trenton

Major developments in the Russo-Ukraine war

113 posts in this topic

The war in Ukraine has had many developments in the past few weeks. Ukraine has liberated 6000 square kilometers in the north eastern region, pushing the Russian soldiers back as the defensive lines collapsed.

This lead to low morale as soldiers lost faith in their commanders. Many Russian soldiers are attempting to desert the military because they don't want to be there. There are many signs that the Russian military operations are failing, but nobody wants to deliver the bad news. The propaganda pretends that all of it is according to plan as the Russian military lost hundreds of vehicles. It is better to admit a mistake than try to justify it.

Some civilians are rebelling against the occupying forces even though Russian soldiers were told they would be welcomed as heroes. As the lies of propaganda are unraveled, militaries begin to collapse. Of course the war is not over yet and Ukraine has lost a greater proportion of its forces than the Russian military. It is interesting to see how lies are meant to serve the survival of national pride, yet clinging to these lies only accelerates its collapse.

This happened with America in Afghanistan as well because the leadership did not want to admit that it was a useless 20 year war. People who tell the truth in war are commonly punished for spreading "misinformation" especially in Russia right now. Even so it still can be seen when the media in America gives you a biased picture of America's war crimes while ignoring the war crimes of our allies. This is part of the reason why many other countries hate us and it can be a factor in America's decline as a world power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't even know what's going on there. This is no less an information war than it is a kinetic war.


"We all must be, and can only be, a light unto ourselves."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@KH2 it doesn't matter if Russia wins the battle of Ukraine or not. He doesn't have support for a major push. Russians don't want to die there; currently Russia is sending all the minorities, bums and criminals to fight in Ukraine. Soon those will run out, Russia has only such much cannon fodder for the meat grinder.

The war is the war of attrition. Russia's economy is bound to go belly up and the economic shock wave will shake the Russian federation. The Russian military will be forced to pull back (similar to what happened in WW1). It is so weird that history repeats itself. If you know WW1 you already know what is going to happen to the Russian Federation and to Putin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paranoid Putin knows he’s losing. His regular military has been struggling for the past 7 months. What are a bunch of reservists who haven’t fired a gun in a long time going to do?

He probably also said partial mobilization so he doesn’t look as desperate as saying full mobilization

Edited by Romanov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Romanov said:

Paranoid Putin knows he’s losing. His regular military has been struggling for the past 7 months. What are a bunch of reservists who haven’t fired a gun in a long time going to do?

He probably also said partial mobilization so he doesn’t look as desperate as saying full mobilization

Putin is not stupid, he knows very well that he can not win this war on the ground, if the west keeps pumping weapons and money into Ukraine; This is just sending a message, in my estimation, by saying "look, I'm ready to sacrifice my whole population, you think I'm afraid of using nukes?" I seriously don't understand what these western leaders think is gonna happen; Russia is not just gonna roll over and die, while having a full nuclear arsenal at hand.

Edited by Nilsi

"We all must be, and can only be, a light unto ourselves."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, KH2 said:

If this war continues long enough, I see no reason for Russia not to use a couple of tactical nukes here and there. If applied on right places, it would completely demoralize Ukraine, and render their arms industry useless.

I mean, what is west going to do about it? Send nukes on Russia? But then everyone loses.

Once they actually use nukes, the immidiate consequence would be that, of course, noone would want to be associated with Russia anymore. They would have to wave a definite and final "goodbye" to partnership with China, all the countries of the middle Asia, Belarus, etc. etc. They would become isolated in the truest meaning of the word.

But I mean, like I've said, if the war continues long enough, they might not care anymore...

There is no such thing as "tactical nukes." During the cold war they have done millions of simulations of all kinds of nuclear scenarios and every single one of them that started with someone launching a "tactical nuke," ended in complete all-out nuclear war. 

There has to be a diplomatic solution to this thing, otherwise we will blow ourselves up for good.


"We all must be, and can only be, a light unto ourselves."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, KH2 said:

Well, hopefully the situation ends relatively peacefully, so that this enormous suffering can finally end.

Some kind of big catastrophe will probably have to happen to break this escalation dynamic, but yeah I also hope this will be settled as soon and peacefully as possible. 

The CIA and FSB should make a deal to end this shit somehow, I don't think any official diplomatic efforts will be able to stop this charade.

