I wonder how that gravy train is going? I would presume that they would be experiencign extreme pressure to speed up production and that would cut into profits. I don't know anyone in the industry though.
I think even if they could magically start producing greater weapons numbers the Russians would match or surpass them. Ukraine will be a thorn but I cannot see them taking back any of the major gains, Crimea for example.
Several TG channels report, using that video you posted as proof, that the AFU position is cut in two in Avdeevka. In it the AFU are shelled in their US Maxxx Pro south of the Coking Plant and are facing towards the main supply route.
Avdeevka officially split in two; supply routes to the Avdeevka coke plant are under fire control with only around 650m further away. The supply line to the city section is threatened with ATGM fire from two sides with around 1.3 km distance from either side.
That the enemy is worse doesn’t excuse your own actions. The strike was very successful and I’m sure truly important, but I’ll still feel bad about it. I regret every Ukrainian death except the nazis, volunteers, and mercenaries. And I doubt there were many of those villains present this time.
It was a strike against the reserves they’re throwing into Avdeevka. Among them are the Azov’s and probably also some foreign volunteers. (Dead foreigners=good propaganda and no paychecks.)
It was a strike against the reserves they’re throwing into Avdeevka. Among them are the Azov’s and probably also some foreign volunteers. (Dead foreigners=good propaganda and no paychecks.)
Yes. I remember reading this morning the Azov 3rd brigade that was supposed to relieve the Avdeevka garrison were one of the brigades that got hit in Selidovo.
It was a strike against the reserves they’re throwing into Avdeevka. Among them are the Azov’s and probably also some foreign volunteers. (Dead foreigners=good propaganda and no paychecks.)
Yes. I remember reading this morning the Azov 3rd brigade that was supposed to relieve the Avdeevka garrison were one of the brigades that got hit in Selidovo.
Yeah, I get that, but at this point Azov consists of a few hundred people, not all of which would have been present. Foreign mercenaries were probably an even smaller number than that. The rest were most likely Ukrainian men guilty of no greater crime than not beating their “recruiter” to death when they had the chance.
Around January 24, Wikipedia finally admitted that the Battle of Bakhmut is over. This was accomplished in part by changing the scope of the article to cover only fighting within the city limits of Bakhmut.
However, the editors have retreated to a fallback position of insisting that the battle is not a Russian Victory and that the overall article cannot refer to it as such.
Wikipedia's official new position is that Ukraine never intended to hold the city of Bakhmut. That their brilliant strategy all along was to lose Bakhmut. Therefore its impossible to argue that Russia won because Ukraine's objective in the battle all along was to lose. Therefore its completely rational to hold that neither side lost the battle and if there was a victory that both sides "won" it at the same time.
There was also an attempt to claim that in this instance Wikipedia should wait for historians in future years to decide if there was a Russian Victory.
There isn't a consensus to call the battle a Russian victory. Both sides achieved their stated strategic objectives. Russia said it wanted to take Bakhmut, and Ukraine said it wanted to extract a heavy price for Bakhmut and to pin down Russian forces in the area. If this was a Russian victory at all, it was a Pyrrhic one.
Also of note, one of the key sources they were using to call the battle of Bakhmut ongoing was a Forbes article by David Axe from July.
Around January 24, Wikipedia finally admitted that the Battle of Bakhmut is over. This was accomplished in part by changing the scope of the article to cover only fighting within the city limits of Bakhmut.
However, the editors have retreated to a fallback position of insisting that the battle is not a Russian Victory and that the overall article cannot refer to it as such.
Wikipedia's official new position is that Ukraine never intended to hold the city of Bakhmut. That their brilliant strategy all along was to lose Bakhmut. Therefore its impossible to argue that Russia won because Ukraine's objective in the battle all along was to lose. Therefore its completely rational to hold that neither side lost the battle and if there was a victory that both sides "won" it at the same time.
There was also an attempt to claim that in this instance Wikipedia should wait for historians in future years to decide if there was a Russian Victory.
There isn't a consensus to call the battle a Russian victory. Both sides achieved their stated strategic objectives. Russia said it wanted to take Bakhmut, and Ukraine said it wanted to extract a heavy price for Bakhmut and to pin down Russian forces in the area. If this was a Russian victory at all, it was a Pyrrhic one.
Also of note, one of the key sources they were using to call the battle of Bakhmut ongoing was a Forbes article by David Axe from July.
Ukraine OBVIOUSLY never meant to hold Adveeka either. It was just heavily fortified for shits and giggles. All the men about to die or get captured wanted that to happen so they could use up Russian resources.
Ukraine OBVIOUSLY never meant to hold Adveeka either. It was just heavily fortified for shits and giggles. All the men about to die or get captured wanted that to happen so they could use up Russian resources.
What are the rules on being a POW? Specifically, is it possible to demand to not be traded back? Ukrainian POWs are safe once they reach Russia, but being traded back means they’re at risk of either being sent back to the front for another go, or being executed for desertion.
Belogorovka was taken without a fight. The Ukrainians abandoned it. I said previously that Ukraine may have entered a crisis. I can now say that the Ukrainian army is definitely experiencing a crisis. These holes in the front lines keep forming. Once or twice in a couple of days could be a coincidence but several times in several different positions leaves little doubt. My reasoning hinges on the fact that as the problem gets worse Ukraine takes more and more losses.
Belogorovka is the place in the green circle.
report from telegram about how it was taken.
It is possible for the Ukrainian Army to collapse and give only ineffectual resistance. This is a bold claim so let me defend it with a bit of argumentation and explanation.
Based on the rate Ukraine is taking losses right now they can probably survive for a pretty long time. But there is a problem with that happening for Ukraine. The rate at which Ukraine takes losses is likely to increase.
Ukraine is experiencing a death spiral. To put it simply they don't have the resources to everything they need to do. As such they keep losing resources at a greater and greater rate. They don't have enough men to defend something like Avdeevka so other places start developing these little holes which are small and not that important right now. But they can grow larger and more dangerous as more and more of Ukraine's resources are lost. And as those holes start forming and the front gets undermanned they also take a larger amount of losses.
If you have 90% of the resources you need to defend a place you will lose but you won't lose too badly and won't take too many casualties. To put a incorrect number on it to illustrate this point say you lose 2-3% of the resources you needed. This is 88% to 87% resources left after that. If you have 50% of the resources you need you'll be absolutely destroyed and lose more than that. One of the most dangerous places to be in war is alone and without the stuff you need and unable to stop the enemy from launching exploitation attacks. Say 5-10% or even 20% of the resources you would have needed to defend a place. And then you have to do it again tomorrow with 45-40% or 30% of what you would have needed and you take even worse losses. The problems compound and grow exponentially across time. This doesn't happen instantly and a day can be a long time but given sufficient time the problems compound if they are not solved.
The actual numbers for this graph are utterly meaningless I just wanted this type of curve to explain a point. (If you already agree that as the situation for Ukraine gets worse, it will compound upon itself and Ukraine will go through a death spiral, there isn't much of a point to the next paragraph.) This graph can help you visualize how this happens. When Ukraine started training new recruits less than what they should get, because they have taken losses and need people right now to replace those losses they are probably on the far left side of this graph after the 0. They are losing future resources but it is really not too bad and the war continues basically as normal. At this point Pro-Russia people notice that the amount of resources Ukraine has day to day is negative. Not by much but it is negative. Ukraine continues fighting the war and as time goes on they are moving further and further right. The situation is concerning but not critical and somebody needs to fix the problems but it is not close to killing you yet. Then this pattern continues further along the right say at about the 100 mark Pro-Ukraine people are noticing the manpower/resource problem. Part of this is certain people start talking about peace because it looks as though things are only going to get worse. The Ukrainian government and its western backers later make the BRILLIANTdecision to replace the Ukrainian general staff and the the problem due to outside intervention gets even worse. Then Ukraine keeps going right along the curve to say the first gray line after the hundred and little holes start appearing every once in a while which on their own don't seem serious but hint at very serious issues developing and suggest that things will only get worse.
Below this I will talk about how things could go into the future.
I would say if the current pattern continues and if Russia has the resources and will to continue on, Ukraine will not last more than 6 months. That may not seem like a big deal as 6 months is a fourth of this war but for the first time probably for the entirety of this war things are not basically even or a stalemate. Though war is not a science and strange things can and do happen.
The factors that could save Ukraine and make it so Ukraine either lives longer or stabilizes:
1. The Ukrainian General staff could figure out how to do their jobs and stem the bleeding. This also assumes that someone in Ukraine can find one or several creative solutions to fix everything. Managing to get access to the Ukrainian men for mobilization in other European countries would do it. But creative solutions are really hard to come up with. Despite the people in charge screaming "MAKE MORE" it can't be done on a whim. Also this problem has been around for at least a month or so meaning that it is unlikely someone figures out something now they didn't then.
2. Ukraine makes a good decision that makes a lot of people unhappy and they retreat to much more defensible lines. This would be trading land for time which is probably the best thing they could do at this point but it would be politically untenable and is therefore extremely unlikely to happen. Though I note Ukraine at least on a tactical level did this for the hole that appeared today.
3. Russia could decide to not press the advantage that much. The Russian general staff is generally noted to be quite cautious and not in favor of bold and somewhat risky offensive action. There is a window opening up for Russia to really push Ukraine right now but there is some risk involved. I think the way for Russia to minimize casualties while still winning is to take this opportunity and run with it. But if you are wrong Russia could end up taking a lot of unnecessary casualties and while the best time may look like now before the Ukraine general staff has learned enough it could be the case that a better opportunity presents itself as even if the current rate of attrition Ukraine suffers doesn't increase they are still growing weaker over time. However, I would press the advantage hard right now and I think Russia is more likely than not to do so as well, if not today some time soon within the next week or so.
Factors that could make this go quicker: (I consider these somewhat or very unlikely)
1.Russia really pushes the advantage and doesn't just launch an offensive but the coveted big Arrow offensive. Russia does seem to have a lot of resources they aren't using which they probably could deploy. It would be risky and I think it is extremely unlikely but it is possible.
2.Ukraine collapses internally either due to a mutiny/mass surrenders from the troops or political factors as a certain faction grows extremely unhappy and decides to flip the table. This is not entirely unlikely, if you know you are going to lose and this war is costing you, this is not a bad decision. Especially if you can answer to Russia rather than answering to the West.
I have no idea how this crisis will be resolved but the situation in Chasiv Yar, Belogorovka and near Kupyansk leaves little room for doubt that the situation is critical. It was simply too easy for Russia to take those regions for things to be going right.
What are the rules on being a POW? Specifically, is it possible to demand to not be traded back? Ukrainian POWs are safe once they reach Russia, but being traded back means they’re at risk of either being sent back to the front for another go, or being executed for desertion.
oryx fled the scene last year because the ukrops were using more western equipment and it has become impossible for him to keep lying about Russian losses.
Yeah, it’s not like they designed a new tank from scratch or anything, but still: Considering that it takes half a decade or longer procurement typically takes in the Pentagon, it’s impressive.
What are the rules on being a POW? Specifically, is it possible to demand to not be traded back? Ukrainian POWs are safe once they reach Russia, but being traded back means they’re at risk of either being sent back to the front for another go, or being executed for desertion.
Some of the ukies have already defected to Russia and now fight on the Russian side. They all happen to be ethnic Russians, so expect the number of defections to increase as things get worse.
Have TPTB so wholly swallowed their own (often contradictory) propaganda that the Russians are dumb subhuman orcs that they think the Russians need fucking Arab militants to teach them how to use drones?
There are not enough in the world for this. Ukraine is already starting to scrape the barrel in terms of finding manpower, and while not wanting to rely on NATO countries for your armaments and instead be self-sufficient, right now Ukraine is in absolutely no position to do this - they have no capacity to mass produce tanks and AFVs or artillery, and while small arms and drones are helpful they're not going to turn the tide. Not to mention that Russia can just keep bombing whatever factories they have.
There's something that really makes me sick seeing that Ma Deuce being used by Neo-Nazi paramilitaries, especially since that very same gun was more than likely chewing up their ideological sponsors in Normandy or the Ardennes 80 years ago.
One has to wonder when this failed proxy war to weaken Russia will end? If you work for an armaments maker in the West you'll want to keep riding that gravy train for sure.
A little hard to keep riding the gravy train when you can't keep up or fulfill orders due to supply or labor issues, while events on the battlefield continue to move in a way that will ultimately make those orders pointless in the long term.
Fuck electronic warfare is something else. We are going to see anti drone specialist in each squad now. Tanks are nearly obsolete....soldiers are engaging in static trench warfare.....
What are the rules on being a POW? Specifically, is it possible to demand to not be traded back? Ukrainian POWs are safe once they reach Russia, but being traded back means they’re at risk of either being sent back to the front for another go, or being executed for desertion.
Hypothetically if someone in North America took an opportunity to enlist for the Ukrainian army, survive long enough to become a POW, could that become a way to work towards Russian citizenship?
Belogorovka was taken without a fight. The Ukrainians abandoned it. I said previously that Ukraine may have entered a crisis. I can now say that the Ukrainian army is definitely experiencing a crisis. These holes in the front lines keep forming. Once or twice in a couple of days could be a coincidence but several times in several different positions leaves little doubt. My reasoning hinges on the fact that as the problem gets worse Ukraine takes more and more losses.
I'm still expecting things to accelerate to the war being lost in two weeks, but i will extend the definition of "losing" to international media and politicians openly accepting that the war is lost and suspending funding or weapons donations.
There's something that really makes me sick seeing that Ma Deuce being used by Neo-Nazi paramilitaries, especially since that very same gun was more than likely chewing up their ideological sponsors in Normandy or the Ardennes 80 years ago.
It is nothing new. During WW2, there was a back and forth fight between the Allies and Germany trying to use radar to detect aircraft, ships, and submarines, using radio guided bombs, etc. and the other side jamming them.
The German created radio guided anti-ship bombs, the Fritz X and Hs 293, while the Allies found ways to jam them.
The Allies tried to jam German radar with chaff during their bombing campaign and it worked for a time until the Germans figured out a counter.
I strongly disagree.
Tanks, unsupported by infantry, air assets, and artillery, sent again a mined, fortified position with layers of anti-tank weapons is suicide. Kursk showed us that.
Tanks sent into urban area without support is also suicide. Grozny showed us that.
Tanks can no longer accomplish a Blitzkrieg style breakthrough by themselves; the development and proliferation of anti-tank weapons has seen to that. It has now simply become another piece in the tactical equation, no longer a miracle weapon.
Trench warfare occurred in both the American Civil War and the Russo Japanese War.
It is the natural evolution of a campaign when both sides are not advancing but wish to retain territory gained through combat.
This is what peer level conventional warfare looks like; something most of us have not seen because of this stupid war against the ragheads that started from a false flag attack on 9/11/2001 orchestrated by (((globalist foreskinless rats))).
Hypothetically if someone in North America took an opportunity to enlist for the Ukrainian army, survive long enough to become a POW, could that become a way to work towards Russian citizenship?
What are the rules on being a POW? Specifically, is it possible to demand to not be traded back? Ukrainian POWs are safe once they reach Russia, but being traded back means they’re at risk of either being sent back to the front for another go, or being executed for desertion.
Its somewhat ambiguous. Under a technical reading of the third Geneva Convention, a POW has no right to refuse repatriation to their home country (traded back) during a conflict. At the end of a conflict - if they are still a POW - they have a right to apply for Asylum under the 1951 Refugee Convention. But they technically cannot do so during a conflict.
This whole legal and technical issue complicated the negotiations for ending the Korean War. It was informally resolved at that time by negotiations.
There are also complicated situations around a person who might consider themselves a deserter at the time of coming into enemy custody rather than claiming POW status. But once you are assigned POW status, you can't change that decision.
A somewhat related issue is Ukraine's "peace" demand that at the end of the war every single Ukrainian Citizen be returned to Ukraine. While Ukraine claims this is about stolen children, what it is actually about is putting large numbers of people in the Donbas Republics on trial for treason at the end of the war.
I would really like to know how America would deal with Russian lines of defence in Zaporizhzhia or the whole Ukrainian defensive network in Donbass.
They definitely would prioritize degrading the enemy's command and control ability since without it, it would be much more difficult for the enemy to perform counter-attacks but I think they would most likely get stuck in the back and forth that is positional warfare at some point since the enemy's AD and anti-ship capabilities are much stronger than that of Iraq's.
Peter Zeihan, the man famous for predicting the collapse of china for 30 years straight. Is coping about how the Ukranian army is simply lacking the means to transport information upwards. There is of course also the mandatory Tucker sperging included.
in the world for this. Ukraine is already starting to scrape the barrel in terms of finding manpower, and while not wanting to rely on NATO countries for your armaments and instead be self-sufficient, right now Ukraine is in absolutely no position to do this - they have no capacity to mass produce tanks and AFVs or artillery, and while small arms and drones are helpful they're not going to turn the tide. Not to mention that Russia can just keep bombing whatever factories they have.
