Latest Ukraine/Russia Thread

[BlueOak]

Possible false flag attack exposed - as people keep telling me 'how could this start' - 'Russia would never do that' and I keep saying any one of a 1000 ways, the method is largely irrelevant as tensions are that high. Russia being backed by BRICS means it can do that, it'll get Belarus levelled and Russia heavily damaged, but Putin doesn't care as the people are that suppressed. 

Also ballistic missile sources for the last post. - With the interactive map on their site as always.

I also agree that India and China need to be sanctioned heavily at this point, and their efforts to support this proxy war for them halted as much as possible. 
 

Edited August 6 by BlueOak

[Hatfort]

I haven't commented in this thread for a while.

Trump's administration chose to continue fueling Ukraine in this war. I thought he wouldn't do it, he had a chance to score a goal as the peacemaker he sold himself to be. Ukraine would have to sit and accept the loss of four territories and sign neutrality, but the war would have ended there. Nothing is easy, but there was a route. Instead, Trump chose the Biden path, and even now has threatened with nuclear submarines. Remember NATO is not officially fighting this war, it's between Russia and Ukraine, so that's crazy. But it's probably for show, kind of what he did in Iran. It's irresponsible and stupid behaviour, but that's who Americans put in the White House. For their defense, Biden wasn't better on that, and we don't have any sign to say Kamala was either. 

The war continues, so the battlefield will be where the maps are drawn. Russia keeps advancing, and Ukrainians have to retreat or die at the front. After recapturing Kursk, Russia has entered Sumy. Now they have also started to put feet in Dnipropetrovsk. The longer it goes, the less has Ukraine in its hand to negotiate for a less bad outcome, and the weaker their army gets, which is a further risk. 

[BlueOak]

1 hour ago, Hatfort said:

I haven't commented in this thread for a while.

Trump's administration chose to continue fueling Ukraine in this war. I thought he wouldn't do it, he had a chance to score a goal as the peacemaker he sold himself to be. Ukraine would have to sit and accept the loss of four territories and sign neutrality, but the war would have ended there. Nothing is easy, but there was a route. Instead, Trump chose the Biden path, and even now has threatened with nuclear submarines. Remember NATO is not officially fighting this war, it's between Russia and Ukraine, so that's crazy. But it's probably for show, kind of what he did in Iran. It's irresponsible and stupid behaviour, but that's who Americans put in the White House. For their defense, Biden wasn't better on that, and we don't have any sign to say Kamala was either. 

The war continues, so the battlefield will be where the maps are drawn. Russia keeps advancing, and Ukrainians have to retreat or die at the front. After recapturing Kursk, Russia has entered Sumy. Now they have also started to put feet in Dnipropetrovsk. The longer it goes, the less has Ukraine in its hand to negotiate for a less bad outcome, and the weaker their army gets, which is a further risk. 

Russia's economic situation continues to get worse. 
Russia's population demographics get worse.
Their stockpiles are gone.
It takes very little land, in Sumy it was just repelled almost to the border again.
Their casualty rates now with so little armor left to use are ridiculously high vs Ukraine. They use human wave tactics, its why they've had to reach out to places like North Korea for manpower.

Russia vs Ukraine yes, that will always be true. (Thank you for acknowledging it most people just gloss over it)
But this is now BRICS vs NATO to a much larger extent than you are acknowledging. China and NATO are using this as a proxy also, and that's the only reason its continuing.

As to why nobody would do as you suggest, i'll requote myself below as it covers most of it. But you can add to the fact that obviously, people are calculating and watching that this is going to hurt Russia (and BRICS) more than help it. You cite some land gains, i'll cite that its falling into being a satellite state of China. Its economy bought up, Kamaz just failed, I mean the country is buckling, and although the citizens might well just put up with it, it'll never project real power again.

Whatever you think of the above statement, that's the calculus: keeping Russia from puppeting Ukraine is better than allowing it to, else this war would not be continuing. Russia has repeatedly stated it wants control over all of Ukraine, like it had previously, it wants to project its power into eastern Europe and its not strong enough to do so anymore. - This is why this situation exists. Not because I dislike X or you dislike Y - because the practical reality is Russia is overreaching. 
 

2 hours ago, BlueOak said:

@zazen

You keep talking like Russia is just asking for space and being ignored. That’s not what’s happening. Russia’s entire approach is to project fear, and that doesn’t earn respect from stronger countries, it gets pushback. If you focused on the countries that joined, and why, you'd come to that conclusion.

Chat GPT examples from the last decade:

Feb 2022 – Putin warns of consequences “you have never experienced in your history” and puts nukes on alert.

May 2022 – State TV says the UK and Ireland could be turned into a “radioactive wasteland.”

Jan 2024 – Medvedev threatens nuclear strikes if Ukraine hits Russian launch sites.

May 2024 – Medvedev talks “fully fledged nuclear war” if NATO keeps supplying Ukraine.

July 2025 – Medvedev brings up the “Dead Hand” doomsday system at Trump.

End Quote

This is Russian foreign policy mask off.

Then they've got hypersonic missiles in Belarus,  ditching the INF moratorium, and rewriting nuclear doctrine so even conventional threats matter. Intimidation is baked into their security policy.

You frame NATO expansion like it was some arrogant Western move. When Russia’s spent centuries threatening Eastern Europe. NATO was created to stop exactly that. Countries lined up to join because they remember Moscow’s behavior, not because America forced them. Regional powers don’t get to veto who their neighbours ally with,  that’s not security its trying to control other countries. By your logic Turkey could tell Armenia who it can talk to, I highlight that with the Azerbaijan-Russia relations deteriorating to show you directly Russia's regional power slipping.

On Multipolarity, sure great theory. Russia’s 'multipolarity' is just an authoritarian bloc with China, Iran, and others keeping each other’s wars or expansion going. Russia believes it allows them to act like they used to. BRICS support isn’t neutral, it’s keeping the Ukraine war alive. Real multipolarity means sovereign equality. Russia’s version is 'we get our sphere' and everyone else accepts it. That’s not balance its replacing one unipolar arrogance with another. - Cue you saying how bad the west is right? Then I just point you to the mirror they are.

If Russia wants space, it needs to learn how to live in that space without trying to dominate everyone in it. Right now it’s doing the opposite, and that, (and their weakening geo-political position) are why the neighbors you think should be neutral are running straight to NATO or China for that matter. 

For transparency. I told chat GPT to critique my own position. It told me that because you use statecraft, and I use debate imagery, I needed to bring more real-world examples and argue more along those lines to provide solid examples.
 

Edited August 6 by BlueOak

[Ajay0]

23 hours ago, zazen said:

The negative response to Russia is mostly Western - which makes up at most 15-20% of the world. Most of the world is either neutral or friendly with Russia - much of Africa, Latin America, Middle East and Asia. Much of the world is reacting to the Western led uni-polar order as it exists -which is a imperial order that needs extricating from via a parallel order that doesn't insist on ordering others around or being sanctioned because it doesn't pick sides which is childish school yard politics.

The problem is that the West doesn't take Russia seriously, or any countries legitimate interests for that matter. Because in a uni-polar order the hegemonic empires interests supersede everyone else. That doesn't mean caving in to other countries injustices or aggression, but when a country articulates again and again its own legitimate security concerns and asks for neutrality on its periphery to prevent feeling cornered - that should be respected.

Post WW2 Japan and Germany were re-built and integrated into the system despite being imperially expansionist - they got some level of respect, but Russia was denied this post collapse of the USSR. This is largely because Germany and Japan subordinated themselves to the US empire via conceding to a US security architecture.  

Their sovereignty is strategically limited and they don't have red lines in the real sense because they are client states of the US empire - patrons rather than partners. Russia doesn’t want to concede this level of autonomy. They floated becoming part of NATO and worked with the US in counter terrorism post 9/11 - but working alongside the US isn't enough because they empire demand others working under them.

The imperial mindset is the key issue here - and its most of the world that is reacting to imperialism, some aggressively (Russia) that is then gaslit and flipped on its head to be portrayed as imperialism itself.

This articulates the present situation very well.

[zazen]

On 06/08/2025 at 8:33 AM, BlueOak said:

@zazen

1.) You keep talking like Russia is just asking for space and being ignored. That’s not what’s happening. Russia’s entire approach is to project fear, and that doesn’t earn respect from stronger countries, it gets pushback. If you focused on the countries that joined, and why, you'd come to that conclusion.

Chat GPT examples from the last decade:

Feb 2022 – Putin warns of consequences “you have never experienced in your history” and puts nukes on alert.

May 2022 – State TV says the UK and Ireland could be turned into a “radioactive wasteland.”

Jan 2024 – Medvedev threatens nuclear strikes if Ukraine hits Russian launch sites.

May 2024 – Medvedev talks “fully fledged nuclear war” if NATO keeps supplying Ukraine.

July 2025 – Medvedev brings up the “Dead Hand” doomsday system at Trump.

End Quote

This is Russian foreign policy mask off.

Then they've got hypersonic missiles in Belarus,  ditching the INF moratorium, and rewriting nuclear doctrine so even conventional threats matter. Intimidation is baked into their security policy.

2.) You frame NATO expansion like it was some arrogant Western move. When Russia’s spent centuries threatening Eastern Europe. NATO was created to stop exactly that. Countries lined up to join because they remember Moscow’s behavior, not because America forced them. Regional powers don’t get to veto who their neighbours ally with,  that’s not security it’s trying to control other countries. By your logic Turkey could tell Armenia who it can talk to, I highlight that with the Azerbaijan-Russia relations deteriorating to show you directly Russia's regional power slipping.

3.) On Multipolarity, sure great theory. Russia’s 'multipolarity' is just an authoritarian bloc with China, Iran, and others keeping each other’s wars or expansion going. Russia believes it allows them to act like they used to. BRICS support isn’t neutral, it’s keeping the Ukraine war alive. Real multipolarity means sovereign equality. Russia’s version is 'we get our sphere' and everyone else accepts it. That’s not balance it’s replacing one unipolar arrogance with another. - Cue you saying how bad the west is right? Then I just point you to the mirror they are.

If Russia wants space, it needs to learn how to live in that space without trying to dominate everyone in it. Right now it’s doing the opposite, and that, (and their weakening geo-political position) are why the neighbors you think should be neutral are running straight to NATO or China for that matter. 

For transparency. I told chat GPT to critique my own position. It told me that because you use statecraft, and I use debate imagery, I needed to bring more real-world examples and argue more along those lines to provide solid examples.
 

Appreciate the transparency mate. I’ve just numbered the points as away from laptop and can’t multi quote / don’t wanna spam with multiple comments.

1.) Those are definitely provocative and aggressive in rhetoric and escalatory in action for sure. It’s just that they don’t exist in a vacuum - many of those examples are during the Ukraine war where rhetoric is spicy on both sides. Western examples are the recent comments by General Donahue who said they can take Kalliningrad (Russian territory) within days or much earlier, Kaja Kallas mentioning breaking up Russia into pieces. The prelude to all this was the many years of attempted diplomacy which Mearsheimer covers succinctly in 10 min here:

He actually covers Ukrainian agency and the will to want to join NATO from 6:50 which I’ll get to on to in point 2.

The INF was ditched by the US first. And the dead hand is an automatic defensive deterrent against a first strike - not about being offensive and striking first.

2.) Sovereignty and agency definitely matter and it’s expected countries would seek some sort of security architecture after that history. It’s just that sovereignty isn’t an absolute that exists in a vaccum - if we live in an interconnected web then surely if your neighbouring a greater power - then you need to account for their security concerns. It’s not utopian but just realistic. That’s part of being in a world with multiple centres of power.

No power will allow another power or power bloc to cozy up to it. Just like the US reacted to the Cuban missile crisis or the US wouldn’t accept Chinese missiles in Canada or Mexico - rightly so. Spheres of influence need to be considered to avoid big wars - which brings up a wider point of multi-polarity vs uni-polarity. It’s better to be 80% sovereign and alive then 100% sovereign and your decisions risk the  balance of the world being upset because two powers are breathing down each others necks.

3.) The default of the world has been multi-polarity, which was obviously messy at times whilst at other times spheres of influence were understood to not be infringed - especially when no set borders existed.

True uni-polarity only came with the global scale of the British empire and now the US empire. We can argue this set up is stable because there’s a clear hegemon and no two powers fighting  - but empires don’t last forever and they eventually have challengers who rise. Also, the unipolar power mostly seeks to maintain its position by kneecapping others rising - so it’s an unfair system.

That uni-polar mindset of universalism still persists due to inertia - but now we are entering or already in a multi-polar world which is where the friction now is. Past friction in a multi-polar world was messy but didn’t destroy the world as the power to do so didn’t exist - but now we are in a multi-polar reality with apocalyptic weapons - and a uni-polar mindset which isn’t adjusting or will reluctantly be left no choice but to because of the stakes.

In a multi-polar world it’s understood that powers have natural spheres of influence over those within their immediate orbit - like a gravitational pull. Similar to how the US has over Mexico and Canada for example. It shouldn’t become a sphere of imperialism - that’s bad. But a sphere of influence is only natural and expected.

A great power shouldn’t try to then bring that smaller country in another powers orbit - into their own. Whether that small country wants it or not - it’s best to avoid this or else expect a reaction from the power which is then put at threatened (national security - existential risk). Alliances are fine - but not if a small country is used by a larger power as a forward base and platform to push their agenda through - in order to contain the other great power rival.

The US had the Monroe doctrine where they not only believed in having a sphere of influence but the entire Western hemisphere of South America as theirs, to not be interfered in by Europe. This is clearly over kill as Europeans being in Argentina pose no existential risk to the US. But for the US to resist interference along its periphery and sphere of influence in Mexico, Canada or the Carribean is understandable as that proximity does pose a risk.

The US thinks its sphere of influence is the global sphere - and that influence is not only influence but imperial. For the imperial mindset - anyone’s freedom anywhere, is a threat to their dominance everywhere.

 A uni-polar mindset in a multi-polar reality - that’s the main tension today. The multi-polar world needs balancing and a respect for spheres rather than a universalism that  uni-polar hegemon feels entitled to. 

On 06/08/2025 at 8:33 AM, BlueOak said:

Edited August 7 by zazen

[BlueOak]

@zazen

If multipolarity just means swapping the USA for Russia, China, or Iran, each invading, threatening, or suppressing whoever they want until someone stops them, then there’s no moral or strategic gain in your model. It’s just more powers doing the same destructive thing at once. That’s not stability it's permanent war with even less predictable outcomes.

