The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

[rsemmes]

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s 40-day campaign to “influence” Russia into ending the war expired last week without much fanfare.
Unsurprisingly...
In response to the Ukrainian “influence campaign”, the Russian army launched brutal strikes on Ukrainian infrastructure, which resulted in the country’s Black Sea ports shutting down. This is having a devastating effect on companies handling Ukraine’s two main export commodities – grain and ore.
Russia also embarked on indiscriminate attacks on logistical hubs belonging to Ukraine’s major retailers, such as Epicentr and Rozetka, resulting in a near-complete loss of business for their politically influential owners. The Russian military also targeted Ukrainian petrol stations and even individual petrol trucks.

Ukraine’s 40-day campaign has not brought the war closer to an end

Kyiv is facing a brutal Russian response as its air defence missile stocks dwindle.

www.aljazeera.com

Ukrainian strikes are not "brutal"?
Ukrainian attacks on Wildberries are "discriminate"?
Ukraine is proudly destroying petrol trucks, even those "in disguise".
Even the Pope and the UN told both of them to "stop" killing civilians.
As mentioned, by an Ukrainian, before, maybe Ukraine should start planning how to survive this winter instead of how to "win" the war with drones.
Maybe that "window of opportunity" was the last chance before Ukraine crumbles down? More like before the beginning of the end, I think.

Like Kursk, another Zelenki's great idea.
There is also a reference about Zelenski firing T. Kachka.

 

[Redshift]

Even if you are going off topic...
You are just saying that Russia is like the UK (and its monarchy), another western democracy.

Edit
2023 or 1963? Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Act 2017 passed to criminalize dealing in unlawfully exported cultural property, Buckingham Palace secured a specific exemption ensuring police powers of entry do not apply to the sovereign's private estates.
You don't read theguardian?

If the Queen has nothing to hide, she should tell us what artefacts she owns | Dan Hicks

The royal family has a history of acquiring looted objects, so its exemption from a law protecting cultural heritage raises questions, says archaeologist Dan Hicks

www.theguardian.com

Pretty sure you know of the British Museum Act 1963 and the National Heritage Act 1983, right?

Not really * was just adding another what about to your what about

 

[KipPotapych]

I assume the "two hits" is based off this May 2026 data, which alleges two hits + one disputed from Aug 2025 - March 2026. But this source claims four Flamingo strikes, this source claims multiple strikes, there is this claim from June, this claim of three strikes, and this claim of a strike from last month. Are these claims reliable? If so, does that suggest that the Flamingos are more effective than the May 2026 data suggests? Apologies if I am misreading anything; this is not my area.

You are right (though that is not the report I was referring to) and thanks for catching this. What I should have said is:

There were two hits in July (and I am fairly certain it was only one, but maybe I am wrong, as stated in the post above) and everything else since has been intercepted. Said otherwise, out of about 4 dozens missiles launched beginning in February, 5 or 6 (?) made it through. About 15-20 (?) launched since the last strike had all been intercepted by the Russian aviation. It is currently a dud and we shall see what happens later.

I should also add that unless UA authorities and OSINT report everything, it is probably more than 4 or so dozens of missiles.

Again, thanks for the catching that and my apologies for the needed correction.

 

[KipPotapych]

So I have been seeing this thing from pro-Ukrainian crowd (mostly mappers, but also others) that there is this super secrete counteroffensive happening. In fact in at least two directions. Great news is incoming. The maps are not reflecting the progress due to the OPSEC. Well, the thing is that I have been reading about it for… has to be over a month now, probably closer to two. Maybe more? Can’t say for sure.

So how can something like this remain secrete and ongoing (and, importantly, successful) for such a long period of time? In the war that has been publicized and broadcasted like no other, nothing even comes remotely close?

The whole thing is reminiscent of WWE (American wrestling).

Quoting for continuity.

So “great success!”, as expected. Though it was certainly way more than two months I had been thinking of (time flies).



Zelensky announces an epic operation that lasted for a whooping 7.5 months and resulted in liberation of 745 sq km and 26 villages. Deepstate paints under 300 sq km blue on their map (lots of it previously indicated as grey zone, about half?) and video of, what is generally known, flag-waving at various places is posted. Many mappers followed suit and painted the area blue as well, though most reasonable ones mentioned that they changed lots of it to grey instead simply because there is no evidence for the claims. They all gave a sigh of relief though, now that the “OPSEC” is over. Some (even reasonable ones) tried to convince people that it had to be kept secrete because Russians use their maps and whatnot in their planning. I am really not sure how much more nonsensical it can get! Yet, here we are. Imagine thinking that Zelensky has access to documents from Putin’s desk, while dumb Russians could not figure out what was happening in some area of a few hundred square kilometres at the line of contact (to boot!) for over seven months.

Notably, Syrsky himself announced the operation back in January (or February?), but it ran out of steam fairly quickly and the updates stopped (I guess while the Ukrainians kept grinding through anyway?). While, as I remember, some declared the goal was the liberation of Huliaipole, most reasonable osinters settled conservatively on Uspenivka, which is still firmly red:



Note that Ternuvate, where Russians were pushed back way back when, is still in the grey zone (or is it again, not still, in the grey zone - I hardly look at the maps nowadays as I don’t see much relevance unless something happens?).

Funny that Syrsky hasn’t been mentioned at all even though it was his “baby”. And a thought on this, while here… The timing of the announcement of the “epic success” kindda (well, very much so) lines up with the change of the CiC, review of policies and strategy, reduction of losses, etc. Furthermore, it kindda lines up with the announcement of transfer of the Skala “regiment” (or a good part of it) to the command of the Azov corps -> likely to be sent to Dobropillia, where everything is dandy, according to the same map:



Or/and Druzhkivka, where everything is just as fine (not only there is no Russian control in parts of Konstiantynivka, but a chunk of it is actually in full Ukrainian control):



I do not think there is a better illustration of the absurdity of this map. But whatever, like I said - irrelevant.

Russians, by the way, have already countered some of the claims by posting videos with flag-waivers at various liberated settlements, some as old as a month ago. Laughing. I just find it funny that everyone giggles at the Russian flag-waving videos and their map painting, while here we have the exact same thing, yet it is great success. My guess is that we will see that most of this blue painting is a grey zone sooner rather than later.

The other claim Zelensky has made is that this op resulted in nearly 10,000 Russian troops being killed and 6,600 being wounded. The “exchange fund” has been replenished as well. First, the choice of the word “replenished”. Shouldn’t the “fund” be so full that it is ready to burst from all the “infiltrators” that they take as PoWs on regular basis? I mean, it has been a while since the last prisoner exchange. Second, over 9K dead Russians. How do we calculate UA losses on the offensive? Two to one? Three? Or the usual “we used the opportunity to attrit the Russians and inflicted even more losses”, so 1:2? 1:3?

What I see as a fairly reasonable explanation: in line with the new command announced policies, Ukrainians were experiencing an unfavourable rate of attrition in this (secondary) sector (all for show), so the decision was made to halt offensive operations and move the available manpower to the primary sectors that are deteriorating (probably preventing (or extending the timeline of) an eventual collapse and another round of rapid Russian advances). At the same time, declare an epic victory (“epic” because the result is about double the advances in terms of area than during the 2023 counteroffensive over about the same period of time). In reality… I guess, time will tell. I wonder how the next month’s wrap-up will look like in terms of territorial gains/losses. Have a feeling I will post some quote/image that is followed by “laughing”.

 

[personaldesas]

So I have been seeing this thing from pro-Ukrainian crowd

Bit of a sidenote, but not sure I like the pro-Ukraine/pro-Russia framing. E.g. for me it's less about the country, more about whether border changes get forced on other populations at the barrel of a gun. And not purely as a moral position, it's also about the negative externalities and secondary and tertiary effects it has on everyone, including plenty of people who have nothing to do with either country.
Here that means opposing Russia, since Russia's the one doing the redrawing at gunpoint. Flip the aggressor and it's Ukraine forcing itself on Russia, and I'd be against Ukraine for the identical reason. So it's more anti-conquest than pro-ukr.

@rsemmes heads up, happy to dig into whataboutisms here, but unless their about this war in particular, let's take them to PM so the thread stays on-topic.

 

[rsemmes]

Bit of a sidenote, but not sure I like the pro-Ukraine/pro-Russia framing. E.g. for me it's less about the country, more about whether border changes get forced on other populations at the barrel of a gun. And not purely as a moral position, it's also about the negative externalities and secondary and tertiary effects it has on everyone, including plenty of people who have nothing to do with either country.
Here that means opposing Russia, since Russia's the one doing the redrawing at gunpoint. Flip the aggressor and it's Ukraine forcing itself on Russia, and I'd be against Ukraine for the identical reason. So it's more anti-conquest than pro-ukr.

@rsemmes heads up, happy to dig into whataboutisms here, but unless their about this war in particular, let's take them to PM so the thread stays on-topic.

You mean about hypocrisy in this war in particular?
Maybe we are talking about the same thing under different names?
Pro-Ukraine/pro-Russia, another way to call it?

About this war in particular, his campaign is going so well (like that of the 40 days) that Zelenski wants an agreement to stop attacking ships in the Black Sea.
Reuters/theguardian.
He didn't say that they are war crimes, but he got a call from Vance. Now, it seems that it is about "feeding the world".

 

[Feanor]

The second refuse mound in Dobropol'ye is now in Russian hands. I think that unless Ukraine counter-attacks and pushed Russia off the high ground this likely means Ukraine has lost Dobropol'ye. It could very well take Russia quite some time to secure the town, but I think we will have the same pattern as before, the loss of the dominating refuse mound leads to the loss of the town, and vice-versa a failure to take the refuse mound prevents a successful capture of the town.

 

[personaldesas]

The second refuse mound in Dobropol'ye is now in Russian hands. I think that unless Ukraine counter-attacks and pushed Russia off the high ground this likely means Ukraine has lost Dobropol'ye. It could very well take Russia quite some time to secure the town, but I think we will have the same pattern as before, the loss of the dominating refuse mound leads to the loss of the town, and vice-versa a failure to take the refuse mound prevents a successful capture of the town.

What would be the wider strategic implications of the fall of Dobropillia?

 

[personaldesas]

You mean about hypocrisy in this war in particular?
Maybe we are talking about the same thing under different names?
Pro-Ukraine/pro-Russia, another way to call it?

As I said, Anti-conquest. That's the position.

I am sure someone can make reasonable arguments for the invasion. But call it what it is. If you're pro-Russia in this war, if you're in support of the invasion, it means you're pro-conquest. No way around it.

I'm against it. I'd be against Ukraine doing the same to Russia.

Zelensky may be incompetent. The media may be hypocritical. That doesn't justify conquest.

 

[Feanor]

What would be the wider strategic implications of the fall of Dobropillia?

I'll quote myself;

Meanwhile in the Dobropol'ye area things are getting worse for Ukraine. Russia has taken one of the two large refuse mounds east of the town. It's possible the town will fall relatively quickly, though it's also possible it will take months. A lot depends on whether Ukraine can/will reinforce the sector. The road from Dobropol'ye to Kramatorsk is not just contested, it's now physically cut. So the value of the logistics corridor is now 0. In a way this means that the actual capture of the town is less significant. Reaching the next highway north of it, west out of Kramatorsk, would likely take quite a long time. Russia would have to not only take Dobropol'ye, but also Belozerskoe, and Novodonetskoe, and then push north even from there. Of course Dobropol'ye has value as another built up urban area where it's easier to hide supplies and equipment from drones, making it a good pushing off point for future advances. But I think the main value of advancing here has already been realized for Russia. Further advances will happen, but it would require a major Ukrainian collapse for them to have impacts on the big battles coming up in Slavyansk and Kramatorsk.

In short, I don't there are wider strategic implications of the fall itself. If Ukraine's ability to defend in this area continues to deteriorate for months to come, then it could lead to serious problems for Ukrainian logistics to Slavyansk-Kramatorsk. Take a look at the highway west of out of Kramatorsk, and compare it to where Dobropol'ye is. That's how far Russia has to go. Yes, they don't have to physically cut the road, just get within comfortable drone range on a sufficiently wide front to hide a decent quantity of drone operators. But it's still quite a ways away.

 

[KipPotapych]

It appears a Flamingo may have landed at Progress plant:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2088445813877842298

 

[rsemmes]

I'll quote myself;



In short, I don't there are wider strategic implications of the fall itself. If Ukraine's ability to defend in this area continues to deteriorate for months to come, then it could lead to serious problems for Ukrainian logistics to Slavyansk-Kramatorsk. Take a look at the highway west of out of Kramatorsk, and compare it to where Dobropol'ye is. That's how far Russia has to go. Yes, they don't have to physically cut the road, just get within comfortable drone range on a sufficiently wide front to hide a decent quantity of drone operators. But it's still quite a ways away.

The basic attrition?
Zelenski is fond of defending cities, Ukraine is the side with less resources, he is not going to abandon the city and Russia is advancing in other areas.
No finesse, but Ukraine is going to stay there. If Russia considers that it losses are aceptable, compared to Ukrainian losses, it makes sense.

 

[rsemmes]

As I said, Anti-conquest. That's the position.

I am sure someone can make reasonable arguments for the invasion. But call it what it is. If you're pro-Russia in this war, if you're in support of the invasion, it means you're pro-conquest. No way around it.

I'm against it. I'd be against Ukraine doing the same to Russia.

Zelensky may be incompetent. The media may be hypocritical. That doesn't justify conquest.

Noble position.
Naive, comfortably distant from reality, but noble; IMHO.

