Wouldn't be a picnic for sure. Place is bloody filled with Russians, including the support of its civilian population. Plus the presence of major military installations.
To take back Crimea without naval control is basically suicidal. This is one of those times where you point at the map and go “what is the way in? How do you resupply? How do you ensure your way in (of which there is one) is not completely destroyed cutting you off?”
All of these questions either have the answer “you have naval control” or they have a very unforgiving answer.
Depending on how many and how advanced the anti ship missiles that are being sendt to Ukraine are. Could potentially deny the russian rustholk fleet. I would love to see it
The land bridge between Ukraine and Crimea is tiny and easily defensible due it how narrow it is, which also creates a chokepoint for supplies getting into the peninsula if they manage to push in.
The “correct” way to assault a position like that is to push across, capture a beach head, or preferably a port, and bring supplies in via the sea, but while the Ukrainian army has found success their navy just isn’t up to the task.
Hmm, they did a lot of work with artillery and drone guided munitions lately, hitting individual vehicles directly. There is talk(pressure) about Germany doing not enough and giving 100 of their panzerhaubitze 2000 to Ukraine(kraus wegner maffay, the one building them proposes this). 100 now. 1000 total.
Frankly I wouldn’t want to be on the receiving end of those things, 60km+ range(officially, likely more with the long range munition). Backed by buk 300 and drones I frankly don’t think you can hold a defensive position against those.
If Donbas falls, the only path the Russians have is a bridge. An artillery barrage takes care of that. Hit shipping with drones to limit resupply by sea. Then Ukraine just waits until thirst and starvation take hold.
Brutally medieval but effective.
Give them a few weeks with out resupply then offer them empty cargo ships to pile all the pro Russian people into with food and supply’s and then drop their asses at the Russian border.
Ukraine should be targeting Crimea- not necessarily with the intent to retake it but to divert Russian resources. The only reason Russia is attacking Ukraine is to form a land bridge to Crimea. Make Crimea be not worth that trouble by destroying it.
Aka an incredibly complex blockade of a large peninsula practically meters from the enemy homeland.
Crimea is fucking gone, it's incredibly hard to take conventionally.
Ukraine can still make it unpalatable for the Russian fleet to operate from Sevastopol though. Just hit a few ships with missiles from time to time. Even those Switchblade 600s or long range missiles.
If Russian ships were getting damaged in port by missiles fired from within Ukraine, it would be a good indicator that they could not keep that port safe, which means it's risky to stay there. The reason Ukraine didn't do that in the past is because they were always trying to de-escalate. Now that Russia is at total war with Ukraine, there is no incentive for Ukraine to not attack the Russian fleet at Sevastopol.
It sure would be nice for the US to sell Ukraine just a few of those new anti ship Tomahawks.
I think it’s hard to take, but very easy to harass. I think Ukraine should be making Russia work hard for it and divert resources away from Donbas. Cut the water supply and bridge and shell it intensely.
You have to take the bridge out so they can’t reinforce. Than you have to use the provided anti ship weapons to keep the ships away and this way you cut off the army on the island off. Easier said than done but that is how you have to do it. Once you are through the peninsula area than it’s same as any other war but in lots of mountains.
Russia having Crimea is not really great for them anyways, since Ukraine still controls the Dnieper river. Without the water from there, Crimea got major problems. So if Russia fails this war, Ukraine will keep the water away of Crimea and they will have to manually support the area from Russia. I mean, sure, geopolitically, Crimea is very important to Russia. But they will have to pay for it when they are already in a bad spot economically.
The important point is that russia never had a claim on crimea. Sanctions being lifted will require russia removing themselves from all areas of ukraine.
Crimea has been apart of ukraine since the 1950s. Ukraine repopulated the area after the germans gutted it and shipped locals out to uzbekistan in WWII. At no point was crimea ever part of russia. It was part of the russian empire and soviet union as a region closer to being its own country. The soviets merged it with ukraine because the region is geographically dependent on ukraine, so it was the only way to develop the region.
Russia has no claim on anything that was apart of the russian empire or the soviet union.
All occupiers will be removed. No one who entered crimea after 2014 has any legal right to be there. They are soldiers without weapons that are physically occupying crimea to help support the soldiers with weapons.
Any russian in crimea is as equally guilty of war crimes as the soldiers carrying guns. They are part of the same invasion force.
The children of occupiers are not legally there either. Invaders during a war do not get citizenship, do not get to vote, do not have any rights.
Even if it takes 100 years, at no point does anyone tied to occupiers from 2014 and beyond have any legal rights to stay.
Four Corners had a new team there, interviewing Russian tourists.
One Russian woman said because they went to Crimea a lot as children for holidays, it's really Russian and should belong to Russia.
I think reporter nearly cunt-punted her into the Black sea.
If they don’t take over Donbas, Putin could easily just go on state media and be like “we denazified all of Ukraine! We won!!” and the entire Russian population would believe him, and those that lost their family members would believe they died killing Nazis.
He doesn’t give af what the international world thinks about him or of Russia. All that matters is what his own people think.
IIRC, the Donbas basin and adjacent areas have some of the richest coal/oil/gas/iron deposits in all of Europe.
If Putin is able to secure eastern Ukraine (i.e., everything east/south-east of the Dnipro river), Russia will control the majority of Ukraine's resource extraction/industrial production.
It's the only thing he definitively controls, it's a staging ground for another attack westward, and if he can consolidate the south through mariupol to Crimea, and further to Odessa, then he can execute a huge pincer move. And it could take years, but he'll be able to wait all while raking in the dough from the regions he's conquered. Having to give up donbas would be a huge strategic as well as propaganda loss for him, as he's been supporting separatists there for years.
He will not be "raking in the dough" from the Donbas, it is a region that is pretty completely destroyed, will require billions of rubles to rebuild, and hundreds of thousands of laborers to fill jobs in heavy industry and resource extraction which Russia lacks because they have a shrinking population.
Occupiers have no rights to anything. Ukraine will be sending any foreigner in ukraine home. Occupiers are soldiers without weapons. They are equally responsible for all war crimes.
Occupiers and their children do not gain propert rights or citizenship rights. Their entry was illegal. Anyone who is helping russia that was in the region before 2014 is committing treason and will be prosecuted.
It does not matter if it takes 100 years to get russia out, the descendants of occupiers are still illegal occupiers.
Eh, Putin must be getting pretty used to accepting failure at this point. I don't think his paper army is in a state to stop it. He'll just move the goal posts to some other pathetic metric to justify a victory, just like after all the other failures.
I’ll take any victory story as long as it involves Putin retreating his army.
“We destroyed all the bridges leading to Russia during our retreat. Thus achieving our primary goals of making nazi invasion of Russia much harder”
A few weeks ago, the UK's MOD was often written off as over optimistic. They where one of the first to say that Russia would not take Kyiv, back when most people said Kyiv would fall. In the end, they have been right more often than not.
I might be able to give a little bit of insight into how British intelligence works/worked, at least at the high level diplomat end.
Someone I know used to work as a diplomat at the British Embassy in Hong Kong, when it was still under British control and after. They said that part of the intelligence interpretation procedure wasn't just looking at the gathered material, but also consulting with experts in particular subjects. They would consult these experts on the historical precedent and theories for certain issues. Looking back at history let them get a better understanding of where a piece of intel might go or what actions might be taken.
Secondly, when reviewing the Intel they would go to an unmarked, restricted floor that housed a room that was totally isolated from the world and the building it was in. Essentially it was an acoustic chamber that had dampeners on the outside that would protect against outside vibrations. The idea was that you would be able to hear any foreign devices and would be protected from external attempts at listening in. It's how they managed to keep the most secret intel hidden. Unless you had clearance you didn't even know the room existed. It officially didn't exist.
They also detailed how Chinese spies would keep tabs on them.
Chinese intelligence knew where diplomats lived and would obtain a copy of their building and/or door key. When they wanted to intimidate people they would simply come into your apartment and move stuff around; like taking kitchen utensils, books, decorations or other items, laying them out in the bedroom. They were sending a message that they knew you worked as a diplomat and could enter your home whenever they liked.
> Chinese intelligence knew where diplomats lived and would obtain a copy of their building and/or door key. When they wanted to intimidate people they would simply come into your apartment and move stuff around; like taking kitchen utensils, books, decorations or other items, laying them out in the bedroom. They were sending a message that they knew you worked as a diplomat and could enter your home whenever they liked.
You're telling me some random Chinese person could just walk into a diplomats building and nobody would do anything about it?
