Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

Frosty said:
I think morale is an issue in the Donbass:



The soldiers are not yet getting the new weapons, and it is a slow, attritional fight, not marked by technology but by artillery. Flesh and bone against iron and steel. In that sense we haven't moved much in the last 100 years. Given the rate of deaths too (and those won't be caused by nice neat bullet wounds), and crucially the lack of rotation, then morale there would suffer.

Also the Battle for the Donbass has been going on for (I think) 76 days, longer than the Battle of Kursk and heading towards Monte Cassino and Anzio territory.

Morale is likely much higher on other fronts.
Click to expand...


Not surprising given that the guy has apparently been in Donbas since 2014.
 
Raoul said:
Ukrainians with sophisticated western weapons are the exception, not the norm. Much of the fighting still appears to be taking place with relatively low tech automatic weapons in short spaces, which is why the war has largely become one of very small gains for either side. The Ukrainians clearly have the upper hand in the morale department, which will begin to pay more dividends once they get fully trained up on the NATO weapons platforms.
Click to expand...

Still have no idea how you are so sure of that.
 
shamans said:
Still have no idea how you are so sure of that.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you're applying morale to just the eastern front ? I'm looking at it collectively across the entire country. Ukrainian resolve to defend areas like Kyiv, Khakiv, Odesa, retake Kherson and other pockets in the south, would seem to be much stronger than that of Russian conscripts being involuntarily forced to fight a war they were lied to about (denazification) and would've had little interest in fighting in the first place. While its true, morale in Donbas will be naturally lower than in other parts, collectively, the Ukrainians will always have the upper hand against a disorganized invading force using its own conscripts as canon fodder, then denying to their families that they have died. That has a cumulative effect in how Russian kids look at fighting in Ukraine.
 
No one in this forum knows the morale of any of the army

Noo one knows what is the real losses of both armies.

No one knows how much military resources Russia has

No one knows how much effect the sanctions has on russia ( so far they made more money with gas/oil in 4 months than in 1 year)

If we learnt anything this las 4 months is that everything is pure speculation and the only truth is that ukrania had the upperhand the first 2 months and now is russiawho has the uperhand
 
4bars said:
No one in this forum knows the morale of any of the army

Noo one knows what is the real losses of both armies.

No one knows how much military resources Russia has

No one knows how much effect the sanctions has on russia ( so far they made more money with gas/oil in 4 months than in 1 year)

If we learnt anything this las 4 months is that everything is pure speculation and the only truth is that ukrania had the upperhand the first 2 months and now is russiawho has the uperhand
Click to expand...
You don’t know that.
 
4bars said:
No one in this forum knows the morale of any of the army

Noo one knows what is the real losses of both armies.

No one knows how much military resources Russia has

No one knows how much effect the sanctions has on russia ( so far they made more money with gas/oil in 4 months than in 1 year)

If we learnt anything this las 4 months is that everything is pure speculation and the only truth is that ukrania had the upperhand the first 2 months and now is russiawho has the uperhand
Click to expand...

Right, but it's not like we know nothing at all. You can look at things with skepticism and make your mind about it.

Single accounts of soldiers to conclude morale is silly as well as a lot of the tweets making the rounds. What we can say is Russia has suffered more losses than they would want. We really can't say who is "winning" since that depends on what our definition of winning is.
 
shamans said:
Right, but it's not like we know nothing at all. You can look at things with skepticism and make your mind about it.

Single accounts of soldiers to conclude morale is silly as well as a lot of the tweets making the rounds. What we can say is Russia has suffered more losses than they would want. We really can't say who is "winning" since that depends on what our definition of winning is.
Click to expand...

Given that Putin attempted regime change by attacking Kyiv, then promptly withdrew when he realized he couldn't succeed, its not particularly hard to see which side has had the upper hand given the Russian/Ukrainian capability and resource disparity going into the war.
 
Raoul said:
Given that Putin attempted regime change by attacking Kyiv, then promptly withdrew when he realized he couldn't succeed, its not particularly hard to see which side has had the upper hand given the Russian/Ukrainian capability and resource disparity going into the war.
Click to expand...

