Avdiivka, Longtime Stronghold for Ukraine, Falls to Russians

So in your (for want of a better word ) 'mind' you think that Russia has already won this war? Or is it simply your wet dream that it will? Why?

As for sources? Me? US and NATO intelligence reports, interviews with respected military analysts and commentators, multiple domestic and foreign journals, news reports and face to face contact with past and currently serving military officers. I could go on but whats the point? The general consensus? With sufficient material support Ukraine is more than capable of holding Russia in check. Meanwhile Russia? It will have exhausted its stockpile of pre-war military equipment by sometime in 2026 and cannot produce enough new equipment to replace it's losses. Likely result? A stalemate that ultimately forces both sides to negotiate and concede territory in exchange for an end to hostilities and the gradual normalization of international relations. Barring Trump of course handing Ukraine to Putin on platter.

Your sources? Right wing conspiracy websites and Putin's media office and last but not least the voices in your head.

 

All of my NATO sources have been wrong about the course of the war for...the entire course of the war. The Ukrainians were supposed to have pushed the Russians back over the border by December 2022.

No, I don't think the Russians have won the war...yet. But unless they quit, they are going to win it. The only wildcard in that if NATO finally decides to let loose the dogs of war and plunge us into World War III. Then I guess the survivors could plausibly argue that Ukraine won.

 

All of your NATO sources?.....like who?

The long term strategy...quite possibly... Mike...is the dissolution of the RF Mike...just like Warsaw Pact and USSR.

The Soviets should've won handily in Afghanistan....why didn't they. Surely you don't think some camel jockeys with a few hundred Stingers could destroyed the SU.

Or are you saying the RF is far stronger than what former SU was....?

 

Since you are a native to that area, I'm sure you know that Russian feeling about Afghanistan and Ukraine are not comparable, but if you want to use Afghanistan as your template, our government there collapsed within days while their government lasted three years.

Who's long term strategy is the dissolution of the Russian Federation? I know you personally have a tribal animus, but which government has made that a foreign policy goal?

 

Ohh...how am I native to that area?

I don't live there...Mike...and by knowing a few words of the language hardly qualifies being native to that area....I think you'd agree.

Afstan and Ukraine aren't comparable?....why not...both right next door?


Sure...our govt collapsed there in a short time....we didn't think that one through in detail....our goal was to drive the Sovs out...which we did.

Well...I don't have a "tribal animus" ...per se...as you claim...I just don't respect them. You seem to take their side subtlety.

I said quite possibly....Mike...to bleed the Russkis...just like the Sovs were bled....Mike.

 

So dissolution of the Russian Federation is your personal goal, not one anyone needs to pay attention to?

 

Yes, I saw a home video of the Russian incursion leaving Ukraine, in late Feb 2022.

The ones still in Ukraine aren't fighting, they have a defective GPS.

 

Never said it was my personal goal....wouldn't hurt my feelings though....you might even agree.

 

The Ukraine is getting smashed and will be obliterated very soon unless the west stops sending them money/weapons

 

As long as we're not going to allow negotiations that's going to happen anyway.

 

The reversal of fortune, such as it is coincided with the termination of US logistical support for the War effort, in particular the provision of dumb artillery shells. This shortage of fires was the only thing that let the Russians finally capture Adviika or rather what was left of it. What Ukraine needs to 'win' the war i.e. generate a stalemate, exhaust Russia and force it to the negotiation table is a steady supply of munitions, especially longer range PGMs and other heavy equipment. And it's not as if the effort was costing the US significantly either. Prior to the end of deliveries the US had allocated the equivalent of about 3% of its total defense budget to sustaining the Ukrainian war effort. And with no American lives lost? It was seeing Russia's pre-war military capabilities effectively being ground down and neutralized. With just 3% of its budget!

As for nuclear war? That would only be an issue if the continuing existence of the Russian State was at risk. It's not. No-one is threatening to invade Russia or topple Putin. Win lose of draw in this war? Putin stays. Starting a nuclear war over Ukraine? Would end the Russian State! It's that simple. That's the whole point of the MAD doctrine. It's also a matter of historical fact that since the start of the cold war the US and Russia fought multiple conventionally proxy wars against each other around the globe. The Middle East, Vietnam, Afghanistan, remember them? None of them resulted in nuclear exchanges for that exact reason i.e. regardless of the outcome of those conflicts neither side's continued existence as a functioning State was threatened. Same thing in Ukraine. Russia won't collapse if Putin fails to take over the entire country.

In addition both sides have worked very hard over the decades to clearly delineate their 'lines in the sand' regarding the use of nuclear weapons. Both sides know where/what those lines are and both are still working very hard to ensure no mistakes are made now. Instead Putin constantly refers to the threat of the war for the purposes of creating fear and uncertainty in the West which you seem to be buying into. I also remind you that Putin initiated military action in Ukraine. If your default position is that no conventional military operation he undertakes should be opposed by the US then you give Putin free reign to do virtually anything he wants anywhere he wants at a time of his choosing.

