Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

Krakenzero said:
Somebody asked for a summary, I'll do my best:

February: Putin's plan A to take Kyiv failed, as they didn't get to control the air bases.

March: Putin's plan B to take Kyiv was stalled indefinitely by Ukraine's resistance attacking their supply line. They weren't even able to occupy the border city of Kharkiv. They got better luck securing the southeast from Kherson to (not including) Mariupol.

April: Putin's plan B to take Kyiv failed, as their forces moved back to Russia to regroup. They somehow managed to also lose their biggest ship in the southeast front despite Ukraine not having a navy. Kharkiv and Mariupol still haven't fallen.

May: Mariupol finally fell. Though, Russia's plans to take Kharkiv were abandoned. The goalposts were moved to securing the Donbas.

June: After a whole month, Russian forces were able to take Severodonetsk. The rest of the fronts remain mainly stalled.

July: After occupying Lisichansk (the first big city west of the Donbas) the first week of the month, the eastern front got stalled. Ukraine starts a counter offensive in Kherson.

August: Ukraine's offensive in Kherson slowly advances. The port of Odessa exports grain for the first time since the beggining of the invasion. The russian occupation of Crimea is hit by Ukranian resistance for the first time as well. There's almost 40 days since the last significant russian gain.

Looking at the big picture, almost everyone (me included) overestimated the RA's power and underestimated Ukraine's resistance and the West's ressolve to intervene in the conflict.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that
 
NicolaSacco said:
It’s going to get hit, isn’t it.
Click to expand...

If the objective is to both hit the separatists' psyche and create a logistical nightmare for the Russian army at the same time, the bridge definitely is the juiciest target to do so (for as long as civilians aren't on it).
 
Last edited:
Well its not getting hit with a civlian traffic jam on there, so I hope anyone travelling brought plenty food and water.
 
I missed this but apparently there were explosions at another airfield in Crimea yesterday, just no footage of it. Waiting for today's satelite images.
 
Do we know what's the current population makeup in crimea? If ukraine decides to retake it, will they be welcomed by the population or has russia managed to change it in the last few years to a point where people will see ukranians as invaders?
 
maniak said:
Do we know what's the current population makeup in crimea? If ukraine decides to retake it, will they be welcomed by the population or has russia managed to change it in the last few years to a point where people will see ukranians as invaders?
Click to expand...
Russia made a lot of effort to bring Russians there, the question is if they would stay in case of a Ukrainian invasion on Crimea
 
maniak said:
Do we know what's the current population makeup in crimea? If ukraine decides to retake it, will they be welcomed by the population or has russia managed to change it in the last few years to a point where people will see ukranians as invaders?
Click to expand...

It's a very legit question I don't know the answer. I'm not sure anyone could answer that but for someone living there.
 
Enjoying this guys' daily updates. He's only been out there a couple weeks, to clear mines from farmland. There appears to be absolutely fecktons of mines.
 
Hypothetically, if there was to be a 3rd country to broker peace between Russia and Ukraine, who would be the likely candidates? Can't think of a single country who both parties might think as a good neutral candidate while also being a powerful country capable of dealing with such negotiations. Would probably have to be at least 2 broker countries on the table to balance off the bias each might have towards one of the nation's.

Sorry if it's really off topic for the thread, but seemed like an interesting idea to me.
 
GodShaveTheQueen said:
Hypothetically, if there was to be a 3rd country to broker peace between Russia and Ukraine, who would be the likely candidates? Can't think of a single country who both parties might think as a good neutral candidate while also being a powerful country capable of dealing with such negotiations. Would probably have to be at least 2 broker countries on the table to balance off the bias each might have towards one of the nation's.

Sorry if it's really off topic for the thread, but seemed like an interesting idea to me.
Click to expand...
Israel or Turkey
 
GodShaveTheQueen said:
Hypothetically, if there was to be a 3rd country to broker peace between Russia and Ukraine, who would be the likely candidates? Can't think of a single country who both parties might think as a good neutral candidate while also being a powerful country capable of dealing with such negotiations. Would probably have to be at least 2 broker countries on the table to balance off the bias each might have towards one of the nation's.

Sorry if it's really off topic for the thread, but seemed like an interesting idea to me.
Click to expand...

Turkey has been involved in quite a bit of mediation between Moscow and Kiev.
 
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ldier-exposes-rot-at-core-of-ukraine-invasion

‘I don’t see justice in this war’: Russian soldier exposes rot at core of Ukraine invasion


Exclusive: Pavel Filatyev has fled his homeland after publishing a 141-page account detailing his experiences on the frontline

‘They turned us into savages’: extract from Pavel Filatyev’s account

[......]


Sitting along the busy streets of Moscow for possibly the last time, he said he hoped this would all come to an end after popular protests like during the Vietnam war. But for now, he said, that seemed far off.

“I am just terrified of what happens next,” he said, imagining Russia fighting for total victory despite the terrible cost. “What will we pay for that? Who will be left in our country? ... For myself I said that this is a personal tragedy. Because what have we become? And how can it get any worse?”
 
the hea said:
Click to expand...

Heartwarming stuff.

It kinda makes it seem actually plausible that Ukrainian elite units are actually sabotaging stuff in Crimea if this is what they're facing.

It also makes me think that the whole invasion would have floundered from the start if the west had properly supported Ukraine from the start rather than assuming they'd be overrun :(
 
the hea said:
Click to expand...


Hopefully breaking point comes soon for their servicemen. Makes you hope, that if commanders really have fled Kherson and left soldiers to defend on their own, that it won't take much to make them surrender quickly without supervision and low morale.
 
unchanged_lineup said:
Heartwarming stuff.

It kinda makes it seem actually plausible that Ukrainian elite units are actually sabotaging stuff in Crimea if this is what they're facing.

It also makes me think that the whole invasion would have floundered from the start if the west had properly supported Ukraine from the start rather than assuming they'd be overrun :(
Click to expand...

Zelensky's actions were pretty remarkable and hard to predict. He was an actor, who had been elected because he played a president on TV, facing a seemingly overwhelming force. Very few could have predicted he'd dig down, fight and make excellent decisions, when faced with a huge Russian convoy and active saboteurs making daily attempts on his life.

Countries also wouldn't have wanted to provide support alone, and he did some remarkable things that few could, in galvanising and inspiring cross-national support, in a world post-Afghanistan/ Iraq/ Syria/ Mali, where there was no public appetite to get involved in foreign disputes.

Very few could also have predicted how poor Russian tactics would be.

So it kind of makes sense that we didn't get involved sooner, even though in hindsight it is a huge shame that we didn't.
 
Russia’s war on Ukraine has reached a ‘strategic deadlock’ a senior presidential adviser has said. “Russian forces have achieved only minimal advances, and in some cases we have advanced, since last month,” Oleksiy Arestovych said in a video. “What we are seeing is a ‘strategic deadlock.’”
 
goalscholes said:
I note that it completely avoids Russia, which might explain their very relaxed attitude, but it might lead to worsening of the relationship with Belarus.
Click to expand...
This all depends on the winds , that's why it has a time frame. Obviously how the winds change is only vaguely predictable.
 
Frosty said:
Click to expand...

Would this be reason enough for Poland or the Baltic countries to invoke article 5?

Article 6

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:


  • on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
  • on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
Click to expand...
 
Something will most likely happen tomorrow, just not sure how big.

 
I think if something seriously devastating was gonna happen tomorrow, we'd have heard by now from more authoritative Western sources.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.