China can wait. The Army’s focus should be Europe.

[SC Maintenance]

6 months ago, it was critically important, but now that it's all but fallen the western propaghandists claim it's of little strategic value.

I guess, technically, Zelinsky isn't that important.
https://www.newsweek.com/zelensky-issues-warning-about-whats-come-if-ukraine-loses-bakhmut-1786167
"Losing control of Bakhmut could shape the future of the war against Russia, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said. More than a year after Russian President Vladimir Putin launched the invasion of Ukraine, some of the most bloody combat remains concentrated around Bakhmut, a city in the Donetsk region, one of the two areas that comprise the Donbas, a separatist area that Russia said it wanted to liberate at the start of the war. Zelensky has vowed to keep his troops fighting for the city. He explained why Ukraine will not withdraw from Bakhmut in a new interview with CNN on Tuesday, explaining that giving up control of the city could have significant impact, allowing Russia to have easier access to other areas in Eastern Ukraine. "This is tactical for us," he said. "We understand that after Bakhmut, they could go further. They could go to Kramatorsk. They could go to Sloviansk. It would be open road for the Russians after Bakhmut to other towns in Ukraine in the Donetsk direction in the east of Ukraine. That's why our guys are standing there.""


https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/24/politics/ukraine-shift-tactics-bakhmut/index.html
"The US and its allies want Ukraine to change its battlefield tactics in the spring"
...Ukraine is also suffering enormous casualties in the battle and expending tremendous amounts of artillery ammunition daily – a style of fighting that the US does not believe is sustainable. In terms of sheer volume, Russia still has more artillery ammunition and manpower, with the paramilitary organization Wagner Group using thousands of convicts to “throw bodies” at the battle, the Western intelligence official said...."


https://thehill.com/policy/international/3899514-fighting-in-bakhmut-very-tough-zelensky-says/
3/14/23
"NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg warned last week that despite heavy Russian losses, “we cannot rule out that Bakhmut may eventually fall in the coming days.”"

Dozens are articles essentially state the same thing. Ukraine has made it their last stand of stragic import and Russia is grinding them to nothing there. Zelinsky is slow to learn this and wants to hold, but now the west wants him to abandon it for obvious reasons. And those reasons DO NOT include "Ukraine is winning in Bakhmut."

What is Zelinski going to say "Bahkmut is a nothing place on the European plain, but please go die there for Ukraine? Of course he is going to say its important. He said as much above. Its important, because if they take that place, then they can take the next place. He said its tactical - ie not strategic - in your own quote above. Duhh.

Bakhumut is a whopping 75 miles from the Russian border in a part of Ukraine that is supposed to be loyal to Russia, but they have been fighting for months with no progress.

The mighty Russia will take Kiev in hours or days. That was the quote at the start. A year later and the mighty Russia is 75 miles in to a place on a flat plain of no strategic significance.

I have no idea who wins this war, and neither do you. What I do know is Russia has already lost strategically. If they can't take Ukraine, a 3rd world country 20% their size with no military to speak of 8 years ago, then no one fears them anymore beyond their Nuclear capability and insane leader.

 

[Jetronic]

I think as long as China doesn't start propping up Russia's military, Ukraine can fight to a truce or perhaps even retake all its territory, or outlast Putin... I suspect almost all Russians know that attacking Ukraine was not a great idea in the first place, and a sustained war with Ukraine backed by the west is a really bad idea. Russia has a lot of men but is losing them at a much greater rate, and if the west sends more good stuff, russia will run out of soldiers before ukraine. They have tried the massed untrained assault tactics of WW2 in Bakhmut and its not paying off at all. 20-30:1 losses aren't sustainable.
I suspect China doesn't like dealing with an irrational Putin either, so I think they'll let him take a minor defeat, and Russia can just continue to supply natural resources to China, or he can get assassinated and the next guy will likely be easier to deal with, they don't care.

