The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

[rsemmes]

Once again, your formatting is deficient. You need to start with the request to explain the term "death warrant". (Is English your native language ?)

That looks a bit... personal. Anyway...
I can think in 3 languages, can you see in English? This is from another language, I don't know if there is an idiom in English for it: "The worst impaired blind is he who doesn't want to see."
Please remember, it's only business...

So, are you actually reading this forum? Do you remember what you posted? I know it is difficult to see it in the news. But yes, what dam could that be that we are talking about, here, now...
Feanor was able to see it but, of course, if you don't want to see... (Actually, he got a few more for you.)

"UKR is trying to outlast RU and/or Putin."
If Zelenski is trying to outlast... He is delusional.
"What minerals has the US taken from UKR ?!
The great contract for Ukraine that Trump got from Zelenski.
"This war has brought so many surprises..."
I disagree.
"Your pretend care..."
Again, do you read this forum? I posted that I do not care. (Or that I care as much as we care about those boats sunk in the Caribbean.)
"Facts ? Iraq ? Iran ?"
Again, do you read this forum? You provided the context: "Just like we helped Nationalist China in 1941, South Korea in 1950, Britain in 1940, western Europe in the cold war, etc etc." 'Pick and choose' History?
"Simply put, RU is taking hits too."
The bigger country is getting (a lot less) hits... Is that a conclusion or wishful thinking?
"Putin using nuclear weapons would mean his own death."
Do you know if Trump is going to sign his own "death warrant" ('no winners' in your own words) over Ukraine? Do you know if that is the only option Putin has?

I have another language for you: Ad hominen.

 

[Feanor]

That looks a bit... personal. Anyway...
I can think in 3 languages, can you see in English? This is from another language, I don't know if there is an idiom in English for it: "The worst impaired blind is he who doesn't want to see."
Please remember, it's only business...

So, are you actually reading this forum? Do you remember what you posted? I know it is difficult to see it in the news. But yes, what dam could that be that we are talking about, here, now...
Feanor was able to see it but, of course, if you don't want to see... (Actually, he got a few more for you.)

"UKR is trying to outlast RU and/or Putin."
If Zelenski is trying to outlast... He is delusional.
"What minerals has the US taken from UKR ?!
The great contract for Ukraine that Trump got from Zelenski.
"This war has brought so many surprises..."
I disagree.
"Your pretend care..."
Again, do you read this forum? I posted that I do not care. (Or that I care as much as we care about those boats sunk in the Caribbean.)
"Facts ? Iraq ? Iran ?"
Again, do you read this forum? You provided the context: "Just like we helped Nationalist China in 1941, South Korea in 1950, Britain in 1940, western Europe in the cold war, etc etc." 'Pick and choose' History?
"Simply put, RU is taking hits too."
The bigger country is getting (a lot less) hits... Is that a conclusion or wishful thinking?
"Putin using nuclear weapons would mean his own death."
Do you know if Trump is going to sign his own "death warrant" ('no winners' in your own words) over Ukraine? Do you know if that is the only option Putin has?

I have another language for you: Ad hominen.

Homo homini lupus est. Sorry I couldn't resist.

 

[Stampede]

Unless you start (WW3) escalation. You don't know Russia's reaction, you don't know how we will react.
That would be a closer war.

So rsemmes what outcome do you want for this conflict.

Regards S

 

[rsemmes]

So rsemmes what outcome do you want for this conflict.

Regards S

Want? Completely irrelevant.

I do not care. I don't think we're going to start WW3 for this conflict so, I don't care.
How many conflicts around there right now? I (we?) don't care.
Do I want any specific outcome? Never even thought about it. I thinks it's better if it ends now, or after Robotine or at Istanbul.
I don't think it will end with an Ukrainian collapse, just before that. My heart is not in this conflict, I don't "want" anything. As I posted before, this conflict is just another footnote.

 

[Stampede]

Want? Completely irrelevant.