If that was Putin's initial goal, and I agree it probably was, it's definitely a failure. Some people might say the goal was always just to take the Donbas, in which case it isn't. I personally think Russia failed its primary objective and settled for an easier task which they are succeeding it.
 
shamans said:
If that was Putin's initial goal, and I agree it probably was, it's definitely a failure. Some people might say the goal was always just to take the Donbas, in which case it isn't. I personally think Russia failed its primary objective and settled for an easier task which they are succeeding it.
Click to expand...

If it was just to take Donbas, he would've just attacked Donbas and applied all his resources there. He clearly miscalculated wildly, probably because he was mislead by his military commanders who didn't want to be the bearers of bad news that Russia couldn't take all of Ukraine. Putin therefore probably had his eyes on the entire country since decapitating the Zelenskyy government in Kyiv, would've been tantamount to taking all of Ukraine since all Ukrainian military actions throughout the rest of the country couldn't function without centralized command and control and a unified strategy. The Russians obviously miscalulated and wildly underestimated Ukrainian resolve to defend their country (aka morale).
 
Raoul said:
If it was just to take Donbas, he would've just attacked Donbas and applied all his resources there. He clearly miscalculated wildly, probably because he was mislead by his military commanders who didn't want to be the bearers of bad news that Russia couldn't take all of Ukraine. Putin therefore probably had his eyes on the entire country since decapitating the Zelenskyy government in Kyiv, would've been tantamount to taking all of Ukraine since all Ukrainian military actions throughout the rest of the country couldn't function without centralized command and control and a unified strategy. The Russians obviously miscalulated and wildly underestimated Ukrainian resolve to defend their country (aka morale).
Click to expand...

Sounds good for a movie, but reality is they underestimated the western worlds response and support of Ukraine. Everyone had enough of Putin's pattern of transgression and backed Ukraine with aid, volunteers and intel holding Putin off.
 
Frosty said:


Zelensky must be loving UK politics. Every time Johnson has a scandal, more support and arms are funnelled to Ukraine.
Click to expand...


He probably hopes BoJo gets caught receiving a BJ from Laura Kuenssberg on live TV. He might even get direct UK involvement in the war as part of the effort to deflect.
 
shamans said:
Sounds good for a movie, but reality is they underestimated the western worlds response and support of Ukraine. Everyone had enough of Putin's pattern of transgression and backed Ukraine with aid, volunteers and intel holding Putin off.
Click to expand...

The western world's response would be inclusive of the Ukrainian response since the Ukrainian government were well on their way to allying with NATO. This has only amplified and strengthened Ukrainian resolve to fight and win. Even if Putin takes a few towns here and there in Donetsk, the fact that he will run out of resources suggests none of his post 24 Feb gains will be preservable in the long run. His only hope at the moment is to decimate Ukraine as much as possible prior to the inevitable ceasefire that yields little to no new Russian territory in Ukraine.
 
shamans said:
Right, but it's not like we know nothing at all. You can look at things with skepticism and make your mind about it.

Single accounts of soldiers to conclude morale is silly as well as a lot of the tweets making the rounds. What we can say is Russia has suffered more losses than they would want. We really can't say who is "winning" since that depends on what our definition of winning is.
Click to expand...

Well, with all the propaganda and the fog of war we basically don't know much

I heard that putting is sick but there he is

The morale. no way to know

There is only reports of the russian losses, not ukranian and specially percentage, not absolute that is what we get

And so on. It had been a propaganda war from the start but now it fade out and we could see in many ways that it had been plenty of speculation and that we don't know much in reality.

As you said, is not that we know nothing at all, but we know very little and in this thread it seems that people talks with the certainty of information like they are in the zelensky and putin briefing rooms 3 minutes before posting

Basically I am pissed that I had been so gullible and believe so many things that had been told at the beginning of the war
 
4bars said:
Well, with all the propaganda and the fog of war we basically don't know much

I heard that putting is sick but there he is

The morale. no way to know

There is only reports of the russian losses, not ukranian and specially percentage, not absolute that is what we get

And so on. It had been a propaganda war from the start but now it fade out and we could see in many ways that it had been plenty of speculation and that we don't know much in reality.