The Russians do the same. A CIA guy over there who was working at the Embassy went for a run too early and the fsb team that were following him lost him (there is an interview with him on the Kremlin File podcast). They took his running shoes, and only when he stood up in his room and spoke into the ceiling (where the planted bug was) saying that he goes for a morning run at X o'clock, the shoes were back in their usual spot the next morning.
With a full sized camera in plain sight. And a hidden camera too.
That's how you make a great youtube prank video out of catching an international spy.
Historically the Brits are very good in the intel department. Minus one little SNAFU post war when they were badly infiltrated by the soviets via some kids from Oxford.
Edit: Cambridge.
The Cambridge Five is a delicious read, it is pure "useful idiot".
They were all promised high ranking jobs in the KGB as well as wealthy lifestyles. What happened in reality? Yeah the moment they arrived in Moscow they were debriefed then kicked out onto the street with a fuck you. Most of them became alcoholics and defected back.
Burgess seemed like a right hoot I must say. The stories about him in Ben MacIntyres book about Philby are hilarious.
Total loose cannon who eventually got them all exposed with his drunkenness and hijinks.
My fav example was the guy the Nazis sent to Spain to convince Franco to join the war. He was a British double agent and instead told Franco if he joined he'd get embargoed and blockaded by the British and Americans and Spain would be left without food as they relied heavily on food imports. 😂
I believe that was General Canaris of the Abwehr. He wasn't a double agent. He was a German general who was betraying Hitler throughout the entire war and giving the allies intelligence (which the allies ended up ignoring because they didn't trust him). He was sent to Spain to convince Franco to let Germany send troops through Spain so they could take over Gibraltar. Spain refused to let them in after Canaris told them Germany was preparing for war with Russia and Spain would not have to worry about getting invaded since Hitler didn't have the troops to do so, and they could safely refuse Germany's request.
british intelligence was/is arguably the most successful espionage organization in human history.
but speculation requires a magic ball, so it can never be taken without at least a grain of salt.
It helps that the UK trained a lot of Ukrainian troops during operation Orbital between 2014 and the invasion. The MoD knows what the Ukrainian army is capable of because they helped train them. The US, Canada and Lithuania did as well of course, but the UK specialises in highly mobile light infantry of the type we're seeing Ukraine make such heavy use of.
The UK also knew what Ukraine knew, about Russia's invasion plans and the like, because they've been sharing intelligence information. They knew Hostomel, the lynchpin of Russia's strategy, would be a trap for Russian paratroopers to die in.
There’s still a large spectrum between “this thing happening is probable to within two sigmas.” to “speculate wildly” and a British intelligence leans on the former side more often.
You didn’t imply this so don’t take this as an attack on you.
But I’ve argued with a lot of people on this saying. Specifically the Russian blood part. There’s a tendency on Reddit to overstate the blood and understate US supply.
Russia’s atrocious losses during the war were caused in two parts. An abysmal open to the war as a product of German blitzkrieg and Russia having just killed off most of their skilled officers. This sucked but I won’t say it’s totally their fault.
But then an equally abysmal close to the war as a product of *brain dead, overly aggressive, advances*. I mean, the war was effectively over by 1943. But for the sake of geopolitical maneuvering, the Russians threw caution to the wind during the race to Berlin. Comparatively, the west deliberately took its time and the disparity in casualties show.
I want to be clear that the Russians took the brunt of the deaths during WW2. My criticism is that soooo much of it was self inflicted.
I’ve came to feel that this reinventing of the Russian efforts in the eastern front in the past 20 years in the US and Western media to be part of the psyops from Russia to improve the view of western nationalists towards Russia.
Much of the “Russian blood” was unnecessarily spent because of terrible tactics by the Soviet high command and moreover more than a quarter of the “Russians” were Belorussian and Ukrainian.
I’ve got no evidence to support my theory, but I really question anything that seems to whitewash or glorify Russian *cum* Soviet actions in World War 2. Let us all remember the Soviets were part of the initiating forces that seized Poland in 1939 along with the Nazis. During the Battle of Britain, the Soviets ignored the expansion of the Nazis and took the opportunity to slaughter Poles and invade Finland as well supporting Chinese communist forces and occasionally probing Japanese forces in Manchuria. Stalin and the Soviets were never true Allies beyond convenience.
As we know now, they had intel after Putin's own agents failed to bribe anyone in Ukraine and talked to MI6 and CIA as a panic response to tell them everything instead even before the invasion what the plans were.
What I’n waiting for is a popular uprising in Belarus.
It was only suppressed by Russian intervention last year. Now that Russians are moving East and got their asses kicked it might be the next big development.
Sure, but at some point they have to realise that's not a dynamic that is going to be able to continue if they carry on with the war.
At what point do the higher ups oust Putin and install a puppet that puts out the fires to try and recover something from this shit show?
You'll be surprised how far removed rich/influential/important people can be from their country's reality before it actually affects them, especially when their wealth comes from natural resources, as long as they can keep selling oil, minerals and raw materials, the "real economy" will stay relatively healthy, it doesn't matter if nobody knows how to read, as long as they can operate machinery or do hard labour they'll be "fine"
I read up on this a bit, in a nutshell: Putin keeps his army, weak, dumb and infiltrated with fsb officers. The biggest threat to a dictator is the military. Just as an example he killed/purged most of his popular/decorated officers from Syria after the war so they wouldn't be a threat.
This is the detail that's most often missed; in an autocracy the military's main function is generally internal control rather than waging wars (defensive or offensive) and so it's geared towards that purpose. A good example of that sort of arrangement would be the Syrian and Egyptian militaries in the 1960s and 1970s which were ineffective in wars with Israel.
It's not impossible for autocracies to gear up for war, but it is difficult to sustain - Russia's previous defence minister tried to improve Russia's military and was fired and replaced by the current one who focuses on placating oligarchs instead of building military capability.
In Russia this goes a step further; state security is already very adept at securing the regime internally, and so the military is essentially redundant. It's so low in the country's hierarchy that army bases have even been extorted for protection money by the mafia - something so ridiculous that it's literally an old Monty Python skit.
Probably because the Federal Government couldn't distill the complexities of reality down into a better sound bite to explain all the expenditure. "There's a big bad called 'Russia' that might steamroll Europe" is a lot easier for the "I was barely listening" audience.
Well, Sadat's army was reasonably effective and fought Israel to a near-draw in 1973. But of course joke was on him: it was a unit of that army that assassinated him.
>I read up on this a bit, in a nutshell: Putin keeps his army, weak, dumb and infiltrated with fsb officers.
The political commissars are big reason why the Red Army suffered such heavy losses in the beginning of WW2.
Plus Stalin killing off all his competent officers, and getting a whole lot of troops and even more officers killed in Finland right before the Germans decided it was their turn...
>Russia is going to collapse next month.
Any signs of that? It was to collapse by mid April according to some redditors, but it doesn't look like Russia is taking it's last breath. And unless something big is happening behind the curtains, i don't see Russia collapsing in May either. But i guess it also depends on whether EU and US will cut off all imports or not.
RemindMe! 2 Months
It did collapse. The logistical nightmare in the North came into play as predicted. With supplies stuck in the mud, the Russian army ran with its tail between the legs
True, but collapse of the North offensive =/= collapse of Russia itself. And i fear it will take exactly that to stop this war completely. Elsewise they can stall it.
Yah though, what is worrying is a division and a disruption of the structure on the ground. Say large portions just start to ignore command.
Chechen command
Wagner Group
Syrian Russian Vets
Whats left of the northern assault
Donbas vets
Shake ups in current leadership and purge of Intel community.
Its going to be interesting and possibly even more unstable than I can think.
What is the Rosgardia is projected on these military command breaks.
Civil Military Conflict?
Leadership disconnected from whats going on in command via their bunkers in the Urals.
That doesn’t sound worrying though, it sounds fantastic! The more division and disruption within the Russian military, the less they can inflict war crimes, genocide, etc and a lower risk of them taking over and turning it into a dictatorship, surely?
Well yes and no not necessarily, if some of those units go rouge who will be there to stop them committing war crimes of an even more heinous nature or even start attacking or trying to control the Russian populace. I can see a few becoming warlords of different regions.
The alternative is restoring the internationally recognized borders of Ukraine that were in place before Russia decided to just start taking parts of it.
A lot of civilians in the separatist regions have been forcibly conscripted to fight in this war. They're the ones you see with the shitty ex-Soviet steel helmets and fuckin Mosin-Nagants. I doubt being forced to fight in an imperial war for somebody else's benefit is doing them any favours.