I do not care. I don't think we're going to start WW3 for this conflict so, I don't care.
How many conflicts around there right now? I (we?) don't care.
Do I want any specific outcome? Never even thought about it. I thinks it's better if it ends now, or after Robotine or at Istanbul.
I don't think it will end with an Ukrainian collapse, just before that. My heart is not in this conflict, I don't "want" anything. As I posted before, this conflict is just another footnote.

I’m not sure what I can unpack from your response.
You certainly have a lot to say about this conflict.
While you may dismiss it as just another footnote, you do appear to have some passion engaging with others on this subject.

I’m a bit confused

Cheers S

 

[rsemmes]

I’m not sure what I can unpack from your response.
You certainly have a lot to say about this conflict.
While you may dismiss it as just another footnote, you do appear to have some passion engaging with others on this subject.
I’m a bit confused
Cheers S

I wouldn't use the word "passion". I am interested in the 1809 campaign, neither in the outcome of the Austrian Empire nor in the life of the French soldiers; probably about their logistics.
Still confused?

 

[Rob c]

An interesting development in international war crimes law that i suspect Russia will not like.
A Russian officer who is a pow has been charged with war crimes and transfered to be tried outside of Ukraine.

MSN

 

[swerve]

I can think in 3 languages, can you see in English? This is from another language, I don't know if there is an idiom in English for it: "The worst impaired blind is he who doesn't want to see."

It's been used in English probably for as long as there's been English, & the most quoted versions are somewhat archaic: "There's none so blind as he who will not see" (16th century, I think) & "There are none so blind as those who will not see".

"Will not see" in this usage means more or less "refuses to see", or "avoids seeing".

 

[personaldesas]

That looks a bit... personal. Anyway...
I can think in 3 languages, can you see in English? This is from another language, I don't know if there is an idiom in English for it: "The worst impaired blind is he who doesn't want to see."
Please remember, it's only business...

To be fair, reading your posts sometimes does feels like chatting with an old, frustrated friend at 3 a.m. who’s maybe a drink past coherence. Said with full affection, mind you!
And absolutely not saying your points aren’t solid, they might be brilliant, it’s just that following them sometimes requires quite a bit of effort.

Can’t really add much to the linguistic discussion, it’s not my native language, neither.

 

[Feanor]

Based on its historical experience, Ukraine has ample reason to question both Russia’s adherence to treaties and the West’s resolve in upholding security guarantees.

That's the thing, if western security guarantees can't be counted upon, then what even is the end game?

It’d be an interesting question whether the situation would look different today had Western military aid been delivered earlier and in a more decisive manner. The incremental, hesitant approach always seemed to blunt its potential impact.

Certainly more aid would have helped. We can see the impact western aid has on the battlefield.

Do we have a good understanding by now if this was a genuine offer, rather than a maneuver aimed at shaping perceptions or buying time?

I think the Istanbul accords were a genuine offer. I don't think the initial invasion was about conquering territory. It became that when Russia shifted to a long war. Even so I don't think Russia intends to conquer all of Ukraine. That would create a huge problem for Russia, absorbing populations like Kiev, L'vov, etc. I think Russia can relatively easily (relative to taking the rest Ukraine) absorb places like Kharkov, or Kherson. Though I suspect Zaporozhye would present challenges. I do think Russia wants a way out where they can keep what they've conquered, and impose a forced neutrality on Ukraine. But to be fair, this is my interpretation.

Which is why the information front, propaganda, morale, perceptionhas become such a key part of this war.

Agreed.

What is that assessment based on? Are there specific sources or data comparing the two sides’ conduct?

I don't know of a good impartial systematic comparison. This is the impression I've gotten from following this conflict since the events of '14. In my opinion the Ukrainian military has been more willing to commit heinous acts then Russia's forces or the rebels. That having been said the comparison is a complex one. Russia certainly does more damage to Ukrainian civilians, because Russia carries out far more strikes. But Ukraine seems to be more willing to deliver strikes either against civilian targets or with near complete disregard for civilians. Case in point, bombarding Belgorod in the middle of a busy day with MLRS strikes that didn't seem to be aimed at anything in particular. A Russian Kh-101 that misses or gets downed can do far more damage then a Uragan rocket. But it typically was aimed at either military or dual use targets. Meanwhile Ukraine has been cheerfully striking public transportation in the town of Gorlovka with drones, even though the population is ostensibly Ukraine's own people. And if you look at Ukrainian service members' social media you often find them talking about locals in the east as pro-Russian sympathizers. I suspect there's a certain amount of "othering" within Ukraine's force-wielding structures of Russian civilians, and of Ukrainian citizens in the east that may be (not are, may be) more pro-Russian inclined. In the end Russia may be killing more civilians then Ukraine but Ukraine is more willing to kill civilians deliberately or indiscriminantely. Again this the impression I've carried away from following this war.

None of this excuses Russian war crimes, which are real and have been committed fairly brazenly in many cases.

Last thought, the units used by both sides, especially earlier into the war, were very inconsistent. From the Russian side the war started with militarized police elements from the Troops of the Interior, National Guard units, actualy army units, rebel formations, soon joined by irregulars (like the Cossack units) and various mercenary elements. In Russia specifically the police is notoriously corrupt and police brutality is well known phenomena. And we saw militarized police elements involved in war crimes early in the war. So the behavior can also vary strongly from unit to unit. The same can be said for Ukraine that entered the war with a mix of regular army, territorial defense brigades, National Guard, and separate units specifically associated with right-wing extremists (Azov, Kraken, Aydar etc.). The behavior also varies by unit. The story of Tornado btln is indicative there.

 

[rsemmes]

It's been used in English probably for as long as there's been English, & the most quoted versions are somewhat archaic: "There's none so blind as he who will not see" (16th century, I think) & "There are none so blind as those who will not see".

"Will not see" in this usage means more or less "refuses to see", or "avoids seeing".

Thanks. now I know there is.

 

[rsemmes]

To be fair, reading your posts sometimes does feels like chatting with an old, frustrated friend at 3 a.m. who’s maybe a drink past coherence. Said with full affection, mind you!
And absolutely not saying your points aren’t solid, they might be brilliant, it’s just that following them sometimes requires quite a bit of effort.

Can’t really add much to the linguistic discussion, it’s not my native language, neither.

I should use more words,I've been told before. (Not only at 3 in the morning.

 

[rsemmes]

Just a few fragments.

Emergent Approaches to Combined Arms Manoeuvre in Ukraine

Ukrainian forces have begun to develop novel approaches to combined arms manoeuvre, incorporating new capabilities, that bear scrutiny for NATO armies.

www.rusi.org

"One Ukrainian tank platoon observed by the author had been operating four captured Russian tanks for over a year, and while they conceded that they would be hit between two and 12 times per operation, the vehicles were still in good condition, even if their armour had to be regularly replaced."
-That is far from the often repeated story of one tank (always Russian) getting one drone and blowing up in flames.
"Ukrainians generally perceive Western tanks as overly heavy and hard to repair. Crews may appreciate their survivability, but commanders find their availability diminishes quickly. Battle damage to armour is considered an inevitable consequence of its employment. As a result, the speed at which it can be recovered and repaired is critical to maintaining the tempo of operations."
-They never were silver bullets, nor victory.
The optimised Ukrainian section comprises seven soldiers, divided into two fireteams of three plus the section commander. When holding a position, a section will usually deploy one fireteam to cover enemy forces, supported by the section commander, and deploy the other fireteam to cover the air. When moving, the section divides, with two soldiers from each fireteam moving and firing to cover the enemy, and the third covering the air.
-That looks familiar, to me. One possible way to counter a threat. The only seven men, for two different missions, feels like a handicap, but you work with what you have.

Edit:
-About surprise...
"A pertinent example is how Ukrainian forces routinely deploy mines on anticipated axes of attack as the enemy is assembling."
-So, if one side can deny enemy's ISR (superabundance of assets) we will have an armoured penetration and business as usual.
"For example, engineering equipment which is critical to breaching risks being damaged or destroyed before it even approaches the line of contact.
-Something that already happened in the Golan Heights in 1973 by direct fire.
"In addition, because non-line of sight weapons are ubiquitous"
-Since 1914...
"The result is that manoeuvre forces outstrip the rate at which they can be supplied"
-Well, not really, that depends on the volume of fire and forces available to each side.
"Russian soldiers usually infiltrate in groups of two to five"
-Not the 1-2 mentioned sometimes.
...

