Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

I've been looking at some stuff at the anniversary and the one thing that stuck with me was a Khersonian woman offering sunflower seeds to Russian soldiers. "Put some in your pockets, you're gonna help us grow a sunflower field".
Yep, I remember that vividly.
 
Right now they do, sure. But both leading candidates for the Republicans are negative on further support to Ukraine. And we should know by now just how much the President sets the agenda for his party (see: Never-Trumpers).

I think even if they win it, it will be very hard to stick to this diplomatic line once they are elected. Imagine the outrage, both nationally and internationally. And the opposition from security advisors, the military, etc.

That aside, they're digging their own grave with this. There will be significant parts of their voter base who will not support that surely, especially those that grew up during the cold war and were brought up to hate communism.
 
I think even if they win it, it will be very hard to stick to this diplomatic line once they are elected. Imagine the outrage, both nationally and internationally. And the opposition from security advisors, the military, etc.

That aside, they're digging their own grave with this. There will be significant parts of their voter base who will not support that surely, especially those that grew up during the cold war and were brought up to hate communism.

Most Republicans support aid for Ukraine as do most Dems, so any attempt to curtail it by (lets say) a Trump or DeSantis would meet fierce resistance from both Congress and by a large swath of the US public, which is something no new President will want to have to deal with. Moreover, by the time of the next inauguration in Jan of 2025, I expect the Russians will have been sufficiently beaten down and will have probably drawn back by then, which will make the issue a moot point. Putin would be hard pressed to remain in power and in the process obliterate the Russian economy for much longer imo.
 
Most Republicans support aid for Ukraine as do most Dems, so any attempt to curtail it by (lets say) a Trump or DeSantis would meet fierce resistance from both Congress and by a large swath of the US public, which is something no new President will want to have to deal with. Moreover, by the time of the next inauguration in Jan of 2025, I expect the Russians will have been sufficiently beaten down and will have probably drawn back by then, which will make the issue a moot point.

I'm not sure when this conflict will end. Russia was written off quite quickly I think. I wouldn't be surprised if they actually do manage to sustain this war for another two years unfortunately. Sanctions, war economy, loss of citizens etc. obviously will take its toll but it seems as if it is very difficult to make any assumptions when it all implodes on Putin.
 
I'm not sure when this conflict will end. Russia was written off quite quickly I think. I wouldn't be surprised if they actually do manage to sustain this war for another two years unfortunately. Sanctions, war economy, loss of citizens etc. obviously will take its toll but it seems as if it is very difficult to make any assumptions when it all implodes on Putin.

I see it through the lens of an attrition of war resources and Putin's ability to remain in power whilst indefinitely dragging the Russian economy and male population into the gutter. Zelenskyy has far better conventional weapons, the moral and political will of his population, and a nearly infinite support of NATO political power and military hardware at his disposal. Putin will have to capitulate at some point or else risk his own security at home.
 
The whole “we will nuke you” threat has gotten really weak now. Seems like that’s all they have left.

That's all they ever had in the first place.

They also lost a lot of armor and equipment yesterday. This can't be sustainable in the long run. Russian losses are insanely high.

 
Definitely. All he'd need to do in that scenario would be changing a few thousand soldiers into protestors, unite them with the armed soviet fans in transnistria and the Moldovan government would be easily overthrown.

By the way "Putin" today in Sevastopol. The mask probably itched in the end :lol:



 
Looked real enough in that car in Mariupol but who knows. In fairness if he was ill e.g. receiving chemo or whatever and he was immuno-compromised then keeping well away from everybody would have made perfect sense. If he's now getting better there's nothing to say he won't slowly start making some more authentic public appearances.
 
If you bring body doubles, make it less obvious. :lol:


The terrorist Girkin explained it perfectly. The real one is always alone. Even the two highest military have to sit 20m away from him. The ones hugging or even standing near "people" aka. actors and fsb agents are doubles.
 
If you bring body doubles, make it less obvious. :lol:


I couldn’t give a shite if any of this is real but, in the age of photoshop, that’s incredibly weak “evidence”. He’s exactly the sort of vain twat who would want double chins removed from any photos released via official media.
 
If someone still had any doubts:


A pretty clear message from Xi and surely no coincidence so soon after Biden's visit in Kiev. They will continue to support Putin, no matter how many humans russia murder in Ukraine. They need Russia as a counterweight to western democracy and for economic reasons (cheap energy and a big market to offload their products).
 
Last edited:
If someone still had any doubts:


......... and for economic reasons (cheap energy and a big market to offload their products).

True, Russians are going to need a lot of cheap tat in the next few years.
 
Meanwhile, Russians are gaining some ground in Avdiivka, apparently using same "outdated" tactics.
 
Meanwhile, Russians are gaining some ground in Avdiivka, apparently using same "outdated" tactics.

You seem to be very critical with the media coverage and general optimism. I generally understand that and you're obviously not completely wrong but on this specific topic, do you believe it is sustainable for Russia to burn through their conscripts and weaponry at this rate?

I mean, the prevalent argument isn't that Russia cannot achieve some results in the short term (even though their failed blitzkrieg is still often ridiculed) but that their long term perspective looks bad for various reasons. One being that the sanctions and war expands will break them but for me, it is also very important that their military structure and culture lead to lots of phyrric victories.
 
Meanwhile, Russians are gaining some ground in Avdiivka, apparently using same "outdated" tactics.
Isn’t it the case we’ll keep getting these towns that suddenly become important like Bakhmut and now Avdiivka as the line flexes back and forth? It’s clear Russia’s tactics have been poor (even if you just completely ignore 100% of media coverage and look at the liveaumap) but they have had some successes and will continue to do so.
 
