UKRAINE WAR - 1 YEAR AND GOING.

[KraytKing]

Funny you should mention the flame throwers. One was destroyed in a rather high-profile drone strike just after the Dnipro landings, and they haven't been reported in the area since.

This is an incredibly funny way to reason - i.e. an extremely bad one. Like - shockingly - because you saw a single TOS-1 get blown up online and haven't seen a video of one since doesn't mean that they're not in the area.

Like Jesus Christ, we are two years into this war and you still think what you personally happen to see on social media isn't a highly selective narrow view of what is going on?

This would be a very easy claim of mine for you to refute. To my knowledge, no one has reported TOS-1 being active in bombarding the river crossing since that one got blown up by a fucking quadcopter. If you have testimony from mid-November or later, or video evidence, I'd love to see it.

Also, since something like fifty of them have ever been in service with the Russians, it seems weird that you're downplaying how important destroying one of them is. Like, you wouldn't say "oh boo hoo, the US lost one SINGLE amphibious assault ship? Lmao call me when you have news, there's a bunch more." Unless they aren't that important, like a Leopard vs a T-72, in which case it doesn't really matter if they've been active in the Dnipro crossing, anymore than traditional artillery.

Their tube artillery has been decimated-

LOL, sure it has. Cope that Ukraine's boosters* spread as their offensive visibly floundered months ago ("yes our offensive is not moving but that's only because we're 'shaping the battlefield' by destroying Russian artillery!") that people have uncritically repeated ever since, even while article after article on the Ukrainian side complains of shell hunger, an inability to fire more than a few shells a day, and intense Russian artillery superiority.

*Many Ukrainian commentators themselves seem to have nothing but contempt for these fairy tales, as far as I can see from the prominent accounts on social media.

Russian reports continue to complain of the efficiency of Ukrainian counterbattery fire. On a broader scale, Russian shell consumption has CONTINUED to fall, and artillery parks are visibly emptying faster since June than in the first half of the war.

Cope it may be, but it's a good coping strategy. The offensive pretty quickly shifted in its goals, and if the Russians are vulnerable to counterbattery fire, seems like a pretty good idea to focus on counterbattery fire.

This is what winning looks like.

The way people talk about Krynky like its something other than a total waste of time is Exhibit A in why this PR effort even exists in the first place. The Ukrainians just drove multiple 'western trained' brigades into a meat grinder and lost a massive percentage of irreplaceable much hyped western kit for like 6 months, but don't worry - they're sneaking a platoon of cannon fodder at a time over the Dneiper to maintain a bridghead for no clear purpose whatsoever. Of course the troops are asking about the reason why they're doing this - noone could seriously believe that they're capable of actually getting signficant quantities of armor over the river and actually sustaining them for any sort of meaningful offensive action.

Two things to deal with here. First, and I believe I mentioned this here back in the spring, it doesn't seem like Ukraine NEEDS these NATO-generated units to hold fast. They survived the winter offensive and bled Wagner dry over Bakhmut without them. The attrition these units have suffered has been rough, and they have been useful in defensive actions--see Avdiivka. But the idea that Ukraine is going to lose large amounts of territory now that their assault brigades have been blunted is a bit silly. If Ukraine never recaptures a square inch, this war won't end for years, and I think everyone here is overestimating Russian casualty tolerance.

Additionally, as I am certain I have said here, I find it unlikely that the bridgehead will ever expand beyond its current status, nor should it. Bringing over large amounts of armor would be difficult, and nowhere near as difficult as the fuel and ammunition they would need for a sustained breakout and offensive drive. To say nothing of additional personnel, artillery, trucks, and everything else less glamorous than T-72s and BMPs. As long as the Russians are willing to site their artillery within range of Ukrainian artillery and attack the bridgehead, the ZSU can cause disproportionate attrition, at a time when Russia is trying to save resources for Avdiivka, possibly now Kupiansk, and the rear area.

In other news, seems there have been armored pushes near Kupiansk. As usual, more information is awaited. Could be interesting.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Well depending on who you believe, both sides are suffering from shortages of artillery shells and are being forced to ration them.

Right now the main roadblocks when it comes to aid are Hungary, and the Republican party, both of whom seem fine with throwing Ukraine under the bus.

[Vympel]

Minsk agreements included an immediate and comprehensive ceasefire, which was ignored by the pro-Russian separatist terrorists and the little green men (Russian soldiers) fighting alongside them.
It included the restoration of full control of the state border by the government of Ukraine, which never happened.
It included the withdrawal of all heavy weapons by both sides, which didn't happen. Or do you think that Flight MH-17 was shot down by a farmer with shotgun?

It included withdrawal of all foreign armed formations, military equipment and mercenaries, which clearly didn't happen (what with Russian mercenaries, militias groups and soldiers fighting alongside separatist bandits for 8 years)

Minsk II wasn't in place when MH17 was shot down. It happened well before that.

MH17 was shot down in July 2014. Minsk II was signed on 12 February 2015.Like what the fuck are you even talking about?

Or are dates "Kremlin talking points"?

Similarly, all of your other claims are BS, too. The Ukrainians have never observed the ceasefire, and the restoration of control of the state border to Ukraine was never going to happen until Ukraine agreed to implement the Federalisation requirements provided in Minsk II. Or did you think the Minsk II agreements contemplated total surrender by the Donbas forces before Ukraine did anything? When they're the ones who won that war?

What's wrong with having an official state language?

The part where you discriminate against the massive minority who doesn't speak your state language by making them use it.

In the USA, the official language is English. Doesn't mean it's waging a cultural genocide against it's Latin speaking population. How does this warrant Russia's full scale invasion-

What I said has nothing to do with justification of Russia's invasion, this is solely about your absurd 'genocide' claims and how the standard you apply to the Russian so-called 'cultural genocide' doesn't apply to the Ukrainians.

And weird how anti Russian sentiments increased after Russia's full scale invasion and Russian terror bombing campaign against Ukrainian cities. Imagine that.

Ah yes I forgot, discrimination against your population is ok if you consider them all agents of a foreign power.

That Russia is waging a cultural genocide in Ukraine's occupied territories isn't an inane exaggeration-

Yes it is. Its obvious war propaganda, spread by ideologues who would rather see Ukraine destroyed before Russia keeps its ill-gotten gains.

And I think that the actual warmongers are the people who think its OK to invade-

Yeah, those people are warmongers. Wait - do you think I think its ok? I don't. Doesn't change the fact it happened and how it'll ultimately end.

How can you make peace when Russia’s goals haven’t changed? Ukraine should just give up a third of its country, including Odessa, which basically will make them loose their entire coast line and economically cripple them forever?

You sit down at the negotiating table - while the war is still going - and see what's on offer. Russia's maximalist rhetoric is almost certainly not the bare minimum it will accept. The longer the war goes, the worse the deal gets for Ukraine, so they should start now.

And are you that naïve to think you can appease someone like Putin by giving him what he wants?

All wars end at the negotiating table. The total defeat of Russia by Ukraine is not ever going to happen, so its either war without end or you make a deal both parties can accept. You wanna call that 'appeasement' that's fine, but there are other historical events apart from Munich 1938. The leadup to WW2 has given everyone brain worms.

I don't want that this war will drag on for years either, but go tell that to Putin. Peace with his regime is nothing more than a temporary cease fire where Russia will rebuild its strength for his next invasions.

That's rubbish. If Putin had wanted to seize all Ukraine he could've done it in 2014, easily. He instead signed Minsk II and pursued its goals (i.e. special status of Donbas so they could act as a spoiler for anti-Russian political forces) for 7 years while Ukraine rearmed and became a de facto NATO ally. Putin's refusal to accept Ukraine's pro-NATO trajectory is the cause of the 2022 invasion, not some irrational irredentist desire for Ukrainian genocidal conquest.

What's your point here? That you don't see a difference between military and civilian targets? Deliberately bombing civilian targets/concentrations of civilians (like the Mariupol theatre, train stations full of refugees,...) are the logical end station of a regime that's waging a genocidal war. Putin wants Ukraine with as little as much Ukrainians in it.

I thought my point was really plain actually. In every war the US has fought it has deliberately bombed civilian targets, including with precision weapons. That's just a cast-iron objective fact. That doesn't by definition make the US genocidal, and it doesn't make Russia genocidal. Like god, this stuff shouldn't be controversial.

That's a complete flat out lie. What's next, are you going to parrot that tired old lie that Ukraine killed 14000 civilians in Donetsk and Donbass during those 8 years too?

Nope, its the truth, which you would know if you had followed the conflict in the 8 year period from 2014-2022. Ukrainian artillery in the Donetsk suburbs has shelled Donetsk repeatedly in that period, killing civilians, and they continue to do so from 2022 to date. I've seen enough gory videos of dead Donetsk civilians to know they do it. So does that make Ukraine a genocidal state?

The vast majority of the fighting was between combatants of both sides, and occurred in 2014 - early 2015 after which the conflict became stagnant. The vast majority of the shelling happened on the front lines, not in cities. And most, if not all civilians (a few dozens per year since then) that died since then (a few dozens per year) were because of land mines, that could have been planted by either side.
Even Prigozhin of Wagner Group prior to his little march to Moscow admitted that Putin’s reasons-

Oh good, you're still trying to launder debate about your 'genocide' claims into a debate about whether Putin's reasons for the war were justified. Try and stay on topic. You should know what the topic is, so if this attempt to changer the subject continues I can only assume you are deliberately trying to make this an argument about whether the war was justified or trying to tar me as some sort of war supporter, which I am not.

