The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Minor note, what I though was a water treatment plant west of Rodinskoe, is in fact a mine complex with pits where resources had been extracted now filled with water. This mine complex does not have a particularly large refuse mound, but even a modest elevation coupled with heavy industrial structures provides a decent advantage, and has been the key to Ukrainian forces re-entering Rodinskoe over and over again. Russia won't be able to secure the town until they take that position, and they seem to realize that. Currently they're flanking it from the north and south. There are in fact tree lines running along the fields that run right up to the complex, but it's currently winter, so the lack of foliage means they offer relatively little concealment. I think we will see a Russian attempt to take this mine complex, and I personally suspect the first attempt won't be successful. I think it will take multiple tries to get it right.

Tangentially relevant to this, it seems Russian forward elements entered Biletskoe, the next little town in western Donetsk region, but there's no confirmation of their consolidation or elimination. It will be interesting to see if Russia focuses on eliminating the Ukrainian positions at the mine complex first, or goes for Biletskoe instead. The capture if Biletskoe could threaten the supply lines into the entire area north of Pokrovsk by placing them within easy drone range. From the Ukrainian side this area has been one they've been actively focused on. I think they understand very well Russia's intent and have successfully prevented any dramatic Russian advances after the fall of Pokrovsk, seemingly having learned the lessons of Avdeevka (even while Ukrainian officialdom continued to pretend Pokrovsk hadn't fallen). I think fighting in the arc from just north of Dobropol'ye down to Rodinskoe and even Grishino is key to the upcoming fight for Slavyansk and Kramatorsk.

Two other possibilities are open to Russian command, one is quite slow and difficult, the taking of Konstantinovka and Druzhkovka, enveloping the Kramatorsk area from the south-west. The other would be to rebuild the salient north of Mirnograd and bypass the Dobropol'ye area that way. They're in the process of doing both things but it's slow going.
 

vikingatespam

Well-Known Member
Neither reality nor History are going to be moved by what you want (the number or Russian aircraft built every year),
"Want" has nothing do do with my post. I simply provided some evidence for the # of manufactured airframes.

like (the number of Ukrainian casualties or the number of casualties) or believe.
My "belief" is based off of long standing casualty estimating methodologies from either professional militaries (FM101-1, for example) or commercial ones, such as QJM.

What is your estimate ?

What anyone believes being the most irrelevant part of the whole lot.
"Belief" without data is "faith". "Faith" is the word you should of used.

“The entire context of your original statement is designed to imply UKR is fighting against its own will, pushed along by shadowy conspiracies.” May I remind you that English is not my first language?
May I remind you I have offered you the chance to clarify your statement in a simple way to avoid any language barriers.

May I remind you that again, you have refused to clarify your position.

Thanks for the compliment, anyway, about my mastery of that language.
Our on-going conversation is literally proof of just the opposite.

On the other hand, like with “forced to”, you are just inventing it.
Would you be so kind as to show us who, besides you, posted “forced to”, when and where? That is not in any EU statement.
EU ? What rabbit-hole have you delved into ? Your statement implies that you think that forces outside of UKR are forcing it to fight. I offered you several chances to clarify. Instead of doing so, you simply duck, dodge and weave. Its becoming your calling card.


By Poland and Germany. You can use History to emphasize your point, but you cannot delete the rest of it; the parts that you don't like. Obviously, you can, but that will only add to the want-like-believe side of things; not everyone is going to be happy with that.

The only positive point that I see (hardly) in you post is that in Istanbul, in 2022,
https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/a456d6dd8e27e830/e279a252-full.pdf
Russia's position was 85.000, Ukraine's 250.000, but there was no peace agreement, so we don't know about any final number nor about what intervention by what guarantors.
The recent US plan mentioned 600.000, European counter-proposal 800.000.
https://www.reuters.com/business/fi...er-proposal-us-ukraine-peace-plan-2025-11-23/
After that counter-proposal, Ukraine is taking those 800.000. Again, we/western Europe want Ukraine “in the fight”, but it seems that we don't want a "rump" Ukraine.

We already provided you with this.

Let's go for a different fantasy.
In ten years, Poland abandons the EU (I never imagined the UK doing that), Poland decides that it wants to be Great Again and invades Ukraine to recover Lwów. I don't know what leader is going to be in power in Poland in ten years, but I do trust that a British leader will invade foreign countries. Maybe that weak Ukraine is not such a bad idea considering the interests of every other country.
Fantasy being the keyword of your attempts to divert the conversation off-tangent.
 

vikingatespam

Well-Known Member
Well, we finally have RU admitting that the Moskva was indeed sunk by enemy action, and not another smoking incident.

Russian Court Demands $29 Million from Ukrainian Navy Officer for Sinking of Moskva Missile Cruiser - Militarnyi (links from Mediazona)

Oddly enough the RU courts have sentenced the UKR commander to life in prison for having the audacity to fight back. Maybe finally the widows and orphans of the Moskva crewmen will get compensation from RU instead of being declared "missing".
 
Last edited:

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Well, we finally have RU admitting that the Moskva was indeed sunk by enemy action, and not another smoking incident.

Russian Court Demands $29 Million from Ukrainian Navy Officer for Sinking of Moskva Missile Cruiser - Militarnyi (links form Mediazona)

Oddly enough the RU courts have sentenced the UKR commander to life in prison for having the audacity to fight back. Maybe finally the widows and orphans of the Moskva crewmen will get compensation from RU instead of being declared "missing".
Iirc MIA service members families are eligible for compensation after a certain time elapses.
 

rsemmes

Active Member
"Want" has nothing do do with my post. I simply provided some evidence for the # of manufactured airframes.



My "belief" is based off of long standing casualty estimating methodologies from either professional militaries (FM101-1, for example) or commercial ones, such as QJM.

What is your estimate ?



"Belief" without data is "faith". "Faith" is the word you should of used.



May I remind you I have offered you the chance to clarify your statement in a simple way to avoid any language barriers.

May I remind you that again, you have refused to clarify your position.



Our on-going conversation is literally proof of just the opposite.



EU ? What rabbit-hole have you delved into ? Your statement implies that you think that forces outside of UKR are forcing it to fight. I offered you several chances to clarify. Instead of doing so, you simply duck, dodge and weave. Its becoming your calling card.





We already provided you with this.



Fantasy being the keyword of your attempts to divert the conversation off-tangent.
An AI estimate is not evidence. (It has been already pointed out.) An estimate is not data (It is an interpretation of whatever data has been selected.) The subtle difference between think and believe... (Below.)
European Union leaders claimed victory after agreeing a 90 billion euro ($105 billion) loan to keep Ukraine financially afloat and in the fight against Russia’s invasion for the next two years.
The "in the fight" has been used repeatedly. Try this: a/ Ukraine is fighting. b/ We want Ukraine to keep fighting. You choose to use the "force to" and "against its own will", it is not there, it is not in what I posted; it is only in your interpretation. I already said that I don't think (not "believe", I would't use that word for a country where half the budget is paid by foreign donors; not that subtle) that's in Ukraine's best interest, but it is in our best interests. I think that Ukraine should had gone for a peace agreement in Istanbul and I think that after Robotine it was "criminal" not to do so. Still, here we are and only you are "forcing" Ukraine to fight on; in you imagination.
Point of note, I use AI and wiki as references for sources, they are not sources.
Funny enough, I consider the whole "rump state" (fantasy) concept as another "cry wolf!" selling point. Russia is going to invade! (Greenland?) Russia is going to do something! The boogeyman is coming!

The EU wants Ukraine "in the fight", the point is clear. You have to clarify to yourself that doesn't mean that the EU is forcing Ukraine to fight nor that Ukraine doesn't want to fight; even when a few millions of Ukrainians have made clear that they do not want to fight.

It seems that your only point is to make me say something that I didn't say in the first place. I cannot see the point in that.
This conversation is pointless.
 
An AI estimate is not evidence. (It has been already pointed out.) An estimate is not data (It is an interpretation of whatever data has been selected.) The subtle difference between think and believe... (Below.)
European Union leaders claimed victory after agreeing a 90 billion euro ($105 billion) loan to keep Ukraine financially afloat and in the fight against Russia’s invasion for the next two years.
The "in the fight" has been used repeatedly. Try this: a/ Ukraine is fighting. b/ We want Ukraine to keep fighting. You choose to use the "force to" and "against its own will", it is not there, it is not in what I posted; it is only in your interpretation. I already said that I don't think (not "believe", I would't use that word for a country where half the budget is paid by foreign donors; not that subtle) that's in Ukraine's best interest, but it is in our best interests. I think that Ukraine should had gone for a peace agreement in Istanbul and I think that after Robotine it was "criminal" not to do so. Still, here we are and only you are "forcing" Ukraine to fight on; in you imagination.
Point of note, I use AI and wiki as references for sources, they are not sources.
Funny enough, I consider the whole "rump state" (fantasy) concept as another "cry wolf!" selling point. Russia is going to invade! (Greenland?) Russia is going to do something! The boogeyman is coming!

The EU wants Ukraine "in the fight", the point is clear. You have to clarify to yourself that doesn't mean that the EU is forcing Ukraine to fight nor that Ukraine doesn't want to fight; even when a few millions of Ukrainians have made clear that they do not want to fight.

It seems that your only point is to make me say something that I didn't say in the first place. I cannot see the point in that.
This conversation is pointless.
Interests can overlap.

Ukraine under russian rule has zero chances to develop and ends dystopian like Russia with zero prospect to better its standards. Just look at Belarus. Ukraine sees its future with us, not Russia.

On same time its our interest to weaken Russia. This conflict is the cheapest way to do so. And giving Ukraine 90 billion isnt much, since we hold 300 billion russian assets alone as security.

See it this way until 2014 Russia had pretty much 100% of Ukraine under its thump. Now it holds only 17% while we have the large majority under our influence. Russia already gave up evrything west of that river. The conflict only runs on the idea if we will have influence east of the river.

When this war is over i plan to visit Ukraine
 

crest

Active Member
Interests can overlap.

Ukraine under russian rule has zero chances to develop and ends dystopian like Russia with zero prospect to better its standards. Just look at Belarus. Ukraine sees its future with us, not Russia.

On same time its our interest to weaken Russia. This conflict is the cheapest way to do so. And giving Ukraine 90 billion isnt much, since we hold 300 billion russian assets alone as security.

See it this way until 2014 Russia had pretty much 100% of Ukraine under its thump. Now it holds only 17% while we have the large majority under our influence. Russia already gave up evrything west of that river. The conflict only runs on the idea if we will have influence east of the river.

When this war is over i plan to visit Ukraine
On that I think you might have it wrong. Russia is the country with the vested interest in Ukraine being stable and if possible a benefit as far as trade and political support in Europe. Europe on the other hand seems to have the mentality of hurting Russia is the goal and Ukraine is the tool. I could be wrong here but I have a suspicion that it is Russia who will be doing the rebuilding not the European or Americans not outside of anything that they profit from anyhow
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
On that I think you might have it wrong. Russia is the country with the vested interest in Ukraine being stable and if possible a benefit as far as trade and political support in Europe. Europe on the other hand seems to have the mentality of hurting Russia is the goal and Ukraine is the tool. I could be wrong here but I have a suspicion that it is Russia who will be doing the rebuilding not the European or Americans not outside of anything that they profit from anyhow
If any rebuilding happens, it won't be Russia unless China funds and supplies the effort. As for the Americans, doubtful for now, Europe, in their interest but WTF knows?
 

crest

Active Member
If any rebuilding happens, it won't be Russia unless China funds and supplies the effort. As for the Americans, doubtful for now, Europe, in their interest but WTF knows?
Things like concrete wood energy these a things Russia has plenty of. Truth is there rebuilding in areas already. On the bigger picture the low civilian casualties and offers of citizenship show that the intent is definitely closer to helping them it is destroying or even abandoning responsibility in the regions. There ability to do it quickly for sure is in doubt but I don't think the intent or overall ability to do it is
 
On that I think you might have it wrong. Russia is the country with the vested interest in Ukraine being stable and if possible a benefit as far as trade and political support in Europe. Europe on the other hand seems to have the mentality of hurting Russia is the goal and Ukraine is the tool. I could be wrong here but I have a suspicion that it is Russia who will be doing the rebuilding not the European or Americans not outside of anything that they profit from anyhow
If thats the case, explain why Russia has no interest in having its very own country stable? Why are all russian vasall states in horrible state? Is there a specific reason why Russia hold Belarus, Transnistria ect dirt poor?
 

swerve

Super Moderator
On that I think you might have it wrong. Russia is the country with the vested interest in Ukraine being stable and if possible a benefit as far as trade and political support in Europe. Europe on the other hand seems to have the mentality of hurting Russia is the goal and Ukraine is the tool. I could be wrong here but I have a suspicion that it is Russia who will be doing the rebuilding not the European or Americans not outside of anything that they profit from anyhow
What? This is insane! The rest of Europe was more or less disarming until a few years ago, & wanted peace, stability, good order, friendly or at least polite relations with Russia & trade. Look at how much W. Europeans invested in Russia: in industry, shops, trading businesses, gas pipelines . . . . vast sums!

The "mentality of hurting Russia", where it exists, is a reaction to Russian hostility. Think of the people Russia's murdered, often quite openly, in other European countries, & Russia's carelessness about collateral damage, such as local people being killed. Flaunting one's willingness to commit murder on the streets of Salisbury or wherever is not something to promote good relations. It's calculated to inspire fear, but very crudely & rather stupidly. It showed contempt for other European countries & their values, & that Russia's rulers expected W. Europe to cravenly accept such insults & grovel.

True, it's in Russia's interest (as in, good for Russia's economy & society) for Ukraine to be stable, peaceful & prosperous. But Putin's actions have been exactly contrary to promoting that. From supporting kleptocrats to invading, he's consistently acted to destabilise Ukraine.

He may have seen all that as intended to stabilise Ukraine by making it a Belarus-style client state, governed by politicians dependent on Russia for their positions, but that was always a very high-risk strategy, & it's failed disastrously.
 

crest

Active Member
If thats the case, explain why Russia has no interest in having its very own country stable? Why are all russian vasall states in horrible state? Is there a specific reason why Russia hold Belarus, Transnistria ect dirt poor?
There is a whole hose of reasons it's underdeveloped. Underdeveloped does not mean. It's unstable nor does it mean it's under some kind of military dictatorship either.
Why are other countries not stable well each case is unique to itself and not "Russia's fault" even if they do support the government in power it's because that goverment is providing stability to Russia. That's like asking why European allied nations elsewhere are not rich and prosperous?
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
If thats the case, explain why Russia has no interest in having its very own country stable? Why are all russian vasall states in horrible state? Is there a specific reason why Russia hold Belarus, Transnistria ect dirt poor?
I don't think Russia keeps places like Transnestria or Belarus poor. Belarus is a Russian satellite state but very much a separate country. They have their own issues. Transnestria is an unrecognized republic, essentially a piece of Moldova that attempted to separate back in the '90s, and didn't quite make it. This is not conducive to development and investment. As for Russia domestically, I think it's actually fairly stable. Consider this massive war, and how Russian society has reacted. I think Russian leadership is interested in having their own country be stable, and they taking steps to that end.

On that I think you might have it wrong. Russia is the country with the vested interest in Ukraine being stable and if possible a benefit as far as trade and political support in Europe. Europe on the other hand seems to have the mentality of hurting Russia is the goal and Ukraine is the tool. I could be wrong here but I have a suspicion that it is Russia who will be doing the rebuilding not the European or Americans not outside of anything that they profit from anyhow
If any rebuilding happens, it won't be Russia unless China funds and supplies the effort. As for the Americans, doubtful for now, Europe, in their interest but WTF knows?
I think Russia will in fact rebuild, but only the parts they control. The reconstruction of areas of Donetsk has already begun, but to Russia's purpose, and to integrate Donetsk region into the Russian logistics and infrastructural network. We have seen reconstruction in places like Severodonetsk-Lisichansk, and in Pervomaysk/Sokologorsk. As the front line moves on, Russia will absolutely put some money into the area. I don't think the Russian government will, of their own accord, put their resources into Kiev-controlled parts of Ukraine. It would frankly be foolish of them to do so. As it stands, unless Ukraine faces a total defeat, Russia will be left with a militant and hostile Ukraine pretty much no matter what. So investing into Ukraine, boosting their economy and rebuilding their infrastructure, would be objectively bad. A poor, unstable, and weak Ukraine is preferable to a strong stable but hostile Ukraine. Yes, the best scenario would be a strong, prosperous and friendly Ukraine, but that's obviously not one of the options at this point. It's unclear if it ever was.
 

rsemmes

Active Member
On that I think you might have it wrong. Russia is the country with the vested interest in Ukraine being stable and if possible a benefit as far as trade and political support in Europe. Europe on the other hand seems to have the mentality of hurting Russia is the goal and Ukraine is the tool. I could be wrong here but I have a suspicion that it is Russia who will be doing the rebuilding not the European or Americans not outside of anything that they profit from anyhow
A bit naif there, I think.
Yes, reconstruction will be a profitable business (like in Iraq) but, is any Ukrainian company making money out of it?
Yes, Russia is the enemy, the competition and a threat, so we say, so we act. Russia is not trying to make UK great again, it certainly shouldn't.

why Russia hold Belarus, Transnistria
Sorry, what?
Russia is doing what exactly?
 

crest

Active Member
I don't think Russia keeps places like Transnestria or Belarus poor. Belarus is a Russian satellite state but very much a separate country. They have their own issues. Transnestria is an unrecognized republic, essentially a piece of Moldova that attempted to separate back in the '90s, and didn't quite make it. This is not conducive to development and investment. As for Russia domestically, I think it's actually fairly stable. Consider this massive war, and how Russian society has reacted. I think Russian leadership is interested in having their own country be stable, and they taking steps to that end.





I think Russia will in fact rebuild, but only the parts they control. The reconstruction of areas of Donetsk has already begun, but to Russia's purpose, and to integrate Donetsk region into the Russian logistics and infrastructural network. We have seen reconstruction in places like Severodonetsk-Lisichansk, and in Pervomaysk/Sokologorsk. As the front line moves on, Russia will absolutely put some money into the area. I don't think the Russian government will, of their own accord, put their resources into Kiev-controlled parts of Ukraine. It would frankly be foolish of them to do so. As it stands, unless Ukraine faces a total defeat, Russia will be left with a militant and hostile Ukraine pretty much no matter what. So investing into Ukraine, boosting their economy and rebuilding their infrastructure, would be objectively bad. A poor, unstable, and weak Ukraine is preferable to a strong stable but hostile Ukraine. Yes, the best scenario would be a strong, prosperous and friendly Ukraine, but that's obviously not one of the options at this point. It's unclear if it ever was.
I don't know I think for any peace deal your going to need a Ukrainian government that adheres to it. It's far cheaper for Russia to support that goverment in providing stability then it is to let dissent and rebellion foster and have another war.

I'm terms of energy and basic infrastructure I think Russia will be investing in the west, I also think Europe and America have zero interest in anything but the profitable industrys. Call me cynical but I believe they will see destabilization in Ukraine as a asset to them as it's a problom for Russia.
I do agree however that Russia has zero chance of good relations for some time but it also has no other option but to try and repair them. I also expect there to be a naritive of betrayal from the west in west Ukraine to try and offset this
 
I don't know I think for any peace deal your going to need a Ukrainian government that adheres to it. It's far cheaper for Russia to support that goverment in providing stability then it is to let dissent and rebellion foster and have another war.

I'm terms of energy and basic infrastructure I think Russia will be investing in the west, I also think Europe and America have zero interest in anything but the profitable industrys. Call me cynical but I believe they will see destabilization in Ukraine as a asset to them as it's a problom for Russia.
I do agree however that Russia has zero chance of good relations for some time but it also has no other option but to try and repair them. I also expect there to be a naritive of betrayal from the west in west Ukraine to try and offset this
Your view is amazingly onesided lol.

Holy Russia that is only interested in stability peace and love and then the evil west that betrayes and does this and that.

Sorry but you would be more credible if you drop that
 

rsemmes

Active Member
one's willingness to commit murder on the streets of Salisbury
Do I see a high horse there? What about US kidnapping people in Europe and flying them away to get tortured? Those values?
Hostility is not one-sided, it is a long build up of conflicting interests. NATO and Russia wanted a friendly Ukraine... for themselves.
 
Top