As you said, is not that we know nothing at all, but we know very little and in this thread it seems that people talks with the certainty of information like they are in the zelensky and putin briefing rooms 3 minutes before posting

Basically I am pissed that I had been so gullible and believe so many things that had been told at the beginning of the war
Click to expand...

I get where you're coming from. I used to follow wars on Twitter back from the war in Syria days to war in Afghanistan. Usually, most on twitter just don't know what they're on about.
 
4bars said:
Well, with all the propaganda and the fog of war we basically don't know much

I heard that putting is sick but there he is

The morale. no way to know

There is only reports of the russian losses, not ukranian and specially percentage, not absolute that is what we get

And so on. It had been a propaganda war from the start but now it fade out and we could see in many ways that it had been plenty of speculation and that we don't know much in reality.

As you said, is not that we know nothing at all, but we know very little and in this thread it seems that people talks with the certainty of information like they are in the zelensky and putin briefing rooms 3 minutes before posting

Basically I am pissed that I had been so gullible and believe so many things that had been told at the beginning of the war
Click to expand...

Yes there is propganda on both sides. But you're wrong that there isn't reports of Ukrainian losses. There are and they are very high in total and at a very high daily rate. Russian losses are significantly higher from my understanding because fighting a defensive war is less risky than an offensive war.

The theory has been that Ukraine should be able to push Russian troops back with more advanced artillery that is starting to be deployed in combat. We'll have to see if this has any merit in the next few months.
 
What we do know IMO:

-The invasion of Kyiv (biggest city) failed.
-The invasion of Kharkiv (2nd biggest) failed.
-There's currently a blockade in Odessa (3rd biggest, main port).
-The invasion of Luhansk is succeeding.
-The invasion of Donetsk is in progress, no clear result yet.

Therefore, the success of the operation depends on where the goalposts are. If we consider the initial demands, Russia is failing. If we consider a new, more reduced approach, they could be succeeding. For now.
 
Krakenzero said:
What we do know IMO:

-The invasion of Kyiv (biggest city) failed.
-The invasion of Kharkiv (2nd biggest) failed.
-There's currently a blockade in Odessa (3rd biggest, main port).
-The invasion of Luhansk is succeeding.
-The invasion of Donetsk is in progress, no clear result yet.

Therefore, the success of the operation depends on where the goalposts are. If we consider the initial demands, Russia is failing. If we consider a new, more reduced approach, they could be succeeding. For now.
Click to expand...

We could also consider the expansion of NATO, and NATO speaking with one united voice, both of which were the opposite of what Putin was aiming for in February.
 
Krakenzero said:
What we do know IMO:

-The invasion of Kyiv (biggest city) failed.
-The invasion of Kharkiv (2nd biggest) failed.
-There's currently a blockade in Odessa (3rd biggest, main port).
-The invasion of Luhansk is succeeding.
-The invasion of Donetsk is in progress, no clear result yet.

Therefore, the success of the operation depends on where the goalposts are. If we consider the initial demands, Russia is failing. If we consider a new, more reduced approach, they could be succeeding. For now.
Click to expand...

Yes. That is the only thoroughly analysis. basically tangible results in the field (can be more and more specific). Who has more moral, equipment, and others is just pure speculation and propaganda
 
Krakenzero said:
What we do know IMO:

-The invasion of Kyiv (biggest city) failed.
-The invasion of Kharkiv (2nd biggest) failed.
-There's currently a blockade in Odessa (3rd biggest, main port).
-The invasion of Luhansk is succeeding.
-The invasion of Donetsk is in progress, no clear result yet.

Therefore, the success of the operation depends on where the goalposts are. If we consider the initial demands, Russia is failing. If we consider a new, more reduced approach, they could be succeeding. For now.
Click to expand...

