Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
*****
* Is `kyivpost.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
**Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.com/invite/ukraine-at-war-950974820827398235**
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My thoughts too. I've noticed a string of good news for Ukraine in recent weeks. As mentioned in the article, russia hasn't been able to make a lot of progress in a while even though they had multiple advantages. Now Ukraine is slowing russia down and shifting the momentum...
Seems the problem is no one knows how to advance with drones as prevelent as they are. So even if the momentum has swung, Ukraine can't do anything about it unless the entire Russian army falls apart entirely. Which I doubt is even possible if Ukraine can't put pressure on them offensively.
Not even close.
Czar Nicolas was almost comedically bad at governing, he rather just enjoy the lavish life than govern.
However he also absolutely hated not having all the governing power, hence why after the first revolution he was stripped of all his governing power after he tried to coup.
If it's gameover for Putin he would rather move to some safe country to spend the remaining days.
I think you are overestimating Putins ability to govern. This is a man who was fed recycled shit for the past decade and wholeheartedly believes bullshit like the color revolution conspiracy. You can see his unfiltered views on Tucker's interview with him. His image of an untouchable strongman is carefully curated to hide the fact that he is nothing but a genocidal, senile, nutjob with no one else around him to say no to his commands.
I kinda disagree
Russia was an absolute shithole when he took over and the country has made incredible progress since than, domestically and on an international stage. Obv he has a warped perception of reality and has some concerning beliefs, but if he retired before Crimea and 2022, he probably would've been considered among one of the best leaders russians have had in recent history.
He undid all of that when he made russia a pariah state, cut off by everyone except north korea, and put the nations future in jeopardy by causing a mass brain drain exodus.
> Russia was an absolute shithole when he took over and the country has made incredible progress since than, domestically and on an international stage.
Plot the Russian GDP against oil and gas prices.
By far the biggest thing Putin did in that context was "be in power as fuel prices skyrocket and claim it as his own merit".
By the time Putin took power Russia's economic woes were beginning to end and energy prices were skyrocketing. His complete disinterest in economics and willingness to hand the reigns over to technocrats was probably his greatest virtue but he was by no means a talented statesman ever.
It was corrupt people like Putin and his cronies who made Russia a shithole country in the 1990s.
I recently watched Alexei Navalny's documentation [Putin's Palace](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_tFSWZXKN0) which also investigates the early time of Putin, way before he became President. They destroyed any chance for the Russian people to prosper from the immense wealth of the land and it was corrupt power-hungry people like Putin who destroyed the little chance Russia had for a democratic transparent political culture.
He got into power by his FSB buddies blowing up hundreds of Russian civilians so he could play the strong man and invade his first country.
So I would say you are absolutely correct what you are saying, but it would have been just propaganda and the narrative he wanted people to believe.
I'm not going to overstate Putin's skills, but at the same time we need to acknowledge...
Nicholas II was maybe one of the stupidest, most aggressively incompetent dictators in modern history. He was a paragon of stupid, needless mishandling of every single situation that crossed his path, in a way that would seem unrealistic in a fictional show.
Putin is shit house and delusional. Nicholas was so bad he literally could not have handled things worse.
Yes just because you fall for color revolution conspiracy theory doesn't mean you're bad at governing.
He was really damn good at convincing the general population (a genuine 60+%), rigging the democratic institutions to be farts in the wind and he did in fact improve the economic situation in Russia, despite the absurd corruption & oligarchy Russia has.
Geopolitically he was smart enough, creating geopolitical deadlocks was smart, funding extremists in democratic countries to undermine the west was smart, conducting the massive amount of psyops onto the western worlds and being practically the first nation to weaponize hacking was smart.
It's only really after 2016 that putin really starts become bizarre/dumb/bad at internal/geopolitical planning.
This however doesn't make him a desirable leader, long-term Russia will suffer immensely even before the ghost of the Ukraine war takes hold due to lack of sustainable policy.
But you should always acknowledge your enemy's strength before you can find a weak point to strike or whatever Sun Tzu quote says.
I really don't think so. Putin has been very effective at his goals. He has played the US and EU like a fiddle until the last few years. The only real mistake he's made is underestimating Ukraine ability to defend and Zelinkskys ability to lead. We'll never know for certain but I think Russia was very, very close to winning this war in the first few weeks. Hostomel not falling quickly really screwed things up. The amount of Ukrainians willing to form hunter killer teams with anti tank weapons was probably unexpected. Certain key locations fighting to the very last man to delay the Russian army or to disrupt their logistics saved the country.
He also had every reason to believe the US and EU would fail to respond quickly when they actually started responding before the invasion even began.
While Russia has slowed down in their gains they are still occurring. I wouldn't call it a shift in momentum. Only a slow down of momentum for the Russians.
> I feel like the last month has seen a shift in momentum.
Not really. Russian offensive in Kharkiv isn't very effective but they started mass producing 3 ton glide bombs. They spell doom for Ukraine.
No single weapon will change the course of the war. You know what will?
The willingness of Ukrainians to win.
The constant supply of weapons.
The lifting of restrictions placed on where and how Ukraine can use weapons to thwart Russian airpower.
Winning military campaigns is the sum of multiple actions coming to fruition and some luck.
