Ukraine - Russia Conflict

Just saying the numbers are fake. Oryx lists 128 TGs, 294 SPHs and 156 MLRS, as of today. That's 422/156, not 4288/656. Even if we understand Oryx is the minimum, the gap between real images and the propaganda numbers is too much for it to be real.
Oryx retired.

And the same happened with the Kherson counteroffensive last year. The Ukrainians announced Russian losses but there were no visual confirmation, until they finally took the territory later after applying enough pressure to force the Russians to retreat, and then suddenly there was all the visual confirmations surfacing.

OPSEC means not taking your smartphone with you to instantly tweet pictures of stuff you destroy as you destroy it.
Anyway you misunderstood.

The UAF fought for Bakhmut and Soledar,
Implies the UAF actively defended the "town" of Bakhmut. Their main goal was to weather all attacks and still keep flying their flag in Bakhmut.

but the Russians are not trying to hold these villages.
Implies the Russians are not actively defending the villages the UAF has taken in the counteroffensive in Zapo. The Russians are using these villages as localised killing fields. So they don't care who controls the villages as long as the UAF is getting killed there. The Russians intend to hold the line elsewhere, like Polohy and Tokmak.
Pretty much opposite-of-reality.txt. Russia cares about controlling territory very much because it is the only tangible way to claim that the Special Military Operation is succeeding. Ukraine used Bakhmut as a killing field to grind the Russian forces down, because the topology of the area heavily favors the side on the west of the city.
Incorrect. In order to cut the land bridge, the UAF has to either take Melitopol or Berdyansk, with Tokmak being the absolute minimum.

The other areas can be supplied from both Crimea and Donbas.
The entire reason why Russia wants the landbridge is because it needs it to support Crimea. Having to go through Crimea to support troops stuck in Kherson/Zapo area is of course possible, but it'll be logistically complicated as it involves much longer distances. Ukraine demonstrated it can strike the Chongar bridge, so when the time is right, they'll play this card again.

The throughput can never be reduced all the way to zero, but it can be lowered drastically so that it becomes insufficient to meet the needs of the occupation troops. That's why getting the Tokmak railroad and the Melitopol highway under fire control is important. It'll force Russia to go all the way around. Instead of being able to move troops from Luhansk to Kherson directly by road or railroad across the landbridge, they'll have to go through Rostov, Krasnodar, the Kerch bridge, Crimea, and they'll arrive once the battle is already lost. Inversely, evacuating troops from Kherson region will also have to go through all this large loop, putting a serious delay before they can return to the fight.
The coup has helped establish martial law. Now the Kremlin is forcing conscripts to sign multi-year contracts.
And this is how you can turn productive members of your society that should be heading to the factories to keep your economy afloat into low-morale troops that will desert or surrender at the earliest opportunity.
 
Oryx retired.

In October this year. The website is still being updated as usual.

And the same happened with the Kherson counteroffensive last year. The Ukrainians announced Russian losses but there were no visual confirmation, until they finally took the territory later after applying enough pressure to force the Russians to retreat, and then suddenly there was all the visual confirmations surfacing.

The difference still won't be 10 times.

OPSEC means not taking your smartphone with you to instantly tweet pictures of stuff you destroy as you destroy it.

Actually, soldiers are getting paid bounties for their kills. So they are maintaining records. Even if not public, it's still there.

Pretty much opposite-of-reality.txt. Russia cares about controlling territory very much because it is the only tangible way to claim that the Special Military Operation is succeeding. Ukraine used Bakhmut as a killing field to grind the Russian forces down, because the topology of the area heavily favors the side on the west of the city.

No, everybody knows the Russians retreat over maintaining position and sustaining losses, it's part of their doctrine. Also why their first line of defence is so far behind the line of contact. They pull the enemy into killing fields before the real fight begins.

The entire reason why Russia wants the landbridge is because it needs it to support Crimea. Having to go through Crimea to support troops stuck in Kherson/Zapo area is of course possible, but it'll be logistically complicated as it involves much longer distances. Ukraine demonstrated it can strike the Chongar bridge, so when the time is right, they'll play this card again.

The Russians have the ability to support both Kherson and Zapo even without the land bridge. The point of cutting the land bridge is to split the Russian forces into 2, so they can't reinforce each other.

The throughput can never be reduced all the way to zero, but it can be lowered drastically so that it becomes insufficient to meet the needs of the occupation troops. That's why getting the Tokmak railroad and the Melitopol highway under fire control is important. It'll force Russia to go all the way around. Instead of being able to move troops from Luhansk to Kherson directly by road or railroad across the landbridge, they'll have to go through Rostov, Krasnodar, the Kerch bridge, Crimea, and they'll arrive once the battle is already lost. Inversely, evacuating troops from Kherson region will also have to go through all this large loop, putting a serious delay before they can return to the fight.

Once land is lost, the logistics requirement drops down as well. And taking Tokmak doesn't put Melitopol under fire control. It's too far for regular artillery, and Himars are far too few in number.