For what its worth? I see no way for Ukraine to recapture all it's lost territory. (For long term strategic reasons it needs to have a large part of Kherson Oblast returned to it if possible.) But as painful as it might be for Ukrainians and as easy as it is for me to as an outsider to say? The rest of the captured territory is not essential to it's continued existence and has largely been depopulated anyway. But as long as it's still properly supplied ad supported by the West? It's more than capable of outlasting Russia's capacity to stage major offensives. Russia simply doesn't have the industrial capacity it needs to replace everything its lost and is still losing in real time. And certainly not on a 'like for like' basis. Using tanks as a indicator its already lost something like 80% of its modern pre-war standing armored force. Those losses are being replaced but only by refurbishing older tanks from it's stockpiles and it cant bring these 'new' tanks up to the same technical specs as it's armored forces. There's a reason T-64s are starting to appear in significant numbers on the Russian side of the front and its not because Putin's into historical reenactments.Its because they are simpler to reactivate and don't have the advanced electronics their modern tanks have.

 

Negotiations are the nemesis of the big mega corporations that will profit from war, sadly.

 

So you think Ukraine's losses are recent, and as a result of the delay in US aid? Hmm..I seem to remember the spring offensive that was fully supported by US logistics and it fizzled.

Well two points to that. One: Where are the Europeans? It's in their backyard after all. The EU has a larger population, and GDP than the US does and it's own arms industry. They could easily be doing all the heavy lifting if it was really important to them. Given the politics involved in US aid, the Europeans showed that their concern about Ukraine is limited if the US isn't paying a large share of the burden. Second, how many troops do you think Ukraine can send to no man's land? They have a draft, but are running out of people. If you kill off a generation your not likely to have much of a future even if the war were to vanish tomorrow.

 

Whether negotiations...or no negotiations, Putler isn't stopping...as far as I can see anyway. Too much has been invested in lives and $$$ .

Dwarfstan won't be happy with some "sliver" of real estate and the rest of Ukraine is in NATO/ EU....and he's forced to deal with a B2B ...Baltic to Black Sea wall of NATO states.

 

At it's current rate of advance? Russia will be fighting this war in 2300! Ukraine managed to capture more territory during it's failed offensives last summer. And given the current loss rates of equipment and material? Russia doesn't have enough old, stockpiled gear left to maintain its current operational tempo for more than about two years or so. And it wouldn't even be drawing so heavily those on older stockpiles if it had the capacity to replace losses with new equipment on a like for like basis. It doesn't. The best estimates I've seen? If the war ended tomorrow it will take Russia something like five to seven years at a minimum just to replace all the first rate equipment its lost to date, let alone expand the size of its army which is Putin's stated long term objective.

Your talking about a country with a GDP that's only something like one eighth that of either the EU or the US! Even allowing for PPP issues Russian doesn't have the industrial capacity to produce enough equipment in time to fort enough to fulfill the fantasy outcome your buying into.

 

Yet again not the point. You need to get a grip on logistics. It took Ukraine months to stockpile the supplies of ammunition and equipment used in those offensives because while preparing for them it was also having to fight defensively elsewhere. Since then it's continued to use ammunition at a steady rate defensively but now the supply of new ammunition has been reduced significantly

You could easily see find the figures on EU financial and military aid for the Ukraine is you wanted to. I'm not going to do your homework for you.

The facts are defense spending in the EU Zone has shot up significantly compared to pre-war levels. But again it's logistics that are an issue. It takes time to turn that spending into increased output. All European munitions manufacturers have been given large orders to fill and asked to expand production asap but downsizing at the end of the cold war meant the capacity to produce large volumes of munitions (of all types) isn't there. It has to be built. Hell even the US was caught short by the rate at which ammunition was being expended in Ukraine. US defense planners have had to order entire new artillery shell production lines to be set up and not just to support Ukraine but because they've now realized how badly everyone had underestimated likely future munitions expenditure in the event of a major war. Even if the fighting in Ukraine ended tomorrow those new production lines will be needed.

 

You are butchering the English. Try a different translator.

Russia is ragdolling the ukies

 

So...why aren't the Mafiosi in Kyiv, Kharkiv, Kherson, Dnipro, Odesa, if they are "ragdolling"?

Crimea getting hit daily....how's that work?

Butchering English?

Is that why you're using translation?

 

Ragdolls.

Long live Russia

 

So apart from the typos your not denying the factual nature of what I posted. Thanks. Also 'ragdolling' implies an easy victory. Care to total all confirmed Russian equipment losses and casualty estimates to date. (You can use all your fingers and toes while doing so if it helps.) Russia has three times the population of Ukraine, a much larger industrial base and prior to the start of the war had a larger and better equipped military. Yet in two years of hard fighting it's barely managed to capture 18% of the country. So much for ragdolling

 

There we go again.

That is no typo, oops I did it again, that's you butchering the English.

I'll give you a pass if you can correct your terrible grammar

If someone can't spell then that means poor education, poor education means not being able to understand worldly affairs imo

That's not a harsh assessment imo

 

How about you your money where your mouth is? If your such an armchair patriot why not simply enlist in the Russian armed forces.

 

Yes, and your opinion matters so much to me.

BTW I hope you and your ego are very happy together. Address the points I raised at your leisure. Or not. Either way they still stand.

 

So you can't see your spelling mistake...that you did twice?

I'm intrigued, sincerely. (It's my area of expertise as a literature graduate, excuse my nerd)

 

Hurry...a frozen mud trenches awaits you in Donbas.