Live Conflict Ukraine-Russia War

[Ecderha]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1765275108438839514

 

[Ecderha]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1765078611370058012

 

[Ecderha]

Seven Indian citizens published a video message in which they said they were being forced to fight for Russia in Ukraine.
@Nilgiri Could translate what they are saying is it True?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1765252291085713764

 

[Gary]

I think Russia should erase one or two Kyiv neighborhood using cruise missiles everytime the ICC comes up with an arrest warrants

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1765031334567887278

 

[Gary]

If Ukraine didn't mobilize now, their old 43 years old on average age soldiers will collapse sooner or later due to general fatigue and attrition. But if Ukraine mobilize its small cohort of 20-25 year olds, the country's future will be wiped out in a very short time

In short : Win or Lose, Ukraine is doomed anyway. I highly recommend this video.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1764670152602243415

Remember the rules:

1. Not mobilize, lose more land
2. Mobilize, lose basically what is left of the future of Ukraine.

 

[blackjack]

1. The Russian ISR has improved so much in this war, congratulations on the very first HIMARS kill
2. It took the Russians almost 2 full years to destroy the very first HIMARS highlighting what kind of Potemkin army the Russian army was before the full-scale war
3. Now that the Tornado-S has proven able to take out HIMARS, I'm waiting for the US MIC to come up with something to answer this and maintain their overmatch doctrines.

well they were somewhat touchable

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1756961515620409666

but the reports of Tornado's usage was like a week or 2 ago and they had previous claims of HIMARs but none have offered footage to be as visually clear as the one shown yesterday

The latest news of HIMARS was using a glide bomb solution for 150km but with a high ass altitude and slow speed as the tradeoff.

 

[blackjack]

 

[contricusc]

Remember the rules:

1. Not mobilize, lose more land
2. Mobilize, lose basically what is left of the future of Ukraine.

The Ukrainian military has not yet answered Zelensky’s question about the 700,000 mobilized people that haven’t participated in combat. It is hard to have a mobilization when the military has 1 million personnel of which only 300 thousand have participated in combat. Why do they need civilians when 70% of their ranks are not fighting?

They first need to answer this question before they can talk about mobilizing civilians. There is something very fishy going on with the Ukrainian military manpower. While it is natural that some of the military personnel will not be on the frontline, you can’t expect to have 70% of the army outside combat and claim you lack manpower. It’s just insane.

It would be really interesting to know what exactly is going on there. Are those 700k people on paper only (like the famous Afghan army)? Are they just old people collecting money and doing nothing? Are they just bureocrats that don’t want to fight and expect the civilian population to die to defend them? The army needs to answer those hard questions before it can ask Zelensky to mobilize.

 

[Gary]

The Ukrainian military has not yet answered Zelensky’s question about the 700,000 mobilized people that haven’t participated in combat. It is hard to have a mobilization when the military has 1 million personnel of which only 300 thousand have participated in combat. Why do they need civilians when 70% of their ranks are not fighting?

1. It's just maybe that reports that Ukraine has lost 500.00 men are true, that's half the already mobilized manpower, and the rest are either already full of war fatigue or in need of rest and rebuilding.

2. Ukraine doesn't actually have a million mobilized men

They first need to answer this question before they can talk about mobilizing civilians. There is something very fishy going on with the Ukrainian military manpower. While it is natural that some of the military personnel will not be on the frontline, you can’t expect to have 70% of the army outside combat and claim you lack manpower. It’s just insane.

The 'Tooth to Tail Ratio' (also called T3R of the US military is somewhere like this. The lower the intensity, the higher the number of support they have

Now Ukraine isn't a low-intensity conflict, so I'm seeing Ukraine's 'Western-modeled' army to be somewhere close to WW1 and WW2. Maybe less tail and more tooth, because the Ukrainian army isn't as advanced as the U.S.