I'm not sure Russia is losing men at a much greater rate than Ukraine. True, 20-30:1 isn't sustainable, but for the first 6 months it was tit-for-tat with both sides losing around 100k men alledgedly. We simply don't know how fast either side is really losing men. And if Ukraine loses men at 1/5th the rate of Russia, they will still run out first.

I don't see how China benefits from the Ukraine conflict ending, certainly not with a russian defeat. I can see how China benefits with a sustained conflict though, or a russian victory (even if pyrrhic). The one thing they don't need is getting drawn in.

 

[leadcounsel]

The Ukrainian armed forces were in training by NATO in our combat methods for a long time before the war started,

And there it is. You have identified the reason for Russia's DEFENSIVE invasion. NATO encroachment (in violation of agreements). For those still thinking this is illegal Russian aggression.

my buddy "in the know" says a draw is likely unless the west ships more of its more modern weapons.

Without western aid, Ukraine falls. It would have fallen 12 months ago but for western support in weapons and tech.
I don't think that's in dispute, particularly b/c Zelinski has continued begging for aid, stating as much.

A Bakhmut type battle favors the Russians will lots of simple short/mid range artillery, and more men, but they still can't even win that in a reasonably efficient manner...

Every expert, to include current and former US Generals, have said Bakhmut is a lost cause for Ukraine. Your view that Russia isn't winning efficiently or on your timeline is silly. Russia is bleeding Ukraine dry of men and the west dry of money and arms quite effectively. Russia's losses have been irrelevant, mostly old surplus tanks and artillery, and Wagner conscripts. Costs to the west are now in hundreds of billions of dollars and irreplaceable arms.

Also part of me just wants the good guys to win, why cheer for a murderous tyrant dictator?

Which murderous tyrants are your referring to? I have news for you, there are no good guys in this conflict. Russia is evil, no doubt. But the west is extremely murderous and corrupt, has violated agreements, toppled and violently installed pro-western government in Ukraine, and from 2014 forward the corrupt nation has been a biolab, money laundering, murderous nation. And it's evident the west has done a tremendous amount of very bad behavior not the least of which was largest act of eco-terrorism in history in destroying the Nordstream pipeline (and lying about it).

This NATO chief said the war started in 2014, with the western training and installation of puppet government.
https://defconnews.com/2023/02/18/n...n-february-last-year-the-war-started-in-2014/

https://www.newsweek.com/us-nato-he...its-not-siding-putin-admit-it-opinion-1685554

https://www.npr.org/2022/01/29/1076193616/ukraine-russia-nato-explainer

 

[leadcounsel]

What is Zelinski going to say "Bahkmut is a nothing place on the European plain, but please go die there for Ukraine? Of course he is going to say its important. He said as much above. Its important, because if they take that place, then they can take the next place. He said its tactical - ie not strategic - in your own quote above. Duhh.

Um, how about not wasting irreplaceable men and arms in an allegedly irrelevant location? It's highly important, hence the (failed, expensively failed) attempted defense. Now they are acknowledging a loss there and withdrawing claiming it's not important. Propaganda 101.

Bakhumut is a whopping 75 miles from the Russian border in a part of Ukraine that is supposed to be loyal to Russia, but they have been fighting for months with no progress.

Once again, Russia isn't fighting this war on yours, or internet generals, timelines. It is very successfully using the city as a meatgrinder, shelling the heck out of it and eliminating irreplaceable Ukraine men and exhausting the wests supplies and money. Russia has paid no real price for this rather effective strategy. Russia can replace everything lost, mostly Wagner conscrips and old T72 tanks.

Ukraine cannot replace its lost men or equipment or arms, without endless western aid. The west is now donating weapons and outpacing our own inventories, according to many sources.