Again, more Russian propaganda blaming the victims of their war crimes. And how is castration not a war crime typically related to a genocidal agenda?

So the Ukrainians are also genocidal then? Or do you really want to try and continue to pretend that they haven't been castrating Russian prisoners?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... diers.html

Ukrainian doctor tells TV interviewer he has ordered his staff to CASTRATE Russian soldiers because they are 'cockroaches'

Gennadiy Druzenko, 49, told Ukraine-24 he gave order to castrate Russian POWs

The owner of a war-zone mobile hospital told broadcast 'they are cockroaches'

Please tell me how the Daily Mail reporting a video from Ukrainian TV which everyone has seen is "Russian propaganda blaming the victims of their war crimes".

Like this is just a damn stupid tangent - if castration was a matter of Russian state policy you'd be seeing mass castration of every single Ukrainian POW, but that simply isn't happening. What's happening is individual war crimes by psychopathic murderers and sadists acting under the impunity that warfare affords.

Your naivety is adorable. Russian state media is heavily censored, and free and independent journalism has been outlawed. So when genocidal rhetoric is published by a Russian state controlled news agency, you can be sure it’s done intentionally
Also, I just gave one example. There’s plenty of more examples of Russians dehumanization campaign over the past years

No, if anyone is naive here its you. You actually think that the Russian government's policies are dictated through random articles in state media, as if there's some big cartoonish Ministry of Truth issuing directives as to policy, rather than the way all media actually works.

You probably also believe western media is "free" and "independent" even though its all controlled by like three corporations and every major outlet dutifully echoes and amplify the foreign policy goals and ideological priors of the US in every single international conflict in which it is involved, don't you?

How media actually works - everywhere - whether state or corporate controlled - is that the scope of the debate is limited, but freedom of movement within the four walls of that scope is permitted. The justification for a war will never be questioned - how such a war is to be prosecuted, however, is.

[Vympel]

I'm interested in why there is a lot of Ukraine dooming going on now. Their situation is dire, and by all rights they should lose this in the end, but that was even more true on day one of the full scale invasion in Feb '22. Russia is weaker now than at any time since the start of the war, while Ukraine has basically the largest army it has had since 2014.

No, the opposite is true. Russia's army is larger now than it was in February 2022, and its war industry is operating at full tilt. Ukraine on the other hand is much weaker now than it was at this time last year, because it has suffered massive attrition of trained men and material that is not going to be replaced.

Ukraine's backers have kept this war going by pumping Ukraine full of (mostly) legacy Soviet equipment from Europe which is now all used up, mostly clapped out artillery (M109s) combined with a relatively handful of high-end guns (CAESAR, Pzh2000, AHS Krab etc), and in preparation for the counteroffensive, a bunch of additional comparatively high-end AFVs and tanks - all of it from storage / existing army stocks.

A great portion of that has now been either outright destroyed, damaged beyond repair, or cannibalised to keep the rest of the stock running, and attrition without replacement for much of it will only continue.

In contrast to the Russians, there is virtually no military production in the West working to supply Ukraine with additional hardware in any quantity whatsoever, and no political willingness to incur the costs to expand capacity in order to do so.

Ammunition is almost as bad. Russia produces more shells than the US and Europe currently do combined, and US / European production of same won't meaningfully increase until 2025 at the earliest, and it'll still be less than what Russia produces now (nevermind what it'll be producing by then given their own expansion efforts), plus what Russia can get from say, Iran and North Korea (note the US already had to pressure South Korea for 500,000 shells before this and then they switched to cluster munitions because they're so thoroughly tapped out).

To me it doesn't look like Ukrainians want to be subjugated any time soon, certainly the ones I know are as opposed to it as ever. It seems things are going to go on until there is some attritional tipping point reached and either political will or an economy breaks down. With no future aid from the US, EU or other parts then this could be sooner rather than later for Ukraine, but assuming aid resumes then Ukraine will be in the best position since 2014.

The best position has come and gone already for the reasons already stated - the greater portion of the stuff that could be given, has been given. There is very little industrial capacity to replace it. The money they can provide is worthless without something to buy with it.

This would be a very easy claim of mine for you to refute. To my knowledge, no one has reported TOS-1 being active in bombarding the river crossing since that one got blown up by a fucking quadcopter. If you have testimony from mid-November or later, or video evidence, I'd love to see it.

I don't need to refute it. War isn't a Star Wars canon internet debate - J posted an article with a soldier talking about coming under flamethrower fire and you're like "oh well one was destroyed and I personally haven't seen any videos since!"

The videos both sides publish are for the purposes of spreading their propaganda. Ukraine has no interest in showing all the vehicles its drones fail to destroy, Russia has no interest in doing the same, and no Russian propagandist is on the front line taking video of TOS bombardments to disprove KraytKing on SDN dot net.

