The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

vikingatespam

Well-Known Member
I'm coming around to a firm opinion that diplomatic solutions are only going to be possible if one of the two options come to pass
1 the Ukrainian army breaks that is runs out of operational reserves (or moral possibly) and cannot hold the Russians back.
2 The Russian economy does indeed collapse or popular support due to economic hardships. I find the idea of Russian support publicly collapsing due to other reasons a very questionable outcome at least for the foreseeable future

The two sides are just to far apart not to say diplomatic pressure doesn't count for anything as I also believe Russia will gain less of there goals if they win then Ukraine would if Russias military position collapsed
Everything I have heard from people in RU is that the populace is massively apathetic, and it would take a great deal of economic issues for the general populace to complain. Gasoline becomes impossible to buy, food prices triple, or maybe forced mobilization.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Certainly, the clock ticks for both parties.
Where a fat man gets skinny, a skinny man starves.

If Putin does die (soon), will there be a power struggle ? Who is the clear successor ?
Good question. I think a better question is, would such a power struggle stop Russia's war effort? 3 years ago I would have said yes. But we have Prigozhin's march on Moscow. That's no power struggle, that's an open rebellion by a large armed mercenary force.

Everything I have heard from people in RU is that the populace is massively apathetic, and it would take a great deal of economic issues for the general populace to complain. Gasoline becomes impossible to buy, food prices triple, or maybe forced mobilization.
This is what I have also heard. Also there is a patriotic streak. Some people are actively in support of this war. They're a minority, and often are upset by the apathy of the majority, even as the government exploits said apathy. But this active minority donates money to support the war effort, produces some volunteers to help the war, and runs a decent-sized online space with many blogs and sites. Some of the patriotism is pretty thin, shit-posting in support of Russia on random sites. Some is pretty deep with some people enlisting out of patriotic rather than financial motivations. There's also an anti-war streak but the authorities have suppressed it. The two even meet, as extremes sometimes do, with figures that were connected to the '14 rebellion often criticizing the current war in it's conduct and the Russian government (Moscow Calling for example).
 
Last edited:

crest

Member
Everything I have heard from people in RU is that the populace is massively apathetic, and it would take a great deal of economic issues for the general populace to complain. Gasoline becomes impossible to buy, food prices triple, or maybe forced mobilization.
Also what ive been able to gather, unfortunately for Ukraine its much more likely then reversing the military situation on the ground. To be honest I would put my money on the Ukrainian population losing moral before the Russians. One can even make a good argument that public support for the war in Ukraine is already showing if not critical then at least serious symptoms of just that
 

KipPotapych

Well-Known Member
Its certainly difficult to predict whats going to happen next given all the surprises. However, I think one possibility is "Run out the Clock". UKR continues to fight, slowly falling back and killing RU soldiers. At some point either Putin dies (hes in "overtime"), or the RU economy frays enough to cause general discontent in the RU populace. When will that be ? I cant say.
I think looking at the (perceived?) odds is rather helpful. The first most obvious thing is that counting on Putin dropping dead is being at least overly optimistic and at worst completely unreasonable. Why is he in overtime? He is what, 72 or 73? His public lifestyle over the past 2.5 decades strongly suggests he is likely to live into his 90s (not that he is to remain in power over that period of time). Comparing his age to an average life expectancy in Russia is completely unreasonable. He is not an average Russian man (add the best available medical resources to the lifestyle). Moreover, Google AI tells me life expectancy in Moscow is over 79 and Wikipedia suggests that Putin’s father lived to the age of 88 and his mother to the age of 96. He ain’t dropping dead any time soon and not even close to overtime, in my opinion.

Ukraine certainly continues to fight, slowly rolling back, while killing Russian soldiers. The problem here is that Russians are also killing Ukrainian soldiers, while advancing. Zelensky recently suggested the loss ration of 1:3 (UA:RU). Two issues here. One is that even if that was the case, this is a (very) unfavourable ratio for Ukraine and they will run out of men way before Russia does (and this has been consistently shown to be the case by various reports). The second issue is that that ratio is overly optimistic. I posted at least a couple of reasonable assessments previously (one was from Tatarigami, I am certain) and didn’t post a few more, but they all fall within 1-1.8 to 1:2.3 (UA:RU). These are average numbers, based on the entire longevity of the war, not Zelensky’s pick for the casualties allegedly sustained over some “yesterday”. Ukraine is losing a lot of men while defending and a lot more on their offensives (counteroffensives now involve Ladas and motorcycles, borrowing the tactic from the Russians). To me it seems rather trivial to see that Ukraine loses a lot more men than the standard 1:3 on the defensive. I talked about it previously and quite extensively, so I won’t repeat.

Even if we assume that the ratio is 1:3 or even more favourable for Ukraine, every single report tells us that they do not regenerate their forces on continuous basis. On the other hand, reports suggest that Russia at the very least puts as many new troops on the line as they had lost the previous month, but most also tell us that they actually grow their forces while sustaining these losses. At the end of the day, these loss ratios are actually not as relevant as it may seem to be if one side does not add as many troops as they lose, while the other does.

Constant retreat while having various bombs equipped with UMPK kits dropped on your positions several times a day has got to be bad for morale as well. Today’s report:



There have been some suggestions that most of these AWOL cases are simply troops leaving to join another unit. Well, that is simply nonsense, in my opinion. Without a doubt there are such cases, but to suggest that most are is pretty crazy, in my opinion. In addition to likely low morale for reasons stated, this is probably a great contributor to these numbers as well, even though rarely reported (it is actually interesting that there was no good long report on it from the Ukrainian Pravda or some other outlet; yet to come, I guess):



On this subject, Zelensky had said that while Ukraine will continue to cover salaries paid to their Armed Forces post ceasefire or some peace agreement, they need to secure guaranteed investments into the UA MIC. The former is not the case today and won’t be in the future and the latter is likely a pipe dream as well.

Then there is this for the current situation



Anyway, the odds appear to be pretty clear. Putin’s death is not likely currently in the cards. If he dies, the war is far from guaranteed to end and certainly not on Ukrainian terms if it does regardless. The current negotiations are taking place with Ukraine (and the “west”) being in the weakest position yet and it is not likely to get better in the foreseeable future, in my opinion.

The argument of the Russian economy tanking enough to stop the war is… Let’s call it a toss up, though I think they are going to last years more.

So while it is difficult to predict what is going to happen, I think facts and reasonable expectations should definitely come into the calculations.

I will also add that a country where a great deal of people refuse to fight for their sovereignty and the government cuts everyone 22 and under lose, while expecting someone to come in with their troops and assure its security and potentially fight defending its sovereignty can basically f off. Mark Carney said the other day that sending Canadian troops to ensure security of Ukraine is not off the table. Well, he can f right off as well and there is zero chance I will support sending our troops to Ukraine at this point. Thankfully, this has nothing to do with reality and he just wanted to show a relevance of our irrelevance on the world stage and as far as this matter is concerned in particular.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Mark Carney said the other day that sending Canadian troops to ensure security of Ukraine is not off the table. Well, he can f right off as well and there is zero chance I will support sending our troops to Ukraine at this point. Thankfully, this has nothing to do with reality and he just wanted to show a relevance of our irrelevance on the world stage and as far as this matter is concerned in particular.
Well he is now a pollie so reality no longer applies. Even if it were politically possible, the Canadian armed forces don't have the bodies or necessary kit for any additional missions. Canada can barely manage our existing domestic and NATO commitments.
 

KipPotapych

Well-Known Member
^ True. To provide a perspective: there are 4 to 5 times more AWOL in Ukraine than there are troops in Canadian AF (including reserves). Or German and French AF combined with still room to include about half or more of the UK AF.


Is it cynical to believe that that there is some positioning by someone to get the Nobel Peace Prize for himself

P. S. There is no cult.
 

Vanquish

Member
I would be in favour of Canada sending Canadian personal to Ukraine as peace keepers. The first problem though as has been mentioned earlier is that Canada doesn't have enough personal to send. The second problem is that I don't think there will be a peace treaty signed for years, if ever. While a cease fire may be attainable at some point.
 

KipPotapych

Well-Known Member
^ I think if the troops are to move in from the willing countries, they would do so after a ceasefire. There is no point of peacekeeping if an actual peace is attained and will be viewed by Russia as a permanent dislocation of western forces in Ukraine, which they greatly oppose, which logically leads to no ceasefire until there are guarantees of these troops not being present in Ukraine. Hence, my struggle of understanding of what happens next.

I also think that all this talk about sending personnel to Ukraine is rather empty. It seems to me that the most reasonable, or rather realistic, guarantee so far discussed is the proposal by Meloni, which basically entails provision of weapons within 24 hours if another invasion takes place. I don’t think there is anything else that can be done that would have any credibility. All this talk about fighting for Ukraine in case of another invasion does not have much credibility since no one is willing to do so now. What would change in the future? Assuming we send the troops to guarantee whatever it is we guarantee and Russia attacks Ukraine again, what are we to do? This is a very serious question. Do we engage? If we do, what are the rules of such engagement? What is the level of engagement we are willing to commit to? Of course, to keep in mind, once small commitment is made, you are likely to go all in such circumstances. Is a war with Russia in the cards? I would think not. If that is the case (and again, it likely is the case), what are we talking about here?

