Kiev Is Burning

[glenn239]

4 hours ago, DB said:

Russia, redefining "short victorious war" since 24 Feb 2022.

Let's see who eventually loses the war, and how badly they do so in the end, then we can decide whether anyone at that point cares about how many days it took.

 

[glenn239]

1 hour ago, Perun said:

Looking at this maps it seams that there are no offensive from any side. One side take few hills on one place and other side take few hills on other place. Nobreal gains only localy tactic ones.

The pattern of your maps and arrows is that when the Ukrainians advance, the Russians then advance on the flanks of the Ukrainian advance in order to create a cul de sac.

[txtree99]

Key Takeaways:

Ukrainian forces continued offensive operations near Bakhmut and in western Zaporizhia Oblast on September 28.

Russian forces have reduced the tempo of their localized offensive operations on the Kupyansk-Svatove-Kreminna line in recent days.

Russian aviation is increasingly active in Kharkiv, Luhansk, and Kherson oblasts and apparently less active in areas of western Zaporizhia Oblast where Ukrainian forces are conducting counteroffensive operations.

Russian forces conducted a series of drone strikes against Ukraine on the night of September 27 to 28.

Several Russian milbloggers claimed that they self-censor the majority of their reporting amidst an apparent wider self-censorship in Russian reporting about the tactical realities on certain sectors of the front.

The Russian State Duma adopted a bill in its first reading that criminalizes promoting and justifying extremism, likely to encourage self-censorship in the Russian information space.

Russian President Vladimir Putin signaled his support for Chechen Republic Head Ramzan Kadyrov during a meeting on September 28 amid continued speculations about Kadyrov’s health and public backlash against the recent behavior of Kadyrov’s son.

The Russian information space continued to criticize Armenian leadership and lament Russia’s perceived decreased influence in Armenia.

Russian forces conducted offensive operations on the Kupyansk-Svatove-Kreminna line, near Bakhmut, along the Avdiivka-Donetsk City line, in the Donetsk-Zaporizhia Oblast border area, and in western Zaporizhia Oblast and did not make confirmed gains.

Russian sources stated that the Russian Aerospace (VKS) Forces received a new batch of fifth-generation Su-57 stealth fighter and fourth-generation Su-35S air defense fighter aircraft on September 28.

Ukrainian Mariupol Mayoral Advisor Petro Andryushchenko stated on September 28 that Ukrainian partisans set fire to a Russian military facility in occupied Yalta, Donetsk Oblast (21km southwest of Mariupol)

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-september-28-2023

[ex2cav]

On 9/27/2023 at 5:24 PM, crazyinsane105 said:

Getting back to topic…

Past few days, there has been very little movement on either side. Heavy fighting but no territorial changes.

Also, talk of Ukrainians going through first Russian line of defense….there is a difference between a breach and a breakthrough. They have sent some units across including some vehicles, but as of now are holding off on an actual armored thrust. Issue is that the area the Ukrainians control is too narrow for a successful armored thrust to take place (meaning, Russian helicopters and ATGM crews will have a field day picking off vehicle after vehicle). Instead the Ukrainians are simply sending in smaller squads of men through certain areas, which makes progress excruciatingly slow, but don’t see any other choice given Russian defenses. 
 

Doesn’t seem like the Russians are trying to do much in the east either. 
 

If there isn’t much territorial changes by the time rains come in, war will have reached stalemate for much of the year it seems. 

2025 year of decision?

I don't know for sure, but it seems the Ukies aren't close to a breakthrough. They have made limited headway in one area, but it seems that will not turn into an operational breakthrough. The Russians will be able to contain them. 

"The rains are approaching". Well the Russians could attempt an offensive before everything gets bogged down and the Ukie's reserves are drained. However, I take it the Russians have decided to play a very long game, as has been discussed here, to drain the Ukrainian manpower and waste the country. I will go out on a limb and predict the Russian army will continue to build forces through the winter in preparation for a spring-summer offensive. At least they should, letting the war drag on without going onto the offensive to force a decision is more risky in my look at it. I think much of the rah--rah for the war has died down a bit in the west which lends itself to the Russian position.

To look after the war, it seems a new east vs west has arisen. If not an arms race, then at least larger armies and increased suspicion.

[Strannik]

31 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

Let's see who eventually loses the war, and how badly they do so in the end, then we can decide whether anyone at that point cares about how many days it took.

 

True that SVO it is not and the miscalculations (as to what it takes to achieve the goals) were tremendous, but the end result still likely be catastrophic or Pyrrhic at least. 

We will see for whom and to what extent it would apply in the end.

Edited September 29, 2023 by Strannik

[ex2cav]

On 9/27/2023 at 10:41 AM, Stuart Galbraith said:

Once again, the point you don't seem to grasp is that is Ukraines choice, not yours.

It was different with China, the casualties were purely down to Stalin who didn't allow the war to stop.

Nice conflation of two entirely  different situations though.

It is partially Ukraine's choice. The USA has the final say for Ukraine whether the war continues or negotiation happens:

https://www.newsweek.com/america-pay-salaries-ukrainians-government-shutdown-1829505#:~:text=U.S. taxpayers will pay the,for Ukraine since Russia's invasion.

https://www.usaid.gov/news-information/press-releases/jul-19-2023-united-states-announces-additional-230-million-investment-ukraines-economy-and-reconstruction

It appears the US are supporting the government of Ukraine with munitions, training, equipment, government salaries, economic aid, and who knows what else. Without the international aid, I don't think there would be a country of Ukraine. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Except, it doesn't. America can only choose to support Ukraine, or not, if it continues fighting. Ukraine could have surrendered in February 2022, and there would have been nothing the US could do about it.