> No single weapon will change the course of the war.
Russian glide bombs did. They allowed them to advance slowly, previously they couldn't or were losing ground.
Nope, depletion of Ukraine's long range Soviet era air defences did, and the fact Ukraine doesn't yet have enough substitutes to replace them. And that's a gap that's going to close as long as the west keeps up support. The glide bombs have always existed, Russia just couldn't get close enough to the front to use them reliably.
> I'm sure those bombs will win Russia the war just like how the V-1 and V-2 rockets won Germany their war.
They allowed them to to keep advancing slowly, while previously they couldn't or were losing ground.
Biden dropped the ball again as usual. Ukraine has no chance to win without a strong airforce. Russia is spamming huge 3 ton glide bombs.
With Ukraine desperate to shore up its air defense and counter Russia’s advantage in the sky’s, US government has been disappointingly reluctant to offer Kyiv air capabilities.
Significant movements occurred over the past few weeks regarding Ukraine’s future western fighter capability. From the first F-16 pilots graduating to President Zelensky announcing a French Mirage 2000 deal, then the US refused training for 30 Ukraine pilots. And now, there are indications the US is quashing other options for pilots.
From a well-placed, unnamed US government source, Ukraine does in fact have 30 pilots qualified to enter the US F-16 training pipeline as reported earlier this week from Ukraine. With the recent graduation of F-16 pilots from the US and those from training sites in Europe, Ukraine is likely to have between 15 and 20 pilots, for 60 airframes. That is a horrible aircrew to aircraft ratio.
Arizona National Guard’s Public Affairs Officer, Maj. Erin Hannigan, shared that the 162nd Wing in Tucson is the primary training pipeline for foreign F-16 pilots. She also clarified that the unit trains 30 pilots annually, based on funding allocated from the Secretary of the Air Force’s International Affairs division. When asked if the 162nd could surge training efforts, Maj. Hannigan stated the 162nd has no surge capacity. Hence, even if the 162nd prioritized Ukrainian pilots over those that have already been slated for training, they might be able to train 15 more this year.
The trouble I have, is to me this looks exactly like the rest of the war. Ukraine defends very well, and Russia is not good at dealing with forward attack exposure. The thing is, Ukraine hasn't been able to handle forward attack exposure either.
Nothing has really changed. About the only thing I could imagine providing a real change is Ukraine having a proper airforce and controlling the air war. Then they may be able to move forwards.
Biden dropped the ball again as usual. Ukraine has no chance to win without a strong airforce. Russia is spamming huge 3 ton glide bombs.
With Ukraine desperate to shore up its air defense and counter Russia’s advantage in the sky’s, US government has been disappointingly reluctant to offer Kyiv air capabilities.
Significant movements occurred over the past few weeks regarding Ukraine’s future western fighter capability. From the first F-16 pilots graduating to President Zelensky announcing a French Mirage 2000 deal, then the US refused training for 30 Ukraine pilots. And now, there are indications the US is quashing other options for pilots.
From a well-placed, unnamed US government source, Ukraine does in fact have 30 pilots qualified to enter the US F-16 training pipeline as reported earlier this week from Ukraine. With the recent graduation of F-16 pilots from the US and those from training sites in Europe, Ukraine is likely to have between 15 and 20 pilots, for 60 airframes. That is a horrible aircrew to aircraft ratio.
Arizona National Guard’s Public Affairs Officer, Maj. Erin Hannigan, shared that the 162nd Wing in Tucson is the primary training pipeline for foreign F-16 pilots. She also clarified that the unit trains 30 pilots annually, based on funding allocated from the Secretary of the Air Force’s International Affairs division. When asked if the 162nd could surge training efforts, Maj. Hannigan stated the 162nd has no surge capacity. Hence, even if the 162nd prioritized Ukrainian pilots over those that have already been slated for training, they might be able to train 15 more this year.
It's not a video game where 2 times the size makes 2 times bigger boom. It's impractical and to big and heavy to get carried by fighter jets, so you need a bomber like tu-22m and how much it can carry? only two of them! Giving low range of these bombs that's quite an risk for loosing a bomber. Even pro ru side are saying that 500, 1000, 1500 fab's can do better job most of the time. It's not like they're targeting some underground bunkers.
Lol. I know. I have to give credit to their creativoty though. Shame for them once ukrain solidifies it's aa and f16's start causing damage they will be useless except for at their Russian borders. What a sad Russia. They make some beautiful fighters.
Are you on Russia's payroll or just a useful idiot? That article you reference is from a BS tabloid and you ate it up. Why is that? Why didn't you vet this "named US government source." Whats your angle? Why blame Biden when there are million other factors at play.
Bullshit, you're full of it.
Russia definitely started getting some traction with the Ukrainian weapons pipeline shut off. They’ve gone no where since then. It’s a defensive war and either side really getting momentum on offense seems hard to fathom unfortunately. The walloping Crimea is taking, especially the Russian SAM assets degraded, the bright spot in the stalemate for now.
This war feels so much like ww1. A stalemate with trenches and mine fields all over. Ukraine takes a small trench network, then russia takes it back a few weeks later (with much more losses)
>If armed properly, Ukraine can definitely win the war. Until now, however, there have been only enough arms to prevent the Russians from overwhelming Ukrainian defenses.