You have to get rid of Biden, Putin and Zelensky somehow. These people are way too invested in this war and are probably willing to blow the whole world up in the name of "justice."

Edited by Nilsi

"We all must be, and can only be, a light unto ourselves."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nilsi said:

There is no such thing as "tactical nukes."

There is. They are low-yield combat nuclear warheads designed only for specific combat operation purposes i.e. like to completely disable a military strategic target or outpost. They aren't ICBMs. They are usually launched from self-propelled long-range artillery guns or missile system platforms. I think Russia has several of them at one point stationed in the Crimean peninsula but I don't know if they are still there - according to their version and adaption of the Anti-Access/Area-Denial Weapons Strategy (A2/AD) borrowed from the Chinese first and foremost and Western Defense Community Intellectual Discourse:

"The problem with the A2/AD lens is born from the term’s origins. As Luis Simon has observed, the term began among the China-watcher community and has since been applied to Russia, a continental land power in a decidedly different geographical theater, and with a tradition of military thought distinct from China’s. The concept admittedly has utility when looking at a maritime theater involving Russia or China. Still, while there is commonality in capabilities between America’s great power adversaries, when broadly applied to two very different countries the term confuses more than it reveals because Russia is not China, and Europe is not the Pacific. In fact, the Russian term for A2/AD — restriction and denial of access and maneuver, (ogranicheniye i vospreshcheniye dostupa i manyuvra) — is just a ham-fisted transliteration of the Western term A2/AD because there is no Russian term for A2/AD. This is not a concept in Russian military thought, and there is no Russian strategy bearing that name."

https://warontherocks.com/2019/09/its-time-to-talk-about-a2-ad-rethinking-the-russian-military-challenge/

Edited by Fleetinglife

''society is culpable in not providing free education for all and it must answer for the night which it produces. If the soul is left in darkness sins will be committed. The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but he who causes the darkness.” ― Victor Hugo, Les Misérables'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Fleetinglife said:

There is. They are low-yield combat nuclear warheads designed only for specific combat operation purposes i.e. like to completely disable a military strategic target or outpost. They aren't ICBMs. They are usually launched from self-propelled long-range artillery guns or missile system platforms. I think Russia has several of them at one point stationed in the Crimea peninsula but I don't know if they are still there - according to their version and adaption of the Anti-Access/Area-Denial Weapons Strategy (A2/AD) borrowed from the Chinese first and foremost and Western Defense Community Intellectual Discourse. 

"The problem with the A2/AD lens is born from the term’s origins. As Luis Simon has observed, the term began among the China-watcher community and has since been applied to Russia, a continental land power in a decidedly different geographical theater, and with a tradition of military thought distinct from China’s. The concept admittedly has utility when looking at a maritime theater involving Russia or China. Still, while there is commonality in capabilities between America’s great power adversaries, when broadly applied to two very different countries the term confuses more than it reveals because Russia is not China, and Europe is not the Pacific. In fact, the Russian term for A2/AD — restriction and denial of access and maneuver, (ogranicheniye i vospreshcheniye dostupa i manyuvra) — is just a ham-fisted transliteration of the Western term A2/AD because there is no Russian term for A2/AD. This is not a concept in Russian military thought, and there is no Russian strategy bearing that name."

https://warontherocks.com/2019/09/its-time-to-talk-about-a2-ad-rethinking-the-russian-military-challenge/

My point is that they will lead to a complete nuclear war, if you run the game theory, so they are not really all that "tactical."


"We all must be, and can only be, a light unto ourselves."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

My point is that they will lead to a complete nuclear war, if you run the game theory, so they are not really all that "tactical."

They are very low-yield and area restricted, the point of their development in the first place was for their specific and limited use in combat operations of close geographic proximity on the ground. The newer versions allegedly don't leave that much of devastating radiation effect afterwards on the limited area they are used. They are only referred as nuclear in the sense as far as I understood in terms of their relative destructive capabilities in comparison to other warhead payloads, in that specific combat area or area of military strategic interest of their deployment and use. 

The only underlying factor would be the moral reprehensibality of their use in terms of breaking a long-held taboo and international existing agreements on using it actively in a country and on it's people during actual war-time and the potential overall collateral humanitarian catastrophic and destructive costs they might have, not to mention them being a trigger for a further spiralling down of and into hate, violence, barbarity and aggression as you mentioned. 

Edited by Fleetinglife

''society is culpable in not providing free education for all and it must answer for the night which it produces. If the soul is left in darkness sins will be committed. The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but he who causes the darkness.” ― Victor Hugo, Les Misérables'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Fleetinglife said:

They are very low-yield and area restricted, the point of their development in the first place was for their specific and limited use in combat operations of close geographic proximity on the ground. The newer versions allegedly don't leave that much of devastating radiation effect afterwards on the limited area they are used. They are only referred as nuclear in the sense as far as I understood in terms of their relative destructive capabilities in comparison to other warhead payloads, in that specific combat area or area of military strategic interest of their deployment and use. 

The only underlying factor would be the moral reprehensibality of their use in terms of breaking a long-held taboo on using it actively in a country and on it's people during actual war-time and the potential overall collateral humanitarian catastrophic and destructive costs they might have, not to mention them being a trigger for a further spiralling of hate, violence, barbarity and aggression as you mentioned. 

Again, the point is that they will escalate into a full blow nuclear war in every possible scenario (assuming some kind of rational agent model, which is the only point in this you could argue over). It's just a simulation and won't account for things like aliens coming down and intervening or some crazy shit like that, but generally it's a fucking bad idea to even think about using nukes tactically.

Edited by Nilsi

"We all must be, and can only be, a light unto ourselves."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nilsi said:

Again, the point is that they will escalate into a full blow nuclear war in every possible scenario (assuming some kind of rational agent model, which is the only point in this you could argue over). 

But if the depravity of the Russian leadership and high-command and propagandization and desperation of their people is sufficiently high enough to back testing one out, in a perceived threatening or desperate situation by the advancement of the Ukrainian army and their reclamation of some strategically key or important territories in Ukraine for the Russian military and it's supporting population there overall, it is sufficiently high-enough chance existing they might try to use it on some key Ukrainian army military-strategic position since the Ukrainian army doesn't have any of their own to retaliate with, for it to become a full-blown nuclear escalation. 

But I would assume they wouldn't do it so carefree and lightheartedly even if they were desperate enough to use it as a threatening and coercive mechanism to stabilize and enforce the existing status quo battlefield borders and frontlines, since the recoilment in mix of horror, disgust and shock and the condemnation and the pressure for that in the international sphere and response to that would be immense, even if it didn't lead to drawing of more parties in the war now directly or potential direct NATO military intervention or involvement as the aftershocks and aftereffects of that would potentially reverberate across the world, I presume once that long-held taboo to that would be violated and it's devastating effects and their further potential consequences become fully apparent to most. 

Edited by Fleetinglife

''society is culpable in not providing free education for all and it must answer for the night which it produces. If the soul is left in darkness sins will be committed. The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but he who causes the darkness.” ― Victor Hugo, Les Misérables'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been even more major updates. Russia is attempting to draft as many as 1.2 million men. Although poorly trained, the Ukrainian army could be over run if the drafting works.

There have been massive protests because many Russians are against the war. Millions are trying to flee the country in an effort to avoid the draft, but many of the citizens are being stopped from leaving. Situations like these seem to show that Russians are desperately trying to control their lives, but they can't.

Putin always had the bigger military to rely on for the war, and it looks like Ukraine is more likely to win through Russia's internal collapse. This would include the declining economy and the many Russian soldiers attempting to abandon the war zone and become a non-combatant. Some of these soldiers have lost faith in their commanders because of the logistical failures throughout the war.

I see a problem with discussing war in that it is constantly open to uncertainty and speculation. I try to see some deeper spiritual aspects that are present like the illusion of control. Many of the soldiers don't want to be soldiers, but if they don't then they will be pushed out the window. Only time can tell if all Russia's problems will add up to a loss in this war or if Russia's bigger military vastly overwhelms Ukraine to the point that it wins in spite of all of the logistical, economic, political, supply, and morale issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new soldiers will be inexperienced and poorly trained, and they wont have much weapons to give them. So I don't think that it will make Russia win the war.

Unfortunately I think that Russia will start nuking Ukraine, and that will lead to victory for Russia, because it will make Ukraine surrender.

And of course west wont start nuking Russia, or send troops to Ukraine if Russia starts nuking Ukraine.

Edited by Blackhawk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the moment the Ukrainian forces are attempting to encircle Lyman city and force a further Russian withdrawal from the region. Most of the remaining Russian occupied Karkyiv region is not as strategically important as capturing the supply lines on the way to Severdonesk. Most of fighting is otherwise a standstill in various regions where defensive lines are begin held by both sides.

Nothing really profound, but I am learning more about how wars are fought and what kind of tactics are used. An interesting one is getting a woman to pretend she wants to have sex with an enemy soldier over social media in order to trick soldiers into giving away their positions for air strikes.

Police officers are being bribed at border crossings. Some of the officers are being drafted into the Russian military, and this could make it harder to keep a lid on the protests against the war. When I look at how Russian citizens live, I know not to take my freedoms for granted because I say so many things that could get me killed if I lived in other parts of the world.

I don't feel as alarmed as people speculating that Russia will nuke Ukraine. I won't know until it happens and I doubt it will happen now if it never happened before. I could easily be wrong if I'm predicting the future, but I don't think it does any good for us to predict nuclear wars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Ukrainian advance continues with the successful encirclement of Lyman.

Russia used referendums that were so fake that they didn't even force people to vote yes. Instead they counted blank votes as yes resulting in over 99% approval for Russian annexation. Although Putin recognizes the new territory as part of Russia, much of it is still violently contested at the time of these referendums.

Germany plans to supply Ukraine with more air defense systems and America plans to send more HIMARS in a few months. The delay in weapon delivery to Ukraine could be bad news for them. The Russian army hopes that the winter will slow the Ukrainian advance as the defense lines are stabilized. The infighting with The Russian public continues because there is constant good news in the propaganda, but it does not reflect the reality of the massive bloodshed in Lyman. Protesters risk their lives as news stations are abruptly and ominously silenced when they start telling bad news about the invasion.

The Kherson front remains a long bloody stalemate with thousands of deaths from the constant bombardment of artillery fire. Ukraine hopes that once the country is liberated, they will join NATO in a couple of years to prevent invasions like these from continuing.

Moral is high for Ukraine as the momentum of the counter attacks continues. The forces forces in the north are advancing toward Svotove to cut off the supply lines while the forces in the South advance toward Severdonesk and Lysychansk, two major holdouts for the Russian army.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is really intresting topic and it will be so difficult to predict, what the near fututue will look with this situation. I really hope for the best, but there is always the chance that Putin will do something really dumb, especially when he is pushed to the corner and the position of Russian leaderahip is threatened. 


There is neither creation nor destruction, Neither destiny nor free-will; Neither path nor achievement. --Sri Ramana Maharshi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Tefikos Putin keeps bringing up the possibility of using tactical  nukes. He bluffed like this several times, but many speculate that he will do this out of desperation.

The fate of mankind can be shaped dramatically by this war. For example, the relationship between Russia and the European union is pushing mankind toward green energy. This is an unintended consequence of the invasion, but Europe does not want to be dependent on Russian gas and oil.

Meanwhile it appears that Putin's true motives are to control the oil and gas reserves in the Donbas region. All other motives like denazifying Ukraine, stopping the expansion of NATO, or liberating Russian territory make no sense whatsoever. NATO is expanding because of the invasion as Finland and Sweden switched their positions on neutrality. The stated political objectives have clearly failed on every level. If the war is over oil and gas, then Russia might have a chance because they still control the donbas region of Ukraine.

Breaking news. The Ukrainian forces have finally broken through Russian defenses North East of Kherson. The next week or so may bring serious questions to the 25,000 troops in the region.

Although Ukraine is seizing a lot of territory, it is not inflicting as many losses on Russian troops as it needs to in order to compensate for its smaller army. The morale is high, but there is a chance that Ukraine will be overrun by the sheer number of conscripts being thrown into the meat grinder. They hold out some hope as they capture Russian vehicles, forcing the army to use older, less optimal models. Ukraine argues that the troops will be poorly equipped And their battle hardened army will outperform the conscripts who don't have up to date weapons, don't have food, don't have first aid kits, and don't want to be in Ukraine as Putin's propaganda falls apart in the eyes of Russian civilians who are increasingly skeptical of his lies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Emrie said:

Russia blew up Nord Stream 1 and 2

 

Although it may seem clear that Russia blew up the Nord Stream pipeline, this is still very much an assumption. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now