Your logic of “proximity = right to control” collapses the moment you apply it consistently. By that standard, Israel is justified in controlling Palestinians because they’re nearby, or Turkey can dictate Armenia’s alliances. You and I both know that’s absurd. It’s the same imperial mindset you claim to oppose, just wearing a different flag.

Even in pure political terms, this thinking doesn’t work in the nuclear era. The old 'great powers need buffer states' model was built for a pre-ICBM world. Trying to enforce buffers through invasion or coercion increases existential risk, because the other side is armed and can retaliate instantly. That’s why NATO expansion accelerated, not because America forced it, but because Russia proved over and over that “buffer” means “we get to dominate you. They are still to this very day doing so in their peace terms.

If multipolarity is to mean anything other than 'more predators on the map' it needs to be grounded in sovereign equality, not spheres-of-influence politics. Otherwise, you’re just asking the world to accept a larger number of Israels, each doing as they please until they’re checked, and that’s exactly the kind of instability you claim to want to avoid. 

What do you think is actually happening in Ukraine right now? It’s two spheres of influence colliding, exactly the model you’re defending. You’re watching your preferred system in action, and calling it wrong only because one of the spheres is the West. It would be no better for the world if Europe was armed to the teeth and doing it alone, it'd be two multipolar influences fighting it out just the same. Unless we are suggesting that these spheres are isolated and do not share resources, arms, intelligence, manpower like NATO and BRICS are doing? And how is that enforced?

Again for transparency I am telling chat gpt (new 5 model is great), to critique me. Its telling me I am using too much moral outrage when speaking so I am toning it back.

Edited August 8 by BlueOak

[zazen]

@BlueOak

Both frameworks can be good or bad - a unipolar hegemon can police the world while also bullying it. I’m not defending either or as much as I’m saying the reality has now changed from uni to multi-polar. It doesn’t look like we’re going back to a unipolar world so the question is how to live in a multipolar one.

We basically need to update post WW2 institutions to account for that change and enforce punishment properly. A powerful country may think it can bully its neighbour, simply because it knows that another powerful country stepping in risks mutually assured destruction and they won’t.

Like I said - spheres of influence shouldn’t become spheres of imperialism. Multiple powers does mean that multiple injustices can happen if each of them bully their own sphere - so we need new rules and enforcement mechanisms that can punish that.

Ukraine is an example of multi-polarity failing as the transition is being sabotaged by unipolar inertia. Acting with a unipolar mindset in a multi-polar reality is why the collision exists.

Geography and proximity still matter in a world of ICBMs because shrinking the distance and time to respond elevates the risk for the country on the receiving end. Also, missiles can destroy a territory but not take it - which requires proximity of troops and supply lines. That’s why an adversary being next door or platforming themselves via a neighbouring country is still problematic. For example Iran hit Israel but can never take territory due to geography.

The risk of mutually assured destruction might cause one power to risk conventional ground war against another - betting on the fact that they won’t risk going nuclear. The thinking is: let’s put aside the big guns and have a fist fight. That’s a dangerous bet - one a country will avoid wanting to be entangled in on its border against another power being ballsy.

No power is going to accept a hostile  adversary on their border - England wouldn’t accept Russian/Chinese systems in Scotland nor US in Mexico.

This new interview from Sachs goes covers a lot of what we’re discussing:

 

[Daniel Balan]

This is so accurate

[zazen]

First 10 min of this video in insightful as to what kind of a war is taking place (attritional) and how territory gain is only secondary to the aim of attrition. 

The recent break throw helps strengthen Putins hand in tomorrow negotiation.

[BlueOak]

@zazen

Pure propaganda at this point.

Catastrophe - Like the 500 other times? Same slow grind that's been going on for years. High cost Russian pushes, slow destruction of their economy and demographics for a little land, trading lives for KM's. BRICS try to prop it up but its hollowing itself out as a nation.

Abandon your positions while at the same time don't abandon your positions - Guy can't even get the messaging right, or is dumb as a plank (he's not he's just repeating Kremlin lines). Ukraine hold defensible positions to bleed the enemy dry. Russia send human wave attacks, on motobikes these days, and get slaughtered on mass. Their armor backup is worn down to nothing. - Then Ukraine slowly retreat from them, that's always been the tactic since day one, bleed Russia dry of manpower, materials and slowly drive its economy into the ground.

Yeah there was a breakthrough - by guys on bikes. Azov already cut a good chunk of it. I don't think he understands how military actions work. Just dump guys in trenches and somehow you've got a breakthrough. Logistics, Armor, artillery positions air cover.... Russia doesn't even fight battles in the way he's suggesting; it slowly creeps forward and relies on slow to move and position artillery, which it uses to both defend and cover its advances. - That's the attrition strategy he's trying to reference. The Ukranians are not disorganized; they are a decent military force, well trained and well armed, that's why they are able to fight a larger opponent in these wars of attrition.

