Ukraine war - which side is winning?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to add:

- Ukraine now plausibly claims a standing army of 700,000 in-country.

Russia’s military is spread thin, over the entire RF, Syria, Kazakstan, Armenia, all borders with NATO, etc.

And it can equally plausibly be claimed that up to 70,000 of those 700,000 died in just the last 72 hours.

Ukrainian forces are being slaughtered from 60 miles away by rocket barrages that spill cluster munitions over 20 acre parcels at a time. Russia has finally figured out how to fight a war (after 3 months of getting it’s ass handed to it) and has now abandoned the use of armor at the leading edge of battle and is now instead sanitizing the front one barrage at a time.

Launch rockets at enemy positions, kill or wound everything within every square meter (look up how cluster munitions work if you doubt this) then move forces in. Kill the wounded, rinse, repeat.


This is how Russia will be fighting this war from here on, and they’ll win by end of summer. Bookmark this post.

What you describe is not happening and you really have no understanding of how this war is fought. The Ukrainians are in dug positions. You need a direct hit with very large munitions to destroy just one position. Cluster munitions does nothing to a dug in position. Massed heavy artillery is ineffective against these positions because the Ukrainians defense are iin-depth. It is the Russians who are suffering huge loses.

The Russians are unable to maintain the supplies they need for this operation, they have not abandon armor because the Ukrainians would easily destroy non armored forces, the Russians have to attack the Ukrainians who are in defense, etc. The Russians losses are so great their units are not combat effective. Estimates of Russian casualties are around 100k with 3 times that wounded. Russia is preparing to draft more men. It’s a quagmire with no end.

The thing is that there is really no credible information about the Ukrainian losses. The Ukrainians are not releasing this information and in effect there is a blackout on this info. Everyone seems to be buying into the narrative of a well armed, well organized, valiant Ukrainian army decimating a horde of drunkards armed with nothing but numbers and pitchforks. The reality is much more complex that that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is turning into grindingly awful trench warfare.

I fervently hope NATO sends Ukraine every single weapon and military support they need to preserve Ukraine territory.

I am so sad that fighter jets and other items Ukraine needed at the start of the war, when they asked for it, were not allowed. There is nothing Putin could have done if they had been sent. Putin was not then in a position to escalate against NATO, or accidentally-on-purpose sabotage a nuclear power plant in Ukraine. But Biden and a few European leaders believed his threats, and as a result thousands of Ukrainians died in horrific circumstances; Russia was able to establish a land corridor to Crimea; and it will take SO MUCH MORE MONEY AND LIVES TO FLUSH THEM OUT.

Sigh.

Was anyone in the world 100% confident that madman Putin would not have used a nuclear weapon against the West if cornered?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the answer is no.

Not 100%, no. But I would have taken that risk. Some European leaders really wanted to send those MiGs, and they were the ones nearest to Russia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is turning into grindingly awful trench warfare.

I fervently hope NATO sends Ukraine every single weapon and military support they need to preserve Ukraine territory.

I am so sad that fighter jets and other items Ukraine needed at the start of the war, when they asked for it, were not allowed. There is nothing Putin could have done if they had been sent. Putin was not then in a position to escalate against NATO, or accidentally-on-purpose sabotage a nuclear power plant in Ukraine. But Biden and a few European leaders believed his threats, and as a result thousands of Ukrainians died in horrific circumstances; Russia was able to establish a land corridor to Crimea; and it will take SO MUCH MORE MONEY AND LIVES TO FLUSH THEM OUT.

Sigh.

Was anyone in the world 100% confident that madman Putin would not have used a nuclear weapon against the West if cornered?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the answer is no.

Not 100%, no. But I would have taken that risk. Some European leaders really wanted to send those MiGs, and they were the ones nearest to Russia.

That’s not how NATO works. And no leader is risking nuclear war.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is turning into grindingly awful trench warfare.

I fervently hope NATO sends Ukraine every single weapon and military support they need to preserve Ukraine territory.

I am so sad that fighter jets and other items Ukraine needed at the start of the war, when they asked for it, were not allowed. There is nothing Putin could have done if they had been sent. Putin was not then in a position to escalate against NATO, or accidentally-on-purpose sabotage a nuclear power plant in Ukraine. But Biden and a few European leaders believed his threats, and as a result thousands of Ukrainians died in horrific circumstances; Russia was able to establish a land corridor to Crimea; and it will take SO MUCH MORE MONEY AND LIVES TO FLUSH THEM OUT.

Sigh.

Was anyone in the world 100% confident that madman Putin would not have used a nuclear weapon against the West if cornered?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the answer is no.

Not 100%, no. But I would have taken that risk. Some European leaders really wanted to send those MiGs, and they were the ones nearest to Russia.

That’s not how NATO works. And no leader is risking nuclear war.