T3R : Ratio of combat personnel (tooth) and their support personnel (tail)

It would be really interesting to know what exactly is going on there. Are those 700k people on paper only (like the famous Afghan army)? Are they just old people collecting money and doing nothing? Are they just bureocrats that don’t want to fight and expect the civilian population to die to defend them? The army needs to answer those hard questions before it can ask Zelensky to mobilize.

I have put forward my suspicion on money laundering before, read below

Of course, once Ukraine surrenders, the victors will have access to the equipment of the losers. Reminiscent of Ukraine now, The U.S. once armed the RVN (South Vietnam army) with the latest (at the time) U.S. military equipment and a slush of funds to keep them afloat. That didn't help much.

Ex-RVN M107 and M48 Pattons in PAVN storage

Ex-ANA MRAP in Taliban hands

and once upon a time... Iraq

So the U.S. formula of equipping + funding has been tried and tested before...and ended in failure, of course, Washington being Washington, it didn't stop them from repeating the same error it is doing now in Ukraine. Like the habit of throwing sanctions, It's becoming a habitual cycle now with the U.S. trying again and again to solve new problems with the old method.

Certain things could not be solved by merely throwing money.

In Afghanistan, the U.S. not only lavishly equipped the Afghan National Army with multi-million Dollar equipment, but at the same time pumped so much money into the country in a bid to win influence and own the Taliban, that the unintended consequence is that the country becomes a center of Kleptocracy and money laundering operations. In the years before the collapse of Iraq (2014) and Afghanistan (2021), the U.S. pumped millions of dollars each month to pay for the salaries of the ISF and the ANA, only for corrupt bureaucrats to siphon the money and in the case of Afghanistan and Iraq, they actually created a whole list of imaginary "ghost soldiers" battalion who existed on administrative papers to ask for more funding to pay for these "ghosts" bills. Ukraine is very similar in its corruption levels to the 2 countries.

In the end, money hollowed out the ISF and the ANA before their collapse. What started as gradual deterioration suddenly escalated into wholesale collapse Let's see if flooding Ukraine with money and weapons is actually the best plan going forward

What Russia has, and Ukraine clearly doesn't, is that Russia has a working and expanding military industry. The Russian leadership didn't travel all around the world to beg for shipments of tanks, whatever they found insufficient, they bought it from friendly countries like North Korea and Iran...with gold.

So once Russia acquired Ukraine, the sheer wealth that Ukraine has in the form of its agricultural fields, natural resources, industries, etc. Will compensate for the heavy losses Russia suffered during its attempt to grab Ukrainian land.

Personally, I think the biggest prize of a Russian victory is the number of population that will be added to the restored empire of Moscow. Even my modest estimate of an addition of 20 Million men (the ones that I predicted would stay in Ukraine over the long term and not flee to the EU), is still a huge boost compared to around 300,000-350,000 men they had lost earlier in their attempt. Please note that Russia had already around 7-9 million additions to its population pool from the acquired territory of Donets, Lugansk, and Crimea.

Together with Belarus, the New Russian Empire under Tsar Vladimir will command approximately 150-170 million men, not quite large compared to the Soviet Onion, but a considerable improvement for a country that used to be at the top 3 of population rankings and secure the recruitment base against an aggressive Western powers at its doorstep

After acquiring the population, Russia is likely going after the Ukrainian gold reserves to compensate for their material losses as well as dismantling factory equipment from Eastern Ukraine to Russia. Ukraine will then be a useful bread basket that Russia could use as leverage for non-cooperative African/Asian countries, although to be fair in the case of Africa that's no longer needed as the Russian influence had steadily grown in the continent in the aftermath of the French withdrawal in Sahel. As for Pakistan who imported their wheat mainly from Ukraine, the military-installed governor who is close to the U.S. will have to think twice before ever doing something that is detrimental to Russia's security (such as supplying artillery rounds to whomever Russia is dealing with).

But back then everyone laughs, including you

 

[contricusc]

1. It's just maybe that reports that Ukraine has lost 500.000 men are true, that's half the already mobilized manpower, and the rest are either already full of war fatigue or in need of rest and rebuilding.

