War in Ukraine

[NorthDallas40]

I'd be interested what the cheerleaders in this thread have to say about this?

I’ll bite. I didn’t even waste time watching the video because their source is Macgregor. He’s a bought and paid for Russian sympathizer and propagandist just as Scott Ritter is. Both are former military / US government individuals and neither have credibility now.

 

[MontyPython]

 

[BeardedVol]

Reality sets in.

Lol, Douglas MacGregor

One bad take, after another, after another..

 

[tnmarktx]

I’ll bite. I didn’t even waste time watching the video because their source is Macgregor. He’s a bought and paid for Russian sympathizer and propagandist just as Scott Ritter is. Both are former military / US government individuals and neither have credibility now.

Your response wasn't really a response at all. Stated in the video is that Ukraine has lost 400k troops, far more than the number that's posted continually about Russia's casualties. Is your response that you believe the US MSM? This info has also been echoed by a top British military official. All indications are that Ukraine is losing badly.

 

[tvolsfan]

Your response wasn't really a response at all. Stated in the video is that Ukraine has lost 400k troops, far more than the number that's posted continually about Russia's casualties. Is your response that you believe the US MSM? This info has also been echoed by a top British military official.

Then I’ll counter by saying Russia has lost 7 million troops. I suspect we have the same source.

All indications are that Ukraine is losing badly.

Russia has been largely fighting in retreat for the last year and just suffered a mutiny about two months ago, so those are two pretty enormous indicators that Ukraine is not losing as badly as you’re pretending.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Your response wasn't really a response at all. Stated in the video is that Ukraine has lost 400k troops, far more than the number that's posted continually about Russia's casualties. Is your response that you believe the US MSM? This info has also been echoed by a top British military official. All indications are that Ukraine is losing badly.

I told you my response. I don’t listen to Macgregor or Ritter for the same reasons. I’ll take your word for it that’s what he said but I don’t take anything he says as having any credibility.

And the actual documented territorial gains since late last year directly contradict the statement that Ukraine is losing badly. In fact Ukraine has regained 50% of the territories they lost since 2014. And this was supposed to be over in March 2022 sooooooo…..

 

[NorthDallas40]

Then I’ll counter by saying Russia has lost 7 million troops. I suspect we have the same source.

Russia has been largely fighting in retreat for the last year and just suffered a mutiny about two months ago, so those are two pretty enormous indicators that Ukraine is not losing as badly as you’re pretending.

Your number has just as much credibility as anything Macgregor or Ritter provide alone or by corroborating each others

 

[Septic]

Your response wasn't really a response at all. Stated in the video is that Ukraine has lost 400k troops, far more than the number that's posted continually about Russia's casualties. Is your response that you believe the US MSM? This info has also been echoed by a top British military official. All indications are that Ukraine is losing badly.

Doug MacGregor is a self promoting Russian troll.

Also, please define "losing badly."

The Russians are getting kicked closer back to their border every day and hold less ground than at any point in the last two years. And that was after staging equipment and men on the border for months.

 

[LouderVol]

Reality sets in.

can you provide a transcript?

 

[LouderVol]

Your response wasn't really a response at all. Stated in the video is that Ukraine has lost 400k troops, far more than the number that's posted continually about Russia's casualties. Is your response that you believe the US MSM? This info has also been echoed by a top British military official. All indications are that Ukraine is losing badly.

they have been losing badly this entire time. They weren't supposed to be in the fight at all. Not sure why you, or this guy, thinks this is a change.

 

[Gandalf]

When it comes to actual figures, I really don't believe much of anyone. Everyone with actual data is only interested in propaganda for their POV.

What does interest me, however, is that whatever this big "Spring Offensive" was of Ukraine's seems to have gone largely tits up in effectiveness or we would be seeing maps every day with the territory gains.

Taking new territory is harder and more expensive than defending it. Looks like Russia is now dug in and making Ukraine expend its war material against hardened positions, then maybe will switch up to zerg forward again. Problem is, this pits Ukraine on the offence, which is not to their benefit.

Instead, they are letting Russia do the defending. I have to say, history has been on Russia's side when they are defending, though not when they are advancing. Best is to play defense and make Russia pay for every. single. mile.

 

[LouderVol]

When it comes to actual figures, I really don't believe much of anyone. Everyone with actual data is only interested in propaganda for their POV.

What does interest me, however, is that whatever this big "Spring Offensive" was of Ukraine's seems to have gone largely tits up in effectiveness or we would be seeing maps every day with the territory gains.

Taking new territory is harder and more expensive than defending it. Looks like Russia is now dug in and making Ukraine expend its war material against hardened positions, then maybe will switch up to zerg forward again. Problem is, this pits Ukraine on the offence, which is not to their benefit.

Instead, they are letting Russia do the defending. I have to say, history has been on Russia's side when they are defending, though not when they are advancing. Best is to play defense and make Russia pay for every. single. mile.

its not surprising that as the war has drug on the defenses have gotten better.
Russia had a big, massive, war ending winter offensive that took 1 town they had been fighting for for 9 months. no one remembers it because it was downplayed in the west but talked up in Russia. Ras was on here constantly for a year talking about the fall of Bakhmut being the key lynchpin that was holding Ukraine together, and now it turns out it was just another town like anyone with common sense knew.
Ukraine now has a Spring, Summer, Fall offensive that hasn't taken much territory. people remember this because it has been on the media side of things in the west. I think it got talked up way to much where I would think anyone would call the public results compared to the public goals a costly failure.

I have said it from the beginning, this won't be a quick, sexy, decisive western war. this is two slavic nations beating the absolute crap out of each other. A failed offensive, by either side, doesn't determine the rest of the war. A frozen war also favors the Russians. It keeps Ukraine out of NATO, it doesn't have a messy peace conference where they might have to make some concessions or agree to Ukraine's "new" border. Russia could be happy for things to sit right where they are, and the longer things sit, the better those chances are. and they have a violent history of creating frozen conflicts in their old empire. If Ukraine wants to end the war they do need big moves, hence the anti-climatic offensive after playing so much defense. and the longer it drags on the more Russian's dig in, and more difficult it will be to shift them. The war will also wear on the partners in the war a lot faster than it will either Ukraine or Russia. And that goes for both the west, as well as NK, Iran, China and the like. At some point they aren't seeing an ROI on their investment, there is no threat to them, and they probably want to focus on themselves too after seeing how this war is going.

if you want a good guys win the war in dramatic cinema worthy action, this probably isn't the war for you.

 

[Velo Vol]

A frozen war also favors the Russians. It keeps Ukraine out of NATO, it doesn't have a messy peace conference where they might have to make some concessions or agree to Ukraine's "new" border. Russia could be happy for things to sit right where they are, and the longer things sit, the better those chances are. and they have a violent history of creating frozen conflicts in their old empire.

Assuming the Russian public continues to accept dying for it.

 

[Gandalf]

its not surprising that as the war has drug on the defenses have gotten better.
Russia had a big, massive, war ending winter offensive that took 1 town they had been fighting for for 9 months. no one remembers it because it was downplayed in the west but talked up in Russia. Ras was on here constantly for a year talking about the fall of Bakhmut being the key lynchpin that was holding Ukraine together, and now it turns out it was just another town like anyone with common sense knew.
Ukraine now has a Spring, Summer, Fall offensive that hasn't taken much territory. people remember this because it has been on the media side of things in the west. I think it got talked up way to much where I would think anyone would call the public results compared to the public goals a costly failure.

I have said it from the beginning, this won't be a quick, sexy, decisive western war. this is two slavic nations beating the absolute crap out of each other. A failed offensive, by either side, doesn't determine the rest of the war. A frozen war also favors the Russians. It keeps Ukraine out of NATO, it doesn't have a messy peace conference where they might have to make some concessions or agree to Ukraine's "new" border. Russia could be happy for things to sit right where they are, and the longer things sit, the better those chances are. and they have a violent history of creating frozen conflicts in their old empire. If Ukraine wants to end the war they do need big moves, hence the anti-climatic offensive after playing so much defense. and the longer it drags on the more Russian's dig in, and more difficult it will be to shift them. The war will also wear on the partners in the war a lot faster than it will either Ukraine or Russia. And that goes for both the west, as well as NK, Iran, China and the like. At some point they aren't seeing an ROI on their investment, there is no threat to them, and they probably want to focus on themselves too after seeing how this war is going.

if you want a good guys win the war in dramatic cinema worthy action, this probably isn't the war for you.

Thats because a "Western" war is won by air sorties until the air war is won, then combined arms push to obliterate anything on the ground. This is so different though AND it is the first modern war waged with killer drones. Not just reapers from the sky piloted from Nevada but cheap and easily deployable drones nearly everywhere. THAT makes "owning the air" a MUCH more difficult target.

 

[evillawyer]

But I thought they wanted to be Russian? @Rasputin_Vol, were you just pulling our leg with all that "they're really Russian" stuff?

 

[evillawyer]

Kerch Bridge submarining itself again?

 

[LouderVol]

Assuming the Russian public continues to accept dying for it.

if it becomes a situation of being too costly to attack each other, where no one is making gains or losing land, it just becomes another frozen conflict.

 

[LouderVol]

Thats because a "Western" war is won by air sorties until the air war is won, then combined arms push to obliterate anything on the ground. This is so different though AND it is the first modern war waged with killer drones. Not just reapers from the sky piloted from Nevada but cheap and easily deployable drones nearly everywhere. THAT makes "owning the air" a MUCH more difficult target.

that is true as well. I would think that is one of the things other nations are trying to adjust to. The drones are a new front for the fight. They are small enough, and able to launch from anywhere so conventional AA efforts don't work too well on them. But its not just a ground problem as they can strike deep behind enemy lines.

 

[apevol]

that is true as well. I would think that is one of the things other nations are trying to adjust to. The drones are a new front for the fight. They are small enough, and able to launch from anywhere so conventional AA efforts don't work too well on them. But its not just a ground problem as they can strike deep behind enemy lines.

only gonna get worse. this war isn't a tenth of the terrors that multiple governments will have at their disposal in the next 10-20 years

 

[AM64]

they have been losing badly this entire time. They weren't supposed to be in the fight at all. Not sure why you, or this guy, thinks this is a change.

As long as "losing badly" means refusing to roll over and die; then, yes, Ukraine is losing badly. Still fighting and regaining lost territory two years into a three day special operation is absolutely the definition of "losing badly" or even better "refusing to lose".

 

[Septic]

But I thought they wanted to be Russian? @Rasputin_Vol, were you just pulling our leg with all that "they're really Russian" stuff?

I don't know how anyone could see that and make the case that the people in the Donbass wanted to be russian.

 

[evillawyer]

I don't know how anyone could see that and make the case that the people in the Donbass wanted to be russian.

There were definitely a good number of vocal residents of Russian ancestry that wanted to join Russia (they were basically transplated there by Russia in the 1920s-1950s), but it was always a minority. Sorta like our MAGA folks who think they're what the majority wants as well.

 

[AM64]

When it comes to actual figures, I really don't believe much of anyone. Everyone with actual data is only interested in propaganda for their POV.

What does interest me, however, is that whatever this big "Spring Offensive" was of Ukraine's seems to have gone largely tits up in effectiveness or we would be seeing maps every day with the territory gains.

Taking new territory is harder and more expensive than defending it. Looks like Russia is now dug in and making Ukraine expend its war material against hardened positions, then maybe will switch up to zerg forward again. Problem is, this pits Ukraine on the offence, which is not to their benefit.

Instead, they are letting Russia do the defending. I have to say, history has been on Russia's side when they are defending, though not when they are advancing. Best is to play defense and make Russia pay for every. single. mile.

Russians planted minefields and covered them with artillery when they held the ground. That one fact took away Ukrainian opportunity to respond with armor, and neither side has air superiority. Russia in essence converted the battlefield to a WW1 nightmare - sometimes with and sometimes without trenches. If Ukraine is ever able to get a good toehold on the other side of the minefields and opportunity to wage a real offensive attack, this will probably look very different.

Consider how long UN forces fought over Korea to attain a truce but not a victory. Consider also that Ukraine's access to weaponry has kept Ukraine from expanding the war into Russia and forcing Russia into defense of it's own land. A few long range missiles isn't at all the same as doing to Russia what Russia did to Ukraine early on. Whether that is a good thing or not, it allows Russia to concentrate on holding Ukrainian land.

 

[LouderVol]

As long as "losing badly" means refusing to roll over and die; then, yes, Ukraine is losing badly. Still fighting and regaining lost territory two years into a three day special operation is absolutely the definition of "losing badly" or even better "refusing to lose".

they are losing a lot of men pretty every day for 2 years, without a ton to show for it.
They are being bombed everyday.
They can't guarantee their own shipping routes.
The areas that Russia still hold were the most industrialized parts of Ukraine.
they are constantly having to beg and borrow weapons, equipment, and money.

losing badly doesn't "lost", losing badly means they are closer to defeat than victory. And right now they have defined victory with some pretty lofty goals of reclaiming all of their territory going back to 2014.

 

[AM64]

Thats because a "Western" war is won by air sorties until the air war is won, then combined arms push to obliterate anything on the ground. This is so different though AND it is the first modern war waged with killer drones. Not just reapers from the sky piloted from Nevada but cheap and easily deployable drones nearly everywhere. THAT makes "owning the air" a MUCH more difficult target.

This is the war where the military will have to learn about economy. You can't expend half a million dollar missiles to knock out hordes thousand dollar drones, and you can't let a thousand dollar drone knock out multi-million dollar tanks. You can't target individuals running around a field with expensive artillery, and you can't keep firing extremely expensive and accurate artillery hoping to take out the opposition's cheap but numerous artillery and rocket launchers.

We don't seem to be learning much very quickly in that respect when you consider the next in our line of battle planning is to use insanely expensive new airplanes for close air support. This war is showing off both very cheap and effective weaponry against extremely expensive gadgets that are too expensive to lose, and that once the expensive stuff is countered as too expensive to lose then you are back to an old fashioned WW1 war of attrition. War doesn't seem to be easily defined in terms of quality over quantity ... and never really has.

It's beginning to look like the US and allies have finally figured out how to make war too expensive to fight and too expensive to lose. I still think that today, tanks and ships look like extremely expensive slow moving objects with targets painted on them.