 

[personaldesas]

Noble position.
Naive, comfortably distant from reality, but noble; IMHO.

Not really. it's about pragmatism. Conquest paying off makes the world worse for everyone in it, not just the two countries fighting, who have their people and economies shredded.

It raises the price of borders everywhere. If force works here, everyone learns that force works. Everyone pays for that.

And that's before the direct costs like broken trade or bills landing on people who have nothing to do with this war.

That's an incentive argument. Call it wrong if you want. But "Naive" or "Distant from reality" aren't arguments. They're cynicism standing in for ones.

I'm happy to hear the argument that this invasion has been a net positive for anyone. Even Russia.

 

[rsemmes]

Not really. it's about pragmatism. Conquest paying off makes the world worse for everyone in it, not just the two countries fighting, who have their people and economies shredded.

It raises the price of borders everywhere. If force works here, everyone learns that force works. Everyone pays for that.

And that's before the direct costs like broken trade or bills landing on people who have nothing to do with this war.

That's an incentive argument. Call it wrong if you want. But "Naive" or "Distant from reality" aren't arguments. They're cynicism standing in for ones.

I'm happy to hear the argument that this invasion has been a net positive for anyone. Even Russia.

I am starting to feel that I am responding to something that is not exactly on-topic (but people keep clapping your words).

And not purely as a moral position, it's also about the negative externalities and secondary and tertiary effects it has on everyone, including plenty of people who have nothing to do with either country.
-The not-moral doesn't look naive. On the other hand, the UK is burning (and Spain), plenty of people have nothing to do with it and it is naive to think that the peasants will not pay for the decisions taken by the governments; not necessarily conquest, not necessarily invasion.

That doesn't justify conquest.
-I find naive trying to find justification.

Conquest paying off makes the world worse for everyone in it, not just the two countries fighting, who have their people and economies shredded.
-It maybe so, but everyone trying "conquest"
does so thinking that it is going to pay off
and as far as I can remember, they may do it for the honour of the country, but never for the good of the people.
Changing the government in Kiev was good for the Russian people or for the Ukrainian people? Was that ever a reason for the invasion?

-Force works, I think it is naive not to recognize that; fairy tales don't.

I'm happy to hear the argument that this invasion has been a net positive for anyone.
-I don't think anyone can make that argument. Have I ever tried to make anything like that argument?

You are naive, I'm cynical, I am happy with that justification.

 

[swerve]

Not really. it's about pragmatism. Conquest paying off makes the world worse for everyone in it, not just the two countries fighting, who have their people and economies shredded.

It raises the price of borders everywhere. If force works here, everyone learns that force works. Everyone pays for that.

And that's before the direct costs like broken trade or bills landing on people who have nothing to do with this war.

That's an incentive argument. Call it wrong if you want. But "Naive" or "Distant from reality" aren't arguments. They're cynicism standing in for ones.

I'm happy to hear the argument that this invasion has been a net positive for anyone. Even Russia.

Absolutely right.

Which is why however loathsome the Iranian government is, I disliked Trump's attempt to batter Iran into obedience. It being a half-arsed clusterfuck with ill-defined objectives didn't change that.

Letting Putin get away with his attempt to turn Ukraine into a shrunken satellite would have paved the way to more invasions. Moldova would almost certainly been next, & he might even have tried it on in the Baltics, expecting the rest of NATO to bleat protests but not do much if anything concrete to stop him. Where would he stop.

There are many precedents.

 

[rsemmes]

however loathsome the Iranian government is,

I understand that you don't mean that the Shah and his backers were lovely, but what is the point of that comment?

If you are educating us, you are partially educating us, right?
You are not ignoring everything else, but why are you pointing at that.
That is why I am always confused.

Save the Wales! What about the baby seals?

 

[personaldesas]

I am starting to feel that I am responding to something that is not exactly on-topic (but people keep clapping your words).

Maybe they do, because I at least try to make my points a bit formatted and readable. Who knows.

 

[rsemmes]

Maybe they do, because I at least try to make my points a bit formatted and readable. Who knows.

Sorry to disappoint.
I am, obviously, not as well educated, and mannered, as others.

 

[swerve]

I understand that you don't mean that the Shah and his backers were lovely, but what is the point of that comment?

If you are educating us, you are partially educating us, right?
You are not ignoring everything else, but why are you pointing at that.
That is why I am always confused.

Save the Wales! What about the baby seals?

If you can't see the point, I see no point in engaging further with you. It's bloody obvious. If you see the point & are pretending not to, there's even less point to engaging with you.

The rest of your post is a very lame attempt at point scoring.

Fortunately, this site has an "Ignore" function.