It seems inevitable that Avdiivka will fall in the relatively near future at this stage, Russian forces have been advancing steadily on a daily basis now after being unable to make any meaningful progress for months.
The question now is whether Russia has any sort of capacity to keep up momentum when they take the city and whether Ukraine has developed sufficient defensive lines to prevent Russia from making a sizeable advance.
It was inevitable 2 months ago, and projection was around March. Now it is a question of how many troops Ukraine will take out before Russia takes full control, and Ukraine has the most experienced/elite people there, and they are being sorounded.
[Russia still controls Bakhmut though?](https://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Bakhmut%20Battle%20Map%20Draft%20February%207%2C%202024.png)
Yes, but they were saying that it was a long back and forth before it fell. It was "days from falling" for months. This time could develop the same way and we are yet many weeks/months before Ukraine finally withdraws.
They essentially left Bakhmut when there was no good defensive position to hold on to anymore. Because the whole place was essentially leveled to the ground.
That’s what I’m thinking too. These “victories” for Russians wouldn’t be considered victories by our standards. So many deaths and lost equipment simply to be able to say you took the remains of a city.
But it's important to remember that our standards aernt being tested. A valuable lesson from the Vietnam war.
If the kill ratio is 10 men for every 1. And yet they can tolerate 20 to 1...for years, then victory will go to the side that eats it.
> If the kill ratio is 10 men for every 1
Russia's population is about 3.5 times that of Ukraine's. Russia can't sustain a 10:1 casualty rate for long.
The point is more...precidential. Rather than literal. Of how in a war of attrition, only the sides involved will know the truth of their own situation.
As James Willbanks, a US strategist in the Vietnam War described, on the flawed thinking of defence secretary Robert McNamara:
“When McNamara wants to know what Ho Chi Minh is thinking, he interviews himself.”
Russia has lost a number of wars, when the tide turns enough they have a habit of suing for peace. The Finnish winter war, Afghanistan, first Chechnya war.
For some reason many in the west have this false idea that Russia can't lose wars but they can and do. If we give Ukraine what they needed we would end up with a ceasefire on more favourable terms for Ukraine. They're not getting everything back but it's far better than all the alternatives
Yeah, I never get this either. In fact, Russia has a horrible track record for wars fought beyond its own borders. It also puzzles me how people think that Russia is this tough nation that can take any punishment, without considering the fact that Ukraine was a part of the Soviet Union as well as the Russian Empire. Either its true and it goes for both, or it is not.
Besides, in a (at least perceived) existential war countries can lose absurd numbers of people without giving up. North Vietnam, both Iran and Iraq in that war, the nations of the Soviet Union in WW2, the list goes on. Losing 5% of your population is not uncommon, terrible as it is.
A war of attrition isn't about manpower but about firepower. If Ukraine gets the weapons they need they absolutely can win a war of attrition against Russia. Having 100 guys with rifles doesn't really help if they get ripped apart by artillery before they even lay eyes on the enemy.
Yet another 'liberated' town. Nothing like expending tens of thousands of troops and hundreds of tanks/ifvs to conquer a city that you've utterly destroyed.
This whole war is so senseless and an absolute waste of life, equipment, and effort.
Russia doesn’t care about their conscripts and they are happy to have an empty razed city. Their goal is to cripple Ukraine and maybe take some territory.
I think this heavily depends on how many of the Ukrainian forces will be able to escape Avdiivka before they are cut off in the north-west which is the only remaining escape route.
They are encircled completely by Russian forces except for 1 road out
You are completely misreading the situation. Just like many times before in this war, fears of encirclement are way overblown. Russian hold on the territory is too tenuous to prevent an organized retreat, if Ukrainians decide to do that.
Instead, Russians are advancing street by street in the south-east of the city.
In the latest updated maps the Russians are less than a 1 KM from the main highway that's been supplying the city. True there are local roads still open but they're not paved and in the muddy season heavy vehicles will get bogged down. The soldiers themselves have a good chance to walk out of an encirclement but all the heavy weapons and equipment, especially the western donated stuff