LordsFire
Internet Wizard
Do you actually not know the answer to these questions?
Because if you're conversant with military history over the last 100 years, you should be able to answer them for yourself.
Russia-Ukraine War Politics Thread Mk. 2
- Thread starter Emperor Tippy
- Start date
Because if you're conversant with military history over the last 100 years, you should be able to answer them for yourself.
Vyor
My influence grows!
Shoot them down.
Blow up the people driving them.
F16
F16
AnimalNoodles
Well-known member
Ah yes..air power.
And how would you do all these things if enemy SAMs that were being coordinated by the very untouchable AWACs planes made using mass airpower very costly?
Shoot at it with their own precision munitions after spotting them with their own satellites and drones, and be better at this game than the other side. Russia also has these things yet lost Kherson and Kharkiv, whole regions with cities several times the size of Avdiivka.
So the even larger losses from this WW1 style grinding down of fortifications with infantry assaults are supposed to be the clever solution to keep casualties acceptable?
Where do you think those untouchable AWACS are flying and what their radar range is?
About 350km from Avdiivka.
This is how close USA is willing to fly a drone before the war, nevermind full on AWACS.
The closest NATO airspace is something like 700km away.
The bigger problem for Russian frontline aviation lately is ambushes by NASAMS and German style Patriot SAM batteries.
Last edited:
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
See, that's the thing.
The US/NATO's AWACS are better, and we also have Growlers. Fly up between the enemy AWACS and your combat zone, and jam their equipment. If they don't want to get into the war, there's nothing they can do about it.
Further, you know those Stormshadow and SCALP missiles that have been giving the Russians so much trouble? The Ukrainians have been given what the Europeans have decided they can spare.
US/NATO has hundreds of the things, and they wouldn't be getting launched in ones and twos, they'd be launched in floods.
Alongside HARMs, JASSM, JDAMS (of course), and a whole suite of other technology not only designed to, but proven to be effective at wiping out Soviet/Russian-designed air defense networks.
This isn't some secret thing, the capabilities, both on paper and proven in practice of the US and its allied militaries are publicly known things.
The invasion of Ukraine had Russia trying to prove that it could play in the same leagues, use the same kinds of doctrine, demonstrate the same kinds of technical and tactical capabilities. It was an utter shit-show that got the Russian military's face kicked in after the initial advantage of surprise wore off, and they've resorted to simplistic, attritional WWI-style warfare (this time with drones!) since then.
Not because it's a better kind of warfare, but because they're too incompetent to perform the kinds of joint forces strikes that the US and NATO have made their calling card.
Sorry let me put on my retard hat and pretend Russia winning a key city is actually good for Ukraine lol
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
No, the 'retard hat' is how you insist this is a 'key' city.
I haven't seen anyone saying Ukraine somehow 'won' by losing the city, but anyone with a whit of objectivity will tell you it isn't worth the price the Russians paid for it.
AnimalNoodles
Well-known member
Which is precisely what Russia is doing.
Russia lost Kherson and Kharkhiv because they had largely evacuated them. In Kharkiv Ukraine has a 15-1 advantage because Russia lacked the manpower to garrison it.
And Russia evacuated Kherson because of logistics concerns, esp in terms of the possible destruction of the dam. I would just like to add that both operations resulted in immense losses for the Ukrainians as they marched thier men into areas that were preregistered for artillery. They took such losses in fact that they were unable to follow up with a quick offensive in the south.
When Ukraine actually tried against a fully manned defense line, using "NATO Standard" (WTF that means) troops and wunderwaffles, they ran into every problem i just described.
Pointless to debate casualties, since neither of us recognises the others figures and sources as legitimate. All we can look at is results. Russia took avdiivka, and still has the strength to launch assaults along multiple axes w/o needing to stop and rebuild.
Ukraine attacked towards Tokmak, failed, and lost thier largest fortress.
AnimalNoodles
Well-known member
If you thought you could close the skies, you would have tried.
Yes, I am calling it a key city because all the the media which is typically pro Ukraine and only airs Ukrainian propaganda, is calling it a key city.
I don't trust mainstream media much, but when even they have to admit it? It's true.
You can close your eyes and plug your ears all you want. This city was heavily fortified because it was an important city. They lost it.
Whether it was worth the price for Russia or not? We'll see. As of now I have no reason to believe the tides are going to turn in any meaningful way, and Russia has demonstrated with Bahkmut, fighting off the counter offensive and now Avdiivka, thay they have the initiative right now.
This war is one step further from being won by Ukraine.
They are not going to win. More people are just going to die, all for nothing, because in the end russia is going to probably walk away with at least Donbass, once Ukraine finally accepts that they can't win.
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
Which is detrimental to Ukraine‘s war effort and, in a roundabout way, is in Russia’s favour.
Funny how that works.
Well how funny that Russia has bothered to put such a shitload of unattended vehicles and supplies in it then.
Starting with... not having any meaningful number of said "wunderwaffes". As in getting some western tanks in numbers sufficient for a battalion or brigade, rather than just one division.
Yeah, apparently NATO standard is to not have enough equipment to equip a full division with it.
Yeah, sure...