As far as a shift in NATO's position, I am hearing the exact opposite from European leaders. They are strongly backing Ukraine. As always.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-lammy-jd-vance-ukraine-zelensky-trump-russia-land-b2804969.html
 

Quote

European leaders have rallied in support of Ukraine after a defiant Volodymyr Zelensky rejected Donald Trump’s suggestion that a peace plan may involve giving up land to Russia.

President Trump, who is set to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin next Friday in Alaska as he seeks to bring an end to the war, has said the talks could include “some swapping of territories”.

But an angry President Zelensky hit back on Saturday, insisting Ukraine “will not give Russia any awards for what it has done” and that “Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupier”.

Members of the so-called coalition of the willing – countries which have pledged support for Ukraine against Russia’s aggression – were quick to show their support, insisting that any deal must include Ukraine and Europe, warning its security is “at stake”.

The joint leaders’ statement from the UK, France, Italy, Germany, Poland, Finland and the European Commission said: “We share the conviction that a diplomatic solution must protect Ukraine’s and Europe’s vital security interests.

“Ukraine has the freedom of choice over its own destiny. Meaningful negotiations can only take place in the context of a ceasefire or reduction of hostilities. The path to peace in Ukraine cannot be decided without Ukraine. We remain committed to the principle that international borders must not be changed by force. The current line of contact should be the starting point of negotiations.”

Edited August 14 by BlueOak

[PurpleTree]

3 hours ago, BlueOak said:

@zazen

Pure propaganda at this point.

Catastrophe - Like the 500 other times? Same slow grind that's been going on for years. High cost Russian pushes, slow destruction of their economy and demographics for a little land, trading lives for KM's. BRICS try to prop it up but its hollowing itself out as a nation.

Abandon your positions while at the same time don't abandon your positions - Guy can't even get the messaging right, or is dumb as a plank (he's not he's just repeating Kremlin lines). Ukraine hold defensible positions to bleed the enemy dry. Russia send human wave attacks, on motobikes these days, and get slaughtered on mass. Their armor backup is worn down to nothing. - Then Ukraine slowly retreat from them, that's always been the tactic since day one, bleed Russia dry of manpower, materials and slowly drive its economy into the ground.

Yeah there was a breakthrough - by guys on bikes. Azov already cut a good chunk of it. I don't think he understands how military actions work. Just dump guys in trenches and somehow you've got a breakthrough. Logistics, Armor, artillery positions air cover.... Russia doesn't even fight battles in the way he's suggesting; it slowly creeps forward and relies on slow to move and position artillery, which it uses to both defend and cover its advances. - That's the attrition strategy he's trying to reference. The Ukranians are not disorganized; they are a decent military force, well trained and well armed, that's why they are able to fight a larger opponent in these wars of attrition.

As far as a shift in NATO's position, I am hearing the exact opposite from European leaders. They are strongly backing Ukraine. As always.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-lammy-jd-vance-ukraine-zelensky-trump-russia-land-b2804969.html
 

I mean only in hindsight we can say if it worked out for Russia to send their people into the meat grinder. 

[BlueOak]

58 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

I mean only in hindsight we can say if it worked out for Russia to send their people into the meat grinder. 

Russia will always exist, despite what their dramatic state TV would tell you.

How much it'll be an east Asian Russia or a European Russia is a different point with how much they are selling out their nations future, or in less dramatic terms, changing their demographics and the ownership of their industries and alliances.

How do you measure success? Even in the most extreme case possible. Let's say they put Ukraine under their proxy for a few years till the next coup? I mean its dumb on its face. Its spending 1 million lives to retain what they had some years ago, over a population that now hate them, bordering countries hostile to them. Viewed through a strategic lens, there is no win for Russian in this, nobody talks about that aspect of this conflict. They are not even close to where they were a few years ago in terms of influence over Ukrainian territories, and they've spent a generation on a war over land they already controlled (twice). This is going to be no peace in the region that is under occupation, because too many people and countries are hostile to Russia for it to ever have a lasting peace.

They are effectively putting Chinese influence directly in Europe at this point, by how much their country is now under Chinese soft and increasingly hard influence, and that won't ever last long-term either. They may still launch the European assault; they need to shrink their borders enough to make them manageable, with an increasingly depleted demographic, we'll see I guess. The wargames coming up are the biggest yet in that area, and now nukes are on the border.
 

 

Edited August 14 by BlueOak

[PurpleTree]

1 hour ago, BlueOak said:

Russia will always exist, despite what their dramatic state TV would tell you.

How much it'll be an east Asian Russia or a European Russia is a different point with how much they are selling out their nations future, or in less dramatic terms, changing their demographics and the ownership of their industries and alliances.

How do you measure success? Even in the most extreme case possible. Let's say they put Ukraine under their proxy for a few years till the next coup? I mean its dumb on its face. Its spending 1 million lives to retain what they had some years ago, over a population that now hate them, bordering countries hostile to them. Viewed through a strategic lens, there is no win for Russian in this, nobody talks about that aspect of this conflict. They are not even close to where they were a few years ago in terms of influence over Ukrainian territories, and they've spent a generation on a war over land they already controlled (twice). This is going to be no peace in the region that is under occupation, because too many people and countries are hostile to Russia for it to ever have a lasting peace.

They are effectively putting Chinese influence directly in Europe at this point, by how much their country is now under Chinese soft and increasingly hard influence, and that won't ever last long-term either. They may still launch the European assault; they need to shrink their borders enough to make them manageable, with an increasingly depleted demographic, we'll see I guess. The wargames coming up are the biggest yet in that area, and now nukes are on the border.
 

 

Sure but that’s why i say we’ll see how it worked in hindsight. If the US/Trump agree that they can have those obslasts and Crimea. Europe doesn’t really seem to have a strategy aside from trying to appease the orange pest. God knows what the US is doing. Trump is pushing India closer to Russia/China/Brics So it’s really hard to tell what’ll be the outcome. 

[Hatfort]

I don't think the Alaska meeting between Trump and Putin is going to bring any peace. Putin won't accept less than the totality of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson, and NATO hands out of Ukraine. Trump is not going to offer that, and in the end, it's not that bad for the biggest producer of military equipment to have this ongoing, while making Europeans pay the bills. Ukrainian leadership doesn't want anything less than the 91 borders, they are deluded, and or making good profit themselves too. 

Russia will continue conquering more land, it may go further than these four territories. It seems it's going to be a slow pace, the human wave propaganda news are lies, Russia is not rushing things. In this attrition war, it's possible the pace changes at some point, but doesn't seem it's happening any time soon. The Russian economy's fall is another propaganda talking point, they are doing well, and can sustain this war better than their opponents, and their army is way bigger.

[BlueOak]

8 hours ago, Hatfort said:

I don't think the Alaska meeting between Trump and Putin is going to bring any peace. Putin won't accept less than the totality of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson, and NATO hands out of Ukraine. Trump is not going to offer that, and in the end, it's not that bad for the biggest producer of military equipment to have this ongoing, while making Europeans pay the bills. Ukrainian leadership doesn't want anything less than the 91 borders, they are deluded, and or making good profit themselves too. 

Russia will continue conquering more land, it may go further than these four territories. It seems it's going to be a slow pace, the human wave propaganda news are lies, Russia is not rushing things. In this attrition war, it's possible the pace changes at some point, but doesn't seem it's happening any time soon. The Russian economy's fall is another propaganda talking point, they are doing well, and can sustain this war better than their opponents, and their army is way bigger.

Since this started. I've watched Russian human wave attacks maybe a thousand times by this point. Not an exaggeration. They can't commit what tanks they have left because 1, their stockpiles are gone, and 2, Ukrainian air defense is so strong, they can't get air cover for what they have left, but worse than all of that 3, Drones > Tanks now. 

Drone operators behind the lines trying to stop infantry pushes or hit trenches is much of how the war is being fought, backed up by artillery and armor. So men are making the advances, not armor. Its not propaganda it's what's going on. It's better a man gets taken out by a drone than armor and a crew.

You are completely right about the meeting, however, but wrong their strategy cannot succeed. It is succeeding. Russia is being bled dry of men, and their economy slowly falling off the cliff. That's the strategy in a nutshell. Land for lives. I know you don't think this is happening, so you can't understand the strategy, but it is, so that's the strategy. Sadly you are also blind to European's own concerns and as to why they are paying the bill, so it stays ------> way over there and their countries are not the new frontline.

 

9 hours ago, PurpleTree said:

Sure but that’s why i say we’ll see how it worked in hindsight. If the US/Trump agree that they can have those obslasts and Crimea. Europe doesn’t really seem to have a strategy aside from trying to appease the orange pest. God knows what the US is doing. Trump is pushing India closer to Russia/China/Brics So it’s really hard to tell what’ll be the outcome. 

India is already there. They aligned with China and Russia they just wanted it to appear outwardly they were neutral, one of the biggest economies in BRICS. Their components are showing up in Russian arms, and they are helping keep their economy going, the second biggest purchaser of Russian oil by a big margin, alongside China.

The outcome is just showing us the split world, its not really a pattern, just the split itself presenting itself as we focus on it.

 

 

[zazen]

@BlueOak

- Yeah the elite units were sent but that’s the point. Theres an ebb and flow that causes the attrition to take place. Units being sent to plug one hole means they’re concentrated in one place to be attacked, in addition to thinning out defences in other parts along the line.

The whole point is to grind down the other side. Russia is now also producing drones internally and at industrial scale. Even nastier ones with deeper range and payload.

- As already mentioned, the main goal isn’t KM’s gained but is mainly neutralising a forward base and threat on Russia’s border. That has now been achieved in large part - though not in totality. Even if we are looking at KM’s taken - they’ve got 20% of Ukraine and 80% of Donbas which is the industrial heartland of Ukraine. Also a secure land bridge to Crimea further securing it and deep sea access. Theres not much else for them to gain going further into hostile regions difficult to hold and nearing a NATO border - so just dig in where they are and keep grinding down Ukrainian capability.

- I don’t believe Ukraine is collapsing as much as I don’t believe Russias economy is collapsing. That doesn’t mean they aren’t suffering - both parties bleed in a war. The point is who can bleed longer. The main factors in a war of attrition are: manpower, arms (industry) and political will. Russia can outlast Ukraine and seems to be outlasting a Western bloc (NATO) that’s been supplying Ukraine, yet running low on supplies and the political will to keep things going.

The EU has a war on its doorstep yet hasn’t ramped up industrial output - Russia is still outproducing the EU and US combined. No one’s sending troops from beyond Ukraine in any meaningful number as there’s no political buy in to die for this war. And the political will to keep funding Ukraine who’s reliant on that funding is drying up and fracturing. Even the US defence deal with EU - the Mediterranean countries are backing out and leaving the North and Germany to foot the bill - a Germany that’s economically weakened and slowly de-industrialising due to high energy costs thanks to yours truly blowing up the pipeline.

- Russia and most states for that matter will always prioritise security concerns before worrying about who wants to be their friend- they don’t care to be invited to Eurovision. EU leaders saying their backing Ukraine is good and all but it needs some teeth. NATO is their military umbrella led by the US and has changed its tone accordingly - which just shows the level of vassalization of Europe.

- I agree that Europe need their own industrial, military and energy sovereignty to not rely on the US or follow in their footsteps. Spain, France and others don’t want to buy F35’s because they want domestic strength which is a good start. The irony is that they still speak US empire talking points and still maintain a vassal mentality that wants to keep fighting a war not even in its own interest: a war now being de-prioritised by empire to retain dwindling resources needed for a pivot to China and perhaps Iran. Europe mostly don’t have the political will, capital, energy or industry to go at it alone against Russia - at least not right now.

To get to that stage will take time and dedication, hopefully not sabotaged by a US that prefers a Europe tied to its interests rather than its own - that’s the hurdle the EU has to overcome: strengthening itself whilst under the vassal of the US who will resist that change in dynamic. And not just in a material sense but in a mental sense - which is still showing up in their rhetoric and behaviour.

EU complains it’s not sitting at the table but denied any negotiations with Russia the past 3.5 years. Now that they’re not at the table they rightly intuit that they must be on the menu. Used as a pawn in a larger geopolitical game they don’t have the sovereignty or strength to dictate terms in - but that hopefully they pursue. And not to use “force” against Russia but as a deterrent.

- I don’t usually pay attention to granular details of war due to fog of war and propaganda. But I looked into things recently and see even Ukraine sources talking worryingly - so I deduce my conclusions from that alongside looking at the macro situation which is that Russia simply has more depth of manpower, industry and political will to grind the other side down further.

The above is what I meant in my first point - that plugging one hole leaves others areas along the line vulnerable. This is just from this morning and from a Pro-Ukr source.

This is what I mean by fog of war and not knowing what to believe regarding casualties. Never seen Douglas McGregor get feisty like that in a interview:

Even if we take a rough estimate of casualties- per capita and for its size, Ukraine is still suffering more losses compared to Russia. Tough to know exact figures so it’s a grey area I stay out. But I don’t see why McGregor would be lying and assume he’s got good sources.

Edited August 15 by zazen

[PurpleTree]

10 minutes ago, zazen said:

 

- I don’t usually pay attention to granular details of war due to fog of war and propaganda. But I looked into things recently and see even Ukraine sources talking worryingly - so I deduce my conclusions from that alongside looking at the macro situation which is that Russia simply has more depth of manpower, industry and political will to grind the other side down further.

Also just less care for human lives. They don’t care that much to throw people into the meat grinder and Russia seems like a quite depressed suicidal society who drowns their sorrows in Vodka (although that maybe stereotypes)

[Elliott]

 

 

[BlueOak]

Here is the end of the Russian breakthrough and the encirclement of around 200 men, a political stunt that was answered as one; it's not how Russia usually fights, its usually much slower and steadier, but like the American jets flying over the Russian meeting, its just a political stunt by political 'strongmen' with large egos. This unit may break out; Russia often do of encirclements if the unit isn't just pure conscripts, traditionally at a somewhat heavy cost, sometimes they just surrender. @zazen I'll address the main post in a moment.
 

*Looks like there have been some captured already as I watched more of it.

Edited August 16 by BlueOak

[BlueOak]

@zazen
You should look at the granular details; it'll give you a more realistic portrayal of the war, not just dramatic headlines. Russia is slow and steady, Ukraine is stubborn to withdraw to inflict high casualties; this has been the pattern since day one, for the most part. Russia use human wave attacks and technicals (civilian vehicles) because of drones and the damage done to their armour, largely by drones now or previously in years gone by, overextending.

Russia has achieved its goals. Which goals? - Goals (from all sides) change every month in war, to the practical reality of what's possible, for example initially it was to take (retake) Kiev, which failed early on, and Ukraine's was to kick Russia all the way out, which was never going to happen either.

Russia is printing about 20% of its money every few months now (was 15%, now 19% if I recall). Its economy, which is almost completely switched to a wartime footing, is not sustainable, and when the war ends, then what? BRICS has propped it up really well. At the cost of Russian industry becoming Chinese.  Part of this is explained below:

You rightly note Russia’s large industrial base and drone production increasing into a wartime economy. But attritional warfare isn’t just about making more, it’s about preserving enough quality force to win politically. Drones don't really fill that role yet, they are more equivalent to missiles. Russia’s been burning up elite units for marginal gains, and the demographic clock is increasingly not on their side. It’s increasingly using aged conscripts, 50's era armor, and prison battalions, not signs of sustainable strength. -

Yep, Europe is slow to mobilize industrially. But that’s not the same as being incapable. The EU is not a battlefield power; it’s a bureaucracy built to avoid war. Yet under sustained pressure, it can retool, especially if US support contracts (and the US military industries rush to fill the void opening overseas). That’s exactly what’s starting to happen now in France, Germany, and Poland. Have you seen how many companies returned their products to Russia, or Russia just mimicked their brands? They all just changed their name - that happens when the US officially pulls its support back from Europe, people move in to fill the void. Nothing changes when demand is there, only the cost.

Yes the Europeans didn't retool that much, though 5% GDP is no joke over the EU's scale. Ukraine aside, they didn't spend any manpower or weaken their demographics, trade partners or really suffer much at all. Aside from energy prices, which they've gone elsewhere for. Russia has weakened itself to gain a fifth of what it had previously. I'll restate: Europe is a bureaucracy built to avoid war. - I hate people don't realise this. - When I now grudgingly call for the rearming of Europe i understand the historic implications of doing so, thousands of years of expansionist war

Vassalisation

You think the US being the military powerhouse, and Europe sitting back is vassalisation? It certainly costs them their voice with Russia, I'll give you that. Which was always amusing, as potential force should be considered alongside force by a wise mind. I don't need to see force to understand its possible or there.

It's just Europe being geared toward a peaceful life, happy to sit back, live the high life and let someone else take care of security. 

But that's not accurate anymore, this war woke them up. America is clearly trying to pull its influence back, and these countries are spending 5% of their GPD on defense now, which will be used in some form. It won't sit there doing nothing.

To conclude

Russia spent a million casualties on retaking 20% of a country they've controlled 100% via proxy, with ruined settlements and barely any population living there. They've tanked their economy. They've gained stronger BRICS allies, some minerals, some important ports. They've lost much of their youth to death, disability or leaving the country to set up lives elsewhere. Their demographics are worse than ever, much of their economy is chinese and they are more a proxy of China due to reliance on Trade, Chinese investment in Russia and the sheer power of China relative to Russia when not balanced out by European influence or allies.

I liked chat GPT's take here, I won't give you all the points but:
 

Quote

3. Multipolarity vs Multipredation

Your spheres-of-influence model assumes stability comes from respecting gravitational pulls. That logic breaks when sovereignty becomes conditional on proximity. You don’t stabilize a system by saying “big fish eat the little ones near them.” You create permanent insecurity, arms races, and wars of preemption.

The problem isn’t that we’re in a multipolar world—the problem is that the current multipolar actors (Russia, China) are using force to create dominance, not balance. That’s not sustainable equilibrium. That’s just entropy with nukes.

4. European Vassalage – or Strategic Alignment?

You call Europe a “vassal” for aligning with the US. That’s not how power works anymore. Strategic autonomy doesn’t mean equidistance from everyone—it means choosing your security anchor. Europe chooses the US because its neighbors—Russia in particular—make integration the rational choice. It’s not ideological, it’s geopolitical risk management.

The idea that Europe is being dragged unwillingly into this war is false. The Baltics, Nordics, Poland—they demanded deeper integration with NATO because they know what Moscow’s version of “balance” looks like. It’s a boots-on-your-neck kind of balance.

5. Conclusion: Tactical Grind, Strategic Collapse

If your argument is that Russia can grind, I agree. If your argument is that this grinding leads to strategic success, I don’t. They’ve hollowed out their future, driven neutral countries into opposing camps, and locked themselves into vassalage to China.

Their “victory” is tactical, expensive, and pyrrhic. It’s not sustainable. And that’s not even touching internal legitimacy issues or economic atrophy, which remain papered over by wartime nationalism and energy revenues—but that won't last forever.

Edited August 16 by BlueOak