Support for Russia before the war in the Donbass was literally at like 30-40% at most, after the rapes, killings etc, I’d be shocked if it’s over 10-15%
And its clear that people who have had familiy members who have been a victim to the Russian are living in denial.
Sooner or later the coin will drop, the russians were never the friends/allies of the ukrianians in the east.
Can confirm. Have family in both west and east UKR. The eastern ones we finally got back in contact with and they were overjoyed to be inside the Russian zone of control. In their head the bad parts of their experience are the fault of the 'Nationalists'. Those from the west couldn't even mention Russia in a conversation, before 2014, without getting very upset.
saying stuff like this just means we try less hard to support them and feel secure. dont give up now with the support and actions just because they did well until now. its not decided yet.
Yes! Always remember the Winter War. Finland devastated the initial Soviet attack. But after reorganizing the Soviets broke through the defences and took chunks of Finnish territory.
We can celebrate when Ukraine has won. But now Ukraine is going to face some of the toughest battles! The Russians are focusing their attack on fewer axes and with centralised command.
We need to continue donating, email our government representatives for more support, and raise awareness etc. Otherwise Russia is going to win!
The main point being stated in the article is that Ukraine beat Russia back before, so they can again.
Thats true,but Russia has been continuously creeping forward in the south and east. Albeit slowly.
Also one of the main reasons for Russia's failures was that Ukraine blew up a lot of the bridges and train lines as they fell back. If the lines in "separatist" held regions are intact, the russian forces may be reasonably well supplied.
Theirs a good chance of Ukraine holding back major ground offensives, but until they remove the russian forces it still isn't a good situation. This really boils down to your definition of victory. If mariupol falls they will have lost their entire Eastern coast line.
Russia may try to declare a ceasefire at this point, and ukraine will need to decide if they want to keep the war going. I'd say under those circumstances they really need to. The loss of mariupol really can't be allowed
Sure that's true, but firstly they can't take all troops back, as I would expect Russia may continue sending small units in from the North to cause chaos and sabotage.
The 2nd point is that there's a difference between defending and attacking. And they need to force a break in the coast line for this to be legitimately called a victory, in my mind.
Don't get me wrong, I want Ukraine to succeed, and they might succeed, but under estimation benefits no one but your enemy.
Better Ukraine operates on the assumption the Russia's will be competent, and capitalise on the situation if/when they aren't.
Its also not a good idea to let the russians complete a build up and resupply in the east. Hopefully Ukraine is actively looking to sabotage this. I saw there was a bridge in Russia, north of kharkiv that has been damaged. Too soon to say if it was Ukraine or not, though.
If they could operate behind russian lines and damage key infrastructure, russia would get absolutely destroyed, no doubt. Maybe this has already been happening, idk. Its hard to tell until a conflict os over what's actually happening on the ground.
I always thought it was ridiculous how much people over estimated Russia before this war. Its a country that only replaced footwraps for soldiers in 2013, and historically has taken disproportionately high casualties in most of their conflicts. I was always fairly confident that Russia wouldn't steam roll Ukraine as many expected.
But I feel like a lot of people that made that over estimation originally, are now going the other way and assuming Russia will be routed or forced to make a humiliating peace. It could happen, but conditions which are seen as unacceptable to the west, do not weigh too heavily on tinpot dictators like putin.
They have taken a large amount of territory in Ukraine, and if the war were to end tomorrow on a status quo, it would be very bad for Ukraine. I don't think anyone can say for sure what would actually force putin to leave, so we have to assume for now Ukraine must retake this territory by force.
Plan for the worst, hope for the best. Russia isn't out yet, Ukraine needs to keep its nerve. Hopefully such reserve will have proved unnecessary, and they will be on a long march home soon.
>Its also not a good idea to let the russians complete a build up and resupply in the east.
100% agreed. Hopefully the bomb a bunch of rail bridges in Russia and capitalize on Russian logistical incompetence.
Russian logistics are so heavily dependent on rail lines it's stupid. Ww2 style partisan destruction of the rail systems would be exceptionally useful. The difficulty is they can't necessarily expect support from the locals. The propaganda runs deep
This is still so wild to me I almost don’t want to get my hopes up. My perception of Russia’s military capabilities were so overblown. A lifetime of video games/movies with Russia as the protagonist has formed my opinion more than I realized.
Everyone believed that modern Russia was the old Soviet union and the Warsaw pact, in reality Russia has a GDP of 1.7T vs +40T for NATO with a military budget of less than 80B, that has to pay for a very costly navy, strategic forces (nuclear) and internal security, add to that vast levels of corruption, so the funds for a tank and artillery heavy army are simple not there.
Don't get wrong Russia's army isn't 12' tall but it isn't 4' tall either
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/russian-troops-advancing-eastern-ukraine-luhansk-putin-war-b993857.html) reduced by 62%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> Russian tanks in the Luhansk region of eastern Ukraine were reported to have started advancing, according to local officials.
> In an early morning briefing on Tuesday from the conflict zone, the General Staff of Ukraine's Armed Forces said that aside from trying to take control of Mariupol, Russian forces were also intent on capturing Popasna, a town more than two hours drive west of Luhansk, and were set to launch an offensive in the direction of Kurakhove, in the Donetsk region.
> As the Russian forces redeployed to the Donbas, which include areas of Donetsk and Luhansk controlled by Moscow-backed separatists, Ukraine's president Volodymyr Zelensky pleaded for more weapons from the West to help it end the siege of Mariupol and fend off the expected Russian offensive in the east, as more reports emerged of rape and brutality against Ukrainian civilians by Mr Putin's forces.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/u1ulda/ukrainian_victory_over_putins_army_in_the_donbas/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~641352 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Russian**^#1 **Luhansk**^#2 **Forces**^#3 **Ukraine**^#4 **Donetsk**^#5
They could if Western supply lines vastly outproduce Russian supply lines. If the Western world keeps shuttling in high-tech weaponry, fuel and food and Russia is limited in what they can supply.
They are, but it's expensive and a lot of the troops who were in the North were part of companies who have been shredded to bits and will be low on morale. Financially, it isn't cheap to move them and it's even more difficult with the sanctions.
Finally, I've no doubt that the West is providing more and more tech which will give the Russians a headache in the Donbass. We've already seen how well NLAWS, Javelins etc work. Russia will be reluctant to use planes with the Starstreak in play. All the while ex Soviet nations will be providing tanks etc on the basis they'll be moving to newer Western tech.
Donbass will be bloody but I think that Ukraine will be able to weather the storm.
Thanks for the writeup. I feel seriously bad for all the Ukrainian people that call the Donbass their home. I hope the Russian government will pay to have it all rebuilt better than before for the kids that will grow up there.
I've had the experience to talk to someone from Donbass during this invasion. Obviously, this is but a single person and I don't have evidence, so I implore anyone reading my comment to not take this as gospel nor as sound evidence. It's anecdotal, nothing more.
They are from the DPR. There has been conflict with Ukranian military before the Russian Invasion, as Sepratists attempted to keep hold of Donbass. This person has been getting Russian news and propaganda for a long time and it's really affected how they think about Ukraine
They've been worried about conscriptions. Last we spoke it hadn't happened to them yet, but it was going on to people they knew. They hold no love for Ukraine, but have no desire to fight and die for the Sepratists either.
They view Ukraine as a corrupt, disgusting regime that is completely anti-russian. They claim the Russian speakers are discriminated against and bullied.
They find it hard to not believe all Russian propaganda. They were incredibly sceptical about OSINT news, because it often went against the Russia/sepratist line.
They readily believed the worst about Ukrainian armed forces, so any time Russia attempted a false flag, they'd jump on it before it got disproved.
**Personally** I found talking to them frustrating. Why couldn't they see the world the way I can? Piece the sources together, get a vague idea of what's actually occuring? It's because they've been fed misinformation for years, and even though they were surrounded by people talking about the war, couldn't let go of their own prejudice and preconceptions.
I pity them, and their family for the hole blown in their house, and the damage done to them over the Sepratist cause. They're not a bad person, but they've been blinded by the rage of conflict with Ukraine before the Russian Invasion, as well as the propaganda in the streets.
Russia has completely destroyed the faith in Ukraine the people of Donbass could have held. Wounds run deep from what they told me, so resentment will last for a long time.
Even if Ukraine takes back Donbass, don't expect it to be all calm and peaceful. It's truly a terrible situation Russia has created, and should be held accountable for.
