Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[Woody]

https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1626548035663560705

[Comrade Funk]

B-but.....Woody says that Russia are winning the war!

Well, yeah. They're gaining land, isn't that what winning is?

Whatever land they've gained is negligible compared to the land they've lost in the last half-year, notwithstanding the embarrassing all around performance compared to the expectations. I know it must be hard to accept.

[jaichind]

ftp://

B-but.....Woody says that Russia are winning the war!

Well, yeah. They're gaining land, isn't that what winning is?

Whatever land they've gained is negligible compared to the land they've lost in the last half-year, notwithstanding the embarrassing all around performance compared to the expectations. I know it must be hard to accept.

Winning ugly is still winning.  I think it is too early to talk about any side winning or losing.  We should wait until the fight comes to an end.  And even after that the nominal winner (depending on the definition of winning) might end up winning a pyrrhic victory.  That applies to Russia, Ukraine and the collective West.

[Hindsight was 2020]

B-but.....Woody says that Russia are winning the war!

Well, yeah. They're gaining land, isn't that what winning is?

Whatever land they've gained is negligible compared to the land they've lost in the last half-year, notwithstanding the embarrassing all around performance compared to the expectations. I know it must be hard to accept.

I mean if Woodbury judges a war based on a “they’re gaining land not matter how small so they’re winning” logic then he would would of been full blown bipolar if he was around for WW1. “German gained less than an inch in Verdun? Central Powers are winning! The Allies gained the less than an inch back? Allies are winning!”

[Woody]

B-but.....Woody says that Russia are winning the war!

Well, yeah. They're gaining land, isn't that what winning is?

Whatever land they've gained is negligible compared to the land they've lost in the last half-year, notwithstanding the embarrassing all around performance compared to the expectations. I know it must be hard to accept.

Yeah. But the point is after mobilization Ukraine has literally made no gains or advances with the exception of the withdrawal of Kherson. From here on out it's going to be that way.

So yeah, Russia is winning. As long as they get more land than they started with, they're pretty much the winner.

[jaichind]

I mean if Woodbury judges a war based on a “they’re gaining land not matter how small so they’re winning” logic then he would would of been full blown bipolar if he was around for WW1. “German gained less than an inch in Verdun? Central Powers are winning! The Allies gained the less than an inch back? Allies are winning!”

I think there are many definitions of victory.  The best example I can think of is the 1979 PRC-Vietnam conflict.

Tactically the PRC won in the sense they invaded and then pulled back with all the fighting taking place in Vietnamese territory.  Operationally PRC lost since the PLA totally underperformed against a de facto Vietnamese militia force and failed in their goal of getting Vietnam to pull out their forces from Cambodia.  Strategically it was a victory for the PRC because it was able to a) attack a USSR ally with no blowback which embarrass the USSR on the world stage and b) cement a de facto USA-PRC anti-USSR alliance.

I suspect this war will also have many layers of of winners of losers with some not being clear until years later.

[ꙮ]

Yeah. But the point is after mobilization Ukraine has literally made no gains or advances with the exception of the withdrawal of Kherson. From here on out it's going to be that way.

So yeah, Russia is winning. As long as they get more land than they started with, they're pretty much the winner.

"If you ignore Ukraine's gains then Ukraine hasn't made any gains."

IQ 10,000

[Hindsight was 2020]

I mean if Woodbury judges a war based on a “they’re gaining land not matter how small so they’re winning” logic then he would would of been full blown bipolar if he was around for WW1. “German gained less than an inch in Verdun? Central Powers are winning! The Allies gained the less than an inch back? Allies are winning!”

I think there are many definitions of victory.  The best example I can think of is the 1979 PRC-Vietnam conflict.

Tactically the PRC won in the sense they invaded and then pulled back with all the fighting taking place in Vietnamese territory.  Operationally PRC lost since the PLA totally underperformed against a de facto Vietnamese militia force and failed in their goal of getting Vietnam to pull out their forces from Cambodia.  Strategically it was a victory for the PRC because it was able to a) attack a USSR ally with no blowback which embarrass the USSR on the world stage and b) cement a de facto USA-PRC anti-USSR alliance.

I suspect this war will also have many layers of of winners of losers with some not being clear until years later.

It’s true that winning in a war has many forms but Russia’s stated goals for this war have been clear enough that to argue that after a year of fighting being stuck in a WW1 style stalemate in the Donbas that Russia is “winning” is ridiculous. Even now Russia MOD’s new desired aim is apparently to landlock Ukraine by somehow retaking Kherson, taking Odessa, and linking it to the Russian parts of Moldova. That makes the fighting in the Donbas pointless as well

[Woody]

Yeah. But the point is after mobilization Ukraine has literally made no gains or advances with the exception of the withdrawal of Kherson. From here on out it's going to be that way.

So yeah, Russia is winning. As long as they get more land than they started with, they're pretty much the winner.

"If you ignore Ukraine's gains then Ukraine hasn't made any gains."

IQ 10,000

Instead of being a condescending weirdo, you'd realize what the intent of the post was.

Kherson wasn't the result of head-on assault by the Ukrainians or an offensive, it was a withdrawal due to strains of manpower/logistics due to Dniepr, and mobilization was just starting.

Manpower shortages is non-existent for the Russians now, they have guys to man fortifications and trenches, no need to supply over the Dniepr, etc. Which is why it's going to be next to impossible for Ukraine to advance as there is no vulnerable spots left to attack.

[2952-0-0]

Tactically the PRC won in the sense they invaded and then pulled back with all the fighting taking place in Vietnamese territory.  Operationally PRC lost since the PLA totally underperformed against a de facto Vietnamese militia force and failed in their goal of getting Vietnam to pull out their forces from Cambodia.  Strategically it was a victory for the PRC because it was able to a) attack a USSR ally with no blowback which embarrass the USSR on the world stage and b) cement a de facto USA-PRC anti-USSR alliance.

I suspect this war will also have many layers of of winners of losers with some not being clear until years later.

That was so, because Deng was smart enough to recognize to cut losses after a month of a stalemate, thus turning his tactical defeat into a political statement.

Putin could have done exactly that, if after he realized he couldn't take Kyiv, withdrew all Russian troops back to the pre-2022 positions and declared he had successfully put the Ukrainians in their place. Back then, that's what I thought would be his decision.

We're now in a situation where Putin must coexist with no fewer than four private armed groups (Wagner, Kadyrov, Gazprom, Shoigu).

If there's any parallel to Chinese history, you should look at the 1895 Sino-Japanese War, where an Imperial Chinese Army and Navy that had supposedly undergone decades of modernization was shattered by a much smaller and nimbler enemy. The Imperial Chinese forces suffered the exact same failures we're seeing in Russia now, such as rivalry between different military personalities, widespread corruption, and a lack of engagement by ordinary Chinese subjects. As a student of Chinese history, you know full well what happened to the Qing Dynasty after that war, and I suspect that the future of Putin's Russia will have a few parallels to it.

[Torie]

Yeah. But the point is after mobilization Ukraine has literally made no gains or advances with the exception of the withdrawal of Kherson. From here on out it's going to be that way.

So yeah, Russia is winning. As long as they get more land than they started with, they're pretty much the winner.

"If you ignore Ukraine's gains then Ukraine hasn't made any gains."

IQ 10,000

Instead of being a condescending weirdo, you'd realize what the intent of the post was.

Kherson wasn't the result of head-on assault by the Ukrainians or an offensive, it was a withdrawal due to strains of manpower/logistics due to Dniepr, and mobilization was just starting.

Manpower shortages is non-existent for the Russians now, they have guys to man fortifications and trenches, no need to supply over the Dniepr, etc. Which is why it's going to be next to impossible for Ukraine to advance as there is no vulnerable spots left to attack.

First, I admire you for hanging in here, and providing info from your perspective despite the continual hostile incoming. Keep at it.

Second, yeah, land changing hands has slowed down even as the body count goes way up. Russia was caught napping once but only once so far. But that once was sure grand to see, as  all of that real estate reverted back to its proper "owners," with a relatively low cost in lives, as the Russian troops just fled away.

Third, both sides are planning big offensives soon (Russia may be already in theirs, but if so, it just hasn't gone so well so far, with a death rate of 10 troops per acre as it were), so be patient. We shall see, and in particular see if provision of a new categories of more lethal and maneuverable  weapons more suitable for slicing through fixed positions of defense prove efficacious to facilitating Ukraine's march to the sea, the better to make the north shore of the Black Sea a Ukrainian lake again. If so, a delightful bonus would be a palace coup against Putin and his decapitation - literally.

Keep hope alive.

Thanks again Woody for being here. Be well.

[jaichind]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/02/15/ukraine-must-trained-fight-ammo-efficient-western-way/

"Ukraine needs to learn 'Western way' of fighting, says Ben Wallace"

Ben Wallace: Ukraine need to use less ammo

[jaichind]

https://www.firstpost.com/world/russia-wants-un-probe-into-nord-stream-gas-pipelines-explosions-12159872.html

"Russia wants UN probe into Nord Stream gas pipelines explosions"

There should be a vote in the UN general assembly on if the UN should start a probe into Nord Stream sabotage.  I wonder how US, Poland, Norway, Sweden, and UK will vote.  I am especially interested in how Germany will vote.

[Torie]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/02/15/ukraine-must-trained-fight-ammo-efficient-western-way/

"Ukraine needs to learn 'Western way' of fighting, says Ben Wallace"

Ben Wallace: Ukraine need to use less ammo

It would help if Ukraine had more long range, accurate and lethal weapons in order to save on ammo use Mr. Wallace - which is also part and parcel of the "Western way." Please write that down for future reference.

[Torie]

https://www.firstpost.com/world/russia-wants-un-probe-into-nord-stream-gas-pipelines-explosions-12159872.html

"Russia wants UN probe into Nord Stream gas pipelines explosions"

There should be a vote in the UN general assembly on if the UN should start a probe into Nord Stream sabotage.  I wonder how US, Poland, Norway, Sweden, and UK will vote.  I am especially interested in how Germany will vote.

You are just the right guy to ask. Does Russia have any pipe lines to China to blow up?

[jaichind]

Germany's deindustrialization due to the loss of cheap Russian energy just means that the PRC comes in to capture some of Germany's industrial product needs.

[jaichind]

https://www.hawley.senate.gov/hawley-delivers-national-security-speech-china-and-ukraine-time-truth

GOP Senator Josh Hawley's speech:  Pretty much says the USA has to de-escalate in the Russia-Ukraine conflict so the USA can focus on the PRC threat.  

I suspect that will be how a GOP 2024 election campaign message will look on foreign policy.   That will unite the establishment pro-defense GOP as well as the anti-system Trump faction.

If that is how it plays out I suspect PRC will back Biden in 2024 while Putin will back GOP.

[Virginiá]

Just putting the Ukrainian perspective on Bakhmut, which is in addition to its symbolic value:

https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1626548035663560705

If they just ceded Bakhmut, they would still have to fight somewhere else, and right now Bakhmut is more fortified and defensible than other nearby locations. It also has a small river running through it which is an ideal place to hold off an enemy.

The original Russian goal for this area was to proceed through Bakhmut and up to Slovyansk, and then complete a pincer towards Izyum, encircling the Northern Donbas region. When they lost Izyum and Lyman, the Bakhmut offensive became operationally pointless, but in a renewed Russian offensive in Kharkiv/Luhansk would make it relevant again if they achieved gains there (such as retaking Lyman).

Anyway, the point here, really, is that if Ukraine retreats from Bakhmut, they are eventually going to be fighting in and around Chasiv Yar, then Kramatorsk, and then Slovyansk. They can't simply retreat every time Russia decides to throw wave after wave of forces at Ukraine's defensive lines. This is particularly true when Ukraine doesn't have a significant advantage which they could use to retake this land later. This war hasn't been marked by blitzkrieg-like maneuver warfare. It's been bloody attrition warfare with an occasional collapse in local forces (Kharkiv) or strategic retreat to preserve resources (Kherson). Ceding too much territory via tactical retreats might actually be bloodier for Ukraine than trying to hold it at great cost, at least in the long-term, since they are the ones trying to get their land back.

[jaichind]

https://www.firstpost.com/world/russia-wants-un-probe-into-nord-stream-gas-pipelines-explosions-12159872.html

"Russia wants UN probe into Nord Stream gas pipelines explosions"

There should be a vote in the UN general assembly on if the UN should start a probe into Nord Stream sabotage.  I wonder how US, Poland, Norway, Sweden, and UK will vote.  I am especially interested in how Germany will vote.

You are just the right guy to ask. Does Russia have any pipe lines to China to blow up?

There is the  Power of Siberia-1 pipeline which went into operation in 2019, just in time, it seems for Russia to divert a lot of its gas to PRC.  They are working on  Power of Siberia-2 which will go through Outer Mongolia.  There are all sorts of spy-vs-spy battles between the USA Russia and PRC in Outer Monglia politics to either slow down the project or accelerate it.  If there is going to be another energy sabotage in Far East it will be in Outer Mongolia.

[Virginiá]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/02/15/ukraine-must-trained-fight-ammo-efficient-western-way/

"Ukraine needs to learn 'Western way' of fighting, says Ben Wallace"

Ben Wallace: Ukraine need to use less ammo

It would help if Ukraine had more long range, accurate and lethal weapons in order to save on ammo use Mr. Wallace - which is also part and parcel of the "Western way." Please write that down for future reference.

"Just fight more like us" says the Brit, as his country's fighter jets fly above, armed with long range cruise missiles, and a submarine armed with nuclear SLBMs surfaces somewhere in the distance.

Every time an American or westerner says this, they really should think for a moment about what allows us to fight the way we do, and why we don't use as much artillery as Russian and Ukrainian forces.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/02/15/ukraine-must-trained-fight-ammo-efficient-western-way/

"Ukraine needs to learn 'Western way' of fighting, says Ben Wallace"

Ben Wallace: Ukraine need to use less ammo

It would help if Ukraine had more long range, accurate and lethal weapons in order to save on ammo use Mr. Wallace - which is also part and parcel of the "Western way." Please write that down for future reference.

"Just fight more like us" says the Brit, as his country's fighter jets fly above, armed with long range cruise missiles, and a submarine armed with nuclear SLBMs surfaces somewhere in the distance.

Every time an American or westerner says this, they really should think for a moment about what allows us to fight the way we do, and why we don't use as much artillery as Russian and Ukrainian forces.

Agreed completely.

[jaichind]

"Just fight more like us" says the Brit, as his country's fighter jets fly above, armed with long range cruise missiles, and a submarine armed with nuclear SLBMs surfaces somewhere in the distance.

Every time an American or westerner says this, they really should think for a moment about what allows us to fight the way we do, and why we don't use as much artillery as Russian and Ukrainian forces.

I think at this stage in this war there is no other way.  The reality is that both sides have access to sophisticated satellite technology so large concentrations of units for a breakthrough are very difficult to pull off undetected.  As a result, both sides will have to rely on smaller units to slowly push through the front which in turn lots of artillery (regardless of how "smart" they are) will have to be used by both sides.

[Badger]

Bakhmut will fall around mid-February (IMO).

https://twitter.com/War_cube_/status/1619666237860229121?cxt=HHwWgsDRpZX3mvosAAAA

Happy Mid-February!

This isn't an own man. If you watch my later posts I predicted that Bakhmut might fall around mid to late February. Possibly extended to next month if AFU does small counter-attacks to the south of Ivanivske (Which I successfully predicted would happen).

Either way you realize that there is no strategic point to hold Bakhmut anymore (Except losing Siversk) for the Ukrainians. At this point it's politics the only reason they keep reinforcing this cluster of a city. You don't look a map and think this is an adventageous position to hold:

https://twitter.com/WarMonitor4/status/1626255805694758912

You can be mad all you want that the Russian army consistently underperforms your publicly shared expectations, the fact remains that you continue to crowd this thread with your overly rosy predictions for Russian military success only to have to continually revise them without admitting that you have been wrong.  

As for the actual strategic value of the city, I don't know enough to say you're right. It could be like Stalingrad in that regardless of whatever greater strategic value the city holds, the real importance of it is in how much the invader seems to care about taking it. Clearly the Russians will waste as many lives to capture the city as it takes, so if the Ukrainians think they benefit from keeping that battle ongoing I say more power to them.

I don't get why you're being hostile. Also, you don't have to lie, I haven't crowded this thread with predictions about anything (maybe a little of Kharkiv back in Sept.), except recently about Bakhmut (Which is an obvious call, it is going to fall that's a fact, in days or weeks is something we can discuss) - also Russians probably taking everything east of Zherebets river, that's a realistic expectation during these recent course of events.

My posting history is OSINT accounts/Geo locations, or Ukrainian Telegrams about the frontlines. Which is the most important part of the war. That's not me making predictions, it doesn't mean I am sucking Putin's cock or taking sides. It's just that reality is hinging on Russia's favor, that's something everyone has to acknowledge making forward.

Also, if you have to know, I have followed this ever since 2014. This conflict has more factors than just Russia vs Ukraine - whatever we disagree on, I think we all agree the course of action Putin went for in Feb. 24th was the wrong way. So that's why I believe Ukraine has the right to fight for emancipation.

Oh come on,
Just be honest with yourself. You definitely want Russia to win.

Maybe in the hysteria-driven mindset in which people see SirWoodbury, sure.
No, you cannot tell the side someone is on just because of the shibboleths they do and don't say. To assume such is arrogance, and such arrogance can definitely exist on a collective level.

Or, we could just, you know, use our eyes to read what he repeatedly posts mixed with basic critical thinking and a modicum of skepticism for a proven recidivist liar. (shrugs)

[Virginiá]

I think at this stage in this war there is no other way.  The reality is that both sides have access to sophisticated satellite technology so large concentrations of units for a breakthrough are very difficult to pull off undetected.  As a result, both sides will have to rely on smaller units to slowly push through the front which in turn lots of artillery (regardless of how "smart" they are) will have to be used by both sides.

I would argue that even America could get stuck having to use a lot of artillery itself if it found itself in a peer/near-peer war where the enemy has a very large number of air defenses that American forces couldn't reliably and safely penetrate. It's just the wars we've fought over the decades post-WW2 always involved weaker enemies either with few useful air defenses or those without the wherewithal to sustain & defend them. We do have planes and bombers that are very difficult to see or lock onto with radar, but those are expensive assets and there are only so many to use.

Quite frankly, our military hasn't been geared towards a peer fight in decades, so saying, in so many words, to stop using so much ammo is quite privileged.

[Badger]

Maybe in the hysteria-driven mindset in which people see SirWoodbury, sure.
No, you cannot tell the side someone is on just because of the shibboleths they do and don't say. To assume such is arrogance, and such arrogance can definitely exist on a collective level.

A smoothbrained take so dense only a centrist could've made it. To say that you can never infer someone's beliefs based on their statements and actions is the kind of statement one can only endorse if they are in the ideological clutches of both-sidesism.

I never said "you can never infer someone's beliefs". I said "you can't necessarily tell someone's beliefs based purely off shibboleths". Woodbury has said, multiple times, he is supportive of Ukraine, so it would be quite unfair to him if I didn't take that into account either.

Woody also said multiple times he'd leave Atlas for a year if Democrats won both 2020 Georgia Senate races. So it would be quite over generous towards him not to take that into account.