Also, since something like fifty of them have ever been in service with the Russians, it seems weird that you're downplaying how important destroying one of them is-

This has nothing to do with 'downplaying' anything, its about what a dumb response it is to an article about the Krynky firebag to tout the destruction of a single flamethrower as if it somehow refutes what J is saying.

Russian reports continue to complain of the efficiency of Ukrainian counterbattery fire. On a broader scale, Russian shell consumption has CONTINUED to fall, and artillery parks are visibly emptying faster since June than in the first half of the war.

Efficacy of counterbattery fire!= "Russian tube artillery is being decimated".

Ukraine has a fraction of the artillery Russia has that is at all capable of effective counterbattery fire (i.e. long ranged, accurate). Its a numerically inferior force that has to be distributed along a massive front stretching from the Black Sea to Belarus. Some artillerists being subject to accurate counterbattery in one section of the front doesn't say anything about the general balance of forces or what is going on elsewhere.

Cope it may be, but it's a good coping strategy. The offensive pretty quickly shifted in its goals, and if the Russians are vulnerable to counterbattery fire, seems like a pretty good idea to focus on counterbattery fire.

If you think the side with a fraction of the artillery and no indigenous production capability is somehow going to 'counterbattery' itself out of defeat, yeah it s a good coping mechanism.

Two things to deal with here. First, and I believe I mentioned this here back in the spring, it doesn't seem like Ukraine NEEDS these NATO-generated units to hold fast. They survived the winter offensive and bled Wagner dry over Bakhmut without them. The attrition these units have suffered has been rough, and they have been useful in defensive actions--see Avdiivka. But the idea that Ukraine is going to lose large amounts of territory now that their assault brigades have been blunted is a bit silly. If Ukraine never recaptures a square inch, this war won't end for years, and I think everyone here is overestimating Russian casualty tolerance.

If you think Ukraine got the better out of its Bakhmut defeat than Russia, that's even bigger cope than the counterbattery cope. NATO was screaming at Ukraine to stop trying to hold Bakhmut for months for a reason - those forces were better used in the south, and were instead wasted trying and failing to hold Bakhmut.

As for the assumption that Ukraine won't lose large amounts of territory and the war won't end for years - it is extremely dangerous to assume that the rate of loss now will remain true. Armies tend to break slowly - and then faster, and then all at once.

As for the claim everyone is overestimating Russian casualty tolerance - the Ukrainians have far lower casualty tolerance than the Russians. They have a fraction of the population, a zombie economy that only exists due to western support, no indigenous war industry, and backers whose support is clearly flagging and was never adequate to begin with.

The idea that the Russians are going to cry uncle before the Ukrainians do is pure delusion, and has been from the start.

Additionally, as I am certain I have said here, I find it unlikely that the bridgehead will ever expand beyond its current status, nor should it. Bringing over large amounts of armor would be difficult, and nowhere near as difficult as the fuel and ammunition they would need for a sustained breakout and offensive drive. To say nothing of additional personnel, artillery, trucks, and everything else less glamorous than T-72s and BMPs. As long as the Russians are willing to site their artillery within range of Ukrainian artillery and attack the bridgehead, the ZSU can cause disproportionate attrition, at a time when Russia is trying to save resources for Avdiivka, possibly now Kupiansk, and the rear area.

Can't think of a more insane strategy than the numerically inferior conventional force trying to win a conventional, positional war by inflicting attrition on its larger, more numerous, better equipped foe.

[KraytKing]

So there is a lot that you've said that I take issue with, and I promise that I will respond properly when I have more time, probably tomorrow. But there is news today with just HILARIOUS timing, and I am, first and foremost, a vindictive bastard.

This would be a very easy claim of mine for you to refute. To my knowledge, no one has reported TOS-1 being active in bombarding the river crossing since that one got blown up by a fucking quadcopter. If you have testimony from mid-November or later, or video evidence, I'd love to see it.

I don't need to refute it. War isn't a Star Wars canon internet debate - J posted an article with a soldier talking about coming under flamethrower fire and you're like "oh well one was destroyed and I personally haven't seen any videos since!"

This is intellectually dishonest of you, come on. You will claim that the information available allows YOU to draw YOUR conclusion, but does not allow my own. If I draw conclusions anyway, suddenly all the information is lies or incomplete. J posted an article from two weeks ago that didn't offer a date on the interviews, so that's bogus as far as evidence goes. To my knowledge, there have not been any videos or testimony alleging TOS-1 activity in the area of the crossing since that first one was blown up. Meaning that, for the purposes of any debate you and me will have, there has been no TOS-1 activity. Is that true? Maybe not. But there also hasn't been any evidence of B-2 bombers attacking Russian factories, and if I claimed that the lack of evidence didn't mean anything, you would rightly call me fucking retarded. We can either argue over the information that we have, or make wild speculations about what we aren't seeing.