I don't think I can call that report "Good".

 

[vikingatespam]

Ukraine avoided this fate when they defeated Russia's initial invasion. They have terms now that would in principle allow them to remain independent and not be a Russian puppet state.

What precise terms has RU offered ? We have some idea of what was offered in 2022, but what now ? Is "UKR demilitarization" off the table ? here is what I can find:

Peace negotiations in the Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"
On 15 May, Russian and Ukrainian delegations held direct talks in Istanbul for the first time since early 2022.[356] On the meetings which continued 2 June delegations exchanged their largely incompatible negotiation positions and only agreed on humanitarian issues such as exchange of prisoners and bodies. Vladimir Medinsky was leading a Russian delegation to a negotiation meeting with Ukraine in Istanbul. He demanded that Ukraine should allow Russia to keep the Ukrainian regions that were occupied by Russia, and also to give up more land. He stated that Russia was prepared to fight the war for as many years as was necessary to achieve the Russian goals, and referred to the 18th century Russo-Swedish War, saying that it lasted for 21 years.[357] On 3 June Dmitry Medvedev commented that the negotiations are "not for striking a compromise peace on someone else's delusional terms but for ensuring our swift victory and the complete destruction of the neo-Nazi regime".[358]

As a condition of peace, Russia called on Ukraine to give up four partially occupied Ukrainian regions that Russia had annexed but not conquered: a territorial concession that Ukraine has repeatedly rejected. Russia further demanded that Ukraine must accept strict limitations on its armed forces, not be part of any military alliance, not receive any Western military aid, outlaw "nationalist parties and organizations", outlaw "Nazi propaganda", grant Russian the status of an official language, guarantee the rights of the Russian-speaking population, restore full diplomatic and economic ties with Russia, that neither side would demand any reparations, and that all Western sanctions against Russia be lifted.[359][360] Putin rejected calls for an unconditional ceasefire and escalated attacks on Ukraine.[361]
"

Seems to me to be pretty much the same as 2022.

Maybe once negotiations start in earnest, something in the details will prevent that, but what we have now is a deal that makes Ukraine neutral and demilitarized. Nothing about political subservience to Russia.

Demilitarization = subservience. The comparison to Czech.1938 cannot be overstated.

I'm reasonably confident he's pointing at the hypocrisy of crying about Russia blowing up a dam but mostly keeping quiet about Ukraine blowing up the Belgorod dam. Ukraine double-taps a civilian ambulance in Donetsk, and there's no outrage, but Russia hits one in Kherson and they're a terrorist state. This seems to be the main point he's making. Ukraine's behavior isn't substantively better than Russia's. Personally I'm of the opinion that it's substantively worse, minus the fact of the invasion itself.

Well that is a fair point. The damaged Belgorod dam lowered water levels by 1 foot in the reservoir, causing some flooding.

Ukraine Strikes Russian Dam, Triggering Emergency in Belgorod Region - The Moscow Times

Russian authorities declared an emergency at a key reservoir after a series of Ukrainian strikes caused significant structural damage to a dam in the southwestern Belgorod region, officials said Monday.

www.themoscowtimes.com

The Kakhovka dam was completely destroyed, resulting in a far greater catastrophe with ~100 killed or missing.

I suppose if ones biggest complaint about this war is that western media is downplaying the effect of the Belgorod dam, then you can have that point. However, the magnitude and effects of the dam strikes are far different.

UKR is not completely innocent here when it comes to strikes on infrastructure and civilian targets. RU, however makes it a policy.

 

[vikingatespam]

That looks a bit... personal. Anyway...
I can think in 3 languages, can you see in English? This is from another language, I don't know if there is an idiom in English for it: "The worst impaired blind is he who doesn't want to see."
Please remember, it's only business...

Thats a lot of verbage to say "no" (as in "English is not my native language").

The purpose of my question is that so I can avoid idiom to enable you to actually participate in a meaningful manner.

Your use of a "stream of consciousness-no-context" style is not beneficial to me, you, or the other reader. Context is key.

So, are you actually reading this forum? Do you remember what you posted? I know it is difficult to see it in the news. But yes, what dam could that be that we are talking about, here, now...
Feanor was able to see it but, of course, if you don't want to see... (Actually, he got a few more for you.)

No, Feanor was able to concisely state that the disconnect was on my part. You were unable to do so.

Allow me to format your post properly. Such a chore. V= viking, R = rsemmes

V: "UKR is trying to outlast RU and/or Putin."
R: If Zelenski is trying to outlast... He is delusional.

Seems to be working so far. RU has a navy, a far larger air force, a far larger budget, a far larger pool of manpower, and (had) a large stock of cold war material..... and RU hasnt been able to accomplish its goals.

Will it work forever ? Hard to tell.

The real delusional person is Putin. 3.5 years into this shit-show of military, economic and political incompetence, RU still has not achieved its goals.

V:"What minerals has the US taken from UKR ?!
R: The great contract for Ukraine that Trump got from Zelenski.

So....you didnt read.... I asked precisely: "What minerals has the US taken from UKR"

The answer of course - is nothing.

V: "This war has brought so many surprises..."
R: I disagree.

You......havnt been surprised ? You saw in advance as such events as:

- UKR taking back half of what RU initially had taken
- sinking of the Moskva and chasing the RU Black sea fleet back into port
- neutering the ability of the RU airforce to openly operate over UKR
- massive increase of drone warfare, and its evolutions, to the point of seeing WW1 tactics
- the inability of RU to protects is economic centers (refining)
- two new additions to NATO

Well, maybe since you are so smart, you can tell us some winning lottery numbers.

V: "Your pretend care..."
R: Again, do you read this forum? I posted that I do not care. (Or that I care as much as we care about those boats sunk in the Caribbean.)

Really ? One of your talking points has been about the effect on the UKR people.

V: "Facts ? Iraq ? Iran ?"
R: Again, do you read this forum? You provided the context: "Just like we helped Nationalist China in 1941, South Korea in 1950, Britain in 1940, western Europe in the cold war, etc etc." 'Pick and choose' History?

"No context".

V: "Simply put, RU is taking hits too."
R: The bigger country is getting (a lot less) hits... Is that a conclusion or wishful thinking?

Bigger, but points of economic sensitivity. If UKR can keep hitting these centers, what can RU do ?

V:"Putin using nuclear weapons would mean his own death."
R: Do you know if Trump is going to sign his own "death warrant" ('no winners' in your own words) over Ukraine? Do you know if that is the only option Putin has?

The political, military and economic blowback from using nukes is a death sentence. It doesnt automatically mean a global nuke war.

I have another language for you: Ad hominen.

I have another suggestion. Try adding context and formatting.

 

[rsemmes]

Thats a lot of verbage to say "no" (as in "English is not my native language").

The purpose of my question is that so I can avoid idiom to enable you to actually participate in a meaningful manner.

Your use of a "stream of consciousness-no-context" style is not beneficial to me, you, or the other reader. Context is key.

a/ I didn't want to say "no".
b/ You have been able to see "no".

- UKR taking back half of what RU initially had taken
- sinking of the Moskva and chasing the RU Black sea fleet back into port
- neutering the ability of the RU airforce to openly operate over UKR
- massive increase of drone warfare, and its evolutions, to the point of seeing WW1 tactics
- the inability of RU to protects is economic centers (refining)
- two new additions to NATO

Ukraine didn't "take it back", Russia left. The front moving in a war!
Sinking ships in a war! (Falklands?)
Explain that to Israel in 1973.
"Massive". On the other hand... Massive use of munitions in a war!
Economic centres of a nation at war being hit... Ever?
NATO was expanding.

I have another suggestion. Try adding context and formatting.

"There's none so blind as he who will not see"

 

[crest]

Thats a lot of verbage to say "no" (as in "English is not my native language").