 

[Jetronic]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, my buddy "in the know" says a draw is likely unless the west ships more of its more modern weapons. Neither side can get air superiority, the Russian ground forces aren't skilled or organized enough to make any rapid gains, and Ukraine does lack the man power and armour to roll the Russians back over a broad front.
A Bakhmut type battle favors the Russians will lots of simple short/mid range artillery, and more men, but they still can't even win that in a reasonably efficient manner...
As an arm-chair general I think might be a good Ukraine strategy to fake a few mass retreats, and let the Russians overextend and screw up their supply line defenses again... The Ukrainian armed forces were in training by NATO in our combat methods for a long time before the war started, so they can handle a rapidly evolving battle and joint force operations much better than the russians seem to be able to.
Also part of me just wants the good guys to win, why cheer for a murderous tyrant dictator? I think since the west is this committed so far, we should just make it clear we are going to supply Ukraine with the weapons to hold Russia off until they give up.

Are we going to send men aswell? someone will have to use the weapons we send afterall.

I'm not cheering for anyone, but I'm realising this will not end with a ukrainian victory (if that means a NATO victory) come hell or high water. Putin's demise is not going to change that either imo. best we can hope for is a stalemate and a korea like truce (the korean war is technically still ongoing) which is likely to prevent nato from accepting ukraine in it's ranks.

 

[leadcounsel]

I don't see how China benefits from the Ukraine conflict ending, certainly not with a russian defeat. I can see how China benefits with a sustained conflict though, or a russian victory (even if pyrrhic). The one thing they don't need is getting drawn in.

Agreed.

I think China, knowing the west would reject a peace offering, used such a very public offer for propaganda and to gain favor with the rest of the world. Russia, and now China, have offered (on record) for peace deals many times. It is the west that is refusing to negotiate. That puts Russia and China in a perceived moral high ground. True or not that is the perception.

China absolutely benefits from a protracted war in Ukraine which bleeds the west dry of will-to-fight, equipment, money, and at some point manpower and more equipment. There's just no way the US could divide our forces and send 1/2 to 2 conflicts with superpowers.

 

[leadcounsel]

I have no idea who wins this war, and neither do you. What I do know is Russia has already lost strategically. If they can't take Ukraine, a 3rd world country 20% their size with no military to speak of 8 years ago, then no one fears them anymore beyond their Nuclear capability and insane leader.

One of the primary motives discussed in open source, for the west to give military aid, is to "stop Putin aggression into other natons after he takes Ukraine." I see this belief as a extremely important multi-point admission.

First, it completely acknowledges that without western aid, Ukraine falls. That defeats your premise allegation that Russia is some weak nation incapable of beating Ukraine. What you seem to be unable to understand is that Russia has not been just fighting Ukraine. Russia has been fighting some $200,000,000,000 in western modern arms, tech, equipment, and essentially all of NATO behind Ukraine. Russia's annual defense budget is $84 billion. The west has just exhausted almost 3x that in 1 year just to try to hold Russia off.

Secondly, it is a deep acknowledgement that the REST of NATO understands Putin's Russia does indeed have a powerful enough military to threaten neighboring NATO nations.

If we took your position at face value, there would be NO need to help Ukraine, and NO need to worry of further Putin aggression. So it's swiftly easy to see thru your unsupported position.

I will reiterate a point seemingly continually lost on you. Whatever you think Putin's timeline or strategy should be, it's obvious his military is doing an effective job at killing irreplaceable Ukrainian men and exhausting supplies. At some point very soon, Ukraine will have no more fighting force. Russia has near endless resources to fight for years to come. Ukraine might make it until summer without direct fighting men from NATO and more arms.

 

[SC Maintenance]

Um, how about not wasting irreplaceable men and arms in an allegedly irrelevant location? It's highly important, hence the (failed, expensively failed) attempted defense. Now they are acknowledging a loss there and withdrawing claiming it's not important. Propaganda 101.


Once again, Russia isn't fighting this war on yours, or internet generals, timelines. It is very successfully using the city as a meatgrinder, shelling the heck out of it and eliminating irreplaceable Ukraine men and exhausting the wests supplies and money. Russia has paid no real price for this rather effective strategy. Russia can replace everything lost, mostly Wagner conscrips and old T72 tanks.

Ukraine cannot replace its lost men or equipment or arms, without endless western aid. The west is now donating weapons and outpacing our own inventories, according to many sources.

You sighted CNN yourself above as a reputable source.

CNN says Russia lost 5X more soldiers in Bahkmut than Ukraine: https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live...s-03-06-23/h_265c92682c57b8228fbbf082fb3b6888

CNN says Russia has lost half their functional tanks: https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/09/euro...-destroyed-ukraine-war-intl-hnk-ml/index.html

So is CNN reliable per you above, or not reliable?

Are you paid to post this by Russia / CCP?

 

[IndyIan]

And there it is. You have identified the reason for Russia's DEFENSIVE invasion. NATO encroachment (in violation of agreements). For those still thinking this is illegal Russian aggression.


Without western aid, Ukraine falls. It would have fallen 12 months ago but for western support in weapons and tech.
I don't think that's in dispute, particularly b/c Zelinski has continued begging for aid, stating as much.


Every expert, to include current and former US Generals, have said Bakhmut is a lost cause for Ukraine. Your view that Russia isn't winning efficiently or on your timeline is silly. Russia is bleeding Ukraine dry of men and the west dry of money and arms quite effectively. Russia's losses have been irrelevant, mostly old surplus tanks and artillery, and Wagner conscripts. Costs to the west are now in hundreds of billions of dollars and irreplaceable arms.


Which murderous tyrants are your referring to? I have news for you, there are no good guys in this conflict. Russia is evil, no doubt. But the west is extremely murderous and corrupt, has violated agreements, toppled and violently installed pro-western government in Ukraine, and from 2014 forward the corrupt nation has been a biolab, money laundering, murderous nation. And it's evident the west has done a tremendous amount of very bad behavior not the least of which was largest act of eco-terrorism in history in destroying the Nordstream pipeline (and lying about it).

So this is a "defensive invasion" because the Ukraine is trying to get the best training for its soldiers, after Russia has already invaded?
Are you a Putin PR guy?
Didn't Ukraine voluntarily give up its nuclear weapons in exchange for territorial sovereignty guaranteed by the US and Russia in the Budapest memorandum?
Ukraine democratically decided to leave the USSR, and Russia should get no say in what it does or doesn't do, and clearly no country bordering Russia has any interest in invading regardless of who their military and economic allies are. Is Lithuania or Poland next on Russia's list of "defensive invasions" because they are part of NATO?
Germany was trying to get Russia involved in the E.U. economy as a normal trading nation, and they could do very well with their natural resources and manufacturing, but Putin and his oligarchs are afraid to compete economically as normal businessmen...

For sure the west isn't innocent at all, but we aren't taking over other nations in perpetuity under a dictatorship in the name of defending ourselves. We have exited our middle east follies in Iraq and Afghanistan probably to quickly... It would have been nice to repeat the success of rebuilding Japan after WW2 into a functioning democratic state.

 

[leadcounsel]

You sighted CNN yourself above as a reputable source.

CNN says Russia lost 5X more soldiers in Bahkmut than Ukraine: https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live...s-03-06-23/h_265c92682c57b8228fbbf082fb3b6888

CNN says Russia has lost half their functional tanks: https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/09/euro...-destroyed-ukraine-war-intl-hnk-ml/index.html

So is CNN reliable per you above, or not reliable?

Are you paid to post this by Russia / CCP?

Earlier in this thread, someone criticized my reading comprehension.

It's fruitless because you have no reading comprehension skills whatsoever.

I have, indeed, been critical of various AP articles because they lack credibility. I have also indeed cited various AP articles when they have an actual source, like a quoted statement from a General in the know.

I take issue with citations, as above, who quote "annonymous sources," or others with clear propaganda agendas.

This is where reading comprehension and critical thinking shine, FYI.