And this is how you can turn productive members of your society that should be heading to the factories to keep your economy afloat into low-morale troops that will desert or surrender at the earliest opportunity.

Maybe so, but a country like Russia can afford an army of 750000. But to counter that, NATO requires a level of funding that is impossible to afford without it affecting quality of life. So it works both ways. As I said, stupid games, stupid prizes for all participants, including NATO. This is the cost of militarisation.

Also, the Russians are neither deserting nor surrendering in any meaningful number even during wartime today, so why are you expecting them to do it in the future? UAF's offensive has pretty much failed. Russia is more than likely to win decisively. They will put a lot more spin on it that will only boost morale. You can also expect Putin to fix most of the issues plaguing the army, like low pay and corruption. For example, Kremlin can ask for detailed video footage of exercises, while also posting Kremlin officials at bases acting as Internal Affairs.
 
Crispy critters.


1688650819381.png
 
Last edited:
The Ruble droped to €0.0098 EUR today! Currently trading at 94.32 Rubles/$.

Soon it will be cheaper for Russians to wipe their ar5e with their currency rather than buying toilet paper.:ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:

1688652137123.png


1688652456470.png
 
@Picdelamirand-oil @A Person

Funny how this general is saying the same things today that I said last year.

UAF is getting slaughtered. Their best troops are already dead. They are behind Russia in every single way. And the casualty rate is completely lopsided in favour of Russia, at least 5:1. That this is just a war not meant for Ukraine to win, but to kill more Russians.


I guess this is the video.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Rajput Lion
You don't understand how currencies work at all, do ya? This is not good news for Europe at all.
We're all waiting for your explanation genius. How is everything being more expensive for Russia bad for the EU?

If we wanted to reverse it, we could just lower interest rates, but I guess we don't. :ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited:
@Picdelamirand-oil @A Person

Funny how this general is saying the same things today that I said last year.
Depends on how high you set the bar for success. It's a relative failure if you compare it with the last Ukrainian offensive. Has it done as well as hoped? No. Has it already done better in 4 weeks than Russians did in the 8 months prior? Yes. What has been effective is the destruction of Russian equipment and manpower and driving the ruble into the dirt.
 
@Picdelamirand-oil @A Person

Funny how this general is saying the same things today that I said last year.

UAF is getting slaughtered. Their best troops are already dead. They are behind Russia in every single way. And the casualty rate is completely lopsided in favour of Russia, at least 5:1. That this is just a war not meant for Ukraine to win, but to kill more Russians.


I guess this is the video.
This shows that you were ahead of him when it came to propaganda for the Russians. :unsure:
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMD
No, everybody knows the Russians retreat over maintaining position and sustaining losses, it's part of their doctrine. Also why their first line of defence is so far behind the line of contact. They pull the enemy into killing fields before the real fight begins.
What's in Russian doctrine is barrier troops to shoot those who retreat, so they have the choice between standing their ground and perhaps surviving if they manage to repel the enemy, or retreating and getting killed by their own men.

The use of barrier troops by the Russians in Ukraine has been documented, we have video evidence.
Maybe so, but a country like Russia can afford an army of 750000. But to counter that, NATO requires a level of funding that is impossible to afford without it affecting quality of life.
NATO has no problem countering a one-billion russian army with what it already has.
Funny how this general is saying the same things today that I said last year.
Yeah, he's ideologically pro-Putin. He's very biased and is trying to push a narrative.
A former DGSE agent, meanwhile, traces this tropism back much further. He noted a "deep-rooted pro-Russian and pro-Serbian tradition among former Saint-Cyr students", stemming from "the Franco-Russian alliance of 1892, still revered today" and "often combined with a principled hostility to the United States". General Jean-Bernard Pinatel is among those calling for a new "alliance of setbacks" and an exit from NATO. Back in 2011, this army veteran published Russie, alliance vitale, a book prefaced by Sergei Karaganov, a close advisor to Vladimir Putin. Pinatel is now vice-president of Geopragma, a think tank that supports these positions and also includes Caroline Galactéros, Eric Zemmour's current diplomatic adviser. The geopolitical journal Méthode, to which several generals contribute, defends the same theses.​

This is something I'd forgive more easily if Russia wasn't clearly hostile to French interests.

As for the fact that this counter-offensive is obviously doomed to fail, that the Russians are not suffering any significant loss, etc. etc. etc. I've heard the same song and dance in Kherson before. Astoundingly, the doomed-to-fail Ukrainian counter-offensive in Kherson somehow succeeded in liberating the city anyway. But every time that Ukrainian troops do not move by 200 km/day, it's immediately announced as a failure by all the pro-Russian talking heads.

Fact is, Russia's utter defeat is what's ineluctable. Ukraine will win, there's no doubt about it. Why? Because both sides are still fighting, which means both sides still think they can win. But the Russian intel is entirely built on lies; not the Ukrainian intel. So Russia thinks they can win based on reports that minimize all their loss and invent a lot of gains, while Ukraine thinks they can win based on cold hard facts on the ground.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMD