Russia-Ukraine War - News, Discussions & Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.
Many on this forum did
I think we can both agree that Scott Ritter is an idiot. The dumbass must have slept through Shield / Storm. That was about as good an example of well-integrated combined arms on a large scale as you were ever going to get.

I have to wonder with some people then I decide "no, it's not worth it".
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
@Viet @AZ_HighCountry

What do you think? Personally, as a Chinese, I prefer war between Ukraine and Russia. As long as there is war, Western companies will be barred from the Russian market, leaving it to Chinese companies.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
@Viet @AZ_HighCountry

What do you think? Personally, as a Chinese, I prefer war between Ukraine and Russia. As long as there is war, Western companies will be barred from the Russian market, leaving it to Chinese companies.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Just more bukake theater.
 
@Viet @AZ_HighCountry

These numbers seem reasonable to me. What do you think?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Last edited:
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Again, you failed to see one thing.

That is without NATO Membership, talk is pointless for Ukraine, for them, that's a point you can't have them remove, unless you have enough progress in the field to basically point it to them "Now it's either total annihilation or accept the peace deal"

Who supplying the Ukrainian is not the question here, whether or not the Russian can make that existential crisis move is the issue here, again, why would I pre-defeated myself when you can't even take half of my land, and Russia don't have to worry about who is supplying Ukraine, because that is for Ukraine to worr
Beggars can't be choosers and Ukraine is the beggar. If the US says Ukraine has to negotiate on American and/or Russian terms that's what Ukraine will do. US has no obligation to keep supplying weapons to Ukraine.

As I said, I am just amaze how you say "they don't do that anymore" when you were quoting Iraqi children die from sanction during the 90s.......
You keep harping this Chechen-Russian stuff when it has been addressed - Pakistan was actually one of the suppliers to Chechens. It wasn't just Iraqi children re-read the post there's a lot you conveniently ignore. FYI "they don't do that anymore" is actually an Islamic teaching, in that, should someone change their ways forgiving them is advised. Here's Putin and the Grand Mufti of Russia in the Kremlin, today:
1740459822512.png
Show me any current American president sitting with a Muslim leader with traditional attire in the WH.
Again, with what? Whether or not US supplies Ukraine have no bearing on how they engineering a Kyiv regime. That regime ain't going anywhere unless someone physically remove them, unless you are saying US physically invade Ukraine, that's would be another issue.
What are your predictions for the war's outcomes? e.g. Ukraine will be in NATO. Btw it's critical to keep in mind the predictions are based on how things are defined today. So you're predicting Ukraine will be in NATO as NATO is defined today?

Again, with what? Whether or not US supplies Ukraine have no bearing on how they engineering a Kyiv regime. That regime ain't going anywhere unless someone physically remove them, unless you are saying US physically invade Ukraine, that's would be another issue.

But as we see in the last 3 years of war, even up and down Russia failed to deliver, there are two best chance that they fumbled, one is when they initiate their attack, that is when they are the strongest, and they failed miserably, and the other is during 2023 when Trump withheld the aid package and hang out the Ukrainian to dry, that they only albe to take Avdviika and around 1200-1500 sq km territories. And since then EU stepped up miltiary aid a lot, and Russian forces degraded a lot. And you think somehow a miracle happens and Ukrainian line would just crumble?

Let me tell you what I know as an infantry staff officer who did intelligence and planning for a living.

To take the entire east side of Dnieper River, Russia would have to deal with around 60 strong point.

For the Russian to roll over the entire Eastern Ukraine (East of the Dneiper) There are 6 different fronts Russia have to cover They are (from top to bottom) Sumy Front, Kharkiv Front, Northern Donbas Front, Southern Donbas Front, Dnipro Front, and Zaporizhzhia Front

The key cities in Sumy Front is circle in black

Sumy Front.jpg


Those are the city Russia HAVE TO take, they can't bypass it as those city control either the MSR/ASR or High Ground, if you don't take those city you don't have freedom of movement.

Other city such as Mykolaivka, Brozna, Putyvl and Ichnia are optional objective, you can either take them or bypass them, but if you by-pass them, you can't encircle the key cities, which mean it's going to take longer to fight in there.

Of those, Sumy itself is a large city, 150 sq km, with a lot of build up area, if we are using the Russian force progress in Bakhmut, it will take at least 3 times as long to take Sumy, and Bakhmut fought for 9 months. Romny, Pryluky, Nizhyn are similar in size with Bakhmut it will take arund 6 to 9 months to go over them, and Mala Divytsia is a small settlement, maybe you can take it in 3 months. That 6 cities alone will cost Russian 4 to 5 years progress. And then you also have the other minor objective to consider.

This is Kharkiv Front

Kharkiv Front.jpg


Kharkiv front is bigger but similar deal with Sumy, all the black circle are important objective, You MUST take them if you want freedom of movement in the area, city between main transit route are again, optional objective

Kharkiv city itself is the SECOND biggest city in Ukraine. Dealing with Kharkiv alone can span years as you need to first taken Vovchansk, Chuhiv Bohodukhiv in order for you to encircle Kharkiv, Kharkiv itself is 350km, that city alone is going to take year to fall. Russia tried to go near them back in May 2022, and have to roll back in August the same year, then you have other cross road town and Kupiansk, Just taking all the key objective here alone would see around 9 years or a decade of work. Not including the optional cities.

This is Northern Donbas Front

Donbas 1.jpg


As with the previous Russian battle plan, the key is to take the trio of "guard dog" first, Siversk, Lyman and Yarova, Russian successful taken Lyman and Yarova in the initiate stage, and then got rolled back, Siversk was seiged, never taken, and any plane to move West would first need to take the 3 cities, and then you need to wait until the Southern front to go up so you can Encircle Kramatosk and Sloviansk, which both city is similar in size with Sumy, which again, it will take 2 to 3 years there alone to felt that city.

And then you have 2 ways into the Ukrainian heart land and connect to Dnipro Oblast. Either go West from Sloviansk and thru Barvinkove or go West from the South via Porovsk.

This alone, will take anywhere from 6 to 8 years (around 2 years to felt all 3 Siversk, Lyman and Yarova, then 2 years each with Sloviansk and Kramatosk., and then another year or 2 thru Barvinkove and optional objective

You then have Southern Donbas

Donbas 2.jpg


Toresk and Charsiv Yar is current operation, Toretask is already 7 months old battle. And Charsiv Yar is almost a year old. Then you are talking about Kostiantvika and Pokrovsk, Kostiantvika is not yet at war, Pokrovsk offensive is 7 months old again. Let's assume they all felt by the end of this year, then you have both Druzhkivka and Konstiantvika to take, let's say it's the same timeframe as Toretsk, it take roughly a year, so in 4 years, you may see Southern Donbas being conquer by Russian.

Then we move on to untapped territories, with more or less intact defensive line

This is Dnipro

Dnipro front.jpg


Each of these city in black circle can easily last 1 or 2 years, with the City of Dnipro going to last more than 3 as this is even bigger than Sumy (410 or 450 sq km), you can't control Eastern Ukraine until Dnipro fall

Then the South is not any better

Zapo front.jpg


Zaporizhzhia is as big as Sumy, that city alone is going to be multiple years affair, then you have Orkhiniv to the south Porvoskse to the west, and Pavlohrad to the north east, all 3 are similar in size with Bakhmut. This is going to take about a year each for it.

You are talking about 4 to 6 years just to go up to Zaporizhzhia alone depending on your progress and whether or not you ignore the optional objective. And then the main even last for maybe 2 to 3 years.

Ukraine won't defend a city to the last men, the entire war they only ever do it twice once in Severodonetsk and the other time in Mariupol you are talking about 50-70% recycle rate which mean the loss of menpower is going to be around 40% each battle, which mean they can attrit the Russian invader.

So that alone will take 2 decade to achieve, Trump will be long gone, probably under the ground by then, it's impossible to in term to just take the key city alone.
I appreciate the effort and the analysis here. In this analysis you're trying to apply the same rates as previous battles - the rate changes as average Ukrainian soldier age goes up, Ukrainian suppliers decrease support, Russian forces gain momentum, etc.

Setting that aside - I mentioned East of the Dnipro will be claimed by Russians in negotiations. Whether the US agrees to that is not guaranteed there are too many moving parts.

Huh Russian are slow. Let's take a look at the battle compare to the size
  1. Siege of Mariupol - 2022 - 2 months and 27 days - 244 sq km​

  2. Battle of Kherson - 2022 - 7 days - 135.7 sq km​

  3. Battle of Rubizhne - 2022 - 1 month 27 days - 35 sq km​

  4. Battle of Sievierodonetsk - 2022 - 1 month 19 days - 42.1 sq km​

  5. Battle of Lysychansk - 2022 - 13 days - 96 sq km​

  6. Battle of Soledar - 2022 - 2023 - 5 months 13 days - 19 sq km​

  7. Battle of Bahkmut 2023- 10 months 17 days - 41 sq km​

  8. Battle of Marinka 2023- 1 year 8 months 7 days - 51.92 sq km​

  9. Battle of Avdiivka 2023-2024- 4 months 1 week - 29 sq km​

  10. Battle of Novohrodivka 2024- 28 days - 6 sq km​

  11. Battle of Krasnohorivka 2024 - 5 months 1 days - 11 sq km​

  12. Battle of Ukrainsk 2024 - 19 days - 6 sq km​

  13. Battle of Vuhledar 2024- 1 years 11 months 3 days -5.3 sq km​

Did you not see the pattern? Again, there are up to 60 Identified target and 6 key target just in Southern Donbas alone, if we go by this schedule, it would be 2027 before all 6 in southern donbas was taken. And then you have northern donbas to deal with, which is where the main event is. As I said you can't attack Kramatosk and Sloviansk without a southern strike. It's too big to attack head on, and that is given if they can take the 3 cities on top. It's going to be 7 years + to completely control Donbas if we go by this schedule


(PS I don't know why it become all bold. It was like that after I put the list in order, and I can't change it)

I'll assume these numbers are correct but a lot of details that can't be accounted for - number of Ukrainian soldiers at fighting age decreasing, Russian morale increasing, European morale decreasing, Europeans fighting amongst themselves, etc.

AfD can't stymie anything, they have 20% of vote around 18% of the Bundestag, If CDU and SPD agree arms sale or defence aid, that's ball game, because CDU/CSU and SPD combine that's 320 of 630 strong Bundestag......

And yes, we need to wait and see
It's not so important who is in charge. What's more important is that Ukraine's supporters are fragmented and every little bit of chaos in their ranks has a disproportionate effect on Ukraine. Poland is another example they're refusing to send soldiers for any peace keeping force because they want to prepare for the worst. Same goes for weapons, the Europeans will start looking out for themselves once the American security umbrella is officially gone and there are signs it's going. Fragmenting Europe is another victory for Europe that is becoming more apparent.
 
Beggars can't be choosers and Ukraine is the beggar. If the US says Ukraine has to negotiate on American and/or Russian terms that's what Ukraine will do. US has no obligation to keep supplying weapons to Ukraine.

And again, they already stopped, it's not like they are still getting supplies from US in January and February and then Trump come up and say "I am going to stop supplying you if you don't go there and talk with the Russian. That would be a threat, not when you had not supplies the Ukrainian since May 2024, June 2024, July 2024, August 2024, September 2024, October 2024, November 2024, December 2024, January 2025, and February 2025. That is a lot less of a threat in this case.
You keep harping this Chechen-Russian stuff when it has been addressed - Pakistan was actually one of the suppliers to Chechens. It wasn't just Iraqi children re-read the post there's a lot you conveniently ignore. FYI "they don't do that anymore" is actually an Islamic teaching, in that, should someone change their ways forgiving them is advised. Here's Putin and the Grand Mufti of Russia in the Kremlin, today:
View attachment 103900
Show me any current American president sitting with a Muslim leader with traditional attire in the WH.
Again, I am just saying you use something from the 90s in the west on how they mistreat Muslim and then at the same time you said the Russian didn't do it. Also, do you mean this??

1740462623742.png

Or This?

1740462668449.png
As I said, this is out of topic, maybe we should let this go?

What are your predictions for the war's outcomes? e.g. Ukraine will be in NATO. Btw it's critical to keep in mind the predictions are based on how things are defined today. So you're predicting Ukraine will be in NATO as NATO is defined today?

My prediction? I don't know. As I said, NEITHER of the party in this war can dictate term to the other, Ukraine will not forego NATO membership with just 20% of the territories lost, Russian will not forego their Ukrainian Conquest when Ukraine can't expel them. This is like Korean War in September 1950, both side cannot push the other side over the 38 Parallel in large dove, that's why the war ended (technically not ended by let just say it did) in 1953, not 1950.

I said NATO won't let Ukrainian go with all the weapon, intelligence and support provided to Ukraine, letting it go and run back to Russia or worse to China mean the entire NATO structure had to go and had to be replaced, Maybe this is what Trump aimed to do? I don't know, but at this point, both side don't have the drive to make a negotiation happens.

I appreciate the effort and the analysis here. In this analysis you're trying to apply the same rates as previous battles - the rate changes as average Ukrainian soldier age goes up, Ukrainian suppliers decrease support, Russian forces gain momentum, etc.

You need event to gain momentum, that's why Russian didn't have any big progress and it was actually going backward when they had around 22% of Ukraine in 2022 and now just 20 and probably around 18 if you deducted the Kursk occupation from Ukraine.. It can't just come out strong, it had to has some event, the last event is Russia mobiise 300,000 reserve, that changes the dynamic, but if nothing has change the dynamic, you can't just say "How about some momentum"

BOTH SIDE would suffer lose, but in a more conventionally estimate is the defender ALWAYS suffer smaller losses than the attacker, because you need to get out of cover to attack, while the defender can make use of any defensive position. Traditional Estimate, when I mean traditional estimate mean it's not 1 Russian soldier can fight 3 Ukrainian soldier, it mean they are equal, 1 to 1. you will see 3 attacker lost to 1 defender. And again, as I said, Ukraine don't have the habit to fight til the last men, which mean Ukrainian force regeneration prospect is better than the Russian.