But from that first CNN article its "think tank" "intelligence" conclusions are already incorrect. We know this to be untrue, thereby discrediting the rest of the hogwash.
"The Institute for the Study of War also said Russia’s efforts to capture Bakhmut had significantly deteriorated its capacity for additional offensives. “The Russian military will likely struggle to maintain any subsequent offensive operations for some months, giving Ukraine a chance to seize the initiative;” it said on Monday."

Let's just look at that 2nd article. Almost every work in every sentence is about how incompetent and bad Russia is. It's straight up propgahanda. In 1 article, it reminds us at least 4 times that Russia invaded, and how evil and bad Russia is.
"Vladimir Putin's invasion."
"Russia started the war"
"Russia's invasion began on February 24, 2022."
"Russia's invasion of Ukraine"

It tells us Russia has lost tanks, at least 5 times and reinforces it is struggling or losing ground repeatedly
"Russia lost up to half of all its operational tank fleet"
"its military struggles"
"collecting visual evidence of military equipment losses in Ukraine"
"verified 1,000 distinct Russian tank losses"
"544 Russian tanks had been captured"
"Russia has lost one half of (its) usable tanks""
"Flawed armor"
"Russian armor has fared poorly in Ukraine"
"design flaw in Russian tanks"
"Russian armor was maintained poorly"
"Often, the ensuing blast blows the turrets off the Russian tanks" (FYI, this is not uncommon with any/all tanks that take direct hits and is not unique to evil Russian tanks.)

Of course Ukraine is winning in this narrative piece.
"the tank fight has skewed Ukraine's way."
"more tanks are on the way to Ukraine."
"Kyiv has received pledges of modern tanks from Germany, the United States, Britain and other Western partners."
(No mention of course they won't be arriving soon enough to matter, they have nobody trained on them, and they are mismatched units making logistics hard)

How anyone believes this nonsense is bewildering.

 

[IndyIan]

Are we going to send men aswell? someone will have to use the weapons we send afterall.

I'm not cheering for anyone, but I'm realising this will not end with a ukrainian victory (if that means a NATO victory) come hell or high water. Putin's demise is not going to change that either imo. best we can hope for is a stalemate and a korea like truce (the korean war is technically still ongoing) which is likely to prevent nato from accepting ukraine in it's ranks.

I guess technically, just using NATO air power, even only operating inside Ukraines 1994 borders, with just Ukraine forces on the ground, we would run the Russians out quite quickly with not many losses for NATO?
Who knows what Putin would do though, or maybe someone close to him would do the world a favor... I would hope his successor would just go back to being personally greedy, and not try to revive a new USSR.

 

[leadcounsel]

So this is a "defensive invasion" because

For sure the west isn't innocent at all, but we aren't taking over other nations in perpetuity under a dictatorship in the name of defending ourselves. We have exited our middle east follies in Iraq and Afghanistan probably to quickly... It would have been nice to repeat the success of rebuilding Japan after WW2 into a functioning democratic state.

This proactive "defensive" move was essentially the basis for the US invasions in Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam and nearly every other skirmish the US has engaged in for 50 years. FYI.

Yeah, I think Russia has more claim to defend itself in Ukraine (which was Russia more than not in the last 100 years), than the US had in our engagements for 5 decades. Pesky facts.

Why do Americans believe, much like the basis of Taiwan, that it is our job to defend and rebuild other nations, often invading other soveign nations? Can you delineate between Russia's actions, and ours in the past? Justify our defense of Kuwait and Taiwan, but not other less economically relevant nations? Oil and chips are part of our national economy, so we then go to war. But there's genocides globally we don't go to war over.

 

[leadcounsel]

we would run the Russians out quite quickly with not many losses for NATO?
Who knows what Putin would do though,

Have you ever played the game Risk, or Axis and Allies, or similar? Pretend you are Russia, and NATO takes the actions. You have significant military powers and a nation to protect. Do you just roll over? Russia has city leveling weapons that can eliminate any city on the planet in under 15 minutes, FYI.

Meanwhile, it's being reported that in addition to Europe being a decade behind in ammunition production, the US is 13 years behind in ammo production.
https://news.yahoo.com/going-war-good-news-united-045349955.html

 

[Hillbilly Deluxe]

Like VW, BMW, Mercedes Benz, Bayer, Siemens, Bosch, etc. There around 5,000 German companies investing in the US.

It was a freaking joke. Good grief

 

[leadcounsel]

The way I see it, China has the US is a near checkmate on Taiwan as the US and west have spread ourselves far too thin and overplayed our hands badly in Ukraine.

 

[SC Maintenance]

Earlier in this thread, someone criticized my reading comprehension.


I have, indeed, been critical of various AP articles because they lack credibility. I have also indeed cited various AP articles when they have an actual source, like a quoted statement from a General in the know.

I take issue with citations, as above, who quote "annonymous sources," or others with clear propaganda agendas.

This is where reading comprehension and critical thinking shine, FYI.

But from that first CNN article its "think tank" "intelligence" conclusions are already incorrect. We know this to be untrue, thereby discrediting the rest of the hogwash.
"The Institute for the Study of War also said Russia’s efforts to capture Bakhmut had significantly deteriorated its capacity for additional offensives. “The Russian military will likely struggle to maintain any subsequent offensive operations for some months, giving Ukraine a chance to seize the initiative;” it said on Monday."

Let's just look at that 2nd article. Almost every work in every sentence is about how incompetent and bad Russia is. It's straight up propgahanda. In 1 article, it reminds us at least 4 times that Russia invaded, and how evil and bad Russia is.
"Vladimir Putin's invasion."
"Russia started the war"
"Russia's invasion began on February 24, 2022."
"Russia's invasion of Ukraine"

It tells us Russia has lost tanks, at least 5 times and reinforces it is struggling or losing ground repeatedly
"Russia lost up to half of all its operational tank fleet"
"its military struggles"
"collecting visual evidence of military equipment losses in Ukraine"
"verified 1,000 distinct Russian tank losses"
"544 Russian tanks had been captured"
"Russia has lost one half of (its) usable tanks""
"Flawed armor"
"Russian armor has fared poorly in Ukraine"
"design flaw in Russian tanks"
"Russian armor was maintained poorly"
"Often, the ensuing blast blows the turrets off the Russian tanks" (FYI, this is not uncommon with any/all tanks that take direct hits and is not unique to evil Russian tanks.)

Of course Ukraine is winning in this narrative piece.
"the tank fight has skewed Ukraine's way."
"more tanks are on the way to Ukraine."
"Kyiv has received pledges of modern tanks from Germany, the United States, Britain and other Western partners."
(No mention of course they won't be arriving soon enough to matter, they have nobody trained on them, and they are mismatched units making logistics hard)

How anyone believes this nonsense is bewildering.

You dodged both questions.

Is CNN reliable. You used it as a source, and CNN contradicts most of your assertions?

Are you paid by the Russia or CCP? Your using their talking points - such as Russia is fighting all of Nato, for example?

There simple questions.

 

[leadcounsel]

Is CNN reliable. You used it as a source, and CNN contradicts most of the assertions?

The answer is that it depends, generally no, but with exceptions such as when they write a balanced piece that offers actual quotes from reliable named sources they can cite. Such as in this case General Officers who know what they are talking about.

Are you paid by the Russia or CCP? Your using their talking points - such as Russia is fighting all of Nato, for example?

You nailed it. Super sleuth. My deep cover has been exposed. I joined 8 years ago and have patiently awaited this moment to strike.

In an unrelated question, is there an ignore feature?

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

It was a freaking joke. Good grief

Apologies, I thought you were being serious

 

[SC Maintenance]

You nailed it. Super sleuth.

It was a rhetorical question.

In an unrelated question, is there an ignore feature?

Of course, but someone who has been here this long would have known that already.

What, you don't like my questions?

 

[leadcounsel]

Found it. Nevermind.