There's not much in the way of Russian success in any of these scenarios. They attempted to take the entire country and failed quite miserably. Therefore Putin's original intent in invading Ukraine has already failed.

That of course won't stop him from attempting to move the goalposts by reframing success as gaining territory in Donbas. Except even if he does, he will likely not be able to hold on to it because the Ukrainians won't stop fighting until they reclaim all losses, during which they will continue to get armed with sophisticated NATO weapons. Putin has failed to take any of Ukraine's top 7 populated cities in this conflict and is now struggling to hold onto places like Kherson. At this rate, he will probably take a few more towns in Donbas then attempt to initiate peace talks to preserve his gains. The Ukrainians will reject any talks that cause them to lose any land lost post 24 Feb and the fighting will continue until Putin finally capitulates by backing out in a way that is digestible for his own domestic considerations that allow him to bow out without looking like a weak, feckless loser.
 
Krakenzero said:
What we do know IMO:

-The invasion of Kyiv (biggest city) failed.
-The invasion of Kharkiv (2nd biggest) failed.
-There's currently a blockade in Odessa (3rd biggest, main port).
-The invasion of Luhansk is succeeding.
-The invasion of Donetsk is in progress, no clear result yet.

Therefore, the success of the operation depends on where the goalposts are. If we consider the initial demands, Russia is failing. If we consider a new, more reduced approach, they could be succeeding. For now.
Click to expand...

Yeah this seems correct to me and what we truly do know. I would say Luhansk is basically under Russian control and Donetsk looks to be succeeding unless the new arms makes a difference.
 
Frosty said:
We could also consider the expansion of NATO, and NATO speaking with one united voice, both of which were the opposite of what Putin was aiming for in February.
Click to expand...

Careful now! Calling it an expansion has been on the verge of fighting words in this thread.
 
NotThatSoph said:
I know. Something about it not being NATO expanding but other countries joining, and that calling it an expansion is a Russian propaganda talking point.
Click to expand...
I know a lot of posters don’t buy into the idea of NATO expansion as a valid reason for invading a country. Not sure what you mean about Russian propaganda.
 
Frosty said:
On that note:

Click to expand...


This is one step closer to the truth. Although the bit Putin will never admit is that a strong and democratic Ukraine that embraces the rule of law and pluralistic values is an existential threat to the corrupt, authoritarian police state he is running out of Moscow, which is why he has to stop the spread of democracy into the Russian sphere at all costs.
 
Raoul said:
This is one step closer to the truth. Although the bit Putin will never admit is that a strong and democratic Ukraine that embraces the rule of law and pluralistic values is an existential threat to the corrupt, authoritarian police state he is running out of Moscow, which is why he has to stop the spread of democracy into the Russian sphere at all costs.
Click to expand...

Nail on head.
 
Frosty said:
Not aimed at you by any means - I have heard plenty of politicians and protestors in the West state the reason Putin invaded was because of NATO expansion, and here he is proving them wrong!
Click to expand...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.al...-declaring-war-on-ukraine-translated-excerpts

"I am referring to the expansion of the NATO to the east, moving its military infrastructure closer to Russian borders. It is well known that for 30 years we have persistently and patiently tried to reach an agreement with the leading NATO countries on the principles of equal and inviolable security in Europe. In response to our proposals, we constantly faced either cynical deception and lies, or attempts to pressure and blackmail, while NATO, despite all our protests and concerns, continued to steadily expand. The war machine is moving and, I repeat, it is coming close to our borders"

This is from the day of the declaration of war. Sorry, special operation.

Putin lies.
 
Raoul said:
This is one step closer to the truth. Although the bit Putin will never admit is that a strong and democratic Ukraine that embraces the rule of law and pluralistic values is an existential threat to the corrupt, authoritarian police state he is running out of Moscow, which is why he has to stop the spread of democracy into the Russian sphere at all costs.
Click to expand...

Esentially this. NATO is not expanding. Russia is. Countries have self determination and can decide (an actually have to apply) in the former. Not in the latter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.