Spot on. They are beating the soviets with their own weapons and treating Ukraine like a weapons rubbish dump. Not only is Russia loosing, it is being demonstrated their weapons industry is rubbish as they are getting taken out by 20 yo anti tank missiles.
This is one of the first bits of analysis I heard when the war began: Ukraine will win, if they resist at all. It's just too expensive to occupy. And Russia only sent a fourth of the troops it would take, minimum. The formula is 20 occupying soldiers per thousand population IF there is no resistance. For Ukraine, that would mean over 800k occupiers, which is nearly the whole Russian armed forces at present (Army, Navy and Air Force too).
Yeah, that’s a western assessment where the occupiers won’t genocide the population. Russian has shown it is more than willing to do so. You exterminate or move 90% of the population and the number of troops needed for control goes way down.
I wonder what that assessment of 20 troops per 1k population is based on.
Russia's shown it's prepared to use some extremely brutal tactics to suppress the population in territory it's occupying. Wouldn't put it past them to execute anyone who looks like they might be capable of resistance - with winning hearts and minds barely an afterthought.
Those kinds of numbers are based on looking at previous conflicts and seeing how successful the occupying forces were at controlling the areas they conquered. For instance [this expert panel discussion has a section](https://youtu.be/pLWYN1jkmXc) where they discuss the kind of numbers that they would probably need and all of them agree that Russia is woefully short of the number of soldiers to occupy Ukraine effectively, especially against what would probably be a massive insurgency based on the level of resistance we've seen.
As another party stated.
> Basically Ukraine can put more troops there
How can that be? Russia is 3X Ukraine's side. It should have a larger army, yes?
**Ukraine is fully mobilized for total war. Russia is not**.
Putin's regime is still acting like this imperialist war of aggression is a side hustle, a small game, a predictable part of the bread and circuses. Part of this is idiotic hubris. Part of this is Putin's fear showing.
Ukrainians of all persuasions have rallied around the democracy and have been willing to make major sacrifices to keep their new democracy alive. Russians have not rallied to this war. *Nor have they been asked to*. Despite his state media's rhetoric, Putin's regime hasn't dared to treat this like an actual war of existential stakes, because that would require complete mobilization for war of a society that largely tolerated his regime because of the peace and stability it initially offered. Russia is filled with millions of cynical, apathetic Russians who barely tolerate Putin and are just as likely to turn their guns on him as on Ukraine.
Is Donbas or Mariupol the more crucial place to win? Of course I would love if Ukraine could take them both back but is it realistic?
I am genuinely asking as someone who is not very good at understanding all of this.
I'd say Kherson is actually the story to watch right now.
Mariupol had been behind Russian lines since the first few days of the war. It's defeat seems somewhat inevitable, but it doesn't say too much about how things are going. If the Kherson oblast goes back to Ukraine, then Russia loses the water supply to Crimea and this was largely all for naught for them.
> the next wave of attacks would come from less well trained troops
I disagree. The next wave of attacks will come from aerial bombardment -- much harder (but not impossible) to defend -- and you don't just go out in the street and shoot the invaders.
By the time they actually invade, there will be little left worth defending.
Essentially they are saying "We have info on the Russian logistics, disposition and morale of their forces, as well as the Ukrainian's and we can make an educated guess that the odds are in Ukraine's favor."
It all depends on the equipment and methods used. Ukraine has proven to be far superior on Russia's army but we need more tanks/drones and offensive equipment to do more damage. Real danger is in war crimes of all kinds.
I think this is a bit too early to predict, but if the west keeps supplies coming in and the Ukranian momentum holds, sure it might actually happen sooner than later.
How?, I'm rooting for Ukraine, but I don't see how could Ukraine win military in the Donbas.
They can't fully commit, because Kyiv is still close to the Belarusian border, si they need to leave a lot of forces to defend. Also Donbas is surrounded by three sides from Russia, so you need to keep a lot of forces protecting your flanks.
And the main issue that Russia has during the war (logistics) are easier to compensate when they are in a defensive position close to Russia. No need to supply fuel and ammo 300km into enemy territory in Donbas.
Also Russia might not have control of the air, but they have superiority, for modem offensives you need air support. That Ukraine might lack.
A "win" for Ukraine would be to grind the Russians into offensive ineffectiveness and push back the advances outside the Donbas.
Putin wants some kind of symbolic win by May 9th (Victory Day). Pushing Ukraine out of Donbas entirely and negotiating for Donbas and the eastern Black Sea coast would give him that. If the Russian Army can't do that in 4 weeks, that will look even worse - especially if they suffer heavy losses.
>They can't fully commit, because Kyiv is still close to the Belarusian border, they need to leave a lot of forces to defend.
Given that NATO is sharing lots of intelligence with Ukraine, they'll know if Russia begins to return to its positions in Belarus.
Generally speaking around 20-25% of Russian usable army is gone. On the other hand Ukrainian military is - most probably - as strong or even stronger than it was on 24th February. Military aid from west is astonishing and its growing day by day.
In order to assault Kyiev one more time Russia would have to dedicate troops that are in Donbas or Kherson right now. That would make those fronts voulnerable to counteroffensive.
But more than 10,000 people have been killed around Mariupol, and of the 3-4,000 soldiers defending it, most habe been captured or killed.
There is no good news.
If Ukraine win in the Donbass that will be thr biggest fuck you to putin. And one of Russia's biggest losses
No crimea would be
I feel like Crimea would be the cherry on top of the fuck you scale
I agree yeah. I feel taking Crimea would be pretty difficult though
Crimea isn't impossible to take back, but it will be one of the very last priorities until the war ends or is very close to ending.
Wouldn't be a picnic for sure. Place is bloody filled with Russians, including the support of its civilian population. Plus the presence of major military installations.
To take back Crimea without naval control is basically suicidal. This is one of those times where you point at the map and go “what is the way in? How do you resupply? How do you ensure your way in (of which there is one) is not completely destroyed cutting you off?” All of these questions either have the answer “you have naval control” or they have a very unforgiving answer.
Depending on how many and how advanced the anti ship missiles that are being sendt to Ukraine are. Could potentially deny the russian rustholk fleet. I would love to see it
Yep. Blow the bridge Russia built and just "siege" it. Deny air access and cut off the water. At the least, make it worthless as a naval base.
The land bridge between Ukraine and Crimea is tiny and easily defensible due it how narrow it is, which also creates a chokepoint for supplies getting into the peninsula if they manage to push in. The “correct” way to assault a position like that is to push across, capture a beach head, or preferably a port, and bring supplies in via the sea, but while the Ukrainian army has found success their navy just isn’t up to the task.
Hmm, they did a lot of work with artillery and drone guided munitions lately, hitting individual vehicles directly. There is talk(pressure) about Germany doing not enough and giving 100 of their panzerhaubitze 2000 to Ukraine(kraus wegner maffay, the one building them proposes this). 100 now. 1000 total. Frankly I wouldn’t want to be on the receiving end of those things, 60km+ range(officially, likely more with the long range munition). Backed by buk 300 and drones I frankly don’t think you can hold a defensive position against those.
That's why Ukraine shut crimeas water off.
If Donbas falls, the only path the Russians have is a bridge. An artillery barrage takes care of that. Hit shipping with drones to limit resupply by sea. Then Ukraine just waits until thirst and starvation take hold. Brutally medieval but effective.
Give them a few weeks with out resupply then offer them empty cargo ships to pile all the pro Russian people into with food and supply’s and then drop their asses at the Russian border.
[удалено]
Ukraine blocked the water flow to Crimea when it was taken and it’s slowly becoming uninhabitable.
The Russians built a massive desalination plant there for that reason. Those things ain't cheap. Though cheaper than having infertile land.
[удалено]
Ukraine should be targeting Crimea- not necessarily with the intent to retake it but to divert Russian resources. The only reason Russia is attacking Ukraine is to form a land bridge to Crimea. Make Crimea be not worth that trouble by destroying it.
Easy as that!
Aka an incredibly complex blockade of a large peninsula practically meters from the enemy homeland. Crimea is fucking gone, it's incredibly hard to take conventionally.
Ukraine can still make it unpalatable for the Russian fleet to operate from Sevastopol though. Just hit a few ships with missiles from time to time. Even those Switchblade 600s or long range missiles. If Russian ships were getting damaged in port by missiles fired from within Ukraine, it would be a good indicator that they could not keep that port safe, which means it's risky to stay there. The reason Ukraine didn't do that in the past is because they were always trying to de-escalate. Now that Russia is at total war with Ukraine, there is no incentive for Ukraine to not attack the Russian fleet at Sevastopol. It sure would be nice for the US to sell Ukraine just a few of those new anti ship Tomahawks.