Setting that aside - I mentioned East of the Dnipro will be claimed by Russians in negotiations. Whether the US agrees to that is not guaranteed there are too many moving parts.

This is not up to th US to agree, because it will spend decade, if not decadeS (Plural) US administion ends in 4 years, whatever this administration can affect it can only last 4 years, 4 years later, it will be a different administration, with different people in charge. So unless you are talking about small term gain, it is OUT of this administration hands

I'll assume these numbers are correct but a lot of details that can't be accounted for - number of Ukrainian soldiers at fighting age decreasing, Russian morale increasing, European morale decreasing, Europeans fighting amongst themselves, etc.

Again, if you have to do comparasion, it has to be 1 to 1. How do you know Russian morale is better? Fighting 3 years in the same landscape is not going to be better, and even if it is so, how does it translate to material success? Professional force fight war regardless of their morale, I mean I won't stop fighting just because my commanding officer is killed, each unit operate on its own, have their own job to do, nobody fights war base on morale anymore. And if you do, that mean your force is not professional

On the other hand, this is a trend, and the trend is going down, again, it's not something that you cannot fix if we operate in the same environment as before, because you have the exact input to the solution, hence you WILL have a similar output. What if does not apply in battlefield. I mean what if Zelenskyy gives up? The war ends right? Or what if Putin give up? The war also ends, the what if part is not important, why would Zelenskyy or Putin give up is more important, otherwise EVEYRTHING is going to be the same, as this is a trend, it explains your physical ability. It takes longer to take a city, it won't just because your morale is better than it take you shorter to take the next objective, it take that long because you physically need to, that's times going into preparing the assault, setting up the battlefield, moving unit across the board, moving troop into position, exchanging engagement, you won't skip any of those step just because your morale is high. You had a better chance to succeed if your morale is high, but then I am assuming you are going to take those objectives anyway, so that chance of succeed is 100% in my analysis, it won't go higher than that.


It's not so important who is in charge. What's more important is that Ukraine's supporters are fragmented and every little bit of chaos in their ranks has a disproportionate effect on Ukraine. Poland is another example they're refusing to send soldiers for any peace keeping force because they want to prepare for the worst. Same goes for weapons, the Europeans will start looking out for themselves once the American security umbrella is officially gone and there are signs it's going. Fragmenting Europe is another victory for Europe that is becoming more apparent.
This is stupid to think EU will stop supporting Ukraine when US is taking away the security umbrella. If this is the case, they want to support Ukraine even more.

Because the choice is, either Support Ukraine now, or face Russia later, whether or not Russia is going to attack EU afterward is an unknown, you can say they will, or you can argue they won't but EU policy maker can't base that on the best case scenario, which is Russia is going to be done after Ukraine, they have to plan the worst case scenario. The problem is, EU aren't ready, there are no enough number, and culture to fight off the Russian, no one in the current political atmosphere is going to serve in EU armed force, and an military reform EU wide is decade away, which mean if they have to plan the worse, they are going to be gone without the US support, that's the actual situation here. What EU do have is a lot of money. and you don't need to be a genius to come up with the solution, which is to send whatever you can to Ukraine to have Russia tied down in Ukraine while you do your reform at home, it gives you time to prepare for them and when Russia is stuck in Ukraine, they can't be anywhere else, which mean the logical solution for the problem ahead. It both buy them time and restarting military production at the same time, this is a one bird two stone solution.
 
Last edited:
@Viet @AZ_HighCountry

These numbers seem reasonable to me. What do you think?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

that’s not credible.
if Ukraine army suffers more deaths and wounded than the russians then it should have collapsed.

usually the attackers suffer 3:1 against defenders.
the defending side is prepared in trenches, in dugouts while the attacking must run across open fields.
by Ukraine and western intel estimates
the russians suffer about 900,000 casualties.
Ukraine casualties then about 300,000 men.

in this war of attrition Ukraine must kill more russians than be killed.
 
The chances of the war ending this year are slim IMO.

Trumps going to learn he can’t extort or pressure his way to peace

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.



Man, what a time we live in. China abstained while the US voted against a resolution condemning Russia. This would be unthinkable just a few months ago.

@Hamartia Antidote
@F-22Raptor
Lets call it what it is: A total surrender of the collective west, even France&UK were pressured to not to excise veto power. Dayum.
 
I think we can both agree that Scott Ritter is an idiot. The dumbass must have slept through Shield / Storm. That was about as good an example of well-integrated combined arms on a large scale as you were ever going to get.

I have to wonder with some people then I decide "no, it's not worth it".
that was ancient history, fool

today's US military total combat power is roughly a quarter of its peak, which was 1991.

Scott Ritter is just one of many who can accept reality
 
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirms that whether or not the United States loves it, Russia remains a superpower and has the largest stock of nuclear weapons in the world..

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top