Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[lfromnj]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neue_Z%C3%BCrcher_Zeitung

https://www.nzz.ch/international/kampfpanzer-fuer-die-ukraine-wurde-olaf-scholz-ueberrumpelt-ld.1724136

One of the clues is a confidential conversation between the NZZ and two influential foreign politicians, one from the governing coalition, the other from the opposition. Both insist on anonymity because what they say independently is explosive. In mid-January, US President Joe Biden instructed CIA chief William Burns to sound out the willingness in Kiev and Moscow to negotiate.

The offer to Kiev was: peace for land, the offer to Moscow: land for peace. The "land" is said to have been about 20 percent of Ukrainian territory. This is about the size of Donbass. Both sides, the two politicians report, had refused. The Ukrainians, because they are not prepared to let their territory be divided, the Russians, because they expect to win the war in the long run anyway.

Seems that Biden was willing to offer Russia 20% of Ukrainian land for peace according to 2 German politicians. The newspaper itself is pretty trustworthy.

[Omega21]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neue_Z%C3%BCrcher_Zeitung

https://www.nzz.ch/international/kampfpanzer-fuer-die-ukraine-wurde-olaf-scholz-ueberrumpelt-ld.1724136

One of the clues is a confidential conversation between the NZZ and two influential foreign politicians, one from the governing coalition, the other from the opposition. Both insist on anonymity because what they say independently is explosive. In mid-January, US President Joe Biden instructed CIA chief William Burns to sound out the willingness in Kiev and Moscow to negotiate.

The offer to Kiev was: peace for land, the offer to Moscow: land for peace. The "land" is said to have been about 20 percent of Ukrainian territory. This is about the size of Donbass. Both sides, the two politicians report, had refused. The Ukrainians, because they are not prepared to let their territory be divided, the Russians, because they expect to win the war in the long run anyway.

Seems that Biden was willing to offer Russia 20% of Ukrainian land for peace according to 2 German politicians. The newspaper itself is pretty trustworthy.

Well, if this is indeed true, hats off to Biden for at least trying.

One might not notice it by the general mood here, but the only thing flourishing in UA right now is the funeral industry.

Repeating "More Mobiks only means more meat for the grinder!!!" on an obscure online forum does not magically manifest a 101 to 1 Kill/Death ratio into reality.

At some point, if Putin can indeed keep up a stable front in a prolonged war of attrition, the sheer human loss for Ukraine will exceed the cost of giving up some *now half empty* territory, particularly since they are one of the worst countries in Europe when it comes to demographics.

https://twitter.com/SprinterBV0000/status/1620886027819945987

https://twitter.com/RiaArt/status/1620515860841484288

[Logical]

2 days ago they took "Sakko I Vantsetti" (Soviet naming is weird)

It's named after the famous anarchist duo Sacco and Vanzetti funnily enough.

[jaichind]

2 days ago they took "Sakko I Vantsetti" (Soviet naming is weird)

It's named after the famous anarchist duo Sacco and Vanzetti funnily enough.

It seems to be an abandoned village (even before the war) but I guess must have some military value.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neue_Z%C3%BCrcher_Zeitung

https://www.nzz.ch/international/kampfpanzer-fuer-die-ukraine-wurde-olaf-scholz-ueberrumpelt-ld.1724136

One of the clues is a confidential conversation between the NZZ and two influential foreign politicians, one from the governing coalition, the other from the opposition. Both insist on anonymity because what they say independently is explosive. In mid-January, US President Joe Biden instructed CIA chief William Burns to sound out the willingness in Kiev and Moscow to negotiate.

The offer to Kiev was: peace for land, the offer to Moscow: land for peace. The "land" is said to have been about 20 percent of Ukrainian territory. This is about the size of Donbass. Both sides, the two politicians report, had refused. The Ukrainians, because they are not prepared to let their territory be divided, the Russians, because they expect to win the war in the long run anyway.

Seems that Biden was willing to offer Russia 20% of Ukrainian land for peace according to 2 German politicians. The newspaper itself is pretty trustworthy.

Well, if this is indeed true, hats off to Biden for at least trying.

One might not notice it by the general mood here, but the only thing flourishing in UA right now is the funeral industry.

Repeating "More Mobiks only means more meat for the grinder!!!" on an obscure online forum does not magically manifest a 101 to 1 Kill/Death ratio into reality.

At some point, if Putin can indeed keep up a stable front in a prolonged war of attrition, the sheer human loss for Ukraine will exceed the cost of giving up some *now half empty* territory, particularly since they are one of the worst countries in Europe when it comes to demographics.

https://twitter.com/SprinterBV0000/status/1620886027819945987
https://twitter.com/RiaArt/status/1620515860841484288

Well said.

[Virginiá]

Repeating "More Mobiks only means more meat for the grinder!!!" on an obscure online forum does not magically manifest a 101 to 1 Kill/Death ratio into reality.

At some point, if Putin can indeed keep up a stable front in a prolonged war of attrition, the sheer human loss for Ukraine will exceed the cost of giving up some *now half empty* territory, particularly since they are one of the worst countries in Europe when it comes to demographics.

Mostly agree with the quoted, I'm just not sure where that limit is for them. But you also have to consider that the Ukrainian government views the territorial losses in the south as unacceptable to the future economic livelihood of the state, and it's hard to disagree with them.

But for people who think Russia throwing 500,000 mobiks at Ukrainian lines will just lead to 500,000 casualties, I'd urge them to consider the exact process through which those soldiers get liquidated. It usually involves a massive amount of fighting, artillery shells exploding and ripping units to shreds, and other catastrophes that will also take with it many Ukrainian lives. How many Ukrainian lives will it take to defeat hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers? It's not a small number. This isn't the movie 300.

Obviously I'm firmly in the fight camp right now, but it's hard to deal with the loss of life going on right now. Those Russians aren't just vaporized after they reach a certain point. A lot of Ukrainian losses are suffered to cause the large Russian number of fatalities we've been seeing.

If Ukraine and Russia keep clashing in these battles where neither side can gain a decisive upper hand, what you end up with is just this brutal war of attrition where both sides lose.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Repeating "More Mobiks only means more meat for the grinder!!!" on an obscure online forum does not magically manifest a 101 to 1 Kill/Death ratio into reality.

At some point, if Putin can indeed keep up a stable front in a prolonged war of attrition, the sheer human loss for Ukraine will exceed the cost of giving up some *now half empty* territory, particularly since they are one of the worst countries in Europe when it comes to demographics.

Mostly agree with the quoted, I'm just not sure where that limit is for them. But you also have to consider that the Ukrainian government views the territorial losses in the south as unacceptable to the future economic livelihood of the state, and it's hard to disagree with them.

But for people who think Russia throwing 500,000 mobiks at Ukrainian lines will just lead to 500,000 casualties, I'd urge them to consider the exact process through which those soldiers get liquidated. It usually involves a massive amount of fighting, artillery shells exploding and ripping units to shreds, and other catastrophes that will also take with it many Ukrainian lives. How many Ukrainian lives will it take to defeat hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers? It's not a small number. This isn't the movie 300.

Obviously I'm firmly in the fight camp right now, but it's hard to deal with the loss of life going on right now. Those Russians aren't just vaporized after they reach a certain point. A lot of Ukrainian losses are suffered to cause the large Russian number of fatalities we've been seeing.

If Ukraine and Russia keep clashing in these battles where neither side can gain a decisive upper hand, what you end up with is just this brutal war of attrition where both sides lose.

Not only is surrendering the territory Russia holds a bad economic hit but it will invite Putin or his successors to try again in the future. The only way to avoid an even deadlier conflict is to grind it out now and beat Russia.

[Virginiá]

Not only is surrendering the territory Russia holds a bad economic hit but it will invite Putin or his successors to try again in the future. The only way to avoid an even deadlier conflict is to grind it out now and beat Russia.

I agree in principle, but again, if Ukraine keeps sticking to its strategy of "corrosion" even in the face of ever-escalating Russian mobilization efforts, then the sheer loss of life and attrition on Ukrainian resources might not lead to a favorable outcome, or might get to a point where Ukraine loses too many people (how many is too many is first a political question, but eventually it becomes a basic math problem). Ukraine doesn't have as deep of mobilization potential as Russia, whose population is over 3x larger (not including Ukrainians in occupied territory, and not able to be mobilized by UKR), nor do they have as many resources or large operational defense industrial capacity. And there will come a time where weapons deliveries start having to come from industry and not stockpiles for the simple reason that the stockpiles of willing and able donors are exhausted. That will cause crucial delays in kit Ukrainians need immediately.

All of this is to say that if Ukraine wants to win this war without massive loss of life, or maybe even at all, they need to move beyond just grinding down the Russian army. That worked before Russian mobilization, but it's a tough lift now. For example, Kherson was a victory, but not being able to actually trap most of those Russian forces was a major missed opportunity. This was how decisive victories were won on the Eastern Front in WW2. They didn't always just wear each other down, entire armies were sometimes out-maneuvered and encircled and essentially removed from the field without the insanely high cost of fighting each other to the death. Suffice to say, I get why it wasn't possible for Ukraine at the time, but still, that's the point. I would say that the larger these armies get, the more necessary this will become for the most optimal outcome.