Source needed for this being "their largest fortress". And i mean extraordinary evidence, because a formerly 30k city being their largest fortress is an extraordinary claim (did someone nuke Kramatorsk and Sloviansk which i mentioned lately?).
Ok, because media, whatever then, opinion discarded.
I don't trust the mainstream media, most journos have no clue about military topics, and their idiocy takes no sides obviously.
Any place in the path of Russian invasion that makes for a half decent defensive position will be fortified, but that doesn't make it important enough for the Russia simps to crow that it was a major victory.
If you ever played any decent strategy game you would know that built up areas, especially larger ones, by definition make for good defensive positions, no matter how important or unimportant they are otherwise. If you can also keep a supply route open to it, you are set, it's a fucking fortress.
Fine, if we are going to play Baghdad Bob style exchange of over the top predictions to demoralize the other side... I can do it too...
They are going to win and Russia will suffer twice as bad as in the 90's.
In the end Russia will be partitioned and Moscow will be Polish once more.
Last edited:
You are free to make your predictions.
I have been making mine for a few years now. I told you guys two years ago that this was going to be a drawn out war that Ukraine was not going to win quickly and yall didn't want to hear it. You people were too consumed by the propaganda machine and insisting how much ass Ukraine is kicking. And I told you in a year I'd come remind you I made that prediction. Here we are two years later. Ukraine is kicking so much ass they keep losing cities to Russia and their counter offensive didn't achieve shit.
I was right then, and I'm probably right now.
So go ahead and make predictions if you want. When Ukraine starts peace talks because they can't kick russia out with their military, I'll be here to remind you I was right again.
Only way I'm wrong is if other countries send troops and this becomes more than the west's proxy war with russia.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
No, I don't have to trust the media about the importance of Avdivka worth shit.
I have been studying war for literally decades, and I can make my own judgements.
Avdivka was:
1. In the path of the Russian advance.
2. A decent place to fortify for hardened resistance to Russian attacks.
3. At the start of the war (in 2014) a moderately-relevant economic location for such a small city.
Avdivka was not:
1. A major logistical hub. Any fighting position on the front line is not a logistical hub by definition, because it is the place supplies are delivered to, not through.
2. A major military production facility. It was not producing essential bullets, boots, or beans. It hasn't been producing much of anything for years.
3. An irreplaceable defensive feature. It isn't a critical mountain pass, host to a key bridge across a major river, or controlling the only road or railroad to an entire region.
4. A key cultural or political center. It's not Paris, it's not Berlin, The Alamo, or any such thing. The only reason any significant number of people outside of the region has heard of it, is because of the battle that has been fought there.
5. The enemy was not forced to fall back dozens or hundreds of kilometers to find a new defensible position. Avdivka is still in easy shelling range of Ukrainian-held territory, IIRC their new lines are like a single kilometer away from the city, if that.
In sum total, it's another part of the line that the Ukrainians have been forced a kilometer or few back on, after literal years of fighting, and months of it being a point of main focus for Russian efforts.
It's not critical or essential on any level. If you had any in-depth understanding of warfare, you wouldn't need to try to decide on which sources to trust or not trust to come to such a conclusion, you'd be able to come to it for yourself.
Well if they won't win quickly, they can win slowly.
For one people on our side didn't expect Russia to put pride aside to buy large amounts of ordnance from Iran and North Korea to have the ammo to allow such moves, delaying their ammo starvation by at least a year.
Russia is also obviously not winning it quickly as the time ticks for them the same way.
Ukraine would be better off having a Korea style no deal "forever war" than deluding itself with peace deals with current Russian admin.
Because wherever your sympathies lie, such deals would be delusional and soon would lead to an even worse situation for Ukraine, that's a separate question and answer.
Obviously if you sympathize with the Russian imperial cause you want Ukraine to take such a deal and put 100% trust in it, but i don't.
The Russian Black Sea Fleet and it's status at the moment is very much a strategic W for Ukraine, and you may have noticed the grain corridor on the Black Sea is open and operational, while every month Russia keeps losing more ships to a country without a Navy.
As well, all that area in Avdiivka that Russian's just entered is still in firing range of Ukraine's weapons, same with Bahkmut, so Russia won't be getting any use out of the area for years.
I would also point out that the Russians themselves are not happy about how Avdiivka went:
This is a channel operated by one of Girkin's friends/compatriots, who are some of the few willing to actually admit how fucked the situation was for the RU side.
Avdiivka was pushed to make a symbolic victory for Putin before his election.
I want Ukraine to take such a deal, join nato, and the bolster the living fuck out of their borders so that IF russia tries this again they are facing down the might of NATO.
Russia can't win against NATO. I doubt they're even crazy enough to try.
Here's a question for you:
Do you think there is even a small chance that Russia would offer Ukraine such a deal that among its conditions allows it to join NATO, and then follow it up to that point, without further plan to block such efforts by any military, covert and political means available?
So, an obviously impossible plan due to the above question.
You tried to put words in my mouth about what I want. I told you what I actually want. I think that solution is the one that leads to most stability.
What I reaally want though, is for this war to end. If that means Russia gets a small strip of land on the other side of the world? I don't really care that much.
You guys can call me pro Russia all you want, I just don't live in the world where Russia winning cities is a bad thing for Russia.