The real delusional person is Putin. 3.5 years into this shit-show of military, economic and political incompetence, RU still has not achieved its goals.

You......havnt been surprised ? You saw in advance as such events as:

- UKR taking back half of what RU initially had taken
- sinking of the Moskva and chasing the RU Black sea fleet back into port
- neutering the ability of the RU airforce to openly operate over UKR
- massive increase of drone warfare, and its evolutions, to the point of seeing WW1 tactics
- the inability of RU to protects is economic centers (refining)
- two new additions to NATO

Bigger, but points of economic sensitivity. If UKR can keep hitting these centers, what can RU do ?

He hasn't the goalpost have also moved a bit farther. He also hasn't moved one step from his core demands. Tbh it would be very hard for him to move from them at all and still have the reason he invaded be valid. Either Russia is able to remove western military potential from Ukraine because Russia does indeed consider it a national security issue. Or will settle with having achieved this goal

And by that yardstick can be legitimately viewed as using the field of battle to solve a issue he could not resolve by other means. There is long and serious series of events with a clear msg from Moscow leading to the invasion. Or he compromise on the security issue proving false his claims that for Russia this was a in there view a existential threat to the nation. Objectively the higher the cost of the war the more credit one should give to the Russian position regardless of ones feeling about it. The price a nation is willing to pay in war directly corresponds to its importance. Hey MAY personally I think it does hard to see why russia would go to war for...more land) not have been lying about the reason if he doesnt compermise on Western military force in Ukraine and was if he does compermise, is the truth of it.

Agree there has many surprises in this war. Unexpected things are happing are one of rhe things you should expect to happen.

On Ukraine taking it back?
No tho once it became clear Russia did manage to make the pivot from haveing there prewar hopes turn in to a humiliating retreat to hastily but well built defences it became a gamble they could hold and rebuild and reform there army well also transitioning there economic activity from west to east and industrial gear ther industrial base for a long term war. After that feat it became increasingly clear that Russia could indeed win a attritional was. Especially as when Ukraine started to show it also had issues it needed to address they have not achieve a similarly effective set of changes to regain the initial success achieved once it burned itself out in progressively less effective assaults.

In retrospect I think almost everyone myself included failed to not that yes Russia's attack was defeated the fighting retreat to those defence lines was not itself a defeat it was actually a very hard to pull off. Well different holding out against heavy odds way longer then rationality expected to is something the Ukrainians are also very good at I think it speaks volumes about the qualities of soldiers from these regions Also historically living up to there reputations. Just wanted to point that out as this day and age it's all spreadsheets and who's more elite. . I still believe the will of its people to fight not just whith the advantage but without is perhaps there greatest asset certainly it's the most underrated when assessing others

On sinking ships?
This if anything showcases the power of drone warfare, ships in particular are a good target and against land based as showcased severely handicapped. The issue is space a ship must have high end defences for modern(ish) anti ship weapons it also has limited space for systems and munitions. It's also kinda slow and predictable in its movements. And very very high value and capable system in its own right. But against a drone swarm it's on a timer and that's if all goes well.....yeah if you had a safe island to launch drones 10 miles from perl harbour they would move there ships to. That's the lesson hear not even really new we learned it in WW2 aircraft carries are goods vs ships. Now we are somehow surprised in the drone age that you don't need a actual Airforce if the ship is close enough who knew? Actually now that I think about it it's a better example of just how bad a idea it is to take ships close to hostile shores unless you intend to run it up to the beach

Russian lack of deep strikes with conventional airpower? There in a attritional war by choice here, they have missiles they have drones they made plans to make more of both and did so proving they saw the need. I wouldn't want to risk planes flying over defended areas either. But the idea Russia is unable to strike west Ukraine is demonstrabley false

Russian refining and ad
Air defence in the drone age is difficult actually taking out a refinery for a extended time with a drone is unlikely. These attacks are costly for Russia but not anywer close to war ending.