It's a fairly banal criticism you will hopefully pardon my pointing out. There wouldn't be a UK without American weapons supplied in 1940. Does that make our decision to fight on any less of an internal choice? Why does nobody apply this logic to the Soviet Union?

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

[TrustMe]

Ukraine defaulted on it's international debt over a year ago. It is effectively bankrupt without foreign aid.

[seahawk]

Time for the anti-Ukrainian side to surrender. There is no hope.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Yes, to the camps with them.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, TrustMe said:

Ukraine defaulted on it's international debt over a year ago. It is effectively bankrupt without foreign aid.

We were bankrupt in 1945. It still didn't mean we were denied our own decision making, then, or some 50 years later when we finally paid it off.

[Markus Becker]

27 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

We were bankrupt in 1945. It still didn't mean we were denied our own decision making, then, or some 50 years later when we finally paid it off.

Different situation. Your reserves of hard currency might have been gone but your industry and infrastructure were intact, so once the war ended the situation normalized. 

Ukraine is still in the war and their economy is hit way worse than yours was. They have no way of paying as long as the grain blockade isn't lifted. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Sure, if you overlook the bomb damaged factories that dated from the industrial revolution, and the canals and steam locomotives that hauled all our resources. We were even having to export our best coal to the US to pay off our debt.

Looked at another way, west Germany that was hit a lot harder, re-emerged in 10 years with an independent foreign policy that often caught the US out over the next 30 years.

In short the narrative that because the Ukrainians are dependent  upon the US, must also be subservient doesn't make sense. Its certainly not borne out by history.

[txtree99]

 

[mkenny]

5 hours ago, ex2cav said:

 

To look after the war, it seems a new east vs west has arisen. If not an arms race, then at least larger armies and increased suspicion.

The positive side is all those predicting a swift Russian collapse have had to abandon their dreams.  It seems NATO is fairly successful when hunting down small groups of ill-equipped  camel-herders, farmers and wedding parties but found wanting when the enemy has a comparable military. 

 

[Josh]

4 minutes ago, mkenny said:

The positive side is all those predicting a swift Russian collapse have had to abandon their dreams.  It seems NATO is fairly successful when hunting down small groups of ill-equipped  camel-herders, farmers and wedding parties but found wanting when the enemy has a comparable military. 

 

NATO isn’t in the fight. It’s equipment from a generation ago is.

[glenn239]

5 hours ago, Strannik said:

True that SVO it is not and the miscalculations (as to what it takes to achieve the goals) were tremendous, but the end result still likely be catastrophic or Pyrrhic at least. 

We will see for whom and to what extent it would apply in the end.

Stuart posted the idea last week that China was wrong to be in Korea past a level of casualties of about 1 in every 500 people in the Chinese population.  Discarding all the 'yabuts', applying that yardstick to Ukraine, it means the Ukrainian casualty 'budget' was about 80,000 while the Russian 'budget' is about 290,000 casualties.  Exceed your budget, then increasingly your war is pyrrhic.  Badly exceed it, it becomes catastrophic.

At this time I think Russian casualites, (dead and seriously wounded) might be something around 80,000.  Ukraine's might be  more about 400,000.  So Russia has expended maybe 25% of its 'budget' while Ukraine is at about 500% more than its budget.  So by Stuart's measure, Ukraine's war is already in 'catastrophic' territory while Russia's is well within tolerances to emerge stronger than they were going in.

 

 

[Strannik]

12 minutes ago, Josh said:

NATO isn’t in the fight. It’s equipment from a generation ago is.

Provides:

- almost all intelligence

- almost all weapons

- training

- chooses targets

but "not in the fight"

[txtree99]

No proof on your numbers at all, just your speculation 

 

[Josh]

12 minutes ago, Strannik said:

Provides:

- almost all intelligence

- almost all weapons

- training

- chooses targets

but "not in the fight"

Yes, much like the Soviets in Korea or Vietnam (although there were in fact fighter pilots and some SAM operators in those cases). But my point was less about culpability and more about the fact that the war is not at all representative of what a conventional Russia-NATO war would look like.

[Markus Becker]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Sure, if you overlook the bomb damaged factories that dated from the industrial revolution, and the canals and steam locomotives that hauled all our resources. We were even having to export our best coal to the US to pay off our debt.

Looked at another way, west Germany that was hit a lot harder, re-emerged in 10 years with an independent foreign policy that often caught the US out over the next 30 years.

At least you had something to export and could export.

You guys were doing the (socialist) planning and rationing thing for quite some time after the war. We did the opposite despite strong opposition and it paid off quickly. 

[mkenny]

57 minutes ago, Josh said:

NATO isn’t in the fight. 

Of course its not. Heaven that it could even be mentioned..........................

[mkenny]

32 minutes ago, Josh said:

...................... the war is not at all representative of what a conventional Russia-NATO war would look like.

That is the current 'revised' position.  At the start it was confidently predicted that the NATO trained and equipped client Army would sweep the Russians from the battlefield with its  unstoppable superior  mindset, elan and equipment. Am I the only one who can remember the spring  'Ssshhhhhh.....' videos where all the 'war-winning game changing western wunder-waffen'   were showcased one-after the other to strike terror into the hearts of the transfixed Russians soldiers who, we were told, were absolutely terrified of the coming storm. Raw untrained shovel-wielding conscripts  who would immediately bolt and run at the first sight of the returning panzers.  It really is hard to understand how wrong NATO 'intelligence' got it and how they completely underestimated the power of the Russian Army.

The current   'war-winning game changing western wunder-waffen'  is the 'F16' and the clamour for its introduction will contrast mightily with the silence when it too finds out  that Russia in nowhere near out of missiles....................

[urbanoid]

You invented a scenario and now you're arguing with it. Have fun.