decades tbh
Optimistic. How long can we continue paying this much for gas?
If the government does what it should do and covers the war cost for us (It's a no brainer for the tories to freeze prices at april levels when they eventually anoint truss). Ages tbh, just stick it on the never never like everything else.
I don't see support collapsing over winter. Mind you is the tories we are talking about here!
How long can we continue paying this much for gas?
Decades. Energy used to be expensive but we just got used to historically low energy prices. Appeasing war criminals so we can save a bit on our heating bills is a tough policy to defend.
Appeasing war criminals so we can save a bit on our heating bills is a tough policy to defend.
If the tories don't do anything about it. It's not a tough policy to defend at all. Support for Ukraine will collapse(along with businesses and peoples personal finances) in this country if they don't mitigate it. But what happens in the UK is largely irrelevant to the war. The US will keep it going.
True, but that doesn’t alter my main point – that the Russians are not on the point of being kicked out of Ukraine
Which is a fair point. Albeit a fair point looking for an argument, as not many people have said that they are on the point of being kicked out. Far from it actually.
However, if we look at it dispassionately we can probably analyse the breakdown to the current situation as thus:
1. Russia invade Ukraine, launching lightning strike on Kiev, whilst also advancing into Southern and Eastern Ukraine with the aim of "liberating" the Donbas, creating a land bridge to Crimea and taking the whole of the Ukrainian Black Sea coast to link up with their enclave in Moldova.
2. The lightning strike fails and the attempt to take the seaboard fails when they are thwarted at Mykolaiv (to be fair, they probably thought the new puppet regime in Kiev would have granted them this territory by now)
3. They revise their war aims. The resistance in Melitopol sucks in resource and they are forced to halt attempts to take Mykolaiv. In the meantime they pull out of the North and declare their goal of creating a massive encirclement of the UA army in the SE.
4. They fail to take Kharkiv and the size/scale of their encirlement keeps reducing as they fail to make anything like the advances required on each flank
5. They revise their war goals again, now its merely about completing the 'liberation' of the Luhansk and then Donetsk
6. They've yet to fully take Luhansk and they're a ways off in Donetsk. In the meantime the UA are regrouping and starting to batter their already shoddy logistics. Morale is rock bottom and they're struggling to send anything other than cannon fodder to the frontlines. Slowly but surely the balance is shifting ( and will continue to shift) in Ukraine's favour. At some point they will launch a counter offensive and given the state of the RA from a morale, logistics and leadership Viewpoint, when that happens any collapse may well be sudden and protracted.
Point of all the above is to say that if their original goal had been to take and hold 20% of Ukrainian territory then we could declare them a success thus far. Fact I'd they have constantly been forced to rein in their ambitions and as their ability to advance continues to atrophy, the point will come when their ability to hold what they have (in what is now by all accounts overwhelmingly hostile territory) will be similarly compromised and they will be forced back.
When that time comes, nobody knows for sure. But this winter is going to very uncomfortable for the RA and I'd expect the UA to utilise the increasing number of high tech weapons systems to ensure that it is very difficult for the RA to support and supply their troops, whilst further denigrating both offensive and defensive capabilities. Next Spring might well be an interesting time..
Support for Ukraine will collapse(along with businesses and peoples personal finances) in this country if they don’t mitigate it.
Meaning what? Resumption of buying Russian gas?
slowoldman
Full Member
Support for Ukraine will collapse(along with businesses and peoples personal finances) in this country if they don’t mitigate it.Meaning what? Resumption of buying Russian gas?
No the government needs to socialise the extreme rise till prices come back down.
No the government needs to socialise the extreme rise till prices come back down.
This. We don’t actually buy any Russian gas so it’s the only way to reduce the burden on the ordinary person. Maybe we could flog off the Downing St wallpaper and subsidise gas bills that way.
funkrodent
Full Member
That's not really a dispassionate look at this, just a summary of the optimistic view.
Optimistic or pessimistic?
It is clear that new offensive attempts will be made and may even lead to new tactical successes, but on the whole, a balance has developed on the frontline. And the “scales” on the part of the Armed Forces of Ukraine are now very slowly but steadily outweighing the Russian
Optimistic, it's expecting the scale to eventually tip in ukraines favour. Hope it's right.
That is Igor Girkin (allegedly) via War Translated
Nothing showing?