Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[Hindsight was 2020]

People here really need to learn to use the ignore function (ideally with the enhancements you can turn on in the "Atlas - Forum Options" menu).

What but then we miss out of Woodbury going all “oh man Ukraine is done now” over 7 month long battle for a small town that doesn’t hold any real strategic value and jaichind insisting a nation that is seeing it’s able body workforce flee the nation to avoid conscription is somehow doing well economically wise

[jaichind]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/07/opinion/russia-ukraine-us-tanks.html

"Guest Essay: Russia and Ukraine Have Incentives to Negotiate. The U.S. Has Other Plans."

The problem is that Ukraine is losing the war. Not, as far as we can tell, because its soldiers are fighting poorly or its people have lost heart, but because the war has settled into a World War I-style battle of attrition, complete with carefully dug trenches and relatively stable fronts.

The Biden administration has other plans. It is betting that by providing tanks it can improve Ukraine’s chances of winning the war. In a sense, the idea is to fast-forward history, from World War I’s battles of position to World War II’s battles of movement. 

[Dereich]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/07/opinion/russia-ukraine-us-tanks.html

"Guest Essay: Russia and Ukraine Have Incentives to Negotiate. The U.S. Has Other Plans."

The problem is that Ukraine is losing the war. Not, as far as we can tell, because its soldiers are fighting poorly or its people have lost heart, but because the war has settled into a World War I-style battle of attrition, complete with carefully dug trenches and relatively stable fronts.

The Biden administration has other plans. It is betting that by providing tanks it can improve Ukraine’s chances of winning the war. In a sense, the idea is to fast-forward history, from World War I’s battles of position to World War II’s battles of movement.

One needs only look to Woodbury's recent posts to know that the Russians are not willing to sit and fight a war of attrition around defensive positions and are instead preparing for some kind of major offensive to gain more territory. That article for some reason puts the agency for this war on the United States instead of the parties actually fighting. An end to the war as it currently stands is completely unacceptable to BOTH combatants and both are taking steps to change the status quo.

[Torie]

I have taken to following the Sea Lion Press thread on the invasion rather than reading ... SirWoodbury and Jaichind.

I am not reporting this, and disagree myself with both posters on much about Ukraine, but that kind of name calling is uncalled for and not what this site is about, and you should cease and desist. Thank you.

[Hindsight was 2020]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/07/opinion/russia-ukraine-us-tanks.html

"Guest Essay: Russia and Ukraine Have Incentives to Negotiate. The U.S. Has Other Plans."

The problem is that Ukraine is losing the war. Not, as far as we can tell, because its soldiers are fighting poorly or its people have lost heart, but because the war has settled into a World War I-style battle of attrition, complete with carefully dug trenches and relatively stable fronts.

The Biden administration has other plans. It is betting that by providing tanks it can improve Ukraine’s chances of winning the war. In a sense, the idea is to fast-forward history, from World War I’s battles of position to World War II’s battles of movement.

Anyone trying to spin a war were Russia’s stated goals was to take over Kyiv in 3 days to almost a year later being stuck in the Donbas as somehow a Russian victory let alone one claiming that the US is somehow forcing Ukraine to fight against it’s will is a completely unserious actor

*Edit
Btw did a quick google on the author of the NYT and he in the summer of last year before the Kharkiv offensive was saying Russia was winning so yeah real good expert on this war 🙄
https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/why-are-we-in-ukraine/

[Woody]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/07/opinion/russia-ukraine-us-tanks.html

"Guest Essay: Russia and Ukraine Have Incentives to Negotiate. The U.S. Has Other Plans."

The problem is that Ukraine is losing the war. Not, as far as we can tell, because its soldiers are fighting poorly or its people have lost heart, but because the war has settled into a World War I-style battle of attrition, complete with carefully dug trenches and relatively stable fronts.

The Biden administration has other plans. It is betting that by providing tanks it can improve Ukraine’s chances of winning the war. In a sense, the idea is to fast-forward history, from World War I’s battles of position to World War II’s battles of movement. 

Anyone trying to spin a war were Russia’s stated goals was to take over Kyiv in 3 days to almost a year later being stuck in the Donbas as somehow a Russian victory let alone one claim that the US is somehow forcing Ukraine to fight against it’s will is a completely unserious actor

Getting territory = Losing??

[Hindsight was 2020]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/07/opinion/russia-ukraine-us-tanks.html

"Guest Essay: Russia and Ukraine Have Incentives to Negotiate. The U.S. Has Other Plans."

The problem is that Ukraine is losing the war. Not, as far as we can tell, because its soldiers are fighting poorly or its people have lost heart, but because the war has settled into a World War I-style battle of attrition, complete with carefully dug trenches and relatively stable fronts.

The Biden administration has other plans. It is betting that by providing tanks it can improve Ukraine’s chances of winning the war. In a sense, the idea is to fast-forward history, from World War I’s battles of position to World War II’s battles of movement. 

Anyone trying to spin a war were Russia’s stated goals was to take over Kyiv in 3 days to almost a year later being stuck in the Donbas as somehow a Russian victory let alone one claim that the US is somehow forcing Ukraine to fight against it’s will is a completely unserious actor

Getting territory = Losing??

Gaining inches of dirt around a small town is “getting territory” now?

[Woody]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/07/opinion/russia-ukraine-us-tanks.html

"Guest Essay: Russia and Ukraine Have Incentives to Negotiate. The U.S. Has Other Plans."

The problem is that Ukraine is losing the war. Not, as far as we can tell, because its soldiers are fighting poorly or its people have lost heart, but because the war has settled into a World War I-style battle of attrition, complete with carefully dug trenches and relatively stable fronts.

The Biden administration has other plans. It is betting that by providing tanks it can improve Ukraine’s chances of winning the war. In a sense, the idea is to fast-forward history, from World War I’s battles of position to World War II’s battles of movement.

Anyone trying to spin a war were Russia’s stated goals was to take over Kyiv in 3 days to almost a year later being stuck in the Donbas as somehow a Russian victory let alone one claim that the US is somehow forcing Ukraine to fight against it’s will is a completely unserious actor

Getting territory = Losing??

Gaining inches of dirt around a small town is “getting territory” now?

Yes.

If you're getting more land than you previously had before the war started, then you're winning, might not be the victory you desired, but a victory nonetheless.  (Land bridge to Crimea/Donetsk/Luhansk)

[Hindsight was 2020]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/07/opinion/russia-ukraine-us-tanks.html

"Guest Essay: Russia and Ukraine Have Incentives to Negotiate. The U.S. Has Other Plans."

The problem is that Ukraine is losing the war. Not, as far as we can tell, because its soldiers are fighting poorly or its people have lost heart, but because the war has settled into a World War I-style battle of attrition, complete with carefully dug trenches and relatively stable fronts.

The Biden administration has other plans. It is betting that by providing tanks it can improve Ukraine’s chances of winning the war. In a sense, the idea is to fast-forward history, from World War I’s battles of position to World War II’s battles of movement.

Anyone trying to spin a war were Russia’s stated goals was to take over Kyiv in 3 days to almost a year later being stuck in the Donbas as somehow a Russian victory let alone one claim that the US is somehow forcing Ukraine to fight against it’s will is a completely unserious actor

Getting territory = Losing??

Gaining inches of dirt around a small town is “getting territory” now?

Yes.

If you're getting more land than you previously had before the war started, then you're winning.

Not only is that a ridiculous way to judge the war it contradicts your own past positions when you went out of your way to downplay Kharkiv offensive and tried to spin Kherson offensive as a disaster

[Middle-aged Europe]

https://twitter.com/pravda_eng/status/1622990624675840002?t=kecZKjMawfhOLSe_Ezwa...

[Omega21]

Both of you are wrong.

It is neither a victory nor a defeat for Russia.

If the conflict were to end today, it would be a moderate pyrrhic victory.

Finland may have also inflicted serious losses on the USSR & successfully defended its sovereignty, but in the end, it had to give up a significant urban area and a hefty chunk of land. Thus, it is also widely classed the same way.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/07/opinion/russia-ukraine-us-tanks.html

"Guest Essay: Russia and Ukraine Have Incentives to Negotiate. The U.S. Has Other Plans."

The problem is that Ukraine is losing the war. Not, as far as we can tell, because its soldiers are fighting poorly or its people have lost heart, but because the war has settled into a World War I-style battle of attrition, complete with carefully dug trenches and relatively stable fronts.

The Biden administration has other plans. It is betting that by providing tanks it can improve Ukraine’s chances of winning the war. In a sense, the idea is to fast-forward history, from World War I’s battles of position to World War II’s battles of movement. 

Anyone trying to spin a war were Russia’s stated goals was to take over Kyiv in 3 days to almost a year later being stuck in the Donbas as somehow a Russian victory let alone one claim that the US is somehow forcing Ukraine to fight against it’s will is a completely unserious actor

Getting territory = Losing??

Gaining inches of dirt around a small town is “getting territory” now?

Pretending that a loss (failure to re-elect Trump/taking 20,000 casualties failing to capture a town) is actually a victory is one more thing Republicans and Russians have in common. (Unsurprisingly, orcs resemble other orcs.)

[Woody]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/07/opinion/russia-ukraine-us-tanks.html

"Guest Essay: Russia and Ukraine Have Incentives to Negotiate. The U.S. Has Other Plans."

The problem is that Ukraine is losing the war. Not, as far as we can tell, because its soldiers are fighting poorly or its people have lost heart, but because the war has settled into a World War I-style battle of attrition, complete with carefully dug trenches and relatively stable fronts.

The Biden administration has other plans. It is betting that by providing tanks it can improve Ukraine’s chances of winning the war. In a sense, the idea is to fast-forward history, from World War I’s battles of position to World War II’s battles of movement.

Anyone trying to spin a war were Russia’s stated goals was to take over Kyiv in 3 days to almost a year later being stuck in the Donbas as somehow a Russian victory let alone one claim that the US is somehow forcing Ukraine to fight against it’s will is a completely unserious actor

Getting territory = Losing??

Gaining inches of dirt around a small town is “getting territory” now?

Yes.

If you're getting more land than you previously had before the war started, then you're winning.

Not only is that a ridiculous way to judge the war it contradicts your own past positions when you meant out of your way to downplay Kharkiv offensive and tried to spin Kherson offensive as a disaster

It was? Ukrainians lost dozens of vehicles, tanks, BMPs (Their Mechanized Brigades really took the brunt of it all) during every single attack. It was practically a killing ground for the AFU. You keep forgetting Russians leaving the right bank was never the result of offensive operations by the AFU, but eventual withdrawals because the strain it took on the rest of the front. I am pretty sure if Russians really wanted it, they would could have stayed in Kherson to this day, albeit a stupid decision, so a wise move

[Torie]

Assuming that some sort of cease fire left Russian territorial gains in place for a period of time, it would be at the cost of Russia's economic ties to the West being permanently severed, and an acceleration to Green to keep the price of fossil fuels down. The elite who fled Russia would mostly not return. Longer term I think Russia would slowly (or perhaps not so slowly) wither on the economic vine. While China and India would bottom feed off Russia, they would certainly not lend it a life line or prop it up. Russia's future would be bleak. That is what my crystal ball reveals.

[Hindsight was 2020]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/07/opinion/russia-ukraine-us-tanks.html

"Guest Essay: Russia and Ukraine Have Incentives to Negotiate. The U.S. Has Other Plans."

The problem is that Ukraine is losing the war. Not, as far as we can tell, because its soldiers are fighting poorly or its people have lost heart, but because the war has settled into a World War I-style battle of attrition, complete with carefully dug trenches and relatively stable fronts.

The Biden administration has other plans. It is betting that by providing tanks it can improve Ukraine’s chances of winning the war. In a sense, the idea is to fast-forward history, from World War I’s battles of position to World War II’s battles of movement.

Anyone trying to spin a war were Russia’s stated goals was to take over Kyiv in 3 days to almost a year later being stuck in the Donbas as somehow a Russian victory let alone one claim that the US is somehow forcing Ukraine to fight against it’s will is a completely unserious actor

Getting territory = Losing??

Gaining inches of dirt around a small town is “getting territory” now?

Yes.

If you're getting more land than you previously had before the war started, then you're winning.

Not only is that a ridiculous way to judge the war it contradicts your own past positions when you meant out of your way to downplay Kharkiv offensive and tried to spin Kherson offensive as a disaster

It was? Ukrainians lost dozens of vehicles, tanks, BMPs during every single attack. It was practically a killing ground for the AFU. You keep forgetting Russians leaving the right bank was never the result of offensive operations by the AFU, but eventual withdrawals because the strain it took on the rest of the front. I am pretty sure if Russians really wanted it, they would could have stayed in Kherson to this day, albeit a stupid decision, so a wise move

Bakmut has been 1000% worse in terms of causalities yet you do nothing but spin that as a victory for Russia (even though they haven’t even taken it yet). So once again you’re just contradicting yourself to push a heads Russia wins/tails Ukraine loses narrative

[Woody]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/07/opinion/russia-ukraine-us-tanks.html

"Guest Essay: Russia and Ukraine Have Incentives to Negotiate. The U.S. Has Other Plans."

The problem is that Ukraine is losing the war. Not, as far as we can tell, because its soldiers are fighting poorly or its people have lost heart, but because the war has settled into a World War I-style battle of attrition, complete with carefully dug trenches and relatively stable fronts.

The Biden administration has other plans. It is betting that by providing tanks it can improve Ukraine’s chances of winning the war. In a sense, the idea is to fast-forward history, from World War I’s battles of position to World War II’s battles of movement.

Anyone trying to spin a war were Russia’s stated goals was to take over Kyiv in 3 days to almost a year later being stuck in the Donbas as somehow a Russian victory let alone one claim that the US is somehow forcing Ukraine to fight against it’s will is a completely unserious actor

Getting territory = Losing??

Gaining inches of dirt around a small town is “getting territory” now?

Yes.

If you're getting more land than you previously had before the war started, then you're winning.

Not only is that a ridiculous way to judge the war it contradicts your own past positions when you meant out of your way to downplay Kharkiv offensive and tried to spin Kherson offensive as a disaster

It was? Ukrainians lost dozens of vehicles, tanks, BMPs during every single attack. It was practically a killing ground for the AFU. You keep forgetting Russians leaving the right bank was never the result of offensive operations by the AFU, but eventual withdrawals because the strain it took on the rest of the front. I am pretty sure if Russians really wanted it, they would could have stayed in Kherson to this day, albeit a stupid decision, so a wise move

Bakmut has been 1000% worse in terms of causalities yet you do nothing but spin that as a victory for Russia (even though they have even taken it yet). So once again you’re just contradicting yourself to push a heads Russia wins/tails Ukraine loses narrative

I doubt the ratio between the deaths of Ukrainians and Russians were more unequal than what happened in Kherson. That's why we see so little movement in the south from both sides because of all the flatlands.

The moment you try to cross several kilometers of steppe land several drones will already pick you up and then you become mince meat for artillery or what-not. That's why Ukraine eventually had to give up on assaulting and surrounding the city head on, and instead wait it out. (BTW this is why Melitopol/Berdyansk is going to be incredibly exhausting to take as long as Russia has the manpower to field it's fortifications it didn't enjoy then in Kharkiv. Same dilemma for Russians in Vuheldar and Velyka Novosilka)

But no doubt Bakhmut has been the bloodiest battle of the war as the scale of men there is undoubtedly higher. The difference is that Russia has the men to take the attrition, Ukraine doesn't. Wagner and it's convicts are the one taking the brunt here, although the Russian army is slowly replacing them. Don't forget that Ukrainians are taking heavy casualties here too.

[Logical]

The thing about casualties in Bakhmut is that while Ukrainians are losing their best and brightest, Russians are losing murderers, rapists and thieves ; people everyone are happy to be rid of. So even if you assume a highly favorable 1:10 casualty ratio, Ukraine still loses in human capital terms.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Raw casualty counts don't really tell you much about who is winning or losing this war. At least in isolation.
A Ukraine that gets ultra-high casualties and yet manages to take Russian Crimea is a victor. I don't think anyone would doubt that, no?
Why is high RU casualty vs UA suddenly an argument for Russia losing? Is the assumption Russia will run out of soldiers?
This is just one piece of the puzzle. Troops, in the end, are tools used to get and hold something.
Either way, given the cost both sides are incurring, any victory for either side likely would be best categorized as pyrhhic at this point.

[Hindsight was 2020]

The thing about casualties in Bakhmut is that while Ukrainians are losing their best and brightest, Russians are losing murderers, rapists and thieves ; people everyone are happy to be rid of. So even if you assume a highly favorable 1:10 casualty ratio, Ukraine still loses in human capital terms.

But the reason Russia is sending murderers, rapists and thieves is they already lost their best soldiers in the opening stages of the war. It’s not a case of Russia having this well trained army in reserve waiting to take over after Wagner is all gone

[Hindsight was 2020]

Raw casualty counts don't really tell you much about who is winning or losing this war. At least in isolation.
A Ukraine that gets ultra-high casualties and yet manages to take Russian Crimea is a victor. I don't think anyone would doubt that, no?
Why is high RU casualty vs UA suddenly an argument for Russia losing? Is the assumption Russia will run out of soldiers?
This is just one piece of the puzzle. Troops, in the end, are tools used to get and hold something.
Either way, given the cost both sides are incurring, any victory for either side likely would be best categorized as pyrhhic at this point.

Well my argument is not solely causalities based. It is causalities along with the current map vs Russia stated goals. The issue of causalities was because in the past 2 pages (and really in general a repeated case) Woodbury went “as long as Russia takes a single inch of Ukraine soil they are winning no matter the cost because winning a war means taking a inch of territory from the enemy” to saying “Ukraine taking huge chunks of its land back doesn’t matter as the causality cost is too high”

[Woody]

The thing about casualties in Bakhmut is that while Ukrainians are losing their best and brightest, Russians are losing murderers, rapists and thieves ; people everyone are happy to be rid of. So even if you assume a highly favorable 1:10 casualty ratio, Ukraine still loses in human capital terms.

But the reason Russia is sending murderers, rapists and thieves is they already lost their best soldiers in the opening stages of the war. It’s not a case of Russia having this well trained army in reserve waiting to take over after Wagner is all gone

...as alot of the accounts on the ground say the troops in Bakmut are heavily foreign legion

Okay, that's just flat out false, nobody is saying that. Also what you just typed is unironically a Russian talking point LOL - "Foreign mercenaries are here to be canon fodder/We are battling against NATO foreigners here, no Ukrainian is fighting us"

Even if that was true those are still valuable and heavily trained troops. Ukraine has a strict quota for people fighting in it's ranks ever since the first days, these are not bozos.

[Storr]

https://twitter.com/JimmySecUK/status/1622957677683830785?s=20&t=sT35DJuByac...

[Woody]

By the way, hands down the best troops under Russia's wing is the DPR and LPR militia guys, there is no question about it. They know their artillery and mortars incredibly well, know the lay of the land, disciplined, had experience, know well about trench working and warfare, etc.. Unfortunately for Russia they expended them like candy during the first phase of the invasion.. because.. well it's Russia.

So in a way you're right that Russia foolishly wasted some of it's good fighting force, same with the VDV.

[Hindsight was 2020]

The thing about casualties in Bakhmut is that while Ukrainians are losing their best and brightest, Russians are losing murderers, rapists and thieves ; people everyone are happy to be rid of. So even if you assume a highly favorable 1:10 casualty ratio, Ukraine still loses in human capital terms.

But the reason Russia is sending murderers, rapists and thieves is they already lost their best soldiers in the opening stages of the war. It’s not a case of Russia having this well trained army in reserve waiting to take over after Wagner is all gone

Also the accusation that Ukraine best troops are in Bakmut is a unsupported talking point as alot of the accounts on the ground say the troops in Bakmut are heavily foreign legion based and that best troops are reserved on other lines mainly Svatove-Kreminna

Okay so I meant foreign volunteers not legion and the account was a bot account of an actual good account so scratch that

[Logical]

The thing about casualties in Bakhmut is that while Ukrainians are losing their best and brightest, Russians are losing murderers, rapists and thieves ; people everyone are happy to be rid of. So even if you assume a highly favorable 1:10 casualty ratio, Ukraine still loses in human capital terms.

But the reason Russia is sending murderers, rapists and thieves is they already lost their best soldiers in the opening stages of the war. It’s not a case of Russia having this well trained army in reserve waiting to take over after Wagner is all gone

https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1618690722638733315
This is a list of known Ukrainian brigades in Bakhmut.

SSO and 3rd Assault are elite. The latter is formerly Azov Special Detachment upgraded into a Brigade.
24th is a pre war first line regular brigade and can be considered very good.
The rest are reserves and new formations. So about half elite half reserves, not some TDF militias and foreigners.