Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Considering Russia maintains a submarine deterrent, not to mention Topol road mobile ICBM's, it doesnt strike that there is any realistic way we could destroy 90 percent of the Russian arsenal. To my mind this is strategic thinking that has infected them from the 1980's, convinced we are going to launch a first strike, which of course is impossible for all kinds of reasons.

 

  • Replies 96.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Roman Alymov

    16173

  • Stuart Galbraith

    11364

  • glenn239

    5046

  • Josh

    3789

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Posted

Key Takeaways:

The tactical situation in Verbove remains unclear amid continued Ukrainian offensive operations in western Zaporizhia Oblast on September 25.

The Ukrainian Special Operations Forces reported on September 25 that a precision Ukrainian strike on the headquarters of the Black Sea Fleet (BSF) in occupied Sevastopol, Crimea, on September 22 killed 34 Russian officers, including BSF Commander Admiral Viktor Sokolov

Ukrainian forces reportedly struck the Khalino Airfield and a Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) building in Kursk Oblast during a series of drone strikes on September 24.

Russian forces conducted a series of Shahed-131/136 drone and missile strikes on the night of September 24-25 against Ukrainian port, grain, and military targets.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky confirmed on September 25 that US-provided Abrams tanks have arrived in Ukraine.

Russian military officials continue efforts to build out the Russian armed forces to suit the needs of Russian forces fighting in Ukraine.

The Kremlin and the Armenian government continue to deflect blame onto one another over the surrender of Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan amidst deteriorating Armenian-Russian relations.

Russian forces continued unsuccessful offensive operations near Bakhmut, along the Avdiivka-Donetsk City line, and in western Zaporizhia Oblast.

Ukrainian forces conducted offensive operations near Bakhmut, in the Donetsk-Zaporizhia Oblast border area, and in western Zaporizhia Oblast but did not make any confirmed gains.

Russian officials continue to deport children from occupied Ukraine to Russia.

 

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-september-25-2023

Posted
5 hours ago, seahawk said:

Ukraine should have been settled peacefully, because now it is only the beginning of series of long wars. Russia will take control of all Soviet territories. Russia now sees that the west is bend on destroying Russia and the only way to protect Russia is to widen Russian influence and create a large buffer zone. The final objective should be reseting the clock to 1980 and have the frontline well within Western Europe. Western aggression has given Europe a war that will last decades.

I think you and Glenn are both correct. Ukraine should have accepted the Minsk accord(s), and provided limited autonomy to the break-away areas. The Ukrainians would have been able to join the EU, or EU like benefits, and agreed to not join Nato or host Nato forces in their country. 

Though I don't know if Russia will take all lost territory. I keep hearing runors of a gigantic Russian offensive, but it is getting late in the year. If I hazard a guess, if the Russians do advance, they will primarily seek to destroy Ukrainian miltary power east of the Dnipro to force a decision. 

Posted
18 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

Coup by whom? If by pro-Western forces - it makes no sence as they are allready in power, so why overthrow themselves? If by pro-Russian forces  - it is highly unlikely since for last 30 years the whole "vertical of power" was constructed of people loyal to pro-Western forces (or, at least, very well hiding their real beliefs). Of course there could be skirmishes between "towers of Kremlin" for the role of Kronprinz, but it is not major political change.

Well there already was something pretty coup like attempted. But I agree the net result of any change of government would probably go to someone even more nationalistic.

18 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

Russian resources are still not tapped (or, to be more correct, are deliberately blocked from being used to serve frontline). Come to Noscow - there is MASSIVE construction everywhere, including very unnecesarry one. What about building hangars for planes, shelters etc?   Or what about cars for troops on frontline? People are crowdfunding old SUVs and even regular passanger cars for frontline transportation across Russia, while Moscow alone we got 30 000 carshering cars, many of them SUVs  -well enough to provide every section on frontline with day-to-day utility car....

...and those resources being diverted to the war would be a dramatic change, as would be a full mobilization.

Posted
2 hours ago, ex2cav said:

I think you and Glenn are both correct. Ukraine should have accepted the Minsk accord(s), and provided limited autonomy to the break-away areas. The Ukrainians would have been able to join the EU, or EU like benefits, and agreed to not join Nato or host Nato forces in their country. 

It seems unlikely Minsk would have solved the problem permanently. It would have just set up the next conflict instead. Russian war aims were clearly much more than simply securing the break away areas, or even taking the entire oblast areas still under Ukrainian control. The Russia war effort clearly attempted to decapitate Ukraine and the stated goal is still to destroy it as a political and cultural entity. That isn't consistent with Minsk being the final word on the subject pre war.

