"Ukraine is losing" Topic

link

In truth, Zelenskyy's propaganda acumen abroad may have proved too effective. Presenting Ukraine's cause in highly moralistic language, which was so potent in 2022, presents a challenge two years later. Even the Biden administration is now hinting that a diplomatic solution is required to end the battlefield stalemate, yet how can Kyiv be expected to parley with the aggressor whom it has successfully portrayed as genocidal monsters? Moreover, Zelenskyy's constant cheerleading created expectations of battlefield victories – even total liberation of all Ukrainian territory – that simply have not emerged.

We have seen much reporting on alleged Russian losses of men and materiel, of varying levels of plausibility, yet very little on Kyiv's losses, which must also be massive, given the intensity of combat in southeastern Ukraine. How can bona fide experts be expected to perform meaningful analysis of the war when there's virtually no publicly available information about the ZSU's actual condition? The unspoken rule governing Western media coverage has been: Kyiv's propaganda isn't propaganda and must not be questioned (or you love Putin).

Hence the recent news that the war isn't going well for Kyiv has taken many in the West by unpleasant surprise, even though anyone who understands military operations could detect ominous indications mounting many months ago. The conflict has become protracted and attritional, while the Russians have wound up fighting like, well, Russians. After a rough start, with much embarrassing fumbling, Moscow has returned to its old habits of using manpower energetically, without squeamishness about casualties, bolstered by lots and lots of artillery. Similarly, Russian acumen in electronic warfare, what they call radio-electronic combat, as a force-multiplier to nullify some of the modern NATO weaponry that's been given to Ukraine can only surprise people who know nothing about Russia and its military.

Much of the article is a long discussion of Austria-Hungary vs Russia during WWI.

I think a significant issue is the timidity of the current US administration and the fact a portion of the GOP has either knowingly/unknowingly sold out to Russia.

Russia continues to hemorrhage losses in men and material. From everything I have seen, there is nothing novel or impressive in their efforts. They have more men, more material. The West doesn't give enough to significantly turn the tide. It's pretty simple.

Prince Alberts Revenge is right about the Western aid. 54 Abrams is nothing, a few dozen Bradleys won't make a difference. Fighting a modern war without air support and with limited artillery ammunition is not a recipe any Western army would tolerate, yet we expect Ukraine to win under those circumstances.

Too much of the coverage here tells us how much aid money this war costs the US but not that most of the money is spent here in the US refurbishing old weapons, or building new ones, and then shipping by rail and by sea. Sending them 50 tanks is portrayed as sending them $100 USD million dollars not sending them 50 tanks from storage that are valued at $100 USD million dollars. That causes many conservatives to oppose the war due to concerns that corruption will send the money to Swiss bank accounts rather than Ukrainian defense.

We also don't get news about what the Europeans are sending and have the impression they are doing very little. I do think that Germany should be doing A LOT MORE than what they are doing.

Americans also don't realize that since the fall of the Soviet Union Russia has attacked Chechnya twice, Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine taking territory from each one. They think this Ukraine war is a one off thing.

I think Ukraine can still win, but the West needs to do more. A Ukraine that is back as part of Russia will not be good for anyone in Europe.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek

Bunkermeister + 1

Armand

Russia is losing faster.

In recent attacks, they are using MTLBs as infantry carriers. Apparently short on BMPs. An MTLB with an anti-drone grill, an MTLB with an AA gun bolted on, an MTLB that looks like something out of Mad Max… these are deathtraps.

And they seem to be back to putting 1960s MBTs into frontline attacks. Another T-55 spotted recently!

We have seen much reporting on alleged Russian losses of men and materiel, of varying levels of plausibility, yet very little on Kyiv's losses, which must also be massive, given the intensity of combat in southeastern Ukraine.

Well, we have various databases of confirmed vehicle losses, which show losses of 1:3 in favor of the Ukrainians. (And 1:10 in Avdiivka, Krinky, etc.)

Also, the Ukrainians aren't using 'meat wave' tactics. They generally give ground rather than take losses.

And if the Ukrainians adjust to the defensive, which in all indications they are going to, then they'll fall back to fortified positions and their losses will dramatically decline.

The problem you have is you are in an echo chamber in here.

YouTube link

YouTube link

YouTube link

You only view news and media that reinforces your own views. You generally become irrational when the agender is questioned, you accept propaganda as fact. Its not a healthy place to be. You should all get out more.

"You only view news and media that reinforces your own views. You generally become irrational when the agender is questioned, you accept propaganda as fact. Its not a healthy place to be. You should all get out more."

Says the person who believes every last drip of propaganda coming out of the Kremlin and it's stooges, whilst supporting the principle of invading a neighbour because their views are independent of yours,

Tally Ho!

Ned if these are the only places you are getting your news from no wonder you have a strange view on the conflict. Alex Christoforou just makes stuff up not letting fact get in the way of his arguments, Russian is far more corrupt than Ukraine (which I know doesn't say much it is however improving) but it just how how biased he is. The Military summary channel is good to see what the view point of Russia is but it like saying Denis gives a balance view of the conflict neither do. You seem to think its OK for Russian to invade Ukraine and station nuclear weapons in Belarus but Ukraine even think it might want to join NATO is some how a provocation to Russia. I think it's you who have spent too long in your own echo chamber and can't see Russia's invasion for what it is naked aggression.

"We also don't get news about what the Europeans are sending and have the impression they are doing very little."

Only speaking for The Netherlands: we sent 24 F-16 fighters and are training Ukrainian pilots to use them.

"Kremlin and it's stooges"

As I said irrational. Lots of articles that are posted on here are pure propaganda, if it gets challenged people get deranged. Yet if any articles are posted that question the narrative of the conflict they are immediately condemned as "Kremlin and it's stooges". From UN officials to well….. every one. I don't agree with every word Christoforou says or take literally what millitary summery says, but I compare what the west propaganda says or dosent say and I form an opinion.

I typically don't take a side seriously when they have to trot out people like Scott Ritter to try and drive home their points.

There we go again. "a side".

‘Lots of articles that are posted on here are pure propaganda‘

Have you seen a mirror?

‘if it gets challenged people get deranged.‘

Or, and hear me out here, they disagree with you and you have to defend your position. That's called debate. Just stating something and expecting people to agree with you isn't how debate works.

Ned I didn't say you were a stooge just that Christoforou is a liar and military summery is bias and so is Denis, I watch both. You say "you accept propaganda as fact" and then post link to propaganda channels? Why do you think we are all incapable of seeing the world is grey. The point is you can't say why it "right" that Russia has invaded Ukraine. Every time somebody make a point the contradicts you say Russia was provoked yet, yet Russian put nuclear missile in Belarus and that's OK or you think NATO would be justified in invading Belarus? The world is far from black and white but that doesn't make the invasion of Ukraine OK. Its wrong and you should say so.
How do you feel about BASHKORTOSTAN independence?

Belarus asked for nukes to be stationed there as far as I can see after the increase militarisation on the boarders of nato countries and Belarus after russia entered uke. How do you feel about Us nukes been put in the uk?

Its not just me saying it was provoked Its far more knowledgeable people like merkal and former un secretaries, but I suppose they are kremlin stooges as well.

How do you feel about BASHKORTOSTAN independence? I dont know anything about it, but I suppose they could have a referendum like the Catalans OH wait, they are not allowed too have one are they.

If you are in a place where you can tell me what I should say because its what you want me to say, I think I have proved my point.

Have a look at this kremlin stooge.

YouTube link

Ned – the most important thing is Russia is waging genocidal war.

Russian state-owned propaganda outlet RIA published the programmatic article with the title "What Russia must do with Ukraine". The article revealed a detailed plan for a genocide, starting from full elimination of Ukrainian state. Original article from official RIA Novosti, was removed after discovery of massacres at many villages in Ukraine.
TMP link

Russia executed genocide on nearly EVERY neighbour.
TMP link

It is just their way. Russia cannot do war without terror, they have to terrorize everybody. Even here on forum, when Cuprum2 is losing debate he will usually use a photo of nuclear bomb to threat annihilation as an quasiargument of last resort. "If You do not give me what I want I will destroy everything. Pathetic.

Russia deliberately destroyed grain export infrastructure and caused world famine (which is a war crime), while the Russians (even Cuprum2 on this forum) boasted about this "success".

Russia deliberately destroyed the civilian infrastructure of cities last winter (which is a war crime) and the Russians were proud of it.

Russia uses mass rape to terrorize civilians (which is a traditional Russian war crime).

Russia is kidnapping children from Ukraine (which is a war crime) and training them in paramilitary camps like Janissaries (which is a war crime).

This war was not inevitable. Even Prigozin said so. It was choice of Russia to attack neighbour. So it is Russai and only Russia to blame for war.

There ARE good guys and BAD guys in this war. Supporting bad guys make you bad.

Umpapa

Thats the version of the conflict.

Try this one.

YouTube link

OK, so point by point: where I am wrong? Please show me what
was so "loonytoons"? Which was not truth?

You can read RIA Novosti Yourself and translate it Yourself.

All those stated facts are easy to verify.

I am open on discussion of my statements. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe You are.

I know John Mearsheimer opinions. I respect him as geopolitician, but I think he is wrong. But lets return to my statements: what exactly is so "loonytoons".

An interesting exercise in writing propaganda, high marks for snark and style. The writer purports to be a major supporter of Ukraine. This helps shield some of the right wing talking points that are the bulk of his agenda, although the article includes some history.

Having observed the US House of Representatives for a year now, I am not "unpleasantly surprised" by Ukraine's problems.

And here is his main point:

"Yet the biggest blame must fall on Ukraine's high-volume fans in the West who have harmed Kyiv's cause with their shrill intolerance"

Add a dash of BLM from out of nowhere, and this:

"Neither was it wise for Zelenskyy to pander to the West's beautiful people alongside the ZSU needlessly indulging in WEIRD sexual trendiness, actions which have only served to alienate more than a few Westerners, many of whom were previously pro-Ukraine."

Putting aside what this might mean, I was left feeling like the ignoramus I probably am. But not informed.

It is hard not to associate the position Ukraine is now in with a weak WH strategy, not withstanding that Biden must avoid WW3. But the funding gap that the US is creating is the central problem. In my own very personal and barely informed opinion, since I have little idea what facts are actual facts as the US rolls along.

Yet there is a fundamental difference between opposing the Soviet Union and its aspiration of world-wide revolution, versus a current Russian dictator who only threatens his neighbors. We do not need another Forever War.

Yet there is a fundamental difference between opposing the Soviet Union and its aspiration of world-wide revolution, versus a current Russian dictator who only threatens his neighbors. We do not need another Forever War.

We discussed such position for years, even recently:
TMP link
Please read that thread and You will got my answer to Your statement in the last post of that thread. :)

It's really difficult to get accurate details about losses, manpower reserves, air operations, etc., but from what there is out there you can piece together that the Ukrainian defense lines are stretched to the breaking point with few reserves left. Any time that a country's leaders are arguing over draft ages, you know that you're out of people to man the front lines. Now that's not saying that the Russians can take advantage of that as they've shown that they're really not ready for modern operational warfare (at least to go up against Western forces).

Also, I think we've learned that just giving countries Western equipment doesn't mean that they will perform like those same countries. It takes years and years of training, exercises, etc., and Ukraine just simply doesn't have that kind of time at the moment. Not sure where this is going other than slow, grinding, attritional warfare, but at some point it wouldn't surprise me if the Russians achieve a major breakthrough. At that point, things get interesting as what will NATO do?

umpapa when you finish your post by saying

"There ARE good guys and BAD guys in this war. Supporting bad guys make you bad"

I really can not be bothered looking at your other points. Because you just confirmed my first post on this thread, its boring.

aegiscg47 I agree we will get to see how crazy western leaders are when the ruskies break through the uke lines. I think they may send nato forces into western uke to (stabilise) the situation.

Oh no Ned Ludd, so You just cannot find any argument against my statements? Really even single one?

I really can not be bothered looking at your other points.

But You have already looked at them and produced opinion:

Thats the version of the conflict.

So I humbly asked would You be so kind and somehow proof You opinion.

And now Ned, You give up and accept that I was right and You were wrong? Because that would be traditional logic of discussion or debate: You cannot proof or support Your statements/charges (about "loonytoones of my statement" – semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit ), You cannot defeat my statements, so I won the debate. Right?

Doc, you do autocrats a favor everywhere by attributing some sort of high minded intellectual commitment to communism by the Soviets Union. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! Nobody ever made Marxism a huge successful system, but it makes a great cover for authoritarian dictatorship. Putin is old school, the only school -money and power.

Am I wrong to equate him with Hitler? Appeasement?

The first question that needs to be answered is: What aid is needed for Ukraine to win the war?

But, there is no winning the war with the current US administration. Just another prolonged war with no end. So why should congress authorize more money?

"What aid is needed for Ukraine to win the war?"-OSCS74

I often wonder if the goal is to bleed the Russians and remove them as regional power for a generation or two.

USA arms sales I hear have increased so there is money to be made in spite of what we are spending?

Perhaps we are hoping Putin will suddenly die setting off internal power struggles in Russia? The Ukraine war becomes insignificant when the factions competing for control of Russia have bigger problems to deal with.

But what happens if we don't? If we give them aid, but never quite enough to win, that is a forever war. But the current plan is to do nothing. What happens then?

Tortorella: "…But the current plan is to do nothing. What happens then?"

Based on past conduct when one of Putin't gambles has succeeded, he plays double or quit.

With further proof that the West lacks staying power and US promises of support to allies are only temporary, he takes a bit more. Maybe Moldova or some more of Georgia, maybe a remote bit of Finland or one of the Baltic states to see whether NATO Article 5 means anything.

If we don't give Ukraine the means to stop him in Ukraine, sooner or later we will have to do it ourselves.

Tort, I still think Kennan's analysis of Soviet thinking is valid (or was). They NEEDED foreign enemies to hold power at home. And Putin is not going to threaten, say, Latin America, as the Soviets certainly did. Iran is a greater threat, as is China. We are not strong enough to squander resources on an unwinnable war.

link

Money is being made despite the aid? Forever might be acceptable?

Russian / Soviet kit is garbage and nothing like an actual war to prove it. Most of Europe has let it's armament industry decline in the wake of the "Peace Dividend" at the end of the Cold War.

Does aid to Ukraine exceed profits from sales, future purchases of parts and munitions for the systems we sell? The power we will wield when a country having bought our cutting edge technology has to decide if going against the USA on an issue is worth their future security if we cut them off?

We are not strong enough to squander resources on an unwinnable war.

Sending artillery shells is not that expensive, and it builds up our own capacity and stocks. If the Ukrainians had enough artillery, the Russians wouldn't be going anywhere.

If I were advising Zelensky, I'd suggest he announce that once they'd driven the Russians off Ukrainian land, he'd invite the Tatars to return to Crimea with an eye toward granting it independence as Tataristan. Stalin ethnically cleansed the Tatars from Crimea during and after WWII.

Every Tatar in Russian service would be disarmed and the Russian regions with significant Tatar minorities could become hotbeds of unrest.

The last thing Putin needs is another problem.

Tortorella
"Putting aside what this might mean, I was left feeling like the ignoramus I probably am. But not informed"

I think he could be referencing this involvement olensky has.

link

I think we are more than strong enough to help Ukraine, deal with Iran, fix the Border, realign with China. Where would you rank the US as a world power? It's always good to keep an eye on our enemies. But many, perhaps most of them, have internal problems to deal with these days, serious issues. Not one of them has a stronger economy, a stronger military, better tech, better weapons in development, better natural resources, better allies, etc. than the United States.

Doing nothing makes no sense to me. No policy, no platform while the world is changing is not gonna cut it.

Thanks Ned! I am behind on my tabloid reading…. I think you may be right and thus I will not worry.

HMS Exeter, good luck getting that idea passed Ukrainian nationalists the problems in Crimea started where the Ukrainian parliament revoked Crimeas autonomy.

If we stop aid to Ukraine, it will show the US/NATO does have the staying power to play the long game. Letting Ukraine lose will only embolden Putin. He can't be trusted.

Thank you as always, Legion.

We have rare opportunities with Putin and Iran right now. It is not making sense to me how we would run from Putin but fight Iran. It's not even a plan, just politics. Why cut this guy any slack? He thinks he just has to hang on until the US election then get a deal. Now is the time to grind him down as much as possible.

Since neither side has achieved its stated war goals and both sides have the will and the resources to continue fighting then the idea one side or the other is loosing or winning doesn't really stack up. But by any objective measure I would argue that Ukraine is 'winning' since it has stopped an invasion by the worlds second most powerful military at the time and inflicted and continues to disproportionate losses of men and material on Russia's military.

For a side to be losing, the other side has to be winning and so far the russians are not winning, the little dictator's 3 day special operation has gone on quite some time, without success,

Tally Ho!

Does anyone here know who Bandera was, and why so many Ukranians still see him as a hero?

Does anyone here know when this war started? (Hint: It wasn't 2022) and why? (Hint: It wasn't because "Russia is mean" and invaded completely out the blue.)

Does anyone know about OPLAN-316 and the thousands of Marines, soldiers and sailors that were training to invade Cuba if negotiations with Kruschev had fallen through in '62?

Does anyone know what happened when Cuban engineers helped build a stategic bomber runway in Grenada?

Does anyone know what happened when the security of the Panama Canal zone was threatened?

Does anyone know what happened when terrorists holed up in Afghanistan supported strikes on America that killed thousands?

Does anyone know anything about how the world works and how major powers look after their own interests or do you truly just simply believe "Ukraine: Good", "Russia: Bad"?

"Ukraine: Good", "Russia: Bad"?
They believe that.

They probably know about the other things but it doesn't fit the narrative so will find excuses for them or say its not relevant, because ukrain is good and russia is bad.

I have also been warned by the editor in chief to moderate my language. So I would like to apologise to all you red blooded americans out there who may have become upset with my immoderate language.

No, we are NOT strong enough to fight multiple regional wars at t he same time. We may be as strong in absolute terms but not a bit in relative terms.We USED to have a two-war military, but not now; maybe not even a war and a half (win one, not lose the other).

All I see is 1916.

Guess what? Sometimes major powers looking after their own interests does make them 'bad'.

Instead of just arrogantly posting a string of rhetorical questions, why not just succinctly make your point?

"We do not need another Forever War."

What will our arms industry do?

Putin and his cronies are the product of the USSR and are the successors.

"I often wonder if the goal is to bleed the Russians and remove them as regional power for a generation or two"

perhaps for some of the Europeans its but I think this is more of a by-product.