And yes NATO was already expanding
Russia noteabley did not Infact wage war against Nato they waged war against Ukraine in order to prevent a war with NATO being there justification. Ukraine is still not in NATO nor is are Russia and NATO directly at war with each other. Tho they are in a conflict and the is a very arguable case that you can and Russia has been that this conflict is not new not unexpected and indeed perhaps smaller then it could have been. It's also larger then it could have been aswell. A fact that give the theroy some credibility imop

 

[Feanor]

Pokrovsk is basically done. Ukraine still holds the apartments west of Rovnoe and some of the northern suburbs, but barely any. There's barely any opening left for an exit out of the Pokrovsk-Mirnograd cauldron. It's unclear how much of a Ukrainian presence remains in the cauldron, but it's not nothing. Ukraine still holds most of Mirnograd. Meanwhile Ukraine is clearly trying to deblockade Mirnograd from the north, and has even re-entered Rodinskoe. Though north of that the fighting is still back and forth. Curiously enough, the way things are going Russia will be taking Rovnoe next, along with some of the area between Pokrovsk and Mirnograd. And with that fallen, even if Ukraine retakes all of Rodinskoe, a fairly unlikely development, it still wouldn't open a clear way out. On a side note, at least in Ukrainian terms Rodinskoe is an urban municipality, i.e. a town. Ukraine hasn't recaptured any towns from Russia at all since 2022.

 

[KipPotapych]

Pokrovsk is basically done. Ukraine still holds the apartments west of Rovnoe and some of the northern suburbs, but barely any. There's barely any opening left for an exit out of the Pokrovsk-Mirnograd cauldron. It's unclear how much of a Ukrainian presence remains in the cauldron, but it's not nothing. Ukraine still holds most of Mirnograd. Meanwhile Ukraine is clearly trying to deblockade Mirnograd from the north, and has even re-entered Rodinskoe. Though north of that the fighting is still back and forth. Curiously enough, the way things are going Russia will be taking Rovnoe next, along with some of the area between Pokrovsk and Mirnograd. And with that fallen, even if Ukraine retakes all of Rodinskoe, a fairly unlikely development, it still wouldn't open a clear way out. On a side note, at least in Ukrainian terms Rodinskoe is an urban municipality, i.e. a town. Ukraine hasn't recaptured any towns from Russia at all since 2022.

This seems to be the confirmation of that development:



But



My guess is that they are going to throw everything they have at Kupiansk. Not sure the results will be as favourable as Zelensky thinks (in his tweet) though. One of the reasons:

 

[Feanor]

What precise terms has RU offered ? We have some idea of what was offered in 2022, but what now ? Is "UKR demilitarization" off the table ? here is what I can find:

Peace negotiations in the Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"
On 15 May, Russian and Ukrainian delegations held direct talks in Istanbul for the first time since early 2022.[356] On the meetings which continued 2 June delegations exchanged their largely incompatible negotiation positions and only agreed on humanitarian issues such as exchange of prisoners and bodies. Vladimir Medinsky was leading a Russian delegation to a negotiation meeting with Ukraine in Istanbul. He demanded that Ukraine should allow Russia to keep the Ukrainian regions that were occupied by Russia, and also to give up more land. He stated that Russia was prepared to fight the war for as many years as was necessary to achieve the Russian goals, and referred to the 18th century Russo-Swedish War, saying that it lasted for 21 years.[357] On 3 June Dmitry Medvedev commented that the negotiations are "not for striking a compromise peace on someone else's delusional terms but for ensuring our swift victory and the complete destruction of the neo-Nazi regime".[358]

As a condition of peace, Russia called on Ukraine to give up four partially occupied Ukrainian regions that Russia had annexed but not conquered: a territorial concession that Ukraine has repeatedly rejected. Russia further demanded that Ukraine must accept strict limitations on its armed forces, not be part of any military alliance, not receive any Western military aid, outlaw "nationalist parties and organizations", outlaw "Nazi propaganda", grant Russian the status of an official language, guarantee the rights of the Russian-speaking population, restore full diplomatic and economic ties with Russia, that neither side would demand any reparations, and that all Western sanctions against Russia be lifted.[359][360] Putin rejected calls for an unconditional ceasefire and escalated attacks on Ukraine.[361]
"

Seems to me to be pretty much the same as 2022.

No. The 2022 accords demanded recognition of the LDNR statelets as independent. Iirc it wasn't immediately obvious if it meant the rebel regions or the entire administrative regions of Ukraine, but even if the latter, there was nothing in that deal about Kherson or Zaporozhye region. And in principle independent states might find their way back into Ukraine at some point in the future, far more so then Russian regions annexed and fully integrated. The current deal is materially worse. The material? At least two more regions of Ukraine lost, and all 4 of these regions recognized as Russian. And this is exactly the manner in which any peace proposal from Russia will continue to get worse as the war continues, in my opinion. I think Kharkov region is the likeliest next target for annexation but this will only come with the complete conquest of Donetsk region, and the conquest of likely the majority of Kharkov region itself, possibly without the capital city.

Demilitarization = subservience. The comparison to Czech.1938 cannot be overstated.

Anything can be overstated. I disagree with your point. Enforced neutrality is a Cold War tradition, it happened to countries like Austria, and Finland (de facto more so than de jure). I believe this is the outcome Russia is currently aiming for. This is a retreat from the maximalist initial goals of toppling the Ukrainian government and replacing the allegedly illegitimate post-Maydan government with some version of a Ukrainian Lukashenko. Again, the question is, what is the alternative?

Well that is a fair point. The damaged Belgorod dam lowered water levels by 1 foot in the reservoir, causing some flooding.

Ukraine Strikes Russian Dam, Triggering Emergency in Belgorod Region - The Moscow Times

Russian authorities declared an emergency at a key reservoir after a series of Ukrainian strikes caused significant structural damage to a dam in the southwestern Belgorod region, officials said Monday.

www.themoscowtimes.com

The Kakhovka dam was completely destroyed, resulting in a far greater catastrophe with ~100 killed or missing.

I suppose if ones biggest complaint about this war is that western media is downplaying the effect of the Belgorod dam, then you can have that point. However, the magnitude and effects of the dam strikes are far different.

UKR is not completely innocent here when it comes to strikes on infrastructure and civilian targets. RU, however makes it a policy.

I don't think it's that specific example that is the complaint. I think his argument, and mine too, is that much of the western commentary about this war is manufactured and hypocritical outrage at Russian behavior, while similar bad behavior from Ukraine is quietly ignored. And when you put aside the emotions and look at the two sides more objectively, you get a far clearer image of the situation. His argument is not different from mine many years back - Russia considers Ukraine a vital national interest and the west does not, so Russia will go further to prevent Ukraine from turning into a larger version of the Baltic states. Understanding this reality, advocating for Ukraine to fight until victory or death, is in reality advocating for Ukraine to fight until death. This might be advantageous to the collective west (hello Russia's narrative about "fighting to the last Ukrainian") but ultimately isn't actually good for Ukraine. Instead it's likely to produce a worse end result for Ukraine. I'll let @rsemmes correct me if I misinterpreted his point, but this is my takeaway from his posts.

On a side note, I want to ask you about your position.

1) Do you think Ukraine should fight against Russia literally until Ukrainian statehood is extinguished, or do you think Ukraine, if losing the war, should accept a bad peace treaty at some point before they reach complete defeat and Russian occupation? Remember, it's a hypothetical, I'm not trying to argue about whether this is in fact what will happen.
2) If you think Ukraine should accept a bad peace before losing all formal independence, where is that line? For example, if Russia was about to occupy Kharkov, and it was likely this would be followed by an annexation of Kharkov region, do you think this would justify Ukraine accepting current peace conditions (provided they're still available) in order to be able to keep Kharkov city and region? If not Kharkov, Poltava, Kiev, Dnepropetrovsk, Odessa, where is the line?
3) What about demographic damage? Do you think there is a level of demographic damage to Ukrainian society that would make a bad peace, losing territory and accepting something similar to Austria's status during the Cold War, preferable to continued fighting? Remember Ukraine has had the world's fastest shrinking population for some time, with low birth rates, high mortality, and high emigration and that was before Russia started demolishing infrastructure wholesale.