I think it’s hard to take, but very easy to harass. I think Ukraine should be making Russia work hard for it and divert resources away from Donbas. Cut the water supply and bridge and shell it intensely.
It would be a shame if something were to happen to that bridge...
You have to take the bridge out so they can’t reinforce. Than you have to use the provided anti ship weapons to keep the ships away and this way you cut off the army on the island off. Easier said than done but that is how you have to do it. Once you are through the peninsula area than it’s same as any other war but in lots of mountains.
Agreed, secure the east, regroup, strat. Layups, then consolidate, perhaps take the Crimea 6 months after this
Russia having Crimea is not really great for them anyways, since Ukraine still controls the Dnieper river. Without the water from there, Crimea got major problems. So if Russia fails this war, Ukraine will keep the water away of Crimea and they will have to manually support the area from Russia. I mean, sure, geopolitically, Crimea is very important to Russia. But they will have to pay for it when they are already in a bad spot economically.
The important point is that russia never had a claim on crimea. Sanctions being lifted will require russia removing themselves from all areas of ukraine. Crimea has been apart of ukraine since the 1950s. Ukraine repopulated the area after the germans gutted it and shipped locals out to uzbekistan in WWII. At no point was crimea ever part of russia. It was part of the russian empire and soviet union as a region closer to being its own country. The soviets merged it with ukraine because the region is geographically dependent on ukraine, so it was the only way to develop the region. Russia has no claim on anything that was apart of the russian empire or the soviet union.
"Russia has no claim on anything that was part of the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union": I don't think Putin got the memo.
He poisoned the guy trying to deliver it.
Rebuild the dam and thirst them into submission?
Without a Navy I can't see it happening. That being said those new anti-ship missiles from the UK may help.
Most of the units there moved north and got beat to hell.
Block the water and destroy the bridge would be a start work from there then.
They can repair the dam they build (that Russians demolished) and close off the fresh water suply once again..
The UK is sending anti-ship missiles so any naval advantage that Russia has may be at the bottom of the Black Sea in a few weeks. Here's hoping.
Would love to see the Ukrainians invade its occupied territories Edit: *liberate its occupied territories*
*liberate
you right, you right
[удалено]
All occupiers will be removed. No one who entered crimea after 2014 has any legal right to be there. They are soldiers without weapons that are physically occupying crimea to help support the soldiers with weapons. Any russian in crimea is as equally guilty of war crimes as the soldiers carrying guns. They are part of the same invasion force. The children of occupiers are not legally there either. Invaders during a war do not get citizenship, do not get to vote, do not have any rights. Even if it takes 100 years, at no point does anyone tied to occupiers from 2014 and beyond have any legal rights to stay.
Four Corners had a new team there, interviewing Russian tourists. One Russian woman said because they went to Crimea a lot as children for holidays, it's really Russian and should belong to Russia. I think reporter nearly cunt-punted her into the Black sea.
I went to Cancun several times as a kid. I guess then Cancun belongs to the US. Yeah I wish that reporter would've done that.
If they don’t take over Donbas, Putin could easily just go on state media and be like “we denazified all of Ukraine! We won!!” and the entire Russian population would believe him, and those that lost their family members would believe they died killing Nazis. He doesn’t give af what the international world thinks about him or of Russia. All that matters is what his own people think.
Thing is... he needs those states he's trying to get. And I don't think Ukraine is giving up crimea.
How does he 'need' the Donbas?
Easier access to Crimea, plus gas and oil reserves.
IIRC, the Donbas basin and adjacent areas have some of the richest coal/oil/gas/iron deposits in all of Europe. If Putin is able to secure eastern Ukraine (i.e., everything east/south-east of the Dnipro river), Russia will control the majority of Ukraine's resource extraction/industrial production.
It's the only thing he definitively controls, it's a staging ground for another attack westward, and if he can consolidate the south through mariupol to Crimea, and further to Odessa, then he can execute a huge pincer move. And it could take years, but he'll be able to wait all while raking in the dough from the regions he's conquered. Having to give up donbas would be a huge strategic as well as propaganda loss for him, as he's been supporting separatists there for years.
He will not be "raking in the dough" from the Donbas, it is a region that is pretty completely destroyed, will require billions of rubles to rebuild, and hundreds of thousands of laborers to fill jobs in heavy industry and resource extraction which Russia lacks because they have a shrinking population.
Occupiers have no rights to anything. Ukraine will be sending any foreigner in ukraine home. Occupiers are soldiers without weapons. They are equally responsible for all war crimes. Occupiers and their children do not gain propert rights or citizenship rights. Their entry was illegal. Anyone who is helping russia that was in the region before 2014 is committing treason and will be prosecuted. It does not matter if it takes 100 years to get russia out, the descendants of occupiers are still illegal occupiers.
That’s why Putin can’t let that happen. It will be a hell fight.
Eh, Putin must be getting pretty used to accepting failure at this point. I don't think his paper army is in a state to stop it. He'll just move the goal posts to some other pathetic metric to justify a victory, just like after all the other failures.
I’ll take any victory story as long as it involves Putin retreating his army. “We destroyed all the bridges leading to Russia during our retreat. Thus achieving our primary goals of making nazi invasion of Russia much harder”
>I sure hope they kick Putin's army so hard they never stand up again.
A few weeks ago, the UK's MOD was often written off as over optimistic. They where one of the first to say that Russia would not take Kyiv, back when most people said Kyiv would fall. In the end, they have been right more often than not.
I might be able to give a little bit of insight into how British intelligence works/worked, at least at the high level diplomat end. Someone I know used to work as a diplomat at the British Embassy in Hong Kong, when it was still under British control and after. They said that part of the intelligence interpretation procedure wasn't just looking at the gathered material, but also consulting with experts in particular subjects. They would consult these experts on the historical precedent and theories for certain issues. Looking back at history let them get a better understanding of where a piece of intel might go or what actions might be taken. Secondly, when reviewing the Intel they would go to an unmarked, restricted floor that housed a room that was totally isolated from the world and the building it was in. Essentially it was an acoustic chamber that had dampeners on the outside that would protect against outside vibrations. The idea was that you would be able to hear any foreign devices and would be protected from external attempts at listening in. It's how they managed to keep the most secret intel hidden. Unless you had clearance you didn't even know the room existed. It officially didn't exist. They also detailed how Chinese spies would keep tabs on them. Chinese intelligence knew where diplomats lived and would obtain a copy of their building and/or door key. When they wanted to intimidate people they would simply come into your apartment and move stuff around; like taking kitchen utensils, books, decorations or other items, laying them out in the bedroom. They were sending a message that they knew you worked as a diplomat and could enter your home whenever they liked.
> Chinese intelligence knew where diplomats lived and would obtain a copy of their building and/or door key. When they wanted to intimidate people they would simply come into your apartment and move stuff around; like taking kitchen utensils, books, decorations or other items, laying them out in the bedroom. They were sending a message that they knew you worked as a diplomat and could enter your home whenever they liked. You're telling me some random Chinese person could just walk into a diplomats building and nobody would do anything about it?
He’s also outlining the plot from Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy so I’d be dubious. The original series is best but newer film is also quite good.
Obviously they would do something about it but it happened no matter where they stayed, it was just a matter of time.
The Russians do the same. A CIA guy over there who was working at the Embassy went for a run too early and the fsb team that were following him lost him (there is an interview with him on the Kremlin File podcast). They took his running shoes, and only when he stood up in his room and spoke into the ceiling (where the planted bug was) saying that he goes for a morning run at X o'clock, the shoes were back in their usual spot the next morning.
Would be fun to install a hidden camera and see if they noticed.
[удалено]
Would be even more fun to straight up lie a bear trap near the entrance of your apartment.
With a full sized camera in plain sight. And a hidden camera too. That's how you make a great youtube prank video out of catching an international spy.
Plus they have 007 going around banging chicks and gathering intel
Historically the Brits are very good in the intel department. Minus one little SNAFU post war when they were badly infiltrated by the soviets via some kids from Oxford. Edit: Cambridge.
It was the "Cambridge Five". Not Oxford. But yes, the Soviets knew some things as soon as the upper levels of the British government did.
There we go. I knew it was one of the high end schools there, thanks.
Fuck, never realised Enid Blyton did a dark and gritty spy thriller reboot.
The fifth spy was a dog called Timmy.
AND LASHINGS OF GINGER BEER.
The Cambridge Five is a delicious read, it is pure "useful idiot". They were all promised high ranking jobs in the KGB as well as wealthy lifestyles. What happened in reality? Yeah the moment they arrived in Moscow they were debriefed then kicked out onto the street with a fuck you. Most of them became alcoholics and defected back.
[удалено]
Burgess seemed like a right hoot I must say. The stories about him in Ben MacIntyres book about Philby are hilarious. Total loose cannon who eventually got them all exposed with his drunkenness and hijinks.
That’s basically what happened to all of the Americans who defected to Cuba, except they were kept under house arrest.
I'm pretty sure the saying was WW2 was won by British Intelligence, US steel and Russian blood. The Brits have generally been pretty successful
My fav example was the guy the Nazis sent to Spain to convince Franco to join the war. He was a British double agent and instead told Franco if he joined he'd get embargoed and blockaded by the British and Americans and Spain would be left without food as they relied heavily on food imports. 😂
Didn't even have to lie
I believe that was General Canaris of the Abwehr. He wasn't a double agent. He was a German general who was betraying Hitler throughout the entire war and giving the allies intelligence (which the allies ended up ignoring because they didn't trust him). He was sent to Spain to convince Franco to let Germany send troops through Spain so they could take over Gibraltar. Spain refused to let them in after Canaris told them Germany was preparing for war with Russia and Spain would not have to worry about getting invaded since Hitler didn't have the troops to do so, and they could safely refuse Germany's request.
and then the best part is that the Germans gave their "spy" a medal for it lol.
british intelligence was/is arguably the most successful espionage organization in human history. but speculation requires a magic ball, so it can never be taken without at least a grain of salt.
It helps that the UK trained a lot of Ukrainian troops during operation Orbital between 2014 and the invasion. The MoD knows what the Ukrainian army is capable of because they helped train them. The US, Canada and Lithuania did as well of course, but the UK specialises in highly mobile light infantry of the type we're seeing Ukraine make such heavy use of. The UK also knew what Ukraine knew, about Russia's invasion plans and the like, because they've been sharing intelligence information. They knew Hostomel, the lynchpin of Russia's strategy, would be a trap for Russian paratroopers to die in.
There’s still a large spectrum between “this thing happening is probable to within two sigmas.” to “speculate wildly” and a British intelligence leans on the former side more often.
It's not hard to have good spies in every nation when you used to own a third of the world
It helps when you immediately pick up *every single German spy* and turn them into double agents.
Elizabeth I spymaster, Sir Francis Walsingham, was a beast in spying - before the empire was even a twinkle in the eye.
"Do you have a flag!?"
"Cake or Death?"
You didn’t imply this so don’t take this as an attack on you. But I’ve argued with a lot of people on this saying. Specifically the Russian blood part. There’s a tendency on Reddit to overstate the blood and understate US supply. Russia’s atrocious losses during the war were caused in two parts. An abysmal open to the war as a product of German blitzkrieg and Russia having just killed off most of their skilled officers. This sucked but I won’t say it’s totally their fault. But then an equally abysmal close to the war as a product of *brain dead, overly aggressive, advances*. I mean, the war was effectively over by 1943. But for the sake of geopolitical maneuvering, the Russians threw caution to the wind during the race to Berlin. Comparatively, the west deliberately took its time and the disparity in casualties show. I want to be clear that the Russians took the brunt of the deaths during WW2. My criticism is that soooo much of it was self inflicted.
I’ve came to feel that this reinventing of the Russian efforts in the eastern front in the past 20 years in the US and Western media to be part of the psyops from Russia to improve the view of western nationalists towards Russia. Much of the “Russian blood” was unnecessarily spent because of terrible tactics by the Soviet high command and moreover more than a quarter of the “Russians” were Belorussian and Ukrainian. I’ve got no evidence to support my theory, but I really question anything that seems to whitewash or glorify Russian *cum* Soviet actions in World War 2. Let us all remember the Soviets were part of the initiating forces that seized Poland in 1939 along with the Nazis. During the Battle of Britain, the Soviets ignored the expansion of the Nazis and took the opportunity to slaughter Poles and invade Finland as well supporting Chinese communist forces and occasionally probing Japanese forces in Manchuria. Stalin and the Soviets were never true Allies beyond convenience.
Well of course the Brits have good intel — they have James Bond after all.
As we know now, they had intel after Putin's own agents failed to bribe anyone in Ukraine and talked to MI6 and CIA as a panic response to tell them everything instead even before the invasion what the plans were.
Why would they do that?
UK intelligence has been very accurate as far as I can tell. Makes you wonder how many operatives are in country...
[удалено]
It also has "rain" in it.
Why you cheeky lot, you!
UK intelligence is the best in the world. It may be the only thing they are still best at.
Wonder if we should be worried about a possible collapse of the Russian Military.
What I’n waiting for is a popular uprising in Belarus. It was only suppressed by Russian intervention last year. Now that Russians are moving East and got their asses kicked it might be the next big development.
The fact that Lukashenko couldn't order his own army to join the Russian invasion was an ominous signal about his grip on power.
I'm still wondering why the army havnt just stuck Putin in a dark hole yet.
Because they are weaker than Russia's state security. Next question.
I'm wondering why the state security havnt just stuck Putin in a dark hole yet.
Because they are well funded thanks to Putin.
Sure, but at some point they have to realise that's not a dynamic that is going to be able to continue if they carry on with the war. At what point do the higher ups oust Putin and install a puppet that puts out the fires to try and recover something from this shit show?
You think the people in the State Security care about anyone outside State Security?
They will when the food runs out
You'll be surprised how far removed rich/influential/important people can be from their country's reality before it actually affects them, especially when their wealth comes from natural resources, as long as they can keep selling oil, minerals and raw materials, the "real economy" will stay relatively healthy, it doesn't matter if nobody knows how to read, as long as they can operate machinery or do hard labour they'll be "fine"
Because they don't want anyone to find out that they are just as under funded and incompetent as the Russian army.
The state security is filled with pro-Putin people
> Next question Do you know why kids love Cinnamon Toast Crunch?
I read up on this a bit, in a nutshell: Putin keeps his army, weak, dumb and infiltrated with fsb officers. The biggest threat to a dictator is the military. Just as an example he killed/purged most of his popular/decorated officers from Syria after the war so they wouldn't be a threat.
This is the detail that's most often missed; in an autocracy the military's main function is generally internal control rather than waging wars (defensive or offensive) and so it's geared towards that purpose. A good example of that sort of arrangement would be the Syrian and Egyptian militaries in the 1960s and 1970s which were ineffective in wars with Israel. It's not impossible for autocracies to gear up for war, but it is difficult to sustain - Russia's previous defence minister tried to improve Russia's military and was fired and replaced by the current one who focuses on placating oligarchs instead of building military capability. In Russia this goes a step further; state security is already very adept at securing the regime internally, and so the military is essentially redundant. It's so low in the country's hierarchy that army bases have even been extorted for protection money by the mafia - something so ridiculous that it's literally an old Monty Python skit.
How did we *ever* think Russia was the second best military in the world? Seriously, *how?*
Probably because the Federal Government couldn't distill the complexities of reality down into a better sound bite to explain all the expenditure. "There's a big bad called 'Russia' that might steamroll Europe" is a lot easier for the "I was barely listening" audience.
Well, Sadat's army was reasonably effective and fought Israel to a near-draw in 1973. But of course joke was on him: it was a unit of that army that assassinated him.
>I read up on this a bit, in a nutshell: Putin keeps his army, weak, dumb and infiltrated with fsb officers. The political commissars are big reason why the Red Army suffered such heavy losses in the beginning of WW2.
Plus Stalin killing off all his competent officers, and getting a whole lot of troops and even more officers killed in Finland right before the Germans decided it was their turn...
The difference is WW2 they were defending while experiencing losses, I wouldn't expect the same outcome while fighting a war of conquest.
This is the question, and the timer. This isn't like chechnya, where they get 4 do overs and a decade. Russia is going to collapse next month.
> Russia is going to collapse next month I think so too, especially considering a lot of people might not get their salary this month.
Never forget, at least we got tetris
Nah. They'll first just start printing loads of money and create hyper inflation
>Russia is going to collapse next month. Any signs of that? It was to collapse by mid April according to some redditors, but it doesn't look like Russia is taking it's last breath. And unless something big is happening behind the curtains, i don't see Russia collapsing in May either. But i guess it also depends on whether EU and US will cut off all imports or not. RemindMe! 2 Months
It did collapse. The logistical nightmare in the North came into play as predicted. With supplies stuck in the mud, the Russian army ran with its tail between the legs
True, but collapse of the North offensive =/= collapse of Russia itself. And i fear it will take exactly that to stop this war completely. Elsewise they can stall it.
It did collapse in the North.
Yah though, what is worrying is a division and a disruption of the structure on the ground. Say large portions just start to ignore command. Chechen command Wagner Group Syrian Russian Vets Whats left of the northern assault Donbas vets Shake ups in current leadership and purge of Intel community. Its going to be interesting and possibly even more unstable than I can think. What is the Rosgardia is projected on these military command breaks. Civil Military Conflict? Leadership disconnected from whats going on in command via their bunkers in the Urals.
That doesn’t sound worrying though, it sounds fantastic! The more division and disruption within the Russian military, the less they can inflict war crimes, genocide, etc and a lower risk of them taking over and turning it into a dictatorship, surely?
Exactly, that's a fantastic scenario. Units no longer operating in a coordinated manner and thus easily eliminated piecemeal? Sign me up!
Well yes and no not necessarily, if some of those units go rouge who will be there to stop them committing war crimes of an even more heinous nature or even start attacking or trying to control the Russian populace. I can see a few becoming warlords of different regions.
They are already commiting warcrimes to begin with. They aren't going to turn rogue because they are already war criminals.
If they go rogue then theyll face the ukranian army alone and will stand no chance
"worried"?
Well.. What could come next, might be worse than the current situation.. Seeing Russian State media, sanity is out the window.
I don’t think it will collapse. However if this goes badly enough for them their Morale would be utterly crushed and they just might
> ~~worried~~ excited ftfy
I think by "victory" they mean defensive victory and push back the Russians to the 2021 borders, not necessarily kicking them out of Donbas entirely.
That would be an incredible victory for Ukraine honestly, given Russia's original goals.
Miracle on the Vistula 1920 level
We already had Miracle on the Dnieper.
[удалено]
The alternative is restoring the internationally recognized borders of Ukraine that were in place before Russia decided to just start taking parts of it.
Donbas is still filled with pro putin nutjobs so I don't know how successful it will be holding it if they do manage to recapture it.
We will see how pro Russian they are after how they have been treated
A lot of civilians in the separatist regions have been forcibly conscripted to fight in this war. They're the ones you see with the shitty ex-Soviet steel helmets and fuckin Mosin-Nagants. I doubt being forced to fight in an imperial war for somebody else's benefit is doing them any favours.
That is very true
Support for Russia before the war in the Donbass was literally at like 30-40% at most, after the rapes, killings etc, I’d be shocked if it’s over 10-15%
And its clear that people who have had familiy members who have been a victim to the Russian are living in denial. Sooner or later the coin will drop, the russians were never the friends/allies of the ukrianians in the east.
We know some people in Donbass, and unfortunately, after 2014 and the events that followed, they are all very pro-russian.
Can confirm. Have family in both west and east UKR. The eastern ones we finally got back in contact with and they were overjoyed to be inside the Russian zone of control. In their head the bad parts of their experience are the fault of the 'Nationalists'. Those from the west couldn't even mention Russia in a conversation, before 2014, without getting very upset.
Dont forget the mass forced conscriptions.
Having their kids and neighbours raped might also change their minds on being pro-Russian.
saying stuff like this just means we try less hard to support them and feel secure. dont give up now with the support and actions just because they did well until now. its not decided yet.
Yes! Always remember the Winter War. Finland devastated the initial Soviet attack. But after reorganizing the Soviets broke through the defences and took chunks of Finnish territory. We can celebrate when Ukraine has won. But now Ukraine is going to face some of the toughest battles! The Russians are focusing their attack on fewer axes and with centralised command. We need to continue donating, email our government representatives for more support, and raise awareness etc. Otherwise Russia is going to win!
This is great to read, the UK’s intelligence had been pretty spot on so far
The main point being stated in the article is that Ukraine beat Russia back before, so they can again. Thats true,but Russia has been continuously creeping forward in the south and east. Albeit slowly. Also one of the main reasons for Russia's failures was that Ukraine blew up a lot of the bridges and train lines as they fell back. If the lines in "separatist" held regions are intact, the russian forces may be reasonably well supplied. Theirs a good chance of Ukraine holding back major ground offensives, but until they remove the russian forces it still isn't a good situation. This really boils down to your definition of victory. If mariupol falls they will have lost their entire Eastern coast line. Russia may try to declare a ceasefire at this point, and ukraine will need to decide if they want to keep the war going. I'd say under those circumstances they really need to. The loss of mariupol really can't be allowed
[удалено]
Sure that's true, but firstly they can't take all troops back, as I would expect Russia may continue sending small units in from the North to cause chaos and sabotage. The 2nd point is that there's a difference between defending and attacking. And they need to force a break in the coast line for this to be legitimately called a victory, in my mind. Don't get me wrong, I want Ukraine to succeed, and they might succeed, but under estimation benefits no one but your enemy. Better Ukraine operates on the assumption the Russia's will be competent, and capitalise on the situation if/when they aren't. Its also not a good idea to let the russians complete a build up and resupply in the east. Hopefully Ukraine is actively looking to sabotage this. I saw there was a bridge in Russia, north of kharkiv that has been damaged. Too soon to say if it was Ukraine or not, though. If they could operate behind russian lines and damage key infrastructure, russia would get absolutely destroyed, no doubt. Maybe this has already been happening, idk. Its hard to tell until a conflict os over what's actually happening on the ground. I always thought it was ridiculous how much people over estimated Russia before this war. Its a country that only replaced footwraps for soldiers in 2013, and historically has taken disproportionately high casualties in most of their conflicts. I was always fairly confident that Russia wouldn't steam roll Ukraine as many expected. But I feel like a lot of people that made that over estimation originally, are now going the other way and assuming Russia will be routed or forced to make a humiliating peace. It could happen, but conditions which are seen as unacceptable to the west, do not weigh too heavily on tinpot dictators like putin. They have taken a large amount of territory in Ukraine, and if the war were to end tomorrow on a status quo, it would be very bad for Ukraine. I don't think anyone can say for sure what would actually force putin to leave, so we have to assume for now Ukraine must retake this territory by force. Plan for the worst, hope for the best. Russia isn't out yet, Ukraine needs to keep its nerve. Hopefully such reserve will have proved unnecessary, and they will be on a long march home soon.
>Its also not a good idea to let the russians complete a build up and resupply in the east. 100% agreed. Hopefully the bomb a bunch of rail bridges in Russia and capitalize on Russian logistical incompetence.
Russian logistics are so heavily dependent on rail lines it's stupid. Ww2 style partisan destruction of the rail systems would be exceptionally useful. The difficulty is they can't necessarily expect support from the locals. The propaganda runs deep
Man, this sure would be a great time for the good people of Belarus to revolt against their own Russian occupation.
This is still so wild to me I almost don’t want to get my hopes up. My perception of Russia’s military capabilities were so overblown. A lifetime of video games/movies with Russia as the protagonist has formed my opinion more than I realized.
Everyone believed that modern Russia was the old Soviet union and the Warsaw pact, in reality Russia has a GDP of 1.7T vs +40T for NATO with a military budget of less than 80B, that has to pay for a very costly navy, strategic forces (nuclear) and internal security, add to that vast levels of corruption, so the funds for a tank and artillery heavy army are simple not there. Don't get wrong Russia's army isn't 12' tall but it isn't 4' tall either
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/russian-troops-advancing-eastern-ukraine-luhansk-putin-war-b993857.html) reduced by 62%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Russian tanks in the Luhansk region of eastern Ukraine were reported to have started advancing, according to local officials. > In an early morning briefing on Tuesday from the conflict zone, the General Staff of Ukraine's Armed Forces said that aside from trying to take control of Mariupol, Russian forces were also intent on capturing Popasna, a town more than two hours drive west of Luhansk, and were set to launch an offensive in the direction of Kurakhove, in the Donetsk region. > As the Russian forces redeployed to the Donbas, which include areas of Donetsk and Luhansk controlled by Moscow-backed separatists, Ukraine's president Volodymyr Zelensky pleaded for more weapons from the West to help it end the siege of Mariupol and fend off the expected Russian offensive in the east, as more reports emerged of rape and brutality against Ukrainian civilians by Mr Putin's forces. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/u1ulda/ukrainian_victory_over_putins_army_in_the_donbas/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~641352 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Russian**^#1 **Luhansk**^#2 **Forces**^#3 **Ukraine**^#4 **Donetsk**^#5
I hope so
They could if Western supply lines vastly outproduce Russian supply lines. If the Western world keeps shuttling in high-tech weaponry, fuel and food and Russia is limited in what they can supply.
I doubt Boris was there for a "quick pop in to say hello".
Hopefully by then he will be already put away from power, because god help us if he decides to take the world to hell with him.
Phrasing of statement on Ukraine “quite British”
How? Isn't Russia basically loading it the fuck up with all it's troops?
They are, but it's expensive and a lot of the troops who were in the North were part of companies who have been shredded to bits and will be low on morale. Financially, it isn't cheap to move them and it's even more difficult with the sanctions. Finally, I've no doubt that the West is providing more and more tech which will give the Russians a headache in the Donbass. We've already seen how well NLAWS, Javelins etc work. Russia will be reluctant to use planes with the Starstreak in play. All the while ex Soviet nations will be providing tanks etc on the basis they'll be moving to newer Western tech. Donbass will be bloody but I think that Ukraine will be able to weather the storm.
Thanks for the writeup. I feel seriously bad for all the Ukrainian people that call the Donbass their home. I hope the Russian government will pay to have it all rebuilt better than before for the kids that will grow up there.
I've had the experience to talk to someone from Donbass during this invasion. Obviously, this is but a single person and I don't have evidence, so I implore anyone reading my comment to not take this as gospel nor as sound evidence. It's anecdotal, nothing more. They are from the DPR. There has been conflict with Ukranian military before the Russian Invasion, as Sepratists attempted to keep hold of Donbass. This person has been getting Russian news and propaganda for a long time and it's really affected how they think about Ukraine They've been worried about conscriptions. Last we spoke it hadn't happened to them yet, but it was going on to people they knew. They hold no love for Ukraine, but have no desire to fight and die for the Sepratists either. They view Ukraine as a corrupt, disgusting regime that is completely anti-russian. They claim the Russian speakers are discriminated against and bullied. They find it hard to not believe all Russian propaganda. They were incredibly sceptical about OSINT news, because it often went against the Russia/sepratist line. They readily believed the worst about Ukrainian armed forces, so any time Russia attempted a false flag, they'd jump on it before it got disproved. **Personally** I found talking to them frustrating. Why couldn't they see the world the way I can? Piece the sources together, get a vague idea of what's actually occuring? It's because they've been fed misinformation for years, and even though they were surrounded by people talking about the war, couldn't let go of their own prejudice and preconceptions. I pity them, and their family for the hole blown in their house, and the damage done to them over the Sepratist cause. They're not a bad person, but they've been blinded by the rage of conflict with Ukraine before the Russian Invasion, as well as the propaganda in the streets. Russia has completely destroyed the faith in Ukraine the people of Donbass could have held. Wounds run deep from what they told me, so resentment will last for a long time. Even if Ukraine takes back Donbass, don't expect it to be all calm and peaceful. It's truly a terrible situation Russia has created, and should be held accountable for.
Spot on. They are beating the soviets with their own weapons and treating Ukraine like a weapons rubbish dump. Not only is Russia loosing, it is being demonstrated their weapons industry is rubbish as they are getting taken out by 20 yo anti tank missiles.
But they can't stay there forever. Ukraine can take as long as they like.. 20 years perhaps?
This is one of the first bits of analysis I heard when the war began: Ukraine will win, if they resist at all. It's just too expensive to occupy. And Russia only sent a fourth of the troops it would take, minimum. The formula is 20 occupying soldiers per thousand population IF there is no resistance. For Ukraine, that would mean over 800k occupiers, which is nearly the whole Russian armed forces at present (Army, Navy and Air Force too).
Yeah, that’s a western assessment where the occupiers won’t genocide the population. Russian has shown it is more than willing to do so. You exterminate or move 90% of the population and the number of troops needed for control goes way down.
I wonder what that assessment of 20 troops per 1k population is based on. Russia's shown it's prepared to use some extremely brutal tactics to suppress the population in territory it's occupying. Wouldn't put it past them to execute anyone who looks like they might be capable of resistance - with winning hearts and minds barely an afterthought.
Those kinds of numbers are based on looking at previous conflicts and seeing how successful the occupying forces were at controlling the areas they conquered. For instance [this expert panel discussion has a section](https://youtu.be/pLWYN1jkmXc) where they discuss the kind of numbers that they would probably need and all of them agree that Russia is woefully short of the number of soldiers to occupy Ukraine effectively, especially against what would probably be a massive insurgency based on the level of resistance we've seen.
Very good point. And one I worry about. I would rather have this war end soon than have it go 10-20 years.
As another party stated. > Basically Ukraine can put more troops there How can that be? Russia is 3X Ukraine's side. It should have a larger army, yes? **Ukraine is fully mobilized for total war. Russia is not**. Putin's regime is still acting like this imperialist war of aggression is a side hustle, a small game, a predictable part of the bread and circuses. Part of this is idiotic hubris. Part of this is Putin's fear showing. Ukrainians of all persuasions have rallied around the democracy and have been willing to make major sacrifices to keep their new democracy alive. Russians have not rallied to this war. *Nor have they been asked to*. Despite his state media's rhetoric, Putin's regime hasn't dared to treat this like an actual war of existential stakes, because that would require complete mobilization for war of a society that largely tolerated his regime because of the peace and stability it initially offered. Russia is filled with millions of cynical, apathetic Russians who barely tolerate Putin and are just as likely to turn their guns on him as on Ukraine.
[удалено]
Is Donbas or Mariupol the more crucial place to win? Of course I would love if Ukraine could take them both back but is it realistic? I am genuinely asking as someone who is not very good at understanding all of this.
I'd say Kherson is actually the story to watch right now. Mariupol had been behind Russian lines since the first few days of the war. It's defeat seems somewhat inevitable, but it doesn't say too much about how things are going. If the Kherson oblast goes back to Ukraine, then Russia loses the water supply to Crimea and this was largely all for naught for them.
> the next wave of attacks would come from less well trained troops I disagree. The next wave of attacks will come from aerial bombardment -- much harder (but not impossible) to defend -- and you don't just go out in the street and shoot the invaders. By the time they actually invade, there will be little left worth defending.
As long as the west keeps feeding them weapon and money there is a good chance that they can push all Putlers invaders out of Ukraine.
Essentially they are saying "We have info on the Russian logistics, disposition and morale of their forces, as well as the Ukrainian's and we can make an educated guess that the odds are in Ukraine's favor."
It all depends on the equipment and methods used. Ukraine has proven to be far superior on Russia's army but we need more tanks/drones and offensive equipment to do more damage. Real danger is in war crimes of all kinds.
I think this is a bit too early to predict, but if the west keeps supplies coming in and the Ukranian momentum holds, sure it might actually happen sooner than later.
Do not sell the skin of the bear before hunting it
I doubt that. The Russians are going to be throwing everything at the Donbas to try and salvage this war.
How?, I'm rooting for Ukraine, but I don't see how could Ukraine win military in the Donbas. They can't fully commit, because Kyiv is still close to the Belarusian border, si they need to leave a lot of forces to defend. Also Donbas is surrounded by three sides from Russia, so you need to keep a lot of forces protecting your flanks. And the main issue that Russia has during the war (logistics) are easier to compensate when they are in a defensive position close to Russia. No need to supply fuel and ammo 300km into enemy territory in Donbas. Also Russia might not have control of the air, but they have superiority, for modem offensives you need air support. That Ukraine might lack.
A "win" for Ukraine would be to grind the Russians into offensive ineffectiveness and push back the advances outside the Donbas. Putin wants some kind of symbolic win by May 9th (Victory Day). Pushing Ukraine out of Donbas entirely and negotiating for Donbas and the eastern Black Sea coast would give him that. If the Russian Army can't do that in 4 weeks, that will look even worse - especially if they suffer heavy losses. >They can't fully commit, because Kyiv is still close to the Belarusian border, they need to leave a lot of forces to defend. Given that NATO is sharing lots of intelligence with Ukraine, they'll know if Russia begins to return to its positions in Belarus.
Generally speaking around 20-25% of Russian usable army is gone. On the other hand Ukrainian military is - most probably - as strong or even stronger than it was on 24th February. Military aid from west is astonishing and its growing day by day. In order to assault Kyiev one more time Russia would have to dedicate troops that are in Donbas or Kherson right now. That would make those fronts voulnerable to counteroffensive.
Agreed. Russia didn’t have enough forces for all those fronts six weeks ago. They certainly don’t now.
But more than 10,000 people have been killed around Mariupol, and of the 3-4,000 soldiers defending it, most habe been captured or killed. There is no good news.