Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Won't work...they don't have the logistics to pull off a partial mobilization...how can they pull off a full mobilization. It would take years. They can't adequately train, house, feed, clothe or arm their recruits. They have a completely dysfunctional military command structure. It takes years of investment and reform to change a military command structure. Juxtaposed to Ukraine's current total mobilization and developing (through western training) a highly effective NCO Command structure fighting battles on their own soil. Russia's total mobilization is simply no longer a true threat other than warm bodies.
You are probably correct. But if Belarus joins Russia as an active belligerent and invades from the north, it is possible that Ukraine gets worn down in a war of attrition.
I was just trying to show the other poster who claimed I was creating a false equivalency (although he used the term incorrectly) that there are many ways this war can go.
Many people on this thread seem to think the only options are to stop supporting Ukraine or to launch nukes. There are many other possible paths out there.
At 3:45... "We have 2,700 km of land border with Russia, which are bare steppes. Do you have any idea how much neutrality will cost us? And count the rest of the countries that have territorial claims against us... If we cannot maintain neutrality, we will drift either to the Taiga Union(Russia) or to NATO, there are no other options."
At 5:25... "Why then is NATO in no hurry to accept Ukraine?... Because they did not have a consensus on whether they need Ukraine at all and whether we will finally drift towards Russia with these our Yanukovychs(pro-Russian politicians)... If they don't take us to NATO, then Russia gets +40 million people and a million of military. If they take us to NATO, they get +40 million and a million military who already have experience of war with Russia."
At 7:45... "With a probability of 99.9%, our price for joining NATO is a full-scale war with Russia. And if we do not join NATO, then the absorption by Russia within 10-12 years. That is the whole fork in which we are. "
At 12:30... "There is no chance of neutrality in Ukraine. One way or another, we will drift into one or another supranational military alliance. It will be either Taiga Union(Russia) or NATO. We were in Taiga, and I personally don't want to. We haven't been to NATO, let's try... But the price of joining NATO is likely to be a larger war with Russia, or a sequence of such conflicts. But in this conflict, we will be very actively supported by the West - with weapons, equipment, assistance, new sanctions against Russia, and the quite possible introduction of a NATO contingent, a no fly zone, etc. We won't lose, and that's good."
Quite clearly. One does not make a "neutral", "demilitarized" country by annexing 5 of its provinces. Annexing provinces is how you take over a country.
Putin realizes a neutral Ukraine is impossible. America will never let that happen. By annexing those four provinces, they become Russian soil. The people there, Russians. And Russia will use all means available to defend Russian soil. It was obviously a signal to America, to Ukraine, and to the Russian people. Which is why it came alongside the mobilization of 300,000 more troops.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 10-15-2022 at 04:30 PM..
You are probably correct. But if Belarus joins Russia as an active belligerent and invades from the north, it is possible that Ukraine gets worn down in a war of attrition.
I was just trying to show the other poster who claimed I was creating a false equivalency (although he used the term incorrectly) that there are many ways this war can go.
Many people on this thread seem to think the only options are to stop supporting Ukraine or to launch nukes. There are many other possible paths out there.
That was me on the false equivalency...I was reinforcing your point not challenging it...sometimes these posts get crossed. The wild card that would help Russia is Ukraine losing Western support...that's why these successful Ukrainian offensives are so critical right now....If they are moving the ball the support will stay in place. IMHO
No it's 5 miles in a straight line. Maybe 50 - 75 square miles.
Again it doesn't matter how little, as long as they are losing even a little bit of territory they will never be able to get the Russians out of their country. Not in a year, not in 10 years, not in a 100 years, never.
You should read the Tortoise and the Hare, one of Aesop's fables. The moral of the story is that slow and steady wins the race.
Additionally, your thesis is patently absurd. It does not matter if Ukraine loses a mile a day somewhere if they gain 100 miles a day somewhere else. The net gain is the important thing.
Take this to the logical end. Ukraine recovers Luhansk, Donetsk, Crimea, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson. Everything but that tiny city you obsess over. Do you really think they won't reallocate their military forces to recover that city too? Because it sounds like you think the Ukrainians are just going to throw up their hands and let that city go, because after all, the Russians have been getting 100 yards closer every day for 4 months now, it is inevitable that they take it.
That was me on the false equivalency...I was reinforcing your point not challenging it...sometimes these posts get crossed. The wild card that would help Russia is Ukraine losing Western support...that's why these successful Ukrainian offensives are so critical right now....If they are moving the ball the support will stay in place. IMHO
Whooops. My apologies. Looks like I misinterpreted your post. That happens when juggling a few different conversational threads.
But I agree. If Ukraine can keep momentum, foreign support will likely be maintained.
Assuming a constant rate, they seem to be reclaiming about 3000 sq miles/month. Russia is taking about 3 square miles/month, so we can pretty much disregard that as a factor. Russia occupies about 42,000 sq miles, so at this pace Ukraine will retake the country in 13 months. Only about 25-30 times faster than you state.
Are you a real person, or a Russian propaganda bot?
My understanding is that the occupied territory has decreased from about 20% to 18% in the last 8 months. I'm not even sure of the source, or how they figure that. That's the number that has been thrown around by the Ukraine government. So maybe they could reasonably expect to liberate the entire country in about 6 years. But that would depend on Russia not ramping up their war effort, and NATO continuing to fund the war at current levels.
Russia military range shooting leaves 11 dead, 15 wounded
Muslims against Christians as Deny said?...who knows, but what does this say about the readiness of Russian troops..Putin must be going nuts over the state of his military..
Hah I can't believe people are still pointing at Bakhmut, Russia has been trying to that one village for months while Ukraine sweeps across thousands of kilometers. When you say on track that implies things are going according to their planned timeline, you really believe that back in July the Russian MOD outlined plans to take Bakhmut by November? Right on track Colonel General, at this rate we shall be knocking on the city gates of Kiev by 2037.
Either way bookmarked, it will be amusing to see how this "on track" to ages right along with your previous touting of 300k new Russian conscripts changing the game.
1. Bakhmut is not a village by any definition. It's a city of 70,000 people. 2. Yes, they have been trying for months, but now they are right outside the city limits. They are making progress, and the Ukrainians have not been able to stop them.
You should read the Tortoise and the Hare, one of Aesop's fables. The moral of the story is that slow and steady wins the race.
Additionally, your thesis is patently absurd. It does not matter if Ukraine loses a mile a day somewhere if they gain 100 miles a day somewhere else. The net gain is the important thing.
Take this to the logical end. Ukraine recovers Luhansk, Donetsk, Crimea, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson. Everything but that tiny city you obsess over. Do you really think they won't reallocate their military forces to recover that city too? Because it sounds like you think the Ukrainians are just going to throw up their hands and let that city go, because after all, the Russians have been getting 100 yards closer every day for 4 months now, it is inevitable that they take it.
It remains to be seen if they can take Donetsk. They are having zero success in that region so far.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