Ukraine has lost more men than the 31k said by Zelensky, but 500k is way over the top. The number is obviously pretty high, and the injured add up to the killed, so the losses are surely significant, but nowhere near 500k.

2. Ukraine doesn't actually have a million mobilized men

That may possibly be true.

The 'Tooth to Tail Ratio' (also called T3R of the US military is somewhere like this. The lower the intensity, the higher the number of support they have

That could explain why they need more men while only 30% of their menpower has seen combat.

What is problematic about the military demands is that they seem to ask for people to throw at the frontline, not for people to replace the tail while converting some of the support into combat personnel. I think this is where Zelensky has a problem with the military leaders.

IMO, Zelensky would like to see the military sending some of the support personnel to replace the fatigued frontline troops, while allowing them to rest. Only then, if necessary, he would ask for more men to enlist, and the new recruits should start as support personnel, not directly in combat.

On the other hand, the military seems to want new recruits for combat roles, as it is not willing to send the support personnel to replace the fatigued combatants.

It is hard to know exactly what it is going on, but there are surely some problems with the organization.

I have put forward my suspicion on money laundering before, read below

But back then everyone laughs, including you

I didn’t laugh at the corruption suspicions, but at the other outrageous things you said in that post. It is known that Ukraine has problems with corruption, but so does Russia, so at this level both countries suffer a lot.

 

[Gary]

Last August, the NYT citing figures from U.S. officials number the total casualties of 500K for both Russia and Ukraine. Estimate for Ukraine is 130K, since then we already have the failed counter offensive and the Avdiivka debacle.

My estimate is somewhere around 200-250K dead and injured for Ukraine. If Ukraine has around 700K men in uniforms at the start of their mobilizations, they will have to use the remaining 450-500K troops not only to guard the line, train for combat in the rear and spare troops digging in trenches at the frozen Northern front. In fact, Kyiv could've allocated as much as 1/3rd of it's manpower North that they would otherwise avoid to send towards the crumbling Donbass.

Add some rough estimate of Ukraine's combat:support ratio and the line looks very thinly defended. With dwindling ammo and morale.

Could we expect a Russian breakthrough this Summer ?

 

[MaciekRS]

Remember that Ukraine didnt mobilize 700k men age 18-26. And that is HUGE number that CAN be mobilized when in need.
So far mobilization on Ukraine is for men 27 and above. They are trying to preserve future of their country.

 

[Iskander]

Last August, the NYT citing figures from U.S. officials number the total casualties of 500K for both Russia and Ukraine. Estimate for Ukraine is 130K, since then we already have the failed counter offensive and the Avdiivka debacle.

My estimate is somewhere around 200-250K dead and injured for Ukraine. If Ukraine has around 700K men in uniforms at the start of their mobilizations, they will have to use the remaining 450-500K troops not only to guard the line, train for combat in the rear and spare troops digging in trenches at the frozen Northern front. In fact, Kyiv could've allocated as much as 1/3rd of it's manpower North that they would otherwise avoid to send towards the crumbling Donbass.

Add some rough estimate of Ukraine's combat:support ratio and the line looks very thinly defended. With dwindling ammo and morale.

Could we expect a Russian breakthrough this Summer ?

I don't know what the New York Times said last year, but I have no doubt that the Russians will make a breakthrough this summer. Moreover, I do not rule out their capture... of New York (I mean that tiny village not far from the front line).
Judging by their actions during the two years of war, these troops are not capable of anything more. And I kindly advise you, colleague, to turn down the volume of the fanfare

 

[Gary]

Putin said that he intend to unify Russia and Ukraine spiritually

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1765471431943463195

 

[contricusc]

I think that the best solution for Ukraine right now would be if a few European countries would decide to send troop in Ukraine, but not to the frontline to fight Russia, but at the borders with Belarus and Transnistria.