The videos both sides publish are for the purposes of spreading their propaganda. Ukraine has no interest in showing all the vehicles its drones fail to destroy, Russia has no interest in doing the same, and no Russian propagandist is on the front line taking video of TOS bombardments to disprove KraytKing on SDN dot net.

Also, since something like fifty of them have ever been in service with the Russians, it seems weird that you're downplaying how important destroying one of them is-

This has nothing to do with 'downplaying' anything, its about what a dumb response it is to an article about the Krynky firebag to tout the destruction of a single flamethrower as if it somehow refutes what J is saying.

Just to reiterate, it does refute that specific claim J made. The present state of affairs is that no TOS-1 units have been operational near Krynky since one was destroyed by an extended range drone.

Until recently, actually.

Footage linked here shows the effects of a TOS-1 barrage on the landing. https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaR ... &context=3

And almost immediately, footage here shows a TOS-1 in the Krinky area being destroyed.

https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/ ... &context=3

And for good measure, a second one was destroyed by the 36th near Avdiivka.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/ ... &context=3

So unless tomorrow there is more footage of thermobaric or incendiary bombardments at Krynky, once again the present state of the battlefield for the purposes of our debate is that Russia cannot safely operate short-range rocket artillery at Krynky, and is possibly having trouble at any hot point on the contact line. This would not be terribly surprising: TOS-1 is very hard to hide from counterbattery radar when it is firing, and it is within the range of heavy Ukrainian artillery and extended-range FPV drones sited well behind the front, so they can be destroyed fairly easily if the ZSU is ready for them.

Overall, it is a grim day for Ukraine. The Russian assault in Kupiansk made minimal, possibly zero gains, at a cost of half a dozen armored vehicles and at least fifty lives. That is a hard minimum, those were just the bodies recorded on drone footage. On the other hand, Ukraine lost small amounts of territory all along the front, including Bakhmut and Robotyne. Whether those victories are either Pyrrhic or temporary for Russia is yet uncertain. It is interesting, however, to see large-front offensives a month into the dreadfully costly assault on Avdiivka. This does not match the previous assaults on Vuhledar and Bakhmut last year.

In more ways than one, admittedly. The fighting today has more closely resembled a Ukrainian offensive, excepting Kupiansk, in that the Russians have used relatively few armored vehicles and little artillery, instead relying on drones and infantry assaults. Again, too early to draw conclusions, these are just the things I am noticing.

[Vympel]

This is intellectually dishonest of you, come on. You will claim that the information available allows YOU to draw YOUR conclusion, but does not allow my own.

That's right, because my conclusion is a different class from yours.

It's simple -

1. J posts an article of a Ukrainian soldier relating just how bad things are for them in Krynky.
2. Your rebuttal to the article's gloomy and negative tenor is to refer to the soldier talking about coming under flamethrower fire and appeal to the destruction of one like it matters - appealing to a lack of video of others as if it somehow proves, I guess, that the threat of flamethrower units has ended.

I point out how obviously misconceived it is to think that you are capable of drawing that conclusion based purely on what curated official Ukrainian propaganda has shown you.

What does that affect my conclusion? What do you think my conclusion even is?

In any case even if you were correct, its pure inside-baseball pettifoggery to basically gloat about the destruction of single individual weapon systems as if it has any material effect on a battle, let alone a war.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

So there is a lot that you've said that I take issue with, and I promise that I will respond properly when I have more time, probably tomorrow. But there is news today with just HILARIOUS timing, and I am, first and foremost, a vindictive bastard.

Is it this?

Historic Announcement from NATO - Directly Addresses Putin

"We are ready to defend NATO's territory," says Germany's Defense Minister Boris Pistorius, according to Süddeutsche Zeitung. This statement comes in a historic context.

For the first time in NATO's history, Germany has made a decision to send army soldiers to another European country for permanent deployment. Over 5,000 German soldiers are being placed in NATO ally Lithuania, just ten miles from the Russian border.

This decision is a direct response to Russian aggression against Ukraine and escalated rhetoric against several European countries. It is also a direct message to the Kremlin and Vladimir Putin, as Boris Pistorius announces the deployment of German troops to the Baltics.

"We are sending a clear signal to all who may threaten peace and security in Europe," says the defense minister.

The Lithuanian army consists of only 15,000 soldiers. Therefore, Germany's decision is a much-welcomed one, especially with Russia on the other side of the border.

Tensions between Russia and Lithuania have been high over the past year, particularly after the NATO member halted cargo traffic through the country en route to Kaliningrad last year.

Last summer, Lithuania was on high alert for Russian retaliatory actions, and in August this year, the country, along with Latvia and Poland, was threatened with nuclear weapons by Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenko.


"We will use them immediately if aggression is directed against us," he stated, according to the state news agency Belta.