You seem to be very critical with the media coverage and general optimism. I generally understand that and you're obviously not completely wrong but on this specific topic, do you believe it is sustainable for Russia to burn through their conscripts and weaponry at this rate?

I mean, the prevalent argument isn't that Russia cannot achieve some results in the short term (even though their failed blitzkrieg is still often ridiculed) but that their long term perspective looks bad for various reasons. One being that the sanctions and war expands will break them but for me, it is also very important that their military structure and culture lead to lots of phyrric victories.
I am just desperate for some good news like the counterattack and what not.

I kept hearing about RA's long term. But I worry about the UA short- and long-terms here.
 
Isn’t it the case we’ll keep getting these towns that suddenly become important like Bakhmut and now Avdiivka as the line flexes back and forth? It’s clear Russia’s tactics have been poor (even if you just completely ignore 100% of media coverage and look at the liveaumap) but they have had some successes and will continue to do so.
It doesn't matter how bad or good the RU's tactics if the UA can't seem to hold on. It is all relative. They are not fighting against NATO troops here.
 
All ammo and western IFVs/MBT/etc are getting stocked up now for the spring counter-offensive for UA, I don’t think they have fired more than a handful of HIMARS during past 2 months. Everyone is aware of what’s coming, that’s why Russia is building massive fortifications in Crimea right now. The heroes in Bakhmut/Mariinka/Avdiivka are currently living on low ammo and old soviet junk, you won’t see any modern stuff there at the moment, while Russia is throwing everything they have at the moment. They’re simply buying the time until the April/May/June while assault brigades are being prepared in the western Ukraine/Europe.
 
Last edited:
All ammo and western IFVs/MBT/etc are getting stocked up now for the spring counter-offensive for UA, I don’t think they have fired more than a handful of HIMARS during past 2 months. Everyone is aware of what’s coming, that’s why Russia is building massive fortifications in Crimea right now. The heroes in Bakhmut/Mariinka/Avdiivka are currently living on low ammo and old soviet junk, you won’t see any modern stuff there at the moment, while Russia is throwing everything they have at the moment. They’re simply buying the time until the April/May/June while assault brigades are being prepared in the western Ukraine/Europe.

If the Ukrainians are preparing a counter offensive they can start attacking pretty soon since the bulk of winter is over.
 
It doesn't matter how bad or good the RU's tactics if the UA can't seem to hold on. It is all relative. They are not fighting against NATO troops here.
Why do they need to hold on to those cities? Modern battlefield tactics is all about high maneuverbility and elastic defenses, If anything the one thing Ukraine is doing wrong is putting to much recourses into defending these cities.
 
Bakhmut and Avdiivka already fulfilled their purpose, even if they fall in the coming weeks. They tied up a large number of russian troops and equipment for over half a year, so they couldn't rampage through the rest of the Donbass. By the end of march, most of the Leopards should be delivered and the IFVs (Marder, Bradley) are also on their way. Then the momentum will be on Ukraine's side again.
Russia failed to meet their own schedule again. They wanted to conquer the eastern front towns before Ukraine get their new shiny toys and they stormed them nonstop for weeks with insane numbers of casualties and destroyed armor. And so far, they're still failing miserably.

If the Ukrainians are preparing a counter offensive they can start attacking pretty soon since the bulk of winter is over.

They also need to wait for better weather conditions. Right now most of the roads are mud and slush. The Leopards are even heavier than the soviet tanks, which already struggle right now, so they need to wait for solid ground first.

 
Last edited:
Why do they need to hold on to those cities? Modern battlefield tactics is all about high maneuverbility and elastic defenses, If anything the one thing Ukraine is doing wrong is putting to much recourses into defending these cities.
Your last point was what I meant. They are not flexing the lines there. They seem to try to hold on as much as they can but we are not seeing much of successes with it right now with the amount of resources they are pouring in. You would have to ask their capability there.

But of course it could be the right tactics for them and probably waste more of the RA's resources for long-term. I have been holding that for awhile but it is harder.

And the UA army is far from being modern. It is a war of two soviet era armies, according to some. Their offensive capability would be in question too against a bigger and more prepared troop.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't matter how bad or good the RU's tactics if the UA can't seem to hold on. It is all relative. They are not fighting against NATO troops here.
Depends on how the war develops surely? If Russia can continue this attritional war of advancing what a handful of km in months at supposedly great expense (and I don’t think we have that much reason to doubt an aggressor is coming off worse) then sure but if the continued attrition then leads to them not being able to capitalise/retreating clearly not. All depends on how the war ends.

Most military experts seem in agreement Russia have rendered themselves operationally defunct with the high cost approach they’ve had so far. Maybe they’re wrong and there’ll be huge wins for them soon but their guess is best guess we have right now.
 
Your last point was what I meant. They are not flexing the lines there. They seem to try to hold on as much as they can but we are not seeing much of successes with it right now with the amount of resources they are pouring in. You would have to ask their capability there.

They are buying themself time to train new troops and arm them, even if Bakhmut and Avdiivka falls they have succesfully limited the Russian advances this winter. Who controlls these 2 cities right now or next month will ultimately have no bearing on the outcome of the war, it's all about delaying the enemy and attritioning him as much as possible. It might not be the best way to defend and a well trained western army would not fight like this but Ukraine can only use the army they have so this might very well be the best tactics for them.

This winter has been all about limiting the Russian advances and prepearing a new army that have the required training and equipment to outmanuever the enemy. How that army performes will be much more important to the outcome of the war than whatever happens in Bakhmut or Avdiivka.