 

2 hours ago, ex2cav said:

Though I don't know if Russia will take all lost territory. I keep hearing runors of a gigantic Russian offensive, but it is getting late in the year. If I hazard a guess, if the Russians do advance, they will primarily seek to destroy Ukrainian miltary power east of the Dnipro to force a decision. 

Something drastic would have to change for Russia to take significant territory, IMO. The only thing keeping their head above water right now is the extensive defenses and mine fields.

Posted
2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Aw man, it's a bad week for NATO.

 

 

The jokers keep having fun: 

 

Russian media reports that the Russian Army has managed to shoot down a Ukrainian Storm Shadow missile, killing the British crew.

 

Here is a leaked photo of British Storm Shadow crew clambering into their missiles to guide them on target.

 

 

F68-Rl-LEW8-AAM-L8.jpg

 

 

 

Posted
16 minutes ago, Markus Becker said:

The West is getting the message about a year later. 

 You can overcome an enemy (locally) if you are prepared to sacrifice your soldiers . What happens when you run out of soldiers (strategically) before the enemy run out of ammo?

Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, JWB said:

 

Gasp!  'The Russian army has started using obsolete weapons from the 1960s and 70s.'. You mean really old  stuff like mines? They won't last long if they depend on  minefields. I remember months ago the Ukrainians posted films showing how easily the recently acquired war-winning game-changing western wunder-waffen  could easily breach minefields and remove the  even more obsolete dragons teeth obstacles. 

 

IwIioU.jpg

 

Next they will be telling us they  are forced to use shovels to defend themselves.......................

Edited by mkenny
Posted
10 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Oh, now you are claiming the mantle of Tankets Nostradamus.

The fangs out hair on fire crowd always argues for war, then blames everyone but themselves when their wars go pear shaped.  

Posted
4 hours ago, ex2cav said:

Ukraine should have accepted the Minsk accord(s), and provided limited autonomy to the break-away areas.

I would have given up the territories conquered by Russia in 2014/2015 and redrawn the Ukrainian-Russian border. Then Ukraine would be conflict-free and could have become a member of the EU or NATO. But that was absolutely not politically feasible in Ukraine.

The Minsk Agreement was already dictated by Russia because the West felt disturbed when doing business with Russia and wanted peace at any price. However, the so-called limited autonomy to the break-away areas would have brought nothing to Ukraine except a constant dictate from Moscow. In the long term, Ukraine would have become a willless subject of Russia.

Btw. By referring to the extremely solid defensive line, I meant that Russia has apparently recognized that this is the maximum achievable extent of the conquered areas. That wasn't the goal of the war, but it was better than nothing.

Posted
4 hours ago, ex2cav said:

I think you and Glenn are both correct. Ukraine should have accepted the Minsk accord(s), and provided limited autonomy to the break-away areas. The Ukrainians would have been able to join the EU, or EU like benefits, and agreed to not join Nato or host Nato forces in their country. 

Appeasing Putin was a tasteless job.  Nonetheless, it should have been done.  Had Ukraine agreed to all Russian demands in 2021 (Minsk accords, neutrality, recognize Crimea as Russian),  it would have avoided this war altogether and something like 200,000 dead Ukrainian kids would still be alive today.  Had Russia for some reason still attacked, then the Ukrainians would have had greater sympathy in the West and Global South.   There was no reason for Zelensky to take the confrontational path save one thing - he overrated his chances. 

Quote

Though I don't know if Russia will take all lost territory. I keep hearing runors of a gigantic Russian offensive, but it is getting late in the year. If I hazard a guess, if the Russians do advance, they will primarily seek to destroy Ukrainian miltary power east of the Dnipro to force a decision. 

Agreed.  I doubt the Russians will attack in large strength until they are in a position for a knockout blow.  For that to be the case, they need to ramp up their drone and anti-HIMARS game a few notches, and get enough forces deployed that they can collapse the Ukrainian army across a very wide front. 

Posted
12 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

Btw. By referring to the extremely solid defensive line, I meant that Russia has apparently recognized that this is the maximum achievable extent of the conquered areas. That wasn't the goal of the war, but it was better than nothing.

I think the Russian fortification lines have nothing to do with the ultimate Russian territorial objectives in Ukraine.  They are strictly opportunistic and tactical in nature, built against the current (and future) Ukrainian offensives, after which the Russians will start to advance again.

Posted
58 minutes ago, Josh said:

Can we not post ridiculously long twitter threads in the future? 

Or just make Anton Gerashchenko a member to save the repeated  wholesale 'cut and paste' of his  rambling screeds on Titter(sic)/X

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...