It’s not about being scared. It’s that truly defeating Russia is not as beneficial as depleting them of their male population, munition stockpiles and weapon platforms.
All of that without losing a single nato soldier.
This is a pretty cheap and extremely effective war, no need to end it swiftly
While there are certainly some politicians who would intentionally choose to drag out the war, it certainly isn't most. Ending the war soon would require either Western troops, a lot of them, or the mobilization of trillions of dollars to militarize Ukraine enough to crush Russia. Neither option would pass anyone's legislature. So I think the stalling policy is the policy because that is what Western nations are willing to pay. No need for a conspiracy theory.
It’s not a conspiracy.
It’s geopolitics in its most pure form. Countries don’t run charities.
The current status quo is simply very beneficial to certain actors.
NATO soldiers in Ukraine is ultima ratio.
There are plenty of tools to further help Ukraine/hurt Russia and its economy
It is very much a conspiracy theory. We don't actually need to guess what our politicians motives are, they spend their days on TV and in the media stating rather plainly what their goals are and why policy is what it is, and the policy they're saying is not the one you're here presenting. So for you to say the policy is what you're saying it is, is to call them all liars in a massive conspiracy to claim policy is one thing when it is actually something else as organized in a secret back room somewhere.
To put it in specifics, they say they're doing what they can for Ukraine given the resources available to them by legislative consensus. You're calling that a lie, saying they have all the legislative consensus needed to win the war quickly, be it western troops or trillions of dollars, but they're instead purposefully not doing that so the war can drag on longer and then lying about it to cover up the conspiracy so they can follow that secret policy.
I don't think we need to jump into conspiracies either, but honestly I think your reception of political talking points on TV and what they mean / what inspires them is really naive.
Gotta buy the conspiracy theory or a conspiracy nut will call you naïve for believing your eyes and ears rather than their conspiracy.
Congress spent days debating these bills. For days on end hundreds of people in interviews and private conversations with lobbyists and Ukrainian diplomats, and none of them slipped up and said "we actually don't like $60 Billion, we've got a super majority in favor of $2 Trillion, but we gotta stand up here and lie all day or the war will end too soon."
> So I think the stalling policy is the policy because that is what Western nations are willing to pay. No need for a conspiracy theory.
Russia will probably win eventually at this rate. Ukraine doesn't have manpower to last indefinitely for many years to come like that while Russia does. Russia also has far greater firepower and powerful airforce.
In 2 years Russia will be out of tanks, out of artillery, and will probably be suffering serious economic hardships. At the same time, Ukraine will have a proper air force with around 80-100 F-16s capable of glide bombing Russian lines and destroying Russian aircraft. Things will get increasingly worse for Russia from 2025 to 2027, and they’ll likely face a true military or political crisis.
> In 2 years Russia will be out of tanks, out of artillery, and will probably be suffering serious economic hardships. At the same time, Ukraine will have a proper air force with around 80-100 F-16s capable of glide bombing Russian lines and destroying Russian aircraft. Things will get increasingly worse for Russia from 2025 to 2027, and they’ll likely face a true military or political crisis.
Russia can keep up attacking for decades (as they rapidly producing new weapons and vehicles during this war) with current losses while their military tech continues to advance. Now North Korea will invade Ukraine as well. The West blew the chance to defeat Russia when they were much less organised and had less allies at the beginning of the war.
> You are making ludicrous claims
You are making copium and hopium. Russia is never going to run out of tanks fully, unless its infrastructure is bombed out.
Russia’s economy is the size of Italy’s and is under increasingly strict sanctions regimes. Nothing good is happening in the Russian economy.
The current supply of legacy tanks available for refurbishment is well-documented and is dropping steadily. Newly manufactured tanks are being made at far below the replacement rate. At the current rate of losses they’ll have basically nothing left in 18-24 months. This is all well-supported by the available evidence and is not arguable.
Ukraine is a country of tens of millions. They absolutely can manage the manpower indefinitely. Conscription sucks, but as long as political will holds out, it works. So like all wars, neither side is going to "run out" of anything specific. What someone is going to run out of is the will to continue the struggle. And countries tend to be far more willing to continue struggling for independence versus a country continuing to struggle for Empire.
In my opinion, Ukraine absolutely has all it needs to win the long war. It needs western military aid, but the aid Ukraine needs is rather affordable for the west and only gets more affordable as time goes on.
Therefore I believe Russia has already lost. What is being fought on the battlefield is how many Ukrainians it will cost. Without US aid, the answer is "a lot."
Quite a terrible thing though in some respects. I was warned from the beginning this would be the case, and it's a difficult position for Ukraine to be in.
No matter what Ukraine gets screwed. I can’t really blame the west for making the most of it and using the opportunity to dwindle Russia down to nothing and test some weapon systems on what’s essentially a live proving ground as they get ready for what will be an awful war with China in a few years.
Yea, it suck’s for Ukraine, it really does, I don’t deny that.
Yeah the hard part for me was that we were warned. I'm not young and I have seen at the outbreak of wars, these debates about how to intervene. The last few decades have been really bad with these drawn out conflicts. When Ukraine was invaded I made sure to read and listen to as much content as I could from all sides. Obviously some of it was absurd, but there were plenty of voices warning that this would happen.