That would allow Ukraine to unblock the troops currently guarding the borders and use them for the war, while at the same time have the borders secured, because there would be no attack from Belarus if the border was guarded by European (NATO) troops.

This would be an escalation from NATO, but not a very big one since the troops would not be directly involved in fighting Russia. It would send a strong message to Putin while avoiding a big escalation. It would also pave the way for a potential larger involvement in the future if things on the frontline deteriorate too much, and it will allow Ukrainians to redeploy many of their troops that right now are locked in defending the northern border and Kyiv.

 

[blackjack]

huh? I thought Ukraine was winning? whats with the manpower shortage talks and European leaders talking about troops on the ground?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1765708433066451233

I think that the best solution for Ukraine right now would be if a few European countries would decide to send troop in Ukraine, but not to the frontline to fight Russia, but at the borders with Belarus and Transnistria.

That would allow Ukraine to unblock the troops currently guarding the borders and use them for the war, while at the same time have the borders secured, because there would be no attack from Belarus if the border was guarded by European (NATO) troops.

This would be an escalation from NATO, but not a very big one since the troops would not be directly involved in fighting Russia. It would send a strong message to Putin while avoiding a big escalation. It would also pave the way for a potential larger involvement in the future if things on the frontline deteriorate too much, and it will allow Ukrainians to redeploy many of their troops that right now are locked in defending the northern border and Kyiv.

Come on now, let's all be a little bit serious here, do you actually believe that most of Europe or its population has come to terms with the acceptance of death similar to the Ukrainians and Russians to get involved in this war, or you think captain America and Marvel will come to the rescue? Are they offering war brides to give them a reason to throw their lives away for some poor bum fuck country in eastern europe?

€1.5 billion would be enough to buy them one (1 x) Barracuda class submarine.

I dont even know if you could even build a single new factory in Western Europe for that money. It's not enough to pay for a new power station, and because it's Europe we're talking about, they're not building power stations anyway. They're doing stupid stuff instead, such as building offshore wind farms.

Good luck powering your energy intensive high tech defense factories with windmills. At this rate, it would be cheaper and quicker for Europe to just surrender to Russia and politely ask Vlad to turn Nord Stream back on.

1.5 trillion wouldn't be enough for Europe to have a military that can compete with the US, China, or Russia. The amount of institutional knowledge/history required to build a functioning military-industrial complex is unthinkably vast. Europeans should just give up and accept that they've become the bitch of greater powers. Macron's larping about an independent Europe is embarrassing.

 

[mehmed beg]

I don't know about European chances against Russian Army but when it comes to the Navies , O think even landlocked countries with the river fleet have a decent chance against Russian Navy.
Maybe not Lichtenstein

 

[FiReFTW]

I think that the best solution for Ukraine right now would be if a few European countries would decide to send troop in Ukraine, but not to the frontline to fight Russia, but at the borders with Belarus and Transnistria.

That would allow Ukraine to unblock the troops currently guarding the borders and use them for the war, while at the same time have the borders secured, because there would be no attack from Belarus if the border was guarded by European (NATO) troops.

This would be an escalation from NATO, but not a very big one since the troops would not be directly involved in fighting Russia. It would send a strong message to Putin while avoiding a big escalation. It would also pave the way for a potential larger involvement in the future if things on the frontline deteriorate too much, and it will allow Ukrainians to redeploy many of their troops that right now are locked in defending the northern border and Kyiv.

lol Europe is NOT sending troops into a country thats in a war with another country, can you people stop smoking whatever you are smoking and realize that?

 

[blackjack]

I don't know about European chances against Russian Army but when it comes to the Navies , O think even landlocked countries with the river fleet have a decent chance against Russian Navy.
Maybe not Lichtenstein

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1764656429711925556

Russia has a decent amount of submarines that launch salvos of missiles, I dont think Europeans want to be test subjects to Zircon missiles and the fact like a month ago the UK' submarine misfired a trident missile few yards away when a few days later after that they successfully intercepted a SLBM with an S-500

 

[Ecderha]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1765748175900676505