bickster Posted August 14 Moderator Share Posted August 14 14 minutes ago, Genie said: Might also unlock more support from China and North Korea if they are “under attack Might also give China the idea that they can take back their disputed territories in the east of Russia at some point. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted August 14 Share Posted August 14 14 minutes ago, Genie said: Full mobilisation, probably unlocks other funds (if they have any) and maybe get more support from the Russian people as Ukraine have started attacking them in Russia. Might also unlock more support from China and North Korea if they are “under attack”. Full mobilisation is never good for a dictator. I don't see it myself. It'll break the little that's left of the Russian economy and they're running out of stuff for their soldiers just with the current numbers. Satellite images of their storage facilities show that they're very close to having to rely on just production. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desensitized43 Posted August 14 Share Posted August 14 (edited) Exciting and bold as this is I'm really worried that this could lead to a really dangerous escalation. Putin can't let this stand and we know they have chemical and nuclear weapons. If he thinks he can't win this war conventionally he may resort to unconventional means. Even from a conventional point of view, there's a real risk of overextension where you could see a large amount of Ukrainians killed or captured. I'm really not sure this is the way to win the war. Ukraine aren't going to be able to take and hold enough Russian ground to force Putin to the table on their terms. The way to win the war is to dig in and "Bleed the Russian Army white" until the Russian people themselves force Putin to do a deal. Edited August 14 by desensitized43 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panto_Villan Posted August 14 Share Posted August 14 7 minutes ago, magnkarl said: A gamble for sure, but it puts pressure on Russia. Defending for years in the Donbas doesn't seem to. Looking at Ukrainian aviation working over Kursk and how no one knew about this does indicate that they've chosen a good spot, and compared to last year's failed offensive Russia couldn't just entrench for this one. I hope it goes well, it might not. Yeah. They’ve made almost as much territory in seven days as they’ve lost since the start of the year in the Donbas, and it has helped change the narrative. I also understand the appeal for pushing harder in Kursk while they have the opportunity. But I hope they’re not stretching themselves too thin, and overall I’m still reserving judgement for a month or two. We know from experience that the Russians can be slow to adapt, but it does happen eventually - we’ll have to see how much territory the Ukrainians can keep hold of when the counterattack eventually comes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted August 14 Share Posted August 14 2 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said: Yeah. They’ve made almost as much territory in seven days as they’ve lost since the start of the year in the Donbas, and it has helped change the narrative. I also understand the appeal for pushing harder in Kursk while they have the opportunity. But I hope they’re not stretching themselves too thin, and overall I’m still reserving judgement for a month or two. We know from experience that the Russians can be slow to adapt, but it does happen eventually - we’ll have to see how much territory the Ukrainians can keep hold of when the counterattack eventually comes. I guess it's also a matter of getting the attack from Russia in an area where Russia might not just destroy everything, where there are Russian civilians who will leak information to the country through telegram etc. It's also closer to NATO territory, so they'll take advantage of the AWACS that patrols the NATO border, and it's shorter to the Polish border where stuff comes in. It's a better place to deal with an attack than the Donbas. They had to do something and if it was the right call remains to be seen, but it's already pushed the conversation in the West back towards Ukraine. The POWs captured so far are of really high value, at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted August 14 Share Posted August 14 10 minutes ago, desensitized43 said: Exciting and bold as this is I'm really worried that this could lead to a really dangerous escalation. The issue is this battle is over 2 years already and hundreds of thousands are dead. The current trajectory suggests hundreds of thousands more will die with little gained from either side. The West won’t bankroll Ukraine forever (and they know it). Then also the risk of Trump getting into power too. I wouldn’t like to be the one to make the call and I certainly don’t have the data or intelligence, but there might be a case for bringing it to a head sooner rather than later will save many lives. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Townsend Posted August 14 Share Posted August 14 It puts the pressure on Putin. His "special military operation" narrative is surely exposed now that Ukraine has invaded sovereign Russian territory two and a half years after he started this war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandy Lifeboats Posted August 14 Share Posted August 14 4 hours ago, Genie said: Full mobilisation, probably unlocks other funds (if they have any) and maybe get more support from the Russian people as Ukraine have started attacking them in Russia. Might also unlock more support from China and North Korea if they are “under attack”. Putin says they are fighting NATO. To declare war on Ukraine but do nothing against NATO makes him look more weak than he already looks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted August 14 Share Posted August 14 22 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said: Putin says they are fighting NATO. To declare war on Ukraine but do nothing against NATO makes him look more weak than he already looks. One thing at a time, he needs to find a way to sort out Ukraine before thinking about the other NATO members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa89 Posted August 14 Share Posted August 14 4 hours ago, desensitized43 said: The way to win the war is to dig in and "Bleed the Russian Army white" until the Russian people themselves force Putin to do a deal. That is definitely not the way to win the war. It's a way to die slowly. The Russian people have no influence on Putin, he's a dictator. Ukraine has to get some bargaining chip over Russia otherwise they lose the east when the borders are redrawn. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panto_Villan Posted August 14 Share Posted August 14 1 minute ago, villa89 said: That is definitely not the way to win the war. It's a way to die slowly. The Russian people have no influence on Putin, he's a dictator. Ukraine has to get some bargaining chip over Russia otherwise they lose the east when the borders are redrawn. Nah, it very much is. I don’t think Putin gives much of a shit that he’s lost a tiny fraction of Kursk - it’s embarrassing, but as you say the people have no influence on him. The attrition ratios are much better on defence than offence - particularly if Ukraine can find a way to deal with the glide bombs that have been pounding them for months, and if the Russians keep using meat wave tactics. Ukraine wins when the Russians run out of something important. They’re slowly burning through their huge stockpile of ex-Soviet vehicles, they’re having to offer larger and larger pay to get soldiers to sign up, they’re losing radars and air defence units faster than they can build them, and their economy is slowly overheating and they’re burning their foreign reserves. I frequently disagree with people in this thread about when these things are going to happen (it won’t be this year) but all those things are definitely coming. If the West keeps up aid then I think Ukraine wins the war in the long term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted August 14 Moderator Share Posted August 14 9 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said: Ukraine wins when the Russians run out of something important Ukraine is running out of troops and will run out first. It’s just population sizes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted August 14 VT Supporter Share Posted August 14 4 minutes ago, blandy said: Ukraine is running out of troops and will run out first. It’s just population sizes. Population of Russia is 3 - 4 times the population of Ukraine. Bearing in mind the Russian strategy of throwing troops into the meat grinder, and that they're attacking defensive positions. How many more troops are Russia losing than Ukraine on a daily basis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted August 14 Moderator Share Posted August 14 1 hour ago, sidcow said: How many more troops are Russia losing than Ukraine on a daily basis? We don’t know, as neither side is open about it. What we do know from the media showing first hand UAF accounts of the war is that they are struggling for numbers. Now maybe Russia is too, but Russia has vastly more people to throw into the mix. It’s brutal for both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panto_Villan Posted August 14 Share Posted August 14 (edited) 3 hours ago, blandy said: Ukraine is running out of troops and will run out first. It’s just population sizes. That's not necessarily true. Yes, Ukraine are suffering pretty serious manpower issues at the moment but that's largely because they delayed another wave of mobilisation for political reasons. That's now been fixed, but those newly mobilised troops won't be trained for several more months so the manpower shortages at the front will continue for a while yet - which is one of the reasons I'm a bit skeptical about the Kursk operation. It's not that attacking Kursk is inherently a bad idea, it's just that using a lot of soldiers to do it at the precise moment where they're losing ground due to a shortage of soldiers might prove to be a mistake in the long run. Anyway, if you're talking about the long term, you've really got to consider the attrition ratio and the number of people willing to sign up. Russia has a population 4x greater than Ukraine, but their losses in attack seem to be absolutely enormous - most of the analysts think they're losing over a thousand soldiers a day, and the UAF are losing much less than that. So it's possible that actually the Russians will run out of soldiers first if Ukraine keeps inflicting much higher losses as the Russians push forward. Secondly, you've got to consider the relative number of people interested in fighting a war. I wouldn't be surprised if a far greater proportion of Ukrainians are willing to go fight for their nation's survival than the proportion of Russians who are willing to fight to conquer Ukraine. And if that's true, the population disparity matters a less than the raw population numbers indicate. Edited August 14 by Panto_Villan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted August 14 Share Posted August 14 Both sides have realised their primary objectives aren't realistic because of attrition. So now we're having to look at a negotiated settlement. That could happen very soon after a Trump administration gained office? Up to the Ukrainian incursion, Russian strategy seems to have been to take as much territory as possible as soon as possible. So they've got a fair chunk of Ukraine when they hit negotiations. Russia was making steady progress, and had planned to further reinforce their units that were making inroads into Ukraine. Ukraine knew Russian reinforcements were coming, and their incursion towards Kursk was intended to disrupt fresh Russian frontline troops deploying. Up to this point it seems to have gone rather well for Ukraine. They have Russian territory now, which would give Kiev some leverage in getting back their lost land in any negotiations. It will be tempting for Ukraine to press on with this opportunistic advance, so they have more to bargain with. Obviously it's not risk free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted August 14 VT Supporter Share Posted August 14 Russia are absolutely going to have to take them on inside Russia. The fact that they haven't after 9 (nine) days really does suggest that they don't have the reserves to do it. So you suspect they're going to withdraw soldiers from Ukraine to go do the job. I just wonder if when those troops move out Ukraine will hit them with a massive counter attack as the lines weaken. Russia just cannot let this stand, they're going to HAVE to boot them out. It's humiliating for them currently. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panto_Villan Posted August 14 Share Posted August 14 15 minutes ago, sidcow said: Russia are absolutely going to have to take them on inside Russia. The fact that they haven't after 9 (nine) days really does suggest that they don't have the reserves to do it. So you suspect they're going to withdraw soldiers from Ukraine to go do the job. I just wonder if when those troops move out Ukraine will hit them with a massive counter attack as the lines weaken. Russia just cannot let this stand, they're going to HAVE to boot them out. It's humiliating for them currently. Sure, but they’re not pulling troops from the Donbas to do it. And it seems unlikely Ukraine has enough troops to counter-attack elsewhere while also invading Kursk and trying to hold back the Russians in the East. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted August 14 Share Posted August 14 Now that Ukraine has F16s they somehow really needs to control air space over the eastern front line. Thats the only way they are going to push back Russia from Donbas region. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted August 14 Share Posted August 14 (edited) I think it's a dual (or however many angles you see fit) play, cause drama in Russia, enforce the narrative for Ukraine and take POWs of the people who support Putin in the power centres of St Petersburg and Moscow. Russia has fortified in Ukraine to such an extent that it would be suicide to counter attack there. This is the only offensive play Ukraine can make (along with other axi, Bryansk?). What we're seeing is that the Ukrainian air force, AA and tanks finally have some room to get to work. One shouldn't underestimate that. I don't know if the Swedish AWACS systems are online yet, but a lot of radars seem to be getting knocked out in Russia. Ukraine needs to get a grip on the glide bomb issue, this is a way to stop that in Sumy in Kharkiv. 4 airfields in Russia hit last night, including their MiG31 base near Moscow. They're getting somewhere, slowly. Dems win in November and it's anyone's bet. Walz is 110% for Ukraine. Edited August 14 by magnkarl 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts