Live Conflict Ukraine-Russia War

[contricusc]

Of course it's "basically Russia anyway/Russia Jr" in terms of practicalities. We like to say otherwise, and it's noble, but we're not blowing up the world to salvage Ukraine anymore than Russia's going to die on the hill of Canada or whatever being free of U.S. influence.

You seem to think Ukraine is somewhere far away (like Canada is for Russia), but Ukraine is actually in Central Europe (from a geographical point of view), and it has direct borders witb EU countries. So Ukraine is just as close to the EU (and NATO) as it is to Russia.

Why should the EU and NATO accept that Russia should have the last say in Ukraine, when the Ukrainians themselves want to be part of the EU and NATO?

You seem to not get that "winning this war" is either A) totally amorphous as a goal, no real set clear aims/victory points, and B) likely to be as much of a pyrrhic victory as Russia invading them in the first place. If you go all-in on this, Ukraine "wins" on-paper/legally as an entity but the entire place is fucked for 10 generations and like 5% of their population continues to exist. Not a "win" for them, only a "win" for us outside Ukraine in the sense that Russia's got a serious bloody nose.

Wow, you’re just parroting the same Russian propaganda again. Why would only 5% of Ukraine‘s population still exist if Ukraine wins the war? I don’t see 95% of Ukrainians dead in the Kharkiv and Kherson regions that Ukraine managed to retake from Russia, and of course, not in the rest of Ukraine.

Winning the war for Ukraine means taking back its internationally recognized territory. Of course it would be some sort of a pyrrhic victory, but it would still be better than a defeat. And if NATO would have helped Ukraine more, victory would have been possible. Even now, if the US had a strong and intelligent president (unlike the incumbent or the two candidates), the war could still be won by Ukraine.

The point is smarter people than you know where this leads if we go to a hot war over...fucking *Ukraine* of all places, and said smarter people in general are aware it's not worth a war of the scale we haven't seen since '45. We like Ukrainians, we think they should be free. Also...tough shit at a certain point, life sucks and them's the breaks. Eventually negotiate with them or die, an occupied Ukraine is hardly anything new over the last three centuries and we're not setting the continent ablaze with war to save quasi-Russia.

This is another wrong assumption, to think that politicians are “smarter people” than you and me. I for one am much smarter than 99% of politicians, so the chances for a head of state or other decisionmaker to be smarter than me is close to zero (and I say this with all seriousness).

The fact that they let the situation get into this place shows that they are not smart. NATO should have not allowed Russia to invade, or it should have make it lose the war if it did. Anything else is bad policy.

Russia having a buffer zone on their western flank has always been baked into the cake, it's both unwritten and accepted by everyone as how things have to be. Obama fucking around in Ukraine wasn't smart from the start, now Ukraine pays, it is what it is - even if Putin's "in the wrong" (he is) for the brutal crackdown.

Another point where you are greatly mistaken. It is not “accepted by everyone” that Ukraine should be a buffer zone between NATO and Russia. Ukrainians don’t accept this status quo and they want to be a part of NATO, and many NATO countries support their goal of joining the alliance.

So no, not “everyone” agrees with this “buffer zone” concept. Maybe people in Moscow and Washington agree, but they are far from being “everyone”.

And the ones who should have the last word about what happens in Ukraine are the Ukrainians, not some politicians from far away countries or from the Kremlin.

 

[blackjack]

Ukraine would receive what it needs and the right to use the weapons effectively, it could clearly win the war. But u

What weapons does it actually need to be effective? Do we know if they have a set counteroffensive date and the right amount of bodies? Ukraine wants a lot of things but demands are difficult if the West is trying to produce what they can for them without it constantly getting destroyed by Russians.

(Edit: Don't care about location through ad only there for business travel than actual location residence)

Ukraine should receive long range weapons and be allowed (and helped with targetting) to hit deep inside Russia, until Putin and his regime realize it is to their benefit to withdraw from the whole of Ukraine, like they did from the Kyiv region.

They have already received and used such weapons already, I am assuming it's a production problem for the West for not giving more

 

[MaciekRS]

And this is straight from russian terrorist Girkin (who should be in Hague for his crimes not in russian prison). About Ukraine situation and "collapse of Ukraine"
"
n general, I agree with the final thesis that "in the current format of SVO neither Ukraine nor Russia are able to win a decisive victory ("Ukraine" – due to lack of resources, Russia - due to fears of the authorities not to keep the situation in case of mobilization)." This is followed by the Kremlin's pathetic and miserable-looking (when observed "from the outside") attempts to "persuade partners to compromise." It seems that the elders have already forgotten (due to developing dementia) the very foundations of political psychology, which say that a public demonstration of weakness in confrontation is a sure path to shame and defeat. Even the notorious "compromise" would be easier and faster to achieve by rigidly demonstrating a willingness to "fight to the bitter end", rather than hinting to "partners" every 2 weeks that, they say, "we don't mind making peace."

It is characteristic that very insignificant (on a strategic scale) successes in the Donbas (for Ukrainians — a "secondary front" from the very beginning of the war) tend to be given out by propaganda as a "collapse of the front" of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The defeat of several "secondary" territorial defense brigades (which were stubbornly not reinforced with reserves) is issued as signs of the imminent "collapse" of the entire enemy front line. At the same time, propaganda stubbornly ignores the very unpleasant (and very disturbing) facts that in areas that are really "vulnarable" for the enemy, where his professional units operate — in Kharkov (Volchansk, Kupyansk), Kursk (Sudzha), the fighting is extremely stubborn and the front, in fact, "froze" or close to it. Meanwhile, attacks on deep and deepest rear areas (including strategically important facilities) are intensifying week by week. And they are causing more and more tangible damage.

It is clear from the reports that the enemy has and saves reserves. Therefore, it is simply stupid to talk about the "imminent collapse" of his front due to the loss of several cities and towns in the Donetsk republics. The enemy has been holding the district center on the territory of the "old regions" for 3 months and the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation can do nothing about it! – So why should we expect that the Kiev bastards controlled from across the seas will suddenly abruptly agree to a truce on favorable terms for Moscow? The front continues to remain stable overall and devours Russian lives and resources regularly and in huge quantities. If the "scales" swing significantly in favor of Moscow, the enemy will find the resources to "level it out". First of all, due to technological superiority and its build-up, but other "moves" are possible - the "battle of attrition" will continue until the APU is completely defeated and disintegrates.
That's how I see it.

Sincerely (signed) I.V. Girkin
30.10.2024
Kirovo-Chepetsk, IK-5""

 

[Perun]

What weapons does it actually need to be effective? Do we know if they have a set counteroffensive date and the right amount of bodies? Ukraine wants a lot of things but demands are difficult if the West is trying to produce what they can for them without it constantly getting destroyed by Russians.
View attachment 71775
(Edit: Don't care about location through ad only there for business travel than actual location residence)

They have already received and used such weapons already, I am assuming it's a production problem for the West for not giving more

Please could you post link for this posts

 

[blackjack]

Please could you post link for this posts

Log in to create account sinodefense forum, Ukraine war thread all tam posts. Not allowed to post other forum links

 

[UkroTurk]

Gratefully security of Ukraine is not in the N.Koreans' hands. Ukraine does not figh just for its independence, The country also fights against militarist communism. Sacred war of humanity.

 

[Perun]

Log in to create account sinodefense forum, Ukraine war thread all tam posts. Not allowed to post other forum links

Thanks

 

[SilverMachine]

Contric, you don't seem to get this. You're talking in "should"s again, and there's zero disagreement on my end.

Ukraine "should" be free of Russia. They just won't be, because geopolitics is a thing and they've been dealt a shit hand in that respect. No, they're not being allowed into NATO anytime soon (ever), not because it's inconceivable they can clean up their corruption problem and go a while as a peaceful European-contributing country (they likely can), rather because Russia won't ever stand for Ukraine being in NATO and that's the path of least resistance we've all agreed to over the decades. Russia gets their buffer zone, don't fuck around in Ukraine trying to tempt them over to the west - all pre-Obama leaders understood this.

Look, I'm of half the mind that we *should* have started WWIII over Ukraine and immediately had US/European troops on the ground in Ukraine fighting Russians. If we actually stand for what we say we do, "WWII changed things and you can't just go around invading countries anymore!", that's what should happen, morally.

But stuff doesn't work that way, morality doesn't come into it, and therefore we're hypocrites and unwilling to step up to the plate and fight them directly. It's not "right", it's just how things have to be assuming you're not wanting to start stacking bodies by the millions.

You like to say things like "Ukraine should have the last word on Ukraine". It's admirable. It just doesn't mean shit when said Ukrainians left to have said last word on things number in at about 3. At a point here its "talk to Russia or die" when you boil it right down. Things are getting worse over there by the day, they're not going to prevail in this thing in any military or territorial-integrity sense. Better to save some of Ukraine than get ground all the way down and have to give up even more of it inevitably.

Even Zelensky's tone by now is basically just "we hope to get bailed out with further western intervention as a miracle", that's what his 'victory plan' looks like. The help isn't coming. His generals have voiced as much, and Zelensky ousted the top one for giving a sober assessment of their situation months ago.

 

[FiReFTW]

Don't even bother with that guy I stopped responding to him a while ago, he is just someone who got screwed over by some Russian or Russians and had deep hate for Russia so he is blinded.

The fact is (undisputedly) that Ukraine is a corrupt and primitive country, same as Russia, after all it was part of Russia not long ago, or USSR whatever you prefer.
It's basically the same it had the same system for decades.

The ONLY and I mean ONLY reason the west is even supporting Ukraine is because they want to inflict as much damage possible to Russia, nothing else.

 

[Spitfire9]

The ONLY and I mean ONLY reason the west is even supporting Ukraine is because they want to inflict as much damage possible to Russia, nothing else.

You are wrong to speak with such simplicity and certainty. It may be the case that the US sees the Russian attack on Ukraine as an opportunity to weaken Russia. To ascribe this motive to all western countries supporting Ukraine while presenting nothing to support that view is deeply unconvincing.

 

[SilverMachine]

I don't agree with the "nothing else" part, Fire, there's actual legitimate sympathy for Ukraine in the west, we're not helping them *just* to wear down Putin's machine. But it's certainly a part of it, for sure.

But yeah, it's definitely always been in Russia's circle of interest, at least the last century or two after it was Polish & Swedish. It's no surprise at all that Ukraine was the red line for them as far as American influence, everyone knew that. Putin's both in the wrong here and the whole thing was inevitable, just like the outcome will be in a year or two with Ukraine half the size it was beforehand.

 

[FiReFTW]

You are wrong to speak with such simplicity and certainty. It may be the case that the US sees the Russian attack on Ukraine as an opportunity to weaken Russia. To ascribe this motive to all western countries supporting Ukraine while presenting nothing to support that view is deeply unconvincing.

Ok you are right, not everyone sees it this way but the majority does.

 

[Anastasius]

You seem to think Ukraine is somewhere far away (like Canada is for Russia), ... or from the Kremlin.

It seems the main point of disagreement between you and SilverMachine is that he thinks Russia being pressed even slightly more on Ukraine means they will unleash the nuclear option and go all out. It's a "red line" for them. You seem to disagree and think that Russia is more cowardly than they project.

I personally think that Russia doesn't actually give as much of a f**k about Ukraine as they pretend to and their interests there are primarily a) economical and b) trying to save face. They probably will back down if NATO throws down the glove and dares them to bring it on but who the hell knows.

 

[blackjack]

With how fast the pace is going with the front lines looking like they are collapsing. Anyone have a guess estimate on when the Russians will reach the Dnieper river with their new pace?

 

[contricusc]

It seems the main point of disagreement between you and SilverMachine is that he thinks Russia being pressed even slightly more on Ukraine means they will unleash the nuclear option and go all out. It's a "red line" for them. You seem to disagree and think that Russia is more cowardly than they project.

I personally think that Russia doesn't actually give as much of a f**k about Ukraine as they pretend to and their interests there are primarily a) economical and b) trying to save face. They probably will back down if NATO throws down the glove and dares them to bring it on but who the hell knows.

Yes, you summed it up well. I think that Russia would give up on Ukraine if pressured hard enough, but so far even the economic sanctions have not been implemented seriously, and they were designed in a way to keep Russia afloat and able to fight.

 

[Iskander]

View attachment 71787
With how fast the pace is going with the front lines looking like they are collapsing. Anyone have a guess estimate on when the Russians will reach the Dnieper river with their new pace?

“New pace of Russians”?

Well what can I say? Everything is in sight. This is a real blitzkrieg. Germans compared to Russians are just stupid children

Oh yes, the Dnieper... They will come, of course. By the end of this century

 

[blackjack]

“New pace of Russians”?

Well what can I say? Everything is in sight. This is a real blitzkrieg. Germans compared to Russians are just stupid children

Oh yes, the Dnieper... They will come, of course. By the end of this century

Hope it doesn't take a century for Ukraine for their next counteroffensive to get the right amount of manpower they need. I heard their last 2 incursions to russia didn't seem to go so well

 

[SilverMachine]

Yes, you summed it up well. I think that Russia would give up on Ukraine if pressured hard enough, but so far even the economic sanctions have not been implemented seriously, and they were designed in a way to keep Russia afloat and able to fight.

Why would they 'give up on Ukraine'? They consider it theirs, or at least in their zone of interest politically, geographically, culturally, historically, strategically. They're not going to give up on it any more than Ukraine's going to, doesn't matter what's written on a piece of paper as 'international law'.

The other guy brought nukes into the equation and sure that's a *possibility*, it's not even quite what I'm getting at here though. Even a conventional hot war with Russia is something Putin & Co are well aware the west wants no part of (even though, yes, the west would win that showdown, duh). They're not going to 'give up on' Ukraine for the simple reason that they've called our bluff, they know we don't have the stomach or will for a fight like that anymore. Certainly not over a little place like Ukraine that, let's be honest, about 3 years ago Average Joe/Jane American or Brit or whatever basically just thought of as "Russia-lite" anyway. All of those former-Soviet states blend together for the normies, and every western leader's damn well cognisant of the fact their population has no appetite whatsoever for sending their sons over there to teach Big Meanie Russia a lesson on good international etiquette. Or be responsible with providing stuff to rain hellfire down on Russian cities with.

Hence the needle-thread of "we'll send you cash & goodwill & weapons to a point, if you can survive then great, but we're not guaranteeing it by really kicking into high gear to stomp them out".

It's about all you can do, and it's obviously not going to be enough. Sucks, but better than the alternative, that's the western calculation. "If Putin's dumb enough to go into Poland then obviously it's fucking on, but Ukraine's a pretty unique situation not rising to that bar. Best of luck, homies, here's some boom-booms we can spare, just don't do anything stupid with them."

 

[blackjack]

Pretty hard to believe the nuke option but it would have been believable if the Ukrainians were close to pushing the Russians out of Ukraine.

The funny part I realized about this thread is one pro-ukraine user says we are not giving Ukraine enough while another pro-ukraine user likes to posts all the goods and equipment Ukraine gets. @contricusc @Relic you two want to say something to each other and the rest of us just to clear up any confusion?

 

[Spitfire9]

Why would they 'give up on Ukraine'? They consider it theirs, or at least in their zone of interest politically, geographically, culturally, historically, strategically. They're not going to give up on it any more than Ukraine's going to, doesn't matter what's written on a piece of paper as 'international law'.

The people who hold power in the nominally democratic republic of Russia have no interest in the wishes of the people of the country. So yes, I think that Russia will continue trying to subjugate Ukraine and its people until forced to stop. I don't think that will be due to western military aid.

I think severe economic problems are heading Russia's way. Exactly what state the Russian economy is in cannot be known for sure since the data are either no longer published by the government or cannot be trusted. Two pieces of data that cannot be concealed and can be trusted are the exchange rate and the central bank interest rate. Both of those look bad. I expect the ruble to weaken further and the central bank interest rate to be raised further, squeezing company profitability and depressing investment.

If Russia decides to stop attacking its neighbour, I think it will be due to acute economic problems forcing it to shelve its failed Blitzkrieg, to be wheeled out another time - assuming Ukraine has not joined a defence pact including the US or EU.