Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Prediction Thread: When Will Ukraine Conquer Russia

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts



  • 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.

    Comment


    • The Mad Monk
      The Mad Monk commented
      Editing a comment
      So is Zelensky.

    • PLATO
      PLATO commented
      Editing a comment
      Incremental approach my butt.

    • Berzerker
      Berzerker commented
      Editing a comment
      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.

  • Originally posted by Berzerker View Post
    prepare for the push south to kiev
    No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by PLATO View Post
      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.





      Blah

      Comment


      • 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.
        Indifference is Bliss

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Berzerker View Post
          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
          Indifference is Bliss

          Comment


          • Berzerker
            Berzerker commented
            Editing a comment
            patience... maybe they're on permanent vacation in the magical kingdom of Belarus

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

          Comment


          • PLATO
            PLATO commented
            Editing a comment
            All of it and then some?

        • Originally posted by BeBMan View Post

          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.
          "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003

          Comment


          • 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)

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Geronimo View Post
              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.

              ​

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Berzerker View Post

                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.
                One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.

                Comment


                • Dauphin
                  Dauphin commented
                  Editing a comment
                  You are making an argument based on what is not said, rather than what is said.

                • Berzerker
                  Berzerker commented
                  Editing a comment
                  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
                  Dauphin commented
                  Editing a comment
                  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.

              • Originally posted by Berzerker View Post
                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.

                Comment


                • What a surprise:

                  A Reuters investigation has discovered that Alexei Petrov, who is currently an aide to Russian Presidential Commissioner on the Rights of Children Maria Lvova-Belova, was associated with online neo-Nazi and white supremacist movements.
                  Blah

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by giblets View Post

                    Putin wants control of the whole country or at least half of it.
                    Then why didn't he bring a bigger army?

                    Comment


                    • -Jrabbit
                      -Jrabbit commented
                      Editing a comment
                      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.

                  • Originally posted by Berzerker View Post

                    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.
                    "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Berzerker View Post

                      Then why didn't he bring a bigger army?
                      He brought an army he thought was sufficient to do that in a little 3 day invasion - sadly (for him), that army was severely damaged and had to retreat leaving whatever they had. He has been on the heels since and are close to topple backwards.
                      With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

                      Steven Weinberg

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X