Just my two cents.

[Person Man]

Repeating "More Mobiks only means more meat for the grinder!!!" on an obscure online forum does not magically manifest a 101 to 1 Kill/Death ratio into reality.

At some point, if Putin can indeed keep up a stable front in a prolonged war of attrition, the sheer human loss for Ukraine will exceed the cost of giving up some *now half empty* territory, particularly since they are one of the worst countries in Europe when it comes to demographics.

Mostly agree with the quoted, I'm just not sure where that limit is for them. But you also have to consider that the Ukrainian government views the territorial losses in the south as unacceptable to the future economic livelihood of the state, and it's hard to disagree with them.

But for people who think Russia throwing 500,000 mobiks at Ukrainian lines will just lead to 500,000 casualties, I'd urge them to consider the exact process through which those soldiers get liquidated. It usually involves a massive amount of fighting, artillery shells exploding and ripping units to shreds, and other catastrophes that will also take with it many Ukrainian lives. How many Ukrainian lives will it take to defeat hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers? It's not a small number. This isn't the movie 300.

Obviously I'm firmly in the fight camp right now, but it's hard to deal with the loss of life going on right now. Those Russians aren't just vaporized after they reach a certain point. A lot of Ukrainian losses are suffered to cause the large Russian number of fatalities we've been seeing.

If Ukraine and Russia keep clashing in these battles where neither side can gain a decisive upper hand, what you end up with is just this brutal war of attrition where both sides lose.

Not only is surrendering the territory Russia holds a bad economic hit but it will invite Putin or his successors to try again in the future. The only way to avoid an even deadlier conflict is to grind it out now and beat Russia.

A million dead Ukrainians and Russians now or many millions of Poles, Lithuanians, Germans, and even Americans with them later.

[Omega21]

Repeating "More Mobiks only means more meat for the grinder!!!" on an obscure online forum does not magically manifest a 101 to 1 Kill/Death ratio into reality.

At some point, if Putin can indeed keep up a stable front in a prolonged war of attrition, the sheer human loss for Ukraine will exceed the cost of giving up some *now half empty* territory, particularly since they are one of the worst countries in Europe when it comes to demographics.

Mostly agree with the quoted, I'm just not sure where that limit is for them. But you also have to consider that the Ukrainian government views the territorial losses in the south as unacceptable to the future economic livelihood of the state, and it's hard to disagree with them.

But for people who think Russia throwing 500,000 mobiks at Ukrainian lines will just lead to 500,000 casualties, I'd urge them to consider the exact process through which those soldiers get liquidated. It usually involves a massive amount of fighting, artillery shells exploding and ripping units to shreds, and other catastrophes that will also take with it many Ukrainian lives. How many Ukrainian lives will it take to defeat hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers? It's not a small number. This isn't the movie 300.

Obviously I'm firmly in the fight camp right now, but it's hard to deal with the loss of life going on right now. Those Russians aren't just vaporized after they reach a certain point. A lot of Ukrainian losses are suffered to cause the large Russian number of fatalities we've been seeing.

If Ukraine and Russia keep clashing in these battles where neither side can gain a decisive upper hand, what you end up with is just this brutal war of attrition where both sides lose.

Not only is surrendering the territory Russia holds a bad economic hit but it will invite Putin or his successors to try again in the future. The only way to avoid an even deadlier conflict is to grind it out now and beat Russia.

A million dead Ukrainians and Russians now or many millions of Poles, Lithuanians, Germans, and even Americans with them later.

Are you genuinely insinuating Putin would declare war on NATO? lol

Not only is surrendering the territory Russia holds a bad economic hit but it will invite Putin or his successors to try again in the future. The only way to avoid an even deadlier conflict is to grind it out now and beat Russia.

I agree in principle, but again, if Ukraine keeps sticking to its strategy of "corrosion" even in the face of ever-escalating Russian mobilization efforts, then the sheer loss of life and attrition on Ukrainian resources might not lead to a favorable outcome, or might get to a point where Ukraine loses too many people (how many is too many is first a political question, but eventually it becomes a basic math problem). Ukraine doesn't have as deep of mobilization potential as Russia, whose population is over 3x larger (not including Ukrainians in occupied territory, and not able to be mobilized by UKR), nor do they have as many resources or large operational defense industrial capacity. And there will come a time where weapons deliveries start having to come from industry and not stockpiles for the simple reason that the stockpiles of willing and able donors are exhausted. That will cause crucial delays in kit Ukrainians need immediately.

All of this is to say that if Ukraine wants to win this war without massive loss of life, or maybe even at all, they need to move beyond just grinding down the Russian army. That worked before Russian mobilization, but it's a tough lift now. For example, Kherson was a victory, but not being able to actually trap most of those Russian forces was a major missed opportunity. This was how decisive victories were won on the Eastern Front in WW2. They didn't always just wear each other down, entire armies were sometimes out-maneuvered and encircled and essentially removed from the field without the insanely high cost of fighting each other to the death. Suffice to say, I get why it wasn't possible for Ukraine at the time, but still, that's the point. I would say that the larger these armies get, the more necessary this will become for the most optimal outcome.

Just my two cents.

Very well put together.

Unfortunately, some here would even view 500,000 dead Ukrainians as a price worth paying, because "Putin will be in Berlin by Winter if he's not stopped now!!" or something.

Anyway, I also stick to my guns about UA needing young men more than some ravaged towns & villages.

I'm obviously not insinuating they should not defend their land, but merely that they should not conduct offensives of reconquest at any price.

Also, might be worth noting that any further advances into RU held territory will be nothing like Kharkiv. The Russians have learned their lesson & made sure to also have enough soldiers to sufficiently man the defenses:

[All Along The Watchtower]

Yeah Putin's not that mad.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Wait why was this unpinned?

[NOVA Green]

Not only is surrendering the territory Russia holds a bad economic hit but it will invite Putin or his successors to try again in the future. The only way to avoid an even deadlier conflict is to grind it out now and beat Russia.

I agree in principle, but again, if Ukraine keeps sticking to its strategy of "corrosion" even in the face of ever-escalating Russian mobilization efforts, then the sheer loss of life and attrition on Ukrainian resources might not lead to a favorable outcome, or might get to a point where Ukraine loses too many people (how many is too many is first a political question, but eventually it becomes a basic math problem). Ukraine doesn't have as deep of mobilization potential as Russia, whose population is over 3x larger (not including Ukrainians in occupied territory, and not able to be mobilized by UKR), nor do they have as many resources or large operational defense industrial capacity. And there will come a time where weapons deliveries start having to come from industry and not stockpiles for the simple reason that the stockpiles of willing and able donors are exhausted. That will cause crucial delays in kit Ukrainians need immediately.

All of this is to say that if Ukraine wants to win this war without massive loss of life, or maybe even at all, they need to move beyond just grinding down the Russian army. That worked before Russian mobilization, but it's a tough lift now. For example, Kherson was a victory, but not being able to actually trap most of those Russian forces was a major missed opportunity. This was how decisive victories were won on the Eastern Front in WW2. They didn't always just wear each other down, entire armies were sometimes out-maneuvered and encircled and essentially removed from the field without the insanely high cost of fighting each other to the death. Suffice to say, I get why it wasn't possible for Ukraine at the time, but still, that's the point. I would say that the larger these armies get, the more necessary this will become for the most optimal outcome.

Just my two cents.

Not to belie the points you have been making in a couple posts earlier today, but Russian estimated combat losses are now hitting around 200k, according to Western officials.

The number of Russian troops killed and wounded in Ukraine is approaching 200,000, a stark symbol of just how badly President Vladimir V. Putin’s invasion has gone, according to American and other Western officials.

While the officials caution that casualties are notoriously difficult to estimate, particularly because Moscow is believed to routinely undercount its war dead and injured, they say the slaughter from fighting in and around the eastern Ukrainian city of Bakhmut and the town of Soledar has ballooned what was already a heavy toll.

With Moscow desperate for a major battlefield victory and viewing Bakhmut as the key to seizing the entire eastern Donbas area, the Russian military has sent poorly trained recruits and former convicts to the front lines, straight into the path of Ukrainian shelling and machine guns. The result, American officials say, has been hundreds of troops killed or injured a day.

Russia analysts say that the loss of life is unlikely to be a deterrent to Mr. Putin’s war aims. He has no political opposition at home and has framed the war as the kind of struggle the country faced in World War II, when more than 8 million Soviet troops died. U.S. officials have said that they believe that Mr. Putin can sustain hundreds of thousands of casualties in Ukraine, although higher numbers could cut into his political support.

On Norwegian TV on Jan. 22, Gen. Eirik Kristoffersen, Norway’s defense chief, said estimates were that Russia had suffered 180,000 dead and wounded, while Ukraine had 100,000 killed or wounded in action along with 30,000 civilian deaths.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/02/us/politics/ukraine-russia-casualties.html

[Virginiá]

Wait why was this unpinned?

Not sure, but I've fixed it. Thanks for pointing that out!

[NOVA Green]

US plans to send Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb (GLSDB) which has a range of 94 mi/150 km.

That would put all of occupied Ukraine except Crimea in range.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-readies-2-bln-plus-ukraine-aid-package-with-longer-range-weapons-sources-2023-01-31/

Looks to be confirmed... plus a few other items not yet posted here.

After months of agonizing, the U.S has agreed to send longer-range bombs to Ukraine as it prepares to launch a spring offensive to retake territory Russia captured last year, U.S. officials said Thursday, confirming that the new weapons will have roughly double the range of any other offensive weapon provided by America.

The U.S. will provide ground-launched small diameter bombs as part of a $2.17 billion aid package it is expected to announce Friday, several U.S. officials said. The package also for the first time includes equipment to connect all the different air defense systems Western allies have rushed to the battlefield and integrate them into Kviv's own air defenses, to help them better defend against Russia's continued missile attacks.

The U.S. aid package includes $425 million in ammunition and support equipment that will be pulled from existing Pentagon stockpiles and $1.75 billion in new funding through the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, which is used to purchase new weapons from industry.

The USAI, which will pay for the longer-range bombs and the air defense system integration, also funds two HAWK air defense systems, anti-aircraft guns and ammunition, and counter-drone systems.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-to-send-ukraine-longer-range-bombs-in-latest-turnaround/ar-AA172G3p?

[Hindsight was 2020]

https://mobile.twitter.com/JonahDispatch/status/1621332323651272705
It really interesting that the Russian causalities rate that Ukraine posts every day is actually on the conservative estimate side

[Storr]

https://twitter.com/Prune602/status/1621212334613053442?s=20&t=X8pe_Mq8xt2ky...

[NOVA Green]

https://mobile.twitter.com/JonahDispatch/status/1621332323651272705
It really interesting that the Russian causalities rate that Ukraine posts every day is actually on the conservative estimate side

Already posted upthread, but thanks for providing folks with a Twitter link...

[CityofSinners]

One of the biggest question for me is how many people Russia can lose until there are serious problems.
There must be some point at which russian loses get so big that there is widespread mutiny and protests. I have no idea if that happens at 300k killed or 500k.

Almost no modern conflict has ended because one side ran out of soliders to fight with. Moral almost always collapsed long before that.


There are common comparison to the 8 million men the soviets lost in WW2. Which IMO is not a very helpful comparison. Russia now has a lot less manpower and their population is much less invested in the current conflict.

[Middle-aged Europe]

To supplement the 14 "Leopard 2" that already had been approved:


https://twitter.com/POLITICOEurope/status/1621435408612573184

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukraine-missile-strike-energy-blackout-winter-christmas-1764885

Newsweek: "Ukraine's National Grid Could Collapse by Christmas"

Can we get an update on this?

[jaichind]

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukraine-missile-strike-energy-blackout-winter-christmas-1764885

Newsweek: "Ukraine's National Grid Could Collapse by Christmas"

Can we get an update on this?

I have no idea 

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/ukraine-coming-electricity-crisis-protect-grid-from-russian-attacks

"Ukraine’s Coming Electricity Crisis"

Foreign Affairs still thinks that it is around the corner but that it can be mitigated.  One thing going for Ukraine is that the old USSR energy grid is overprovisioned anyway and given the fall in population in Ukraine over the last 30 years plus a surge of refugees I do suspect they still have a lot of slack in the system overall.

[Woody]

https://twitter.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/1621229686498918400?cxt=HHwWgICwse3z4f8sA...

[Woody]

Ukrainians supposedly left Bilohorivka (The one located south of Kreminna, at the border of Luhansk/Donetsk) - Russian milbloggers have been bragging about it the last few hours.

Makes sense as the road has been under fire control, vulnerable from literal tank fire from the hill to it's east, and the reason for staying there so long and fierce was because it was supposed to flank Kreminna from the south. I guess they see no use for keeping it as they are on the defensive there now, as Russia is starting offensive operations/Wagner advancing north from Soledar and Bakhmut towards Siversk.

[Woody]

https://twitter.com/colonelhomsi/status/1621161237785739269
https://twitter.com/WarMonitors/status/1621405546342453249