The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

[Feanor]

Let's bring the discussion back to the thread topic please.

 

[vikingatespam]

I suppose I shall start.

I find some satisfaction in the "mineral deal" that was just signed. I think it has shifted the political needle some towards the UKR side. With the further waffling by Putin, I think we are moving back into the realm of weapons sales, and hopefully weapon donations to UKR.

 

[Feanor]

I suppose I shall start.

I find some satisfaction in the "mineral deal" that was just signed. I think it has shifted the political needle some towards the UKR side. With the further waffling by Putin, I think we are moving back into the realm of weapons sales, and hopefully weapon donations to UKR.

I believe the US has unblocked some weapon sales to Ukraine, and has begun the delivery of old F-16s to be used as donors for spare parts. So it's definitely gotten some movement. On the other hand the terms of the deal are... draconian? It's reminiscent of 19th century colonialism. Of course that's probably better than losing the territory to Russia, but that assumes the two are connected. So far Russia has accelerated advances in April after a slow March, and if this continues into May, as it seems to be with the last burst north of Tarasovka, Ukraine is in for another tough year with the potential for losing both Pokrovsk and Konstantinovka on the table.

 

[KipPotapych]

That's BS. Trump didn't pull the Energy Ceasefire out of his hat. If Trump made this proposal, it's because Putin had asked it.

Ok, Fred. I actually didn’t want to reply at all, but I decided that I probably should (and I have a few minutes with nothing better to do anyway, rather I don’t want to do the things that I have to do, haha).

So here is a quote from your own post on March 10:

“Serhiy Leshchenko adviser to Presidential Office said:
He [Trump] says: Is there a ceasefire plan? We say, yes, we have one. We propose a ceasefire in the skies -- no drones, no missiles, no ballistic strikes. We also propose a ceasefire at sea -- we commit to not attacking. This is paradoxical because we currently hold the initiative in the Black Sea. Additionally, we propose not attacking energy infrastructure. However, if you ask about a ceasefire on land, that's a different matter. Ukraine will not agree to that because it would simply give Putin a few months to treat his wounded, recruit infantry from North Korea, and restart the war,

As I said, stopping land operations right now would be a disaster for Ukrainians. Even thought the tide is not reversing, active defence and counter-attacks are essential.”

March 10 was exactly 8 days before Putin agreed to this “energy ceasefire”. He also conditionally agreed to a “Black Sea ceasefire”. The “skies ceasefire” never made any sense, so that was rejected by the Russians.

The actual timeline went like this:

Trump said full ceasefire needs to happen -> Russia said “ok”, but they wanted the military aid to Ukraine to be halted during the ceasefire; Ukraine said no can do -> on March 3 (or 4?) Trump almost completely stopped Ukrainian aid and said that he wants progress (this happened a few days after the circus at the White House) -> Ukraine together with Europe proposed what you wrote in the post I quoted above -> Kursk salient started to completely fall apart the same or the next day (the failure could not be hidden any longer), which was weeks (months, really) in the making (you say it was because the Americans told Ukrainians to withdraw and/or because of the halt of aid and intel) -> Ukraine, in desperation for the aid to resume, while quickly losing about the only leverage they thought they had, agreed to full unconditional ceasefire (probably part of the decision involved making it look like the loss of Kursk is on the Americans) -> everyone clapped hands and celebrated declaring that “the ball is now in Russia’s court” -> active discussion on the Defense Talk forum of the subject, a few people who rarely post chimed in -> you posted the following on March 12 (ie two days after the post part of which I quotes above and a day after (or the same day) Ukraine agreed to a full ceasefire), displaying a very short memory:

“Zhovkva said: We are talking about the so-called complete truce. First and foremost, it means the cessation of aerial attacks with any type of weapon, whether ballistic and cruise missiles, guided bombs, or UAVs, including long-range drones. The first aspect is a complete ceasefire in the air.
The second aspect of the truce proposed by the Russian Federation is “silence” at sea.
It's necessary to ensure the continued operation of existing transportation routes, but as of now, there are many threats in the Black Sea, in the areas where Ukrainian and foreign vessels pass.
We also talked about a ceasefire on land, including the contact line.

It's interesting that, if it was not an error of translation, the sea truce was proposed by the Russians. Indeed that's where the Russians are the most crippled.”

In other words, Ukrainians stressed that the “air silence” is crucial to them (for obvious reasons), followed by the “Black Sea ceasefire”, because there are “many threats” to them, but they now say it was a Russian idea even though they were the ones who proposed it two days prior.

On March 18 Russia did what I wrote above (accepted energy ceasefire, conditional Black Sea ceasefire, rejected the air silence). You then wrote the following:

“Putin agreed that Ukraine stops striking Russian energy infrastructures. He also agreed not to strike Ukrainian energy infrastructure, but that's less relevant because Ukraine doesn't depend on oil&gas exports to finance their war.”

Someone here clearly got played, which you did (subconsciously) realize because in the same post you said:

“It also implies that Russia will still target non-energy related targets all over Ukraine with all types of long range missiles. Whereas it will prohibit Ukraine to strike deep inside Russia because apart from the oil industry and oil depots, there isn't much to strike in Russia. Ukrainians can still try to strike air bases, but that's not very effective.
There is also the problem of the definition of an energy infrastructure.”

And you also (erroneously) concluded that:

“Putin's offer for Energy Sector truce is too fragmented to be serious. It only shows that deep strikes on Russian oil facilities started to bite.”

In other words, none of this was “Putin’s offer”.

For this reason, I posted the following:

This is from March 11, as you can see, when Ukraine went in about 24 hours from ceasefire is a horrible idea and won’t happen to accepting it (or pretending to do so). I posted it later than March 11 though.

To conclude this part, it was Europe and Ukraine that came up with the idea in order to play Trump and Putin, but got played instead and gave the Russians another two months. This is very clear from what I described above with the help of your own posts.

This entire misdirection on your part goes completely in line with your other previously described sequences of events that were either completely wrong/not factual (ie not what happened) or completely wrong timelines and order of things (ie not what happened). See the above as one example; other examples would be your description of what happened in Kursk and stoppage of Russian gas supplies through Ukraine, stoppage of still operational Druzhba pipeline, which you dated back to 2022 (if I recall correctly), the events you described that took place in Donetsk and Luhansk in 2014, quoting a Trump critic and attributing his words to Trump’s thought process and attitude, etc. Examples are plentiful. At the same time, you claim all this with the utmost certainty, sometimes as if you have some insider info no one else is privileged to.

We are not trying to find a solution that would make sens to Russia or that Russia would agree with. But a solution which would be the most just, thus the most favorable to Ukraine.

We are not trying to find anything, but discussing and trying to make sense of what is happening. Those who are deciding are certainly looking for a solution that will be acceptable to Russia because it is Russia that is waging the war and Ukraine can do nothing to stop it without accepting some agreement that is unfavourable and not just. At least at this point in time. I don’t think this can be any clearer than it is.

Sorry: This is not a territorial dispute between two equally wrong parties. It's Russia trying to invade by force and and destroying cities and killing people.

That doesn’t matter.

 

[KipPotapych]

Non US satellite observation exists and the accuracy is good but the time coverage is reduced. The US has almost 24h a day coverage while others have only a few hours a day coverage.

There is an alternative to Starlink, but not as good. It's not like Ukrainians will be cut off from all means of communication or intelligence.

Again, they cannot replace Starlink. From my previous post:

Eutelsat cannot replace Starlink in Ukraine, admitted CEO Eva Berneke, noting it couldn’t match Starlink’s tens of thousands of terminals or handle all Ukrainian communications, though it could support critical government functions. She criticized Starlink for creating dependency subject to White House or Mar-a-Lago decisions. Politico highlights Starlink’s 7,000 satellites versus Eutelsat’s 600, with the latter’s bulkier receivers resulting in 23-490 times lower connectivity capacity in Ukraine.

In other words, per the CEO of Eutelsat, they can only support “critical government functions”, but not the military activities. So there is no alternative and they would be cut off. Not sure what is the confusion here.

No, they don't need to and they better not to. And if you ask me, they really shouldn't. But they will want to, because that would give them the possibility to attack Odessa from the sea, to attack the south west part of Ukraine and disrupt the Grain Corridor.

They are attack Odessa from the Sea every few days and they are a threat to the Grain Corridor, which is outlined by some Ukrainian official in one of your posts I quoted above. Which is why it was important for Ukraine to get the sea ceasefire.

I didn't propose anything. I only provide my analysis of the situation. Zelensky is ready to stop fighting right now and start talking. As long as Russia doesn't apply the proposed ceasefire, talking about negotiation is pointless.

Which is why they cannot achieve anything there. Russia cannot accept an unconditional ceasefire. I outlined why this is the case in my previous posts. I read Fenaor doing the same. I think others did too, briefly.

Notice that I can now answer almost every point by simply quoting previous posts (including your own because you reverse on things all the time, depending on what is written in the Ukrainian propaganda outlets or told in some Youtube videos on any given day).

You can't restrict exports to Ukraine without restricting to Europe. If components arrive in Europe, they will end up in Ukraine.

There are things that are available to Europe today that are not available to Ukraine. This is not going to change. It would be crazy to assume that Europe (or anyone else, for that matter) would provide assets prohibited by US for reexport to Ukraine. Another point I made that you avoid is that the orders that are placed today are not going to be delivered until 2-3-4+ years down the line. So it is really an irrelevant discussion.

But my point is that if Trump doesn't show a minimum of support for Ukraine, Europeans will think that the US is not a reliable ally, see not an ally at all. Ans this has consequences and Trump knows it. A few weeks ago he didn't know it. Now, he does.

He knew that before too. But his thought process is probably different than yours. But, again, I am sure you have the insider info, as usual.

Why? We already have NATO troops, in large quantities, within artillery range to the Russian positions all along the border with Russia and Belarussia. That Russians fire at them in the Donbass or somewhere in Estonia doesn't make any difference.

I am not really sure what to say to this. If you think the two are the same thing, well…

It's a fact that the US hasn't removed or planned to remove a single soldier from Eastern Europe. I don't know if it requires special intel or knowledge to know that.

I showed you that this is not necessarily the case. In fact, everything suggests that it isn’t. You, again, however, probably have the insider info about their planning. I will end it at that.

 

[Fredled]

I didn't have time to analyse the "Mineral Deal" but it seems that both Americans and Ukrainians are happy with the deal. Trump has been inspired by the Holly Spirit at the burial of the Pope, for sure.

I think we are moving back into the realm of weapons sales, and hopefully weapon donations to UKR.

This opens the door to at least weapon sales. Al thought, before the deal was signed, most analysts didn't believe that an important package will be cleared in a foreseable future. It will be a surprise if a package will be announced. The Trump administration is not abainst helping Ukraine, but they think that Europe should bear the biggest share of the effort. They are right, but I suspect that Trump is still misled about the dollar amounts the US provided.

and if this continues into May, as it seems to be with the last burst north of Tarasovka, Ukraine is in for another tough year with the potential for losing both Pokrovsk and Konstantinovka on the table.

It does indeed:

I can confirm that on May 1, Russian forces significantly escalated their operations in the Kharkiv sector. Over the past day, eight combat engagements were recorded—an unusually high number—indicating intensified enemy activity along the entire frontline. Battles occurred in Lyptsi, in Vovchansk, where Russian forces have traditionally been highly active, and in Dvorichna, where Russians continue to move infantry across the Oskil River. Regarding Vovchansk, the city has suffered extreme devastation. It has virtually ceased to exist—it is now a total ruin, with not a single surviving building,”

link
Putin will want a markable victory for the May 9 Parade. Pro Ukrainian warbologgers and news channels floated the rumour of an attack on the Red Square that day. IMO, Ukrainians should at least try to cause an alert.

Russian losses are still very high. The Ukrainian Air Force used 1/3 of their sorties to strike ground targets. And this was done with F16s and Mirages2000.

In April, the Ukrainian aviation carried out over 610 sorties, including about 330 – for air cover; over 200 – for fire damage and air support of ground troops.

link

Ukraine still has issues with Hungary.

We have an unpleasant feeling about the aggressive rhetoric that exists in relation to Ukraine.

Mortar Shell Scandal: the director of a defense factory in the Dnipropetrovsk region and his deputy, who are suspected of supplying defective mortar shells to the front taken into custody.

Zelensky Arrests Arestovych with sanctions. I remember Arestovych was a diplomat or a spokeman at the beginning of the war...

Decree No. 267 introduces sanctions against Arestovych, Pavlo Onishchenko, and Myroslav Oleshko. The document includes a list of nine individuals accused of justifying Russia's aggression against Ukraine.
....
the sanctions include asset freezes, the revocation of state awards, trade restrictions, the prevention of capital outflows, the suspension of economic and financial obligations, and a ban on media distribution within Ukraine

_______________________

The rebellion was far too disorganized and wasn't demanding independence for a long time. At no point did any "entire Ukrainian army brigades" join any independence movement. By the time the independence referendum was in play, the war was in full swing. It wasn't a question of allowing Ukraine to organize a referendum. Ukraine considered the referendum illegal and was trying to wipe out the rebels. At no point was Ukraine willing to let these territories go, and at no point was the west willing to force them to.

Everything you wrote above is true, but it doesn't contradict what I said. Ukraine didn't want to let the territories go, that's why there was an armed conflict erupting. The independence referendum was illegal, that's why Ukraine said it was illegal.
I don't know if complete brigades turned to the rebel side but the number of soldiers from the Ukrainian army who did was equivalent. I mean several thousands. They took with them tanks and artillery. The Ukrainian government was almost as disorganised as the Lugansk and Dontesk ones.

Note that they already made a referendum in Donetsk and Lugansk in 1991 and 1994. 20 years earlier.

I suspect Ukraine will attempt to reconquer the territories a few weeks after a peace deal, just not with a full scale attack. I

No because Ukrainians are tired of the war. If they do that, there could be a rebellion inside the population. They will lose the last sympathy Trumps had for Ukraine. Europeans too, won;t be exited. A blatant breach of the peace agreement in short order doesn't seem viable to me.

Second, a few weeks after the peace deal, and forcibly the cease fire, Russian forced will be stronger than today. Putin is not going to withdraw his troops from Ukraine quickly. Unless he decides to engage in a new conflict elsewhere but that's unlikely a few weeks after the peace deal.
Russian losses will be down to zero while recruiting will continue. Recruiting will also be cheaper for Russia as there will be less risk to die. The number of Russian soldiers on the front line will only increase.

Third, even if it doesn't increase, small scale attacks won;t achieve anything. Ukraine already does small scale attacks.

If the political will is there, what prevents EU forces from entering? A lack of desire?

If Russia invade one more time, it would be too late to intervene. The Coalition of the Willing should be there to stop them before they took the advantage. The absence of European troops will be in itself a sign of a lack of will to defend Ukraine.

That being said, European forces will consist primarily in air and naval forces. Very few infantry troops on the front line, if any.

Second, if European forces enter Ukraine to attack Russians forces, they will be attacking, it will be an act of agression against Russia. However, if Russian attack European troops inside Ukraine, Russia is making the agression.
__________________

I will reply to KipPotapych later...

 

[KipPotapych]

I suppose I shall start.

I find some satisfaction in the "mineral deal" that was just signed. I think it has shifted the political needle some towards the UKR side. With the further waffling by Putin, I think we are moving back into the realm of weapons sales, and hopefully weapon donations to UKR.

Details are, of course, lacking even as far as the actual amount is concerned (it could be greatly reduced). Some context as far as pricing is concerned:



My understanding is that so far no refurbished aircraft has been shipped, but scrap parts, which is still a progress since the sales of parts was previously denied.

The overall position of the US appears to have softened (for now, which is important provided the attention span of the head of the current administration). Rubio now says that they may have to decide how much time they are going to spent in this rather than they are “done next week”.



They got their “mineral deal” though. Does anyone have a link to the details, if any available? I have seen some outlines, but nothing concrete.

Ukrainians from the frontlines report that Russia is now striking their positions with Shaheds in addition to the glide bombs.

 

[KipPotapych]

Also,



The feared consolidation appears to be taking place, according to the reports. For example:



This is bad news for Ukraine.

What’s supposedly left of the Kursk salient (Gerasimov claimed yesterday (or today?) that the Kursk region was fully liberated):

File under humour:

 

[PachkaSigaret]

Decommissioned F16s being loaded onto Antonovs for use of spare parts.

https://x.com/palik_jozef/status/1918006015842206071

SIGINT/Intelligence gathering flights are still ongoing at it's same pace. You can look everyday on Flightradar and see routine flights across the black sea, and circling Kaliningrad. I don't foresee a stoppage anytime soon. I wonder what the true cost has been operating such flights with frequency since the months leading up to the war till now. As for weapon shipments, I feel like Trump will try to bend Ukraine's arms here or there.. But there is no coherent strategy to a peace deal or anything of the likes. I think that the mineral deal was crafted just to give him another mundane talking point and slight ego victory. It seems to me weapon shipments will continue, perhaps not to the degree of the Biden administration, but that's besides the point. The war continues and it'll be interesting to see how things develop going forward.

Dima doesn't always hit the mark with his updates, however his map is rather consistent with Geolocations and corrections. Interesting enough Russia has gained the upper-hand for the Dnieper island battles. I'm wondering if Russia will make a cross Dnieper foray in earnest.

ThunderTroop Buildup On The Kherson Axis Pokrovsk Defense Collapses️ Military Summary 2025.05.02

Finally.. there is no good news coming out of Ukraine in regards to General Mobilization and busification. Apparently Syrsky has ordered rear personale who is fit medically(Including the TCC) to be sent to the front. Which I wonder how that'll work out, in many of the forced mobilization videos it often takes several men to try to apprehend one man.

 

[Redshift]

What other forums ? It might be fun to expose him.

Hindsight and memory has now told me that it was this forum lol!

 

[rsemmes]

I thought Kalibrated was overoptimistic, as usual.

Kalibrated Ukraine Map - Google My Maps

Kalibrated Maps is developed by (https://x.com/squatsons) ). It was created with the aim of providing a publicly available but accurate control map of Ukraine. The map is updated based on confirmed information but it is still under development and may have some mistakes.

www.google.com

But I doesn't look like another Ocheretino.

Those who are deciding are certainly looking for a solution that will be acceptable to Russia because it is Russia that is waging the war and Ukraine can do nothing to stop it without accepting some agreement that is unfavourable and not just. At least at this point in time. I don’t think this can be any clearer than it is.

It is not clear at all... For some people.
Ukraine will decide and the rest of the world must bend to its will.