Prediction Thread: When Will Ukraine Conquer Russia

[Geronimo]

What does all of this mean? To me, it means that now, more than ever, is the time to pour weapons and training into Ukraine. It would be almost impossible if Russian lines were not strained by these events. I believe it is only a matter of time before that stress becomes to much and we begin to see large collapses along the front.

The West likes a winner. When this happens, all the questions will go away. Is it weeks or months? Who knows? But strong support from the West make it inevitable. Let's hope the political will holds.

of course the opposite will occur. Ukraine's allies never forgo a chance to cut back their commitments.

[PLATO]

I fear you may be right.

[Berzerker]

https://youtu.be/bcwFyNbX5m8

today's analysis by Col Douglas Macgregor

The dilemma facing Putin is winning without drawing Nato in. Thats the rationale for his incremental approach but dragging it out also emboldens the west. Macgregor said Nato wont jump in if he does launch a major offensive and now even the Poles are losing interest.

[The Mad Monk]

So is Zelensky.

[PLATO]

Incremental approach my butt.

[Berzerker]

Yes, that was the rebuttal to the claims of a Nazi problem in Ukraine, Z's Jewish, hence Prig is Jewish. Ofc Zelensky didn't get elected until 2019 long after Azov was killing eastern Ukrainians and he was never in charge of them. The proper comparison would be Prig/Wagner to Azov and its founder Andriy Biletsky. He aint Jewish lol.

[The Mad Monk]

prepare for the push south to kiev

[BeBMan]

So the big offensive hasn't gone as everyone wanted (well except for Russia of course). Is it now a stalemate? A war of attrition? Can either side change the existing line of contact by much? Is the West seeing the beginning of "Ukraine fatigue" due to lack of progress? Is public support for supplying Ukraine beginning to lag in the U.S.?

Ukrainian progress is slow since early summer, they do say so themselves. OTOH this seems to mirror the situation in Kherson last year - there was early Russian postering about a failed Ukrainian offensive, followed by a long slog, and in the end Russian forces retreated.

Not that this is a guarantee for any outcome, but doesn't look impossible either.

[N35t0r]

It's not exactly easy to differentiate a completely stalled offensive from one that is successfully grinding Russian strength and artillery support and will breakthrough in a month (or two, or six), especially from our side.

[N35t0r]

prepare for the push south to kiev

I'm still preparing BTW. I'm not sure what more I can do though. Got any pointers?

So far I have done:
-nothing

[Berzerker]

patience... maybe they're on permanent vacation in the magical kingdom of Belarus

[Geronimo]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66450520 I wonder how much of this Berz and Serb believe?

[PLATO]

All of it and then some?

[PLATO]

Ukrainian progress is slow since early summer, they do say so themselves. OTOH this seems to mirror the situation in Kherson last year - there was early Russian postering about a failed Ukrainian offensive, followed by a long slog, and in the end Russian forces retreated.

Not that this is a guarantee for any outcome, but doesn't look impossible either.

If the level of Western support continues and Moscow doesn't get a Chinese lifeline in armaments then I think Ukrainian success is probable. At this point I think Putin is trying his hardest to make a stalemate and wait out Western Political support. For the Ukrainians to achieve all of their goals it could easily be another year or two. The Russians may be inept but they are no joke.

I think what we are seeing here is very much the "Kherson" model, but the obstacles are infinitely greater (as is the firepower the Ukrainians are applying)

It has also now become clear that Putin's real "red line" is most likely any invasion of 1991 Russian boarders. The West should stop worrying about Russian escalation. When you are dipping into your reserves of 1950s and 1960s tanks, then you are clearly "all in". The one component that Russia hasn't gone all in on though is their air force. I believe that they are keeping it fairly bottled up as their only remaining force to truly protect their boarders. While it surely would help their effort on the ground, the possible losses could cause grave concern in other areas.

The West needs to be in this for the long haul. Increasing ammunition tempo, supplying air assets, supplying artillery and rocket systems (including long range systems), and supplying air power. Russia could win a war of attrition against just Ukraine, but it can't win one against a robustly Western supplied Ukraine (no matter how much cannon fodder they throw into the battle line).

The path to victory is clear and twofold: 1.) Increase war material supplies to Ukraine and 2.) Maintain political will. The Ukrainians will do the rest for themselves.

[Berzerker]

Ukraine cant match the manpower even if the west could keep up with weapons... and it cant do that either
Democrats will have to rig the election because if this is still going on they're gonna lose to Trump (or DeSantis)

[Berzerker]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66450520 I wonder how much of this Berz and Serb believe?

I read thru it, the only claim that may be valid is the poll about the Russian language. Was it a poll of the Donbas or all of Ukraine? How does the BBC know what Ukraine (Nato) was planning for the Crimean port?

"The textbook is also rife with distortion and manipulation.

For example, it describes Russia's initial attack on Ukraine in 2014 as a popular uprising of eastern Donbas residents who "wanted to stay Russian" and who were joined by "volunteers" from Russia. It makes no mention of the military hardware and personnel Russia sent to Donbas at the time or over the next eight years."

How is that a distortion or manipulation? Does the history book refer to the 2014 Maidan massacre as a coup? I imagine it does, so why doesn't the BBC include that on its list of lies? Maybe because the BBC interviewed one of the snipers. The author's logic is sloppy with debatable assertions masquerading as facts.

​

[Dauphin]

How is that a distortion or manipulation? Does the history book refer to the 2014 Maidan massacre as a coup? I imagine it does, so why doesn't the BBC include that on its list of lies? Maybe because the BBC interviewed one of the snipers. The author's logic is sloppy with debatable assertions masquerading as facts.

​

Argumentum ex silentio.

[Dauphin]

You are making an argument based on what is not said, rather than what is said.

[Berzerker]

My argument is the BBC knows 2014 was a coup and therefore wont accuse a Russian history book of lying by calling it a coup. That omission from the BBC's list of lies/falsehoods speaks volumes. What exactly is the problem with my logic?

[Dauphin]

First you 'imagine' the book says something, and then say the BBC must agree with that imagination (and by your logic anything you imagine may be in the book) because they don't refute your imaginations on it in a short article. You haven't considered the BBC's body of work reporting on the situation in Ukraine. But it doesn't matter, because you've got a good imagination about what they must think about your imagination.

[giblets]

a stalemate means more dead people, but at least Russia will continue bleeding... money well spent I hear

war would end fast if we stopped paying for it, Ukraine would deal and let Crimea and the Donbas go. I dont think they want to be ruled by Kiev anyway, ya know.

Putin wants control of the whole country or at least half of it.

[BeBMan]

What a surprise:

https://meduza.io/en/news/2023/08/09/reuters-aide-to-russia-s-children-s-rights-commissioner-has-links-to-online-neo-nazi-groups

[Berzerker]

Putin wants control of the whole country or at least half of it.

Then why didn't he bring a bigger army?

[-Jrabbit]

Because Putin's yes-man minions assured him it would be a 3-day ride to Kiev, where the Russian troops would be welcomed as heroes.
And Vlad is so isolated, he believed it.

[PLATO]

Then why didn't he bring a bigger army?

What makes you think Putin's decision making capacity is any more competent than the floundering army he did bring? Not to mention he DID commit nearly all of the deployable combat capacity he had free at the time.