Lavrov: "They Are Desperate"
Putin recently dismissed warnings from NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg and U.S. President Joe Biden that Russia plans to invade more countries if it defeats Ukraine, while military buildup occurs along the Russian-Finnish border.

This message was reiterated yesterday by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

"The fact that serious people like the President of the United States are saying this out loud says a lot about their desperate situation," says Lavrov, according to Sky News.

By 2027, the German troops are expected to be fully stationed in Lithuania.

[LadyTevar]

Well... That's going to put a damper on things.

Will Russia split their troops to put some on the Lithuania border?

[Eternal_Freedom]

German army troops posted near the Russian border? I shudder to think what Putin's propaganda crew will make of this. No doubt lots of references to historical fighting fascism etc.

[LadyTevar]

German army troops posted near the Russian border? I shudder to think what Putin's propaganda crew will make of this. No doubt lots of references to historical fighting fascism etc.

He's already been calling Ukrainian Nazis, so why not extend it to Germany?

[Vympel]

I'm sure the Ukrainians feel way more secure knowing that token NATO forces are off in other countries hundreds of kilometers away from the front, protecting countries which are not under attack and who have the benefit of the USA's nuclear umbrella. So brave of the Germans to risk their troops like this, Putin must be terrified

[Gandalf]

Yeah, that's an odd gesture.

Given the chain of decisions Russian leadership would need to make to get to the point of invading a NATO ally, five thousand soldiers might not be much of a deterrent.

[LaCroix]

After the Ukrainians managed to destroy 3 Su-34s via patriot sam , there are reports that russia is discussing pulling all.air.power out of crimea - between them being destroyed on airfields and now not able to enter the Kherson region, they.aren't doing anything.good there.

Also, all marine vessels have been pulled out of the black sea and the sea of azov.

Germany sent 3 more gepard, and netherlands stated that the first batch of f16 will be deliclvered in 2023. Which means they probably already are inside the ukraine, since the ukrainians have a habit of unveiling new toys by using them in a devastating attack.

[J]

After the Ukrainians managed to destroy 3 Su-34s via patriot sam , there are reports that russia is discussing pulling all.air.power out of crimea - between them being destroyed on airfields and now not able to enter the Kherson region, they.aren't doing anything.good there.

Sure they did...




Oh. Wait. Oops.

[LadyTevar]

After the Ukrainians managed to destroy 3 Su-34s via patriot sam , there are reports that russia is discussing pulling all.air.power out of crimea - between them being destroyed on airfields and now not able to enter the Kherson region, they.aren't doing anything.good there.

Sure they did...

[img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GCCW2meaIAA ... =large[img]


Oh. Wait. Oops.

[img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GCCW3RWbcAA ... =small[img]

This is what the BBC Reported on the 22nd

Ukraine's military says it shot down three Russian fighter jets on Friday in the south of the country.

Three Su-34 fighter bombers were shot down over Kherson region, the Ukrainian air force announced.
President Volodymr Zelensky thanked the servicemen who had downed the planes, saying the incident had occurred in war-torn Kherson Region.
Moscow has not commented on the claims, but influential Russian bloggers have reported losses.
In his nightly address on Friday, Mr Zelensky said the downing of the planes would make Russian pilots attacking targets in Ukraine aware that "none of them [would] go unpunished".
He also said he had spoken to Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte about the future delivery of F-16 jets, as well as a new EU support package.
Russia has not commented on the reported loss of its jets, but Fighterbomber, an influential Russian war blogger, reported the loss of an unspecified number of planes, saying they had probably been downed by US-made Patriot missiles.

Did it happen?
I don't know for sure, which is why I didn't post anything about it.

I do not know who Igor Sushko is either, or why he decided to steal/reuse a photo from 2022 and claim it was recent. We do know that both Russia and Ukraine have done the same in the past, because it's all Propaganda to show they're still fighting and winning battles.

Whomever Igor Sushko is, according to BBC he's just ONE of SEVERAL claiming that yes Russian planes were lost, presumably to Ukrainian action.

[J]

Ukraine can claim whatever they want, they're even less credible than the Russian Ministry of Defence. There's no evidence of the Russian planes which were supposedly downed other than the tweets in my previous post. These are the same people who routinely claim 10:1 casualties in favour of the Ukrainians along with Patriot systems shooting down 10 out of 3 Kinzhal missiles.

[Solauren]

Ukraine can claim whatever they want, they're even less credible than the Russian Ministry of Defence. There's no evidence of the Russian planes which were supposedly downed other than the tweets in my previous post. These are the same people who routinely claim 10:1 casualties in favour of the Ukrainians along with Patriot systems shooting down 10 out of 3 Kinzhal missiles.

If course they're both unreliable, and there are posts and tweets like that.

Russia and the Ukraine are at war. Disinformation is part of that.

[Broomstick]

What's wrong with having an official state language? In the USA, the official language is English.

[nitpick] The US does NOT have an official language. It has a long-standing custom of using English, but no law demands it. A few states have declared English official, but they don't speak for anyone else and as a practical matter can't outlaw the use of any other language.

In the past many areas of the US were primarily German-speaking, and these days Spanish is becoming a de facto second language, except in some areas of the Southwest where Spanish was always dominant, and the territory of Puerto Rico.

This is a much different situation than countries that have official state language(s) and/or active suppression of other languages.[/quote]

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Ukraine can claim whatever they want, they're even less credible than the Russian Ministry of Defence. There's no evidence of the Russian planes which were supposedly downed other than the tweets in my previous post. These are the same people who routinely claim 10:1 casualties in favour of the Ukrainians along with Patriot systems shooting down 10 out of 3 Kinzhal missiles.

If course they're both unreliable, and there are posts and tweets like that.

Russia and the Ukraine are at war. Disinformation is part of that.

Well the Russians are already claiming they've shot down some F16s even though Ukraine hasn't received them yet

[LadyTevar]

Russia Confirms Damage to Warship

Russia has confirmed one of its warships has been damaged in a Ukrainian attack on a Black Sea port.

The airstrike took place at Feodosiya in Russian-occupied Crimea early on Tuesday morning.
Russia's Ministry of Defence said the large landing ship Novocherkassk was struck by Ukrainian aircraft carrying guided missiles.

The head of the Ukrainian Air Force said earlier its warplanes had destroyed the ship.

One person was killed in the attack, according to the Russian-installed head of Crimea, Sergei Aksyonov. Several others were reportedly hurt.
Six buildings were damaged and a small number of people had to be taken to temporary accommodation centres, Mr Aksyonov added.

The port's transport operations are said to be functioning as normal after the area was cordoned off, while a fire caused by the attack was contained.

Footage purportedly showing a huge explosion in the port was shared by Ukrainian air force commander Lt Gen Mykola Oleshchuk.
The images have not been independently verified. However, satellite imagery from 24 December shows a ship at port in Feodosiya that appears to be the same length as the Novocherkassk - a landing ship designed to transport troops, weapons and cargo to shore.

Any significant damage to the ship will be a welcome bit of good news for Ukraine, with waning Western support now affecting its front-line operations. Given that the Novocherkassk was in dock, it is highly likely it was being loaded with soldiers, equipment or both.
Dr Patrick Bury, a security and defence expert and former Nato analyst, told the BBC News Channel there was speculation that the ship was carrying Iranian-made Shahed drones, which Russia has been using in its attacks on Ukrainian targets.

Speaking on Ukrainian TV, the head of the press centre for Ukraine's southern command, Nataliya Humenyuk, said it was "clear that such a large detonation was caused by more than just the fuel or ammunition of the ship itself".
Ms Humenyuk added that Russia had been facing difficulties with transporting "important cargo" due to the Kerch Bridge, which links Russia to the Crimean Peninsula, being damaged.
"So, it is quite likely that it [the Novocherkassk's cargo] was a kind of "Christmas present, completely wrapped," she said.

Taking the ship out of action, even if only temporarily, will no doubt hamper Russia's ability to supply troops in territory it occupies further north.
What is less clear is how long its operations will be disrupted for and what impact this strike will have on the front lines.

Meanwhile, a spokesman for Ukraine's air force has denied that Russia shot down two of its Su-24 bombers about 125km (77 miles) from the Ukrainian city of Mykolaiv.

And Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu said that his troops had seized the key town of Mariinka in eastern Ukraine.
Kyiv initially denied the claim, but in a news conference on Tuesday Ukrainian Armed Forces commander Valerii Zaluzhnyi said his troops had withdrawn to the outskirts of the town and beyond.
The area has been used by Ukraine as a defensive barrier since 2014, when Russian-backed fighters seized large swathes of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions.

Tuesday's attack on Feodosiya is not the first time that the Novocherkassk has been targeted by Ukrainian forces.
In March 2022, Ukraine's defence ministry reported that the ship had been damaged in an attack on the occupied Ukrainian port of Berdyansk in which another amphibious assault ship, the Saratov, was sunk.
In a post on Telegram, Lt Gen Oleshchuk wrote that the Novocherkassk had gone the way of the Moskva - the flagship of Russia's Black Sea Fleet, which sank in the Black Sea last year.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky quipped that he was "grateful" to the country's air force "for the impressive replenishment of the Russian submarine Black Sea fleet with another vessel," in reference to other Russian ships that have been sunk during the war.
"The occupiers will not have a single peaceful place in Ukraine," he said.

[LadyTevar]

Russia Confirms Damage to Warship

Russia has confirmed one of its warships has been damaged in a Ukrainian attack on a Black Sea port.

The airstrike took place at Feodosiya in Russian-occupied Crimea early on Tuesday morning.
Russia's Ministry of Defence said the large landing ship Novocherkassk was struck by Ukrainian aircraft carrying guided missiles.

The head of the Ukrainian Air Force said earlier its warplanes had destroyed the ship.

One person was killed in the attack, according to the Russian-installed head of Crimea, Sergei Aksyonov. Several others were reportedly hurt.
Six buildings were damaged and a small number of people had to be taken to temporary accommodation centres, Mr Aksyonov added.

The port's transport operations are said to be functioning as normal after the area was cordoned off, while a fire caused by the attack was contained.

Footage purportedly showing a huge explosion in the port was shared by Ukrainian air force commander Lt Gen Mykola Oleshchuk.
The images have not been independently verified. However, satellite imagery from 24 December shows a ship at port in Feodosiya that appears to be the same length as the Novocherkassk - a landing ship designed to transport troops, weapons and cargo to shore.

Any significant damage to the ship will be a welcome bit of good news for Ukraine, with waning Western support now affecting its front-line operations. Given that the Novocherkassk was in dock, it is highly likely it was being loaded with soldiers, equipment or both.
Dr Patrick Bury, a security and defence expert and former Nato analyst, told the BBC News Channel there was speculation that the ship was carrying Iranian-made Shahed drones, which Russia has been using in its attacks on Ukrainian targets.

Speaking on Ukrainian TV, the head of the press centre for Ukraine's southern command, Nataliya Humenyuk, said it was "clear that such a large detonation was caused by more than just the fuel or ammunition of the ship itself".
Ms Humenyuk added that Russia had been facing difficulties with transporting "important cargo" due to the Kerch Bridge, which links Russia to the Crimean Peninsula, being damaged.
"So, it is quite likely that it [the Novocherkassk's cargo] was a kind of "Christmas present, completely wrapped," she said.

Taking the ship out of action, even if only temporarily, will no doubt hamper Russia's ability to supply troops in territory it occupies further north.
What is less clear is how long its operations will be disrupted for and what impact this strike will have on the front lines.

Meanwhile, a spokesman for Ukraine's air force has denied that Russia shot down two of its Su-24 bombers about 125km (77 miles) from the Ukrainian city of Mykolaiv.

And Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu said that his troops had seized the key town of Mariinka in eastern Ukraine.
Kyiv initially denied the claim, but in a news conference on Tuesday Ukrainian Armed Forces commander Valerii Zaluzhnyi said his troops had withdrawn to the outskirts of the town and beyond.
The area has been used by Ukraine as a defensive barrier since 2014, when Russian-backed fighters seized large swathes of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions.

Tuesday's attack on Feodosiya is not the first time that the Novocherkassk has been targeted by Ukrainian forces.
In March 2022, Ukraine's defence ministry reported that the ship had been damaged in an attack on the occupied Ukrainian port of Berdyansk in which another amphibious assault ship, the Saratov, was sunk.
In a post on Telegram, Lt Gen Oleshchuk wrote that the Novocherkassk had gone the way of the Moskva - the flagship of Russia's Black Sea Fleet, which sank in the Black Sea last year.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky quipped that he was "grateful" to the country's air force "for the impressive replenishment of the Russian submarine Black Sea fleet with another vessel," in reference to other Russian ships that have been sunk during the war.
"The occupiers will not have a single peaceful place in Ukraine," he said.

[madd0c0t0r2]

There were 4 strategic objectives in this war for Russia starting with the 2014 invasion

1) establish strategic depth to the border by creating small client states to act as buffers
2) take and hold on Crimea as long term strategic black sea port. 2b) Establish bridge and land corridor to Crimea to get enough strategic depth to keep the port viable.
3) intimidate other countries into staying out of NATO through demonstration of their ability to conduct huge, fast deployments; massive military reserves; and asymmetric info and cyber war capabilities
4) deliver glorious victory and international rejection to Russian people to strengthen nationalism and therefore current elites positions.


How do we feel they are doing on those?

[bilateralrope]

I don't think anyone will be able to judge the success of #1 and #2 until the war is over.

#3 looks like a failure because Russia convinced Sweden and Finland that they can't trust Russia's word, nor defend themselves on their own. The only options left seem to be join NATO or get invaded by Russia at some point.

I don't know enough about internal Russian politics to judge #4

[EnterpriseSovereign]

#2 was done and dusted, had Russia stopped there instead of making a play for the rest of Ukraine a few years later they could have called it a win. Or alternatively doing it before Ukraine had 8 years to improve their own military.

[LadyTevar]

#2 was done and dusted, had Russia stopped there instead of making a play for the rest of Ukraine a few years later they could have called it a win. Or alternatively doing it before Ukraine had 8 years to improve their own military.

IIRC Russia was FORCED to stop there.