The Official Russian Invasion of Ukraine Thread

860,433 Views | 9883 Replies | Last: 1 hr ago by sycasey
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

movielover said:

I'm agnostic and keep hearing divergent feedback. Ritter worked for our country in Russia, but I guess you consider him a traitor.

Believe what you want, but it's good to know where people's personal incentives are.

It's very naive at best to assume that anyone who has been on RT would be on the payroll of Russia. People like Noam Chomsky or Chris Hedges were regular guests. Most of he time the perspective of people like them has been shut out from the MSM.

You would be better off widening your Overton Window a bit in an attempt to broaden your perspective. Fact is, the MSM today is heavily concentrated and journalistic standards are far lower than what they used to be a decade or two ago.

This instance above with Ritter on Zaluzhny is actually a very good example of how widening your perspectives leads to being better informed. Ritter has merely relayed Ukrainian army commander in chief Zaluzhny's recent interviews (notably with The Economist) where he was candid enough to acknowledge the following facts:

-Russia's mobilization has been successful, with troops motivated and ready to fight. Furthermore, per Zaluzhny, Russia has further trained reserves of up to 1.5 million troops it can still mobilize.

-Zaluzhny currently has at his disposal only 200,000 troops with military experience, and another 500,000 mobilized untrained conscripts.

-Ukrainian army badly lacks military hardware and ammunition. Zaluzhny requested 300 tanks, 500 cannons, 800 armored vehicles and lots of jets in order for him to be able to mount an attack on Melitopol, which would allow him to cut off the land bridge to Crimea. This is an admission of the fact that Ukrainian military is currently severely depleted, they threw in the kitchen sink with donated FSB tanks and hardware and incurred heavy losses in the recapture of Kherson, which was conducted in open field under heavy Russian shelling.

-Zaluzhny said that without a massive injection of NATO hardware, including hundreds of tanks, Ukraine will soon be defeated.

The last round of NATO hardware sourcing has sourced tank spare parts from Morocco, and 155mm shells from Sudan, pretty much scraping the bottom of the barrel.

We're seeing more of Zaluzhny now because Zelensky is a bit over the top, overexposed, and his image is starting to tarnish, even in the West, with him doubling down on the false flag missile attack in Poland where Russia is blamed, in an attempt to trigger an Article 5 NATO response. As well his wife run up a $40,000 bill from just one upscale designer store on Avenue Montaigne in Paris, this made the rounds in the French media - terrible optics for a couple that came to Europe in order to raise funds for Ukraine.


Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:


They claim that Ukrainian General Valery Zaluzhny has essentially admitted that they are in a no-win situation.

General Valery Zaluzhny reportedly says that if he had 100k fresh troops, x numbers of tanks, and y number of missiles, he could do x, y, and z. They claim this is an admission.



Think about it. What military person doesn't want more stuff to go to war with? Zaluzhny's audience is people who he wants to provide him with more material. After all, at some point his largest supplier (Russia) will run out of weapons to give them as they retreat chaotically.

Separately, the idea that Russia is interested in settling is questionable. I hate it on very good authority that Russia's primary purpose in Ukraine is to get rid of the woke Nazis and they've made no progress there. Are you telling me all of the pro Kremlin propagandists were lying about the woke Nazis?

The reality is that Putin can't be trusted and wants to erase Ukraine. He wasn't done after 2014 and he won't abide by a treaty now. He may want to lick his wounds and beg for sanctions to be lifted for a few years before he goes again.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oh, I've heard from Ritter before. He was one of the people assuring us that Russia had no plans to invade Ukraine, right before they invaded. I'm not interested in hearing from him any more.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
How many new, fresh troops will Ukraine add? Russia reportedly also has 80,000 volunteers being added on top of 200,000 troops.

I heard another person claim that Ukrainian volunteers are put into battle after a few days training. If true, not a good sign.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Scott Ritter, short clip.

movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Short clip, Colonel McGregor.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Longer clip, Colonel McGregor discussing various issues:

- open border to Poland
- new Ukranian troops getting 2-3 weeks training in the UK or elsewhere
- Ukraine losing soldiers at 139x the rate we lost soldiers in Vietnam?!?
- lost 15,000 last month
- Russia has 400-450,000 troops, with another 100-150,000 troops soon available



Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:

How many new, fresh troops will Ukraine add? Russia reportedly also has 80,000 volunteers being added on top of 200,000 troops.

I heard another person claim that Ukrainian volunteers are put into battle after a few days training. If true, not a good sign.
It's on the internet. It must be true.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:

How many new, fresh troops will Ukraine add? Russia reportedly also has 80,000 volunteers being added on top of 200,000 troops.

I heard another person claim that Ukrainian volunteers are put into battle after a few days training. If true, not a good sign.
Honestly, I don't know what numbers I can trust from any source, but especially from Russia since there is no real way for us in the West to verify.

That's why I just try to follow the results, which so far have been really bad for Russia.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
My impression was that Russia originally misplayed the war, they've adjusted, and Ukraine is now taking massive casualties.

Ukraine allegedly running out of munitions.
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:

My impression was that Russia originally misplayed the war, they've adjusted, and Ukraine is now taking massive casualties.

Ukraine allegedly running out of munitions.
It wouldn't be a movielover post without at least one usage of "allegedly".
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bc if I don't know the source and am not well-versed in the area, yes, I qualify it. Propaganda overwhelming.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:

My impression was that Russia originally misplayed the war, they've adjusted, and Ukraine is now taking massive casualties.

Ukraine allegedly running out of munitions.

I'll wait to see if Russia actually wins back territory before believing that they're winning again.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
How to avoid another world war by Henry Kissinger| The Spectator


https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-push-for-peace/
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

How to avoid another world war by Henry Kissinger| The Spectator


https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-push-for-peace/


There reportedly was a push for a peace agreement, which Boris Johnson (CIA?) squashed.
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:

Bc if I don't know the source and am not well-versed in the area, yes, I qualify it. Propaganda overwhelming.
If you don't know the source and you don't know anything about the subject, you're under no obligation to expose your ignorance.
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:

movielover said:

How many new, fresh troops will Ukraine add? Russia reportedly also has 80,000 volunteers being added on top of 200,000 troops.

I heard another person claim that Ukrainian volunteers are put into battle after a few days training. If true, not a good sign.
It's on the internet. It must be true.

One source confirming these Russian troop estimates is Gen. Zaluzhny himself, FYI Eastern Oregon Bear, he is the commander in chief of Ukrainian armed forces. I will refer you to the Economist interview I have linked above.

Russia is going to go into this winter with close to half a million troops, 2.5 times the forces it started the war with, and these are experienced troops, with fewer logistics issues as last winter. Russia also has at its disposal now the whole array of drones and long range missiles (which it didn't have earlier).

As well Ukraine now has :
-a much weaker air defense network, about 1/10th the amount of S-300s they started with, enabling more Russian air support
-depleted ammunition stocks
-2-3 dozen fixed wing jets, including the last batch of Slovakian mig 29s (Russia has ~1,500 jets and ~500 attack helicopters.) The average lifetime of a Ukrainian Mig29 is 5 to 10 sorties, hats off to their pilots operating against the best AA network in the world.
-Ukraine's tank disadvantage is only slightly better.
-less than half as many experienced troops as last winter (200,000 vs. 500,000)
-much weaker infrastructure; the Russians can take out the power grid anytime they choose
-more difficult logistics

Those are the reasons why experts like Col. MacGregor do not think that the outcome of the war is in question.
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

movielover said:

How many new, fresh troops will Ukraine add? Russia reportedly also has 80,000 volunteers being added on top of 200,000 troops.

I heard another person claim that Ukrainian volunteers are put into battle after a few days training. If true, not a good sign.
It's on the internet. It must be true.

One source confirming these Russian troop estimates is Gen. Zaluzhny himself, FYI Eastern Oregon Bear, he is the commander in chief of Ukrainian armed forces. I will refer you to the Economist interview I have linked above.

Russia is going to go into this winter with close to half a million troops, 2.5 times the forces it started the war with, and these are experienced troops, with fewer logistics issues as last winter. Russia also has at its disposal now the whole array of drones and long range missiles (which it didn't have earlier).

As well Ukraine now has :
-a much weaker air defense network, about 1/10th the amount of S-300s they started with, enabling more Russian air support
-depleted ammunition stocks
-2-3 dozen fixed wing jets, including the last batch of Slovakian mig 29s (Russia has ~1,500 jets and ~500 attack helicopters.) The average lifetime of a Ukrainian Mig29 is 5 to 10 sorties, hats off to their pilots operating against the best AA network in the world.
-Ukraine's tank disadvantage is only slightly better.
-less than half as many experienced troops as last winter (200,000 vs. 500,000)
-much weaker infrastructure; the Russians can take out the power grid anytime they choose
-more difficult logistics

Those are the reasons why experts like Col. MacGregor do not think that the outcome of the war is in question.


Russia can and should win militarily.

The outcome of the war is also pretty clear. Russia will eventually withdraw from Ukraine regardless, making all of this bloodshed pointless.
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dimitrig said:

Cal88 said:

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

movielover said:

How many new, fresh troops will Ukraine add? Russia reportedly also has 80,000 volunteers being added on top of 200,000 troops.

I heard another person claim that Ukrainian volunteers are put into battle after a few days training. If true, not a good sign.
It's on the internet. It must be true.

One source confirming these Russian troop estimates is Gen. Zaluzhny himself, FYI Eastern Oregon Bear, he is the commander in chief of Ukrainian armed forces. I will refer you to the Economist interview I have linked above.

Russia is going to go into this winter with close to half a million troops, 2.5 times the forces it started the war with, and these are experienced troops, with fewer logistics issues as last winter. Russia also has at its disposal now the whole array of drones and long range missiles (which it didn't have earlier).

As well Ukraine now has :
-a much weaker air defense network, about 1/10th the amount of S-300s they started with, enabling more Russian air support
-depleted ammunition stocks
-2-3 dozen fixed wing jets, including the last batch of Slovakian mig 29s (Russia has ~1,500 jets and ~500 attack helicopters.) The average lifetime of a Ukrainian Mig29 is 5 to 10 sorties, hats off to their pilots operating against the best AA network in the world.
-Ukraine's tank disadvantage is only slightly better.
-less than half as many experienced troops as last winter (200,000 vs. 500,000)
-much weaker infrastructure; the Russians can take out the power grid anytime they choose
-more difficult logistics

Those are the reasons why experts like Col. MacGregor do not think that the outcome of the war is in question.


Russia can and should win militarily.

The outcome of the war is also pretty clear. Russia will eventually withdraw from Ukraine regardless, making all of this bloodshed pointless.

Can't disagree with that, much regrettably.
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

How to avoid another world war by Henry Kissinger| The Spectator


https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-push-for-peace/











Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

movielover said:

How many new, fresh troops will Ukraine add? Russia reportedly also has 80,000 volunteers being added on top of 200,000 troops.

I heard another person claim that Ukrainian volunteers are put into battle after a few days training. If true, not a good sign.
It's on the internet. It must be true.

One source confirming these Russian troop estimates is Gen. Zaluzhny himself, FYI Eastern Oregon Bear, he is the commander in chief of Ukrainian armed forces. I will refer you to the Economist interview I have linked above.

Russia is going to go into this winter with close to half a million troops, 2.5 times the forces it started the war with, and these are experienced troops, with fewer logistics issues as last winter. Russia also has at its disposal now the whole array of drones and long range missiles (which it didn't have earlier).

As well Ukraine now has :
-a much weaker air defense network, about 1/10th the amount of S-300s they started with, enabling more Russian air support
-depleted ammunition stocks
-2-3 dozen fixed wing jets, including the last batch of Slovakian mig 29s (Russia has ~1,500 jets and ~500 attack helicopters.) The average lifetime of a Ukrainian Mig29 is 5 to 10 sorties, hats off to their pilots operating against the best AA network in the world.
-Ukraine's tank disadvantage is only slightly better.
-less than half as many experienced troops as last winter (200,000 vs. 500,000)
-much weaker infrastructure; the Russians can take out the power grid anytime they choose
-more difficult logistics

Those are the reasons why experts like Col. MacGregor do not think that the outcome of the war is in question.

Effing Russia thinks they can blitz the quarterback (Ukraine) with half of their entire army.

We ought to get a hundred thousand or so troops, extremely well-armed, dress them up like the Chinese Army, and attack Russia from the northeast. The road to Moscow would be like a walk in the park, That'd give those Rooskies something to think about! Then, after they start running around like a chicken with its head cut off, we send the hundred thousand back from whence they came and they disappear. But the damage would be done.

You're welcome.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Great article about the complete sh(t show of Putin's military. Don't believe Kremlin propaganda or people who cheerlead for invaders and war criminals. As ever, Russia loves a Potemkin village.

tequila4kapp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I find the Kaplan article to be about spot on.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Is the NYT possibly focusing on failures from 10 months ago, not current realities?

Dr. Jordan Peterson asked a good question - how does a defeat end well for nuclear-armed Russia? What does that look like?

The BBC claims Russia is sending musicians to the front lines to boost morale.

The New York Times spoke to Anton Troianovski, the Moscow bureau chief, who claims to have spoken with people close to Putin. I find this a stretch. If you're a confidante of Putin, and you're at war, you don't blab to the NYT for various reasons.
tequila4kapp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Fascinating NYT article. Thanks for sharing.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:

Is the NYT possibly focusing on failures from 10 months ago, not current realities?

Dr. Jordan Peterson asked a good question - how does a defeat end well for nuclear-armed Russia? What does that look like?

The BBC claims Russia is sending musicians to the front lines to boost morale.

The New York Times spoke to Anton Troianovski, the Moscow bureau chief, who claims to have spoken with people close to Putin. I find this a stretch. If you're a confidante of Putin, and you're at war, you don't blab to the NYT for various reasons.


Why would you care what Jordan Petersen says? The dude will say anything to get attention. Did he learn a lot about Russia when he was placed in a medically induced coma there because he was addicted to benzos? You may as well ask Don Jr his opinion.

The fact that Putin has nukes is what it is. He's not going to use them and it's counter to what he's pretending his goals are in Ukraine.

It seems more and more likely that Putin just wants to pillage Ukraine's resources because Russia is a shjthole petrostate which has been suffering brain drain for years and has demographic issues that will hamstring their economy for decades. The only answer people like him have for these types of problems is to find and sell more oil to prop up the state.

To the extent Putin is at all rational, nukes don't help him. He may or may not be able to attack the US with nukes (with how corrupt their government is, not hard to believe that funds necessary to maintain their arsenal ended up buying Oligarch yachts - look at the rest of their military) but we sure as hell can get him. We could reduce Moscow to rubble in minutes which would be the end of Russia as a nation since outside of Moscow, Russia is basically Mongolia.

This war will never end well for Putin. He's destroying the country he is pretending to liberate. Russia won't be able to hold Ukraine and it will be worse than Afghanistan for them. The people of Russia don't care about this war and have stopped believing his BS. They won't put up with these losses forever and he can't hide their sons' deaths forever. At some point the BS will catch up with him. He has one chance to win this war in the early days but his completely inept military wasn't even close. The only question left is how Putin tries to recover and maintain his control in Moscow.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It seems the odds would be better to hold the eastern Donbas area.
golden sloth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I found Michael Kofman a very knowledgable and level headed expert, who doesnt give in to hyperbole much. Mainly, I trust him a lot. Here is a 30 minute interview he takes part in (with a 30 minute q and a session after). The best bit is from 1 minute to 10 minutes. He does a good run down on the status of the war, the challenges each side faces, and where both sides are at in assessing their options. The video was posted Nov 17th, or a few weeks ago.

I recommend it if you want to get away from the twittersphere of learning.

movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Kofman is Ukrainian-American. Some interesting tidbits. The blonde-haired woman seems delusional if she thinks Putin is going to lose all of Ukraine, including the Donbas, and give back Crimea.

Has there been a big change the last month, or are Scott Ritter and McGregor misinformed?

Is Ukraine losing 15,000 soldiers a month? Are they losing lots of soldiers from shrapnel wounds? (How many soldiers is Russia losing?)

None of these hosts directly acknowledge 200,000 new Russian troops being deployed, and an alleged additional 80,000 volunteers. They also ignore the Nazi element which some may see as propaganda.

It seems Russia's size, economy, theater (Ukraine) and Putin all make the odds tough for Ukraine.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:

Kofman is Ukrainian-American. Some interesting tidbits. The blonde-haired woman seems delusional if she thinks Putin is going to lose all of Ukraine, including the Donbas, and give back Crimea.

Has there been a big change the last month, or are Scott Ritter and McGregor misinformed?

Is Ukraine losing 15,000 soldiers a month? Are they losing lots of soldiers from shrapnel wounds? (How many soldiers is Russia losing?)

None of these hosts directly acknowledge 200,000 new Russian troops being deployed, and an alleged additional 80,000 volunteers. They also ignore the Nazi element which some may see as propaganda.

It seems Russia's size, economy, theater (Ukraine) and Putin all make the odds tough for Ukraine.
What impact has "the nazi element" had on the war? What has Putin done to address nazis in Ukraine (or anywhere else)? Did the proposed Minsk II agreement address nazis?

I'm going to let you in on a non so small secret. Putin doesn't care about nazis. His military is full of them. He's using neo-nazi paramilitary merc groups to fight alongside his military in Ukraine. Russia has plenty of them outside the military as well. If he really cared about them, why wouldn't he do something about them at home?

And if you are paying attention to this war, you will note that there have been lots of different proposals about how to end this (some made by you perhaps) and not a single one addresses the nazi problem. Think about that for a while and maybe you will begin to understand what's really going on.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
My comment about the Nazi's wasn't my focal point.

It seems the battle over Bakhmut is the current flashpoint.
golden sloth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:

Kofman is Ukrainian-American. Some interesting tidbits. The blonde-haired woman seems delusional if she thinks Putin is going to lose all of Ukraine, including the Donbas, and give back Crimea.

Has there been a big change the last month, or are Scott Ritter and McGregor misinformed?

Is Ukraine losing 15,000 soldiers a month? Are they losing lots of soldiers from shrapnel wounds? (How many soldiers is Russia losing?)

None of these hosts directly acknowledge 200,000 new Russian troops being deployed, and an alleged additional 80,000 volunteers. They also ignore the Nazi element which some may see as propaganda.

It seems Russia's size, economy, theater (Ukraine) and Putin all make the odds tough for Ukraine.


The panelists discuss the minimal war aims of each country, obviously Russia and Ukraine disagree on these points, but there is a lot of discussion as to how the war ends. Both panelists make the point that unfortunately the war's end is usually determined by the loser, and they mention they dont see Putin ever giving in. So, even if Ukraine pushes Russia out of Ukraine (highly optimistic) that doesnt mean Russia just quits. They spent a good amount of time talking about how the person that starts the war is rarely the one that ends the war. Therefore the answer to the question of how the war ends is that they dont know.

There has not been big changes in the last month, november and December are the mud season which is really hard to make offensives in. Also, both Ukraine and Russia have been relocating their forces from kherson to the other fronts since the western/southern line is now at the dnipro and that provides a strong physical boundary. It also means the front line has been consolidated and is smaller.

Regarding the additional troops, when they discuss mobilization this is what they are talking about, and they do discuss it. They say it will help stabilize the current russian lines, but the effects 3 - 4 months down the line are unclear as the leadership apparatus has been severely compromised on Russia's side and the training is poor. Point being, the numbers help, but it's also not a game changer.

The nazi stuff is just a BS twitter distraction designed to divide public support for Ukraine. The professionals know this which is why none of the questions involved it.

Your last point is more your thoughts, which I think the panelists' main point is that the Ukranians had a good couple of months, they have the advantage right now, but they dont know how the war ends up. Russia has numbers but Ukraine has the will to fight.

I like Kofman's point about how inflection points are only known in hindsight and even then people are still debating what happened in world war one nearly a century ago. Point being, fog of war is real, most information coming from the front lines is inaccurate, and you shouldn't get too wrapped up in the day to day updates of the war as they are either wrong or inconsequential most of the time.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I watched about 70%, zero mention of new alleged higher Ukrainian casualties. The panel seems very pro Ukraine.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:

I watched about 70%, zero mention of new alleged higher Ukrainian casualties. The panel seems very pro Ukraine.
Or maybe your sources are just pro-Russia.
First Page Last Page
Page 71 of 283
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.