I also think, while here in Canada we really do not have the resources for such a mission and it is not in our interests to commit to something like this, I heavily lean towards us joining the crowd with the scraps that make no difference and “doing what we can” because that is what we do (and it is not wrong). In reality, a greater support would be building infrastructure to export our resources, including hydrocarbons, directly to the European market, instead of selling them south of the border at great discounts and letting the Americans profit from them. That would solve a lot of things, mainly decreasing both Russian and American leverage/influence over Euros’ decisions and providing them with more space to maneuver in their own domain as they see fit. Do I think this is going to happen? No, I do not think it will, for various reasons. Is it dumb? Probably yes, with some caveats (one would be the time it would take to build this infrastructure - those familiar with this process in Canada should realize this - the viability of such infrastructure may be questionable upon completion, so the investment may not be desirable at this point; but if started when Scholz asked for it over 3 years ago, we could be laughing now or soon with extra cash to invest into our military, for example, or decrease the burden on the budget as the deficit is projected to hit nearly $100B this year and close to $80B in the next few years in an optimistic scenario). Not sure how many outside of Canada will appreciate this joke, but here it is; this is basically all we are good for at the moment, realistically speaking:

IMG_2106.jpeg

Edit: To add to Meloni’s proposal, it is weapons, economic assistance, and sanctions within 24 hours. The plan is outlined here (paywalled), but it is from 6 days ago, so probably available elsewhere by now:


Consider this though from the article:

European leaders are discussing a security guarantee for Ukraine that would commit Kyiv's allies to decide within 24 hours whether to provide military support to the country if it's again attacked by Russia.

How much of a nonsense is that? I think that tells you all you need to know about the proposed and actual commitments. Possibility of war with Russia is not on the table and never was. They are shooting air, just like we do.
 
Last edited:

vikingatespam

Well-Known Member
I think looking at the (perceived?) odds is rather helpful. The first most obvious thing is that counting on Putin dropping dead is being at least overly optimistic and at worst completely unreasonable. Why is he in overtime? He is what, 72 or 73?
The average male life expectancy is ~70 (have heard multiple answers on this). Sure, he has great health care but hes under enormous pressure. I have no doubt hes aging prematurely in his position.

Having said that, if his parents were long lived, the hes likely to live longer. Bummer.
 

crest

Member
The average male life expectancy is ~70 (have heard multiple answers on this). Sure, he has great health care but hes under enormous pressure. I have no doubt hes aging prematurely in his position.

Having said that, if his parents were long lived, the hes likely to live longer. Bummer.
It's worth noting he exercises regularly and has for most of his known life. As far as stress I have no doubt it's there but honestly he's been dealing with it for quite some time and seems to have not freaked out a single time in what 25 years? To be honest I think he might be in that "work won't kill him, retirement will" category
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
The average male life expectancy is ~70 (have heard multiple answers on this). Sure, he has great health care but hes under enormous pressure. I have no doubt hes aging prematurely in his position.

Having said that, if his parents were long lived, the hes likely to live longer. Bummer.
What are the drivers regarding this life expectancy? Why is it ~70 in Russia? How many of them apply to Putin? As someone said "rich 50 is middle class 40". It's not completely true, but certainly not completely untrue.

But the wider question is, what happens if Putin does die? Would that end the war?
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
the wider question is, what happens if Putin does die? Would that end the war?
Yes, I always wonder on the 'wish' especially on Euro West that the war is only because of Putin and will end if Putin gone. Possibilities of more nationalistic militant replacement seems not being consider by some who only wish is death to Putin.
 

Vanquish

Member
Perhaps with Putin gone Russians will grow tired of dying over dirt. Maybe they will have their own Maidan or Russian Spring revolution. Yeah I know that's seriously hard to imagine Russians wanting change.
 

KipPotapych

Well-Known Member
I think the question is not even what if a worse person comes to power if Putin kicks the bucket, but, as Feanor put it, simply what happens if he does suddenly die. And I think it is crucial to realistically asses the possibilities. As far as the war situation is concerned, the perspective of better outcome for Ukraine is rather bleak. This is not exactly an appropriate example, but consider the death of Stalin and Khrushchev taking over the reins and, for those familiar with the subject, the following “Stalin’s personality cult” theme unfolding. What has changed for those outside the USSR? There was the Cuban missile crisis a decade later. Soviet Union existed for 3 more decades after that. And the collapse happened after a relatively weak leader came to power, in the country in the deep crisis and an urgent need for reforms.

Putin, however, is not even remotely close to Stalin. And Russia is not a Soviet Union. Russian society is not a Soviet society. So while the example is not exactly appropriate, I think perspective is important. Even if we assume a completely unrealistic scenario of some “liberal”, what they call them in Russia, coming to power, what is going to change in Ukraine? The best case scenario, in my opinion, is the war would stop at the line of contact and great concessions will be expected for return of any territory that makes sense to return (basically where we are today, but with expectations of bright future and “reload” of diplomatic relations, etc). This is why many people criticize people like Yashin, Kara-Murza, and the like. They criticize them for their “weak” and almost mumbling position on Ukraine. It seems that people are completely oblivious to the fact that these “wanna be politicians”, really, still represent Russia and want to represent Russian people, not Ukraine and its people, or some other nation. And these are the most “liberal politicians” that Russia has to offer. Their support in Russia, however, is probably within (a large) margin of error. What is also likely within the margin of error, if that, is the desire to stop the war, abandon the captured territory, and basically meet the Ukrainian demands. There is simply no way this is going to happen, regardless of who comes to power if Putin has a stroke tomorrow and turns into vegetable or is buried a few days later.

Of course, this discussion is quite outside the brackets of a reasonable one to begin with because building your strategy on an expectation of Putin suddenly dying is ridiculous. But the fact that even if this unlikely contingency does happen, things are not likely to get much better for Ukraine should certainly be taken into account and, hence, it should not be seriously considered in any strategic planning.


Perhaps with Putin gone Russians will grow tired of dying over dirt. Maybe they will have their own Maidan or Russian Spring revolution. Yeah I know that's seriously hard to imagine Russians wanting change.
Perhaps, most of those dying for dirt are doing so voluntarily. Perhaps, they believe they are dying for something other than dirt, something much more significant. See, that is the thing that people tend to misunderstand for whatever reason: it’s not about the dirt. Imagine Russia, of all places, caring about some 6,000 sq km of land. Just think about the numbers and costs. To me it is just plain weird that people see the Russians as these dumb apes with no ability to reason on a level even remotely close to an average “westerner”.

As for change, what kind of change are you talking about? Do we want chnage? If we do, what kind of change is it that we want? Again, the assumption that they should want change and, I am assuming what is implied, the desire to be more like us is also pretty weird.

I am going to attach a couple of thoughts here that do not belong to me and have nothing to with this conflict in particular; rather there was no intention by the author for these to be used in this context. These are in no particular order, though there is an order intended by the author within a wider context, which is not followed here.







Just to make it clear before some run ahead with their imagination into a fantasy world, I am not calling for empathy for Putin or Russian aggression. Other than that, do as you will with these. My sincere apologies to the Mr Dalio for using these in the context never intended.
 

SolarisKenzo

Well-Known Member
The ogres continue their vile terrorism against Europe.



But, you know, it is clearly Europe that doesn't want peace.
 

rsemmes

Active Member
The ogres continue their vile terrorism against Europe.
But, you know, it is clearly Europe that doesn't want peace.
While Trump continues with his kind tariffs for Europe. (As kind as blowing up the Nord Stream.)

"Ukraine's Foreign Minister said..." Presenting what proof for his propaganda statement? That Ukraine's AD was not active that day?
Europe wants to keep Ukraine "in the fight", that doesn't sound like peace.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
The ogres continue their vile terrorism against Europe.
Of course. I'm not sure I agree with calling Ukrainian drone operators ogres, but the fact that ambulances in Belgorod have to be covered in anti-drone netting to prevent Ukrainian strikes certainly suggests the label terrorism.



But, you know, it is clearly Europe that doesn't want peace.
Everyone wants peace. What everyone disagrees with is under what terms. If Europe wants peace, they can have it right now. Just tell Ukraine you'll cut all aid to them unless they accept Russian demands. It's extremely rare to see a war because someone wanted a war. Wars are a continuation of politics by other means, i.e. an attempt to achieve political objectives by force.
 

KipPotapych

Well-Known Member
The ogres continue their vile terrorism against Europe.



But, you know, it is clearly Europe that doesn't want peace.
When the terrorist state of the USA dropped two nukes on Japan, have they sought peace or continuation of hostilities?

These conclusions are pretty weird. And many terms appear to have lost meaning over the past couple of years. Also this:

IMG_2148.jpeg

Who is naive? It’s like living yet another groundhog day.

People keep getting killed. No one still said what the hell they realistically expect to happen and what they are going to do. Having cornered yourself into the weakest position for the “negotiations”, and expecting the opponent agreeing to your “just peace” demands is insanity. At least the position had shifted from “as long as it takes” to “negotiations” (not really). But what’s next? What is the strategy? Repeating the same thing day after day is clearly not working and turns into nonsense, even if what is said actually made sense that first time it was said; now it is irritating and maddening. Who needs these daily idiotic takes (that are exactly the same too) accompanied by inaction? Either do something if you can, accept that you cannot, or just say that this will continue until Ukrainian capitulation or Russian collapse, whichever comes first. Oh wait, we are going to send the ball to Putin’s court again. If we can.


Europe wants peace in Ukraine while Russia wants a piece of Ukraine
Just a piece? You are aiming low :) Edit: Feel like I really missed the opportunity here. Of course, it should have been “just piece”.
 
Top