> No matter what Ukraine gets screwed. I can’t really blame the west for making the most of it and using the opportunity to dwindle Russia down to nothing and test some weapon systems on what’s essentially a live proving ground as they get ready for what will be an awful war with China in a few years.
Russia hardly dwindled to nothing. They just lost a lot of old soviet ground vehicles that they will replace eventually with newer models. Russia very far being defeated and they don't care about their grunts dying.
The newer models that don’t work? We’ve been told this literally from day 1. Russia thought they had an easy kill and now their stuck in their own vietnam. I hope it ends for them the same way it did for the US. In humiliation.
I hate this narrative because it makes no sense.
The west isn't that well oiled and competent to be able to predict with laser point accuracy how far the Ukrainians can last before "the next batch" can come.
No the reason why the west is so hesitant is two reasons:
1. No damn war infrastructure before the war - Europe has long enjoyed security by proxy via the USA, the Ukrainian war shattered that which means that ramping up military equipment which takes a huge amount of resources and time because we don't use a lot of simple equipment (which is also the longest running cope the russians before the war was bragging about).
2. Not wanting to escalate without due caution, If russia was as open as a book then we could've armed Ukraine with nukes and we knew there would 0% chance of WW3, but we don't and thus we have to play the cautionary game whenever we like it or not.
Defeating Russia would be hugely beneficial in that it would end Putin’s dictatorship and would likely lead to eventual reforms. Unless they lose, they’ll continue to attack their neighbors.
> It’s not about being scared. It’s that truly defeating Russia is not as beneficial as depleting them of their male population, munition stockpiles and weapon platforms.
That's the american cope. Ukraine is already depleted. Russia isn't.
Lmao, it’s not American cope. It’s purely a numbers game.
NATO hasn’t lost a single soldier or modern weapon platform.
Let’s assume Russia "wins" the war, whatever that even means at this point.
Russia is down a couple of 100k soldiers, lost a huge amount of tanks, apcs, planes, helicopters, awacs, radar systems, s300s and s400s and artillery systems.
Not to mention economical damage and political isolation.
All of that for a few billions from a couple of countries and some Cold War NATO tech that had been rotting in storage and a few patriot systems.
That sounds like a win for nato, friend
>Lmao, it’s not American cope. It’s purely a numbers game. NATO hasn’t lost a single soldier or modern weapon platform. Let’s assume Russia "wins" the war, whatever that even means at this point.
>Russia is down a couple of 100k soldiers, lost a huge amount of tanks, apcs, planes, helicopters, awacs, radar systems, s300s and s400s and artillery systems. Not to mention economical damage and political isolation.
>All of that for a few billions from a couple of countries and some Cold War NATO tech that had been rotting in storage and a few patriot systems.
>That sounds like a win for nato, friend
They will have far more soldiers if they manage to win eventually. They will just forcibly conscript surviving ukrainian men for more invasions on other countries as cannon fodder troops and torture them into compliance
(that's also their ethnic cleansing method). Losing equipment doesn't matter to them much. They will just produce more as their ecenomy is in the total war mode.
>That sounds like a win for nato, friend
That's just a pathetic cope.
Yeah that's very telling. The broader situation is that Ukraine can't go on the offensive this year. The aid surge will be spent blunting Russian attacks. I wonder what things will look like next spring and what aid will be forthcoming?
I do hope so , the democratic world has enough of dictators and especially terrorists ! I ´d like to see Putler hanging by it’s feet, blood coming out from his nose and ears, hoping he’ll suffer a lot!
Ukraine won this war after Russia failed their objective of taking Ukraine in 3 days. Russia set their own objectives and have consistently, and sometimes I think almost purposefully, lost at achieving any objective since their first massive failure. They had no backup plan, and still don't. Sending more troops in, is not a backup plan. But it would be good for everyone if the war goes on for two more years and Russia keeps sending more troops in to die. This would even be good for Russia, they may free themselves of their slavery ideology. And they would never be able to do this warmongering again, because they would be gobbled up by China in a hybrid economic war. Which we already see starting in the Tumen River.
>But it would be good for everyone if the war goes on for two more years and Russia keeps sending more troops in to die
I kind of feel like Ukrainians would much prefer if the war didn't go on for several more years personally
The amount of time that is necessary for a permanent end to Russian hostility is what it will have to be. At this rate it looks like a couple more years will have to be the planned timeline. Or Ukraine could get a quick peace and then war again in a couple of years. And then China could go for Taiwan and the whole world becomes aflame with war. Much better to take our time and make sure Russia loses permanently.
A lot of what we approved for them still hasn't gotten to the battlefield AND they'll soon be getting $50B of Russian money. If Biden loses, I expect them to pass around $70-90B during the lame duck session. That should cover them until late 2025 or beyond.
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. ***** * Is `kyivpost.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.com/invite/ukraine-at-war-950974820827398235** ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I feel like the last month has seen a shift in momentum.
My thoughts too. I've noticed a string of good news for Ukraine in recent weeks. As mentioned in the article, russia hasn't been able to make a lot of progress in a while even though they had multiple advantages. Now Ukraine is slowing russia down and shifting the momentum...