NATO works by "consensus" behind the scenes, which in practice means that the more powerful countries pressure the little ones to side with them. This is what happened in this case. If the USA was against MiGs, no one could give Ukraine MiGs. And God knows some European leaders wanted to throw all they had at Zelensky in February! Ukraine's eastern neighbors are more afraid of being next in the invasion schedule than of Putin going all-out scorched earth and using a tactical nuclear weapon, or sending a missile into Chernobyl.

Once Ukraine falls, the neighbors fall.

[Anonymous]

in the long run, Russia has lost. Even if Ukraine is worn down, destroyed, and forced into a stalemate after a long war, Russia has lost. Even if Russia walks away from this with the Donbas, Russia has lost.

Their economy is ruined for decades. They're at the mercy of ambitious countries like China and India, which will both exploit Russia for their own agendas (witness how India recently bought Russian oil at below-market prices).

Will it be tough for western Europe to adjust to life without Russian gas? Maybe. But we're overdue to end the use of fossil fuels and switch to renewable energy sources, so it's going to work out in the long run.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:in the long run, Russia has lost. Even if Ukraine is worn down, destroyed, and forced into a stalemate after a long war, Russia has lost. Even if Russia walks away from this with the Donbas, Russia has lost.

Their economy is ruined for decades. They're at the mercy of ambitious countries like China and India, which will both exploit Russia for their own agendas (witness how India recently bought Russian oil at below-market prices).

Will it be tough for western Europe to adjust to life without Russian gas? Maybe. But we're overdue to end the use of fossil fuels and switch to renewable energy sources, so it's going to work out in the long run.

I really hope you're right.

But that Ukraine manages to conserve all it's territory!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:in the long run, Russia has lost. Even if Ukraine is worn down, destroyed, and forced into a stalemate after a long war, Russia has lost. Even if Russia walks away from this with the Donbas, Russia has lost.

Their economy is ruined for decades. They're at the mercy of ambitious countries like China and India, which will both exploit Russia for their own agendas (witness how India recently bought Russian oil at below-market prices).

Will it be tough for western Europe to adjust to life without Russian gas? Maybe. But we're overdue to end the use of fossil fuels and switch to renewable energy sources, so it's going to work out in the long run.

I really hope you're right.

But that Ukraine manages to conserve all it's territory!

There is no scenario under which Ukraine recovers Crimea.

I note that you seem to be completely comfortable with the scenario of Ukraine "worn down and destroyed" as long as Russia is losing.

[Anonymous]

How weak must Russia be? Wouldn't the US have won by now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How weak must Russia be? Wouldn't the US have won by now?

Russia can barely manage a few kilometers of front against Ukraine and is burning through much of its troops, officers and equipment at a staggering rate.
Going toe to toe against the US, Russia would absolutely lose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How weak must Russia be? Wouldn't the US have won by now?

No way would or could russia ever stand up to the US in any conventional conflict.
They know that; that why they act like n korea with nuclear threats.

That literally is all they have. They have oil, which is important still. But that will run out in few decades and pretty much that country is worthless and broke.

[Anonymous]

I’m a citizen of both Ukraine and Russia, and to me both countries are losing from day 1. Putin is flushing both countries down the toilet. I hope that NATO gets tired of this soon and plants one bomb directly on Putin’s head, and then the war will be over.

[Anonymous]

Russia is making very slow gains, at huge cost, this is a fact. But what are they gaining? The cities are completely bombed out and worthless. They are 80% depopulated. Can they actually even hold them long term, maybe some but unlikely all of the region.

This isn’t about resources. A few hundred years ago war was for land because of its value. Today value is in people, war is a huge negative economically. Russia will likely end up with some bombed out land, but at an extreme cost that weakens them long term.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m a citizen of both Ukraine and Russia, and to me both countries are losing from day 1. Putin is flushing both countries down the toilet. I hope that NATO gets tired of this soon and plants one bomb directly on Putin’s head, and then the war will be over.

The war will not be over then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Russia is making very slow gains, at huge cost, this is a fact. But what are they gaining? The cities are completely bombed out and worthless. They are 80% depopulated. Can they actually even hold them long term, maybe some but unlikely all of the region.

This isn’t about resources. A few hundred years ago war was for land because of its value. Today value is in people, war is a huge negative economically. Russia will likely end up with some bombed out land, but at an extreme cost that weakens them long term.

LOL right value is not in the land. That must be the reason why Israel keeps swallowing the West Bank.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How weak must Russia be? Wouldn't the US have won by now?

Russia can barely manage a few kilometers of front against Ukraine and is burning through much of its troops, officers and equipment at a staggering rate.
Going toe to toe against the US, Russia would absolutely lose.

There is no credible data on the losses on either Russian or Ukrainian side.

The US would have won by now but then the US never invades strong countries.