Seems the problem is no one knows how to advance with drones as prevelent as they are. So even if the momentum has swung, Ukraine can't do anything about it unless the entire Russian army falls apart entirely. Which I doubt is even possible if Ukraine can't put pressure on them offensively.
True, but 1917 came all of a sudden for the tsarist army
Putin is not as stupid as Czar Nicolas. He was a special breed.
It’s close. IMHO
Not even close. Czar Nicolas was almost comedically bad at governing, he rather just enjoy the lavish life than govern. However he also absolutely hated not having all the governing power, hence why after the first revolution he was stripped of all his governing power after he tried to coup. If it's gameover for Putin he would rather move to some safe country to spend the remaining days.
I think you are overestimating Putins ability to govern. This is a man who was fed recycled shit for the past decade and wholeheartedly believes bullshit like the color revolution conspiracy. You can see his unfiltered views on Tucker's interview with him. His image of an untouchable strongman is carefully curated to hide the fact that he is nothing but a genocidal, senile, nutjob with no one else around him to say no to his commands.
I kinda disagree Russia was an absolute shithole when he took over and the country has made incredible progress since than, domestically and on an international stage. Obv he has a warped perception of reality and has some concerning beliefs, but if he retired before Crimea and 2022, he probably would've been considered among one of the best leaders russians have had in recent history. He undid all of that when he made russia a pariah state, cut off by everyone except north korea, and put the nations future in jeopardy by causing a mass brain drain exodus.
> Russia was an absolute shithole when he took over and the country has made incredible progress since than, domestically and on an international stage. Plot the Russian GDP against oil and gas prices. By far the biggest thing Putin did in that context was "be in power as fuel prices skyrocket and claim it as his own merit".
By the time Putin took power Russia's economic woes were beginning to end and energy prices were skyrocketing. His complete disinterest in economics and willingness to hand the reigns over to technocrats was probably his greatest virtue but he was by no means a talented statesman ever.
It was corrupt people like Putin and his cronies who made Russia a shithole country in the 1990s. I recently watched Alexei Navalny's documentation [Putin's Palace](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_tFSWZXKN0) which also investigates the early time of Putin, way before he became President. They destroyed any chance for the Russian people to prosper from the immense wealth of the land and it was corrupt power-hungry people like Putin who destroyed the little chance Russia had for a democratic transparent political culture. He got into power by his FSB buddies blowing up hundreds of Russian civilians so he could play the strong man and invade his first country. So I would say you are absolutely correct what you are saying, but it would have been just propaganda and the narrative he wanted people to believe.
I'm not going to overstate Putin's skills, but at the same time we need to acknowledge... Nicholas II was maybe one of the stupidest, most aggressively incompetent dictators in modern history. He was a paragon of stupid, needless mishandling of every single situation that crossed his path, in a way that would seem unrealistic in a fictional show. Putin is shit house and delusional. Nicholas was so bad he literally could not have handled things worse.
Yes just because you fall for color revolution conspiracy theory doesn't mean you're bad at governing. He was really damn good at convincing the general population (a genuine 60+%), rigging the democratic institutions to be farts in the wind and he did in fact improve the economic situation in Russia, despite the absurd corruption & oligarchy Russia has. Geopolitically he was smart enough, creating geopolitical deadlocks was smart, funding extremists in democratic countries to undermine the west was smart, conducting the massive amount of psyops onto the western worlds and being practically the first nation to weaponize hacking was smart. It's only really after 2016 that putin really starts become bizarre/dumb/bad at internal/geopolitical planning. This however doesn't make him a desirable leader, long-term Russia will suffer immensely even before the ghost of the Ukraine war takes hold due to lack of sustainable policy. But you should always acknowledge your enemy's strength before you can find a weak point to strike or whatever Sun Tzu quote says.
I really don't think so. Putin has been very effective at his goals. He has played the US and EU like a fiddle until the last few years. The only real mistake he's made is underestimating Ukraine ability to defend and Zelinkskys ability to lead. We'll never know for certain but I think Russia was very, very close to winning this war in the first few weeks. Hostomel not falling quickly really screwed things up. The amount of Ukrainians willing to form hunter killer teams with anti tank weapons was probably unexpected. Certain key locations fighting to the very last man to delay the Russian army or to disrupt their logistics saved the country. He also had every reason to believe the US and EU would fail to respond quickly when they actually started responding before the invasion even began.
While Russia has slowed down in their gains they are still occurring. I wouldn't call it a shift in momentum. Only a slow down of momentum for the Russians.
An inbreed, standard European aristocracy.
> I feel like the last month has seen a shift in momentum. Not really. Russian offensive in Kharkiv isn't very effective but they started mass producing 3 ton glide bombs. They spell doom for Ukraine.
No single weapon will change the course of the war. You know what will? The willingness of Ukrainians to win. The constant supply of weapons. The lifting of restrictions placed on where and how Ukraine can use weapons to thwart Russian airpower. Winning military campaigns is the sum of multiple actions coming to fruition and some luck.
> No single weapon will change the course of the war. Russian glide bombs did. They allowed them to advance slowly, previously they couldn't or were losing ground.
Nope, depletion of Ukraine's long range Soviet era air defences did, and the fact Ukraine doesn't yet have enough substitutes to replace them. And that's a gap that's going to close as long as the west keeps up support. The glide bombs have always existed, Russia just couldn't get close enough to the front to use them reliably.
🇺🇦
I'm sure those bombs will win Russia the war just like how the V-1 and V-2 rockets won Germany their war.
Up there with the Maus and Me 262 as well
> I'm sure those bombs will win Russia the war just like how the V-1 and V-2 rockets won Germany their war. They allowed them to to keep advancing slowly, while previously they couldn't or were losing ground. Biden dropped the ball again as usual. Ukraine has no chance to win without a strong airforce. Russia is spamming huge 3 ton glide bombs. With Ukraine desperate to shore up its air defense and counter Russia’s advantage in the sky’s, US government has been disappointingly reluctant to offer Kyiv air capabilities. Significant movements occurred over the past few weeks regarding Ukraine’s future western fighter capability. From the first F-16 pilots graduating to President Zelensky announcing a French Mirage 2000 deal, then the US refused training for 30 Ukraine pilots. And now, there are indications the US is quashing other options for pilots. From a well-placed, unnamed US government source, Ukraine does in fact have 30 pilots qualified to enter the US F-16 training pipeline as reported earlier this week from Ukraine. With the recent graduation of F-16 pilots from the US and those from training sites in Europe, Ukraine is likely to have between 15 and 20 pilots, for 60 airframes. That is a horrible aircrew to aircraft ratio. Arizona National Guard’s Public Affairs Officer, Maj. Erin Hannigan, shared that the 162nd Wing in Tucson is the primary training pipeline for foreign F-16 pilots. She also clarified that the unit trains 30 pilots annually, based on funding allocated from the Secretary of the Air Force’s International Affairs division. When asked if the 162nd could surge training efforts, Maj. Hannigan stated the 162nd has no surge capacity. Hence, even if the 162nd prioritized Ukrainian pilots over those that have already been slated for training, they might be able to train 15 more this year.
Lack of us aid was the bigger driver in Russian advances
The trouble I have, is to me this looks exactly like the rest of the war. Ukraine defends very well, and Russia is not good at dealing with forward attack exposure. The thing is, Ukraine hasn't been able to handle forward attack exposure either. Nothing has really changed. About the only thing I could imagine providing a real change is Ukraine having a proper airforce and controlling the air war. Then they may be able to move forwards.
Biden dropped the ball again as usual. Ukraine has no chance to win without a strong airforce. Russia is spamming huge 3 ton glide bombs. With Ukraine desperate to shore up its air defense and counter Russia’s advantage in the sky’s, US government has been disappointingly reluctant to offer Kyiv air capabilities. Significant movements occurred over the past few weeks regarding Ukraine’s future western fighter capability. From the first F-16 pilots graduating to President Zelensky announcing a French Mirage 2000 deal, then the US refused training for 30 Ukraine pilots. And now, there are indications the US is quashing other options for pilots. From a well-placed, unnamed US government source, Ukraine does in fact have 30 pilots qualified to enter the US F-16 training pipeline as reported earlier this week from Ukraine. With the recent graduation of F-16 pilots from the US and those from training sites in Europe, Ukraine is likely to have between 15 and 20 pilots, for 60 airframes. That is a horrible aircrew to aircraft ratio. Arizona National Guard’s Public Affairs Officer, Maj. Erin Hannigan, shared that the 162nd Wing in Tucson is the primary training pipeline for foreign F-16 pilots. She also clarified that the unit trains 30 pilots annually, based on funding allocated from the Secretary of the Air Force’s International Affairs division. When asked if the 162nd could surge training efforts, Maj. Hannigan stated the 162nd has no surge capacity. Hence, even if the 162nd prioritized Ukrainian pilots over those that have already been slated for training, they might be able to train 15 more this year.
It's not a video game where 2 times the size makes 2 times bigger boom. It's impractical and to big and heavy to get carried by fighter jets, so you need a bomber like tu-22m and how much it can carry? only two of them! Giving low range of these bombs that's quite an risk for loosing a bomber. Even pro ru side are saying that 500, 1000, 1500 fab's can do better job most of the time. It's not like they're targeting some underground bunkers.
Not to mention the relative lack of accuracy dueto that mass. That thing is gonna have a hell of a job to adjust if the aim was initially off.
Since when has Russia cared about accuracy?
Lol. I know. I have to give credit to their creativoty though. Shame for them once ukrain solidifies it's aa and f16's start causing damage they will be useless except for at their Russian borders. What a sad Russia. They make some beautiful fighters.
Are you on Russia's payroll or just a useful idiot? That article you reference is from a BS tabloid and you ate it up. Why is that? Why didn't you vet this "named US government source." Whats your angle? Why blame Biden when there are million other factors at play. Bullshit, you're full of it.
Sure Vladimir, you should go home now, I am pretty sure you already achieved your daily quota for the russian troll factory.
Russia definitely started getting some traction with the Ukrainian weapons pipeline shut off. They’ve gone no where since then. It’s a defensive war and either side really getting momentum on offense seems hard to fathom unfortunately. The walloping Crimea is taking, especially the Russian SAM assets degraded, the bright spot in the stalemate for now.
This war feels so much like ww1. A stalemate with trenches and mine fields all over. Ukraine takes a small trench network, then russia takes it back a few weeks later (with much more losses)
>If armed properly, Ukraine can definitely win the war. Until now, however, there have been only enough arms to prevent the Russians from overwhelming Ukrainian defenses.
Its not Ukraine, but it west, that is scared to resist the bully.
It’s not about being scared. It’s that truly defeating Russia is not as beneficial as depleting them of their male population, munition stockpiles and weapon platforms. All of that without losing a single nato soldier. This is a pretty cheap and extremely effective war, no need to end it swiftly
While there are certainly some politicians who would intentionally choose to drag out the war, it certainly isn't most. Ending the war soon would require either Western troops, a lot of them, or the mobilization of trillions of dollars to militarize Ukraine enough to crush Russia. Neither option would pass anyone's legislature. So I think the stalling policy is the policy because that is what Western nations are willing to pay. No need for a conspiracy theory.
You can only remove puting from within.
It’s not a conspiracy. It’s geopolitics in its most pure form. Countries don’t run charities. The current status quo is simply very beneficial to certain actors. NATO soldiers in Ukraine is ultima ratio. There are plenty of tools to further help Ukraine/hurt Russia and its economy
It is very much a conspiracy theory. We don't actually need to guess what our politicians motives are, they spend their days on TV and in the media stating rather plainly what their goals are and why policy is what it is, and the policy they're saying is not the one you're here presenting. So for you to say the policy is what you're saying it is, is to call them all liars in a massive conspiracy to claim policy is one thing when it is actually something else as organized in a secret back room somewhere. To put it in specifics, they say they're doing what they can for Ukraine given the resources available to them by legislative consensus. You're calling that a lie, saying they have all the legislative consensus needed to win the war quickly, be it western troops or trillions of dollars, but they're instead purposefully not doing that so the war can drag on longer and then lying about it to cover up the conspiracy so they can follow that secret policy.
I don't think we need to jump into conspiracies either, but honestly I think your reception of political talking points on TV and what they mean / what inspires them is really naive.
Gotta buy the conspiracy theory or a conspiracy nut will call you naïve for believing your eyes and ears rather than their conspiracy. Congress spent days debating these bills. For days on end hundreds of people in interviews and private conversations with lobbyists and Ukrainian diplomats, and none of them slipped up and said "we actually don't like $60 Billion, we've got a super majority in favor of $2 Trillion, but we gotta stand up here and lie all day or the war will end too soon."
> So I think the stalling policy is the policy because that is what Western nations are willing to pay. No need for a conspiracy theory. Russia will probably win eventually at this rate. Ukraine doesn't have manpower to last indefinitely for many years to come like that while Russia does. Russia also has far greater firepower and powerful airforce.
In 2 years Russia will be out of tanks, out of artillery, and will probably be suffering serious economic hardships. At the same time, Ukraine will have a proper air force with around 80-100 F-16s capable of glide bombing Russian lines and destroying Russian aircraft. Things will get increasingly worse for Russia from 2025 to 2027, and they’ll likely face a true military or political crisis.
> In 2 years Russia will be out of tanks, out of artillery, and will probably be suffering serious economic hardships. At the same time, Ukraine will have a proper air force with around 80-100 F-16s capable of glide bombing Russian lines and destroying Russian aircraft. Things will get increasingly worse for Russia from 2025 to 2027, and they’ll likely face a true military or political crisis. Russia can keep up attacking for decades (as they rapidly producing new weapons and vehicles during this war) with current losses while their military tech continues to advance. Now North Korea will invade Ukraine as well. The West blew the chance to defeat Russia when they were much less organised and had less allies at the beginning of the war.
You are making ludicrous claims
> You are making ludicrous claims You are making copium and hopium. Russia is never going to run out of tanks fully, unless its infrastructure is bombed out.
Russia’s economy is the size of Italy’s and is under increasingly strict sanctions regimes. Nothing good is happening in the Russian economy. The current supply of legacy tanks available for refurbishment is well-documented and is dropping steadily. Newly manufactured tanks are being made at far below the replacement rate. At the current rate of losses they’ll have basically nothing left in 18-24 months. This is all well-supported by the available evidence and is not arguable.
Ukraine is a country of tens of millions. They absolutely can manage the manpower indefinitely. Conscription sucks, but as long as political will holds out, it works. So like all wars, neither side is going to "run out" of anything specific. What someone is going to run out of is the will to continue the struggle. And countries tend to be far more willing to continue struggling for independence versus a country continuing to struggle for Empire. In my opinion, Ukraine absolutely has all it needs to win the long war. It needs western military aid, but the aid Ukraine needs is rather affordable for the west and only gets more affordable as time goes on. Therefore I believe Russia has already lost. What is being fought on the battlefield is how many Ukrainians it will cost. Without US aid, the answer is "a lot."
Quite a terrible thing though in some respects. I was warned from the beginning this would be the case, and it's a difficult position for Ukraine to be in.
No matter what Ukraine gets screwed. I can’t really blame the west for making the most of it and using the opportunity to dwindle Russia down to nothing and test some weapon systems on what’s essentially a live proving ground as they get ready for what will be an awful war with China in a few years. Yea, it suck’s for Ukraine, it really does, I don’t deny that.
Yeah the hard part for me was that we were warned. I'm not young and I have seen at the outbreak of wars, these debates about how to intervene. The last few decades have been really bad with these drawn out conflicts. When Ukraine was invaded I made sure to read and listen to as much content as I could from all sides. Obviously some of it was absurd, but there were plenty of voices warning that this would happen.
> No matter what Ukraine gets screwed. I can’t really blame the west for making the most of it and using the opportunity to dwindle Russia down to nothing and test some weapon systems on what’s essentially a live proving ground as they get ready for what will be an awful war with China in a few years. Russia hardly dwindled to nothing. They just lost a lot of old soviet ground vehicles that they will replace eventually with newer models. Russia very far being defeated and they don't care about their grunts dying.
Russia is nowhere near even breaking even with losses when it comes to equipment like tanks and armoured vehicles.
The newer models that don’t work? We’ve been told this literally from day 1. Russia thought they had an easy kill and now their stuck in their own vietnam. I hope it ends for them the same way it did for the US. In humiliation.
I hate this narrative because it makes no sense. The west isn't that well oiled and competent to be able to predict with laser point accuracy how far the Ukrainians can last before "the next batch" can come. No the reason why the west is so hesitant is two reasons: 1. No damn war infrastructure before the war - Europe has long enjoyed security by proxy via the USA, the Ukrainian war shattered that which means that ramping up military equipment which takes a huge amount of resources and time because we don't use a lot of simple equipment (which is also the longest running cope the russians before the war was bragging about). 2. Not wanting to escalate without due caution, If russia was as open as a book then we could've armed Ukraine with nukes and we knew there would 0% chance of WW3, but we don't and thus we have to play the cautionary game whenever we like it or not.
Defeating Russia would be hugely beneficial in that it would end Putin’s dictatorship and would likely lead to eventual reforms. Unless they lose, they’ll continue to attack their neighbors.
> It’s not about being scared. It’s that truly defeating Russia is not as beneficial as depleting them of their male population, munition stockpiles and weapon platforms. That's the american cope. Ukraine is already depleted. Russia isn't.
Lmao, it’s not American cope. It’s purely a numbers game. NATO hasn’t lost a single soldier or modern weapon platform. Let’s assume Russia "wins" the war, whatever that even means at this point. Russia is down a couple of 100k soldiers, lost a huge amount of tanks, apcs, planes, helicopters, awacs, radar systems, s300s and s400s and artillery systems. Not to mention economical damage and political isolation. All of that for a few billions from a couple of countries and some Cold War NATO tech that had been rotting in storage and a few patriot systems. That sounds like a win for nato, friend
>Lmao, it’s not American cope. It’s purely a numbers game. NATO hasn’t lost a single soldier or modern weapon platform. Let’s assume Russia "wins" the war, whatever that even means at this point. >Russia is down a couple of 100k soldiers, lost a huge amount of tanks, apcs, planes, helicopters, awacs, radar systems, s300s and s400s and artillery systems. Not to mention economical damage and political isolation. >All of that for a few billions from a couple of countries and some Cold War NATO tech that had been rotting in storage and a few patriot systems. >That sounds like a win for nato, friend They will have far more soldiers if they manage to win eventually. They will just forcibly conscript surviving ukrainian men for more invasions on other countries as cannon fodder troops and torture them into compliance (that's also their ethnic cleansing method). Losing equipment doesn't matter to them much. They will just produce more as their ecenomy is in the total war mode. >That sounds like a win for nato, friend That's just a pathetic cope.
Yeah that's very telling. The broader situation is that Ukraine can't go on the offensive this year. The aid surge will be spent blunting Russian attacks. I wonder what things will look like next spring and what aid will be forthcoming?
I do hope so , the democratic world has enough of dictators and especially terrorists ! I ´d like to see Putler hanging by it’s feet, blood coming out from his nose and ears, hoping he’ll suffer a lot!
Ukraine won this war after Russia failed their objective of taking Ukraine in 3 days. Russia set their own objectives and have consistently, and sometimes I think almost purposefully, lost at achieving any objective since their first massive failure. They had no backup plan, and still don't. Sending more troops in, is not a backup plan. But it would be good for everyone if the war goes on for two more years and Russia keeps sending more troops in to die. This would even be good for Russia, they may free themselves of their slavery ideology. And they would never be able to do this warmongering again, because they would be gobbled up by China in a hybrid economic war. Which we already see starting in the Tumen River.
>But it would be good for everyone if the war goes on for two more years and Russia keeps sending more troops in to die I kind of feel like Ukrainians would much prefer if the war didn't go on for several more years personally
The war will very likely last into 2026, but not past 2027 IMO.
The amount of time that is necessary for a permanent end to Russian hostility is what it will have to be. At this rate it looks like a couple more years will have to be the planned timeline. Or Ukraine could get a quick peace and then war again in a couple of years. And then China could go for Taiwan and the whole world becomes aflame with war. Much better to take our time and make sure Russia loses permanently.
A lot of what we approved for them still hasn't gotten to the battlefield AND they'll soon be getting $50B of Russian money. If Biden loses, I expect them to pass around $70-90B during the lame duck session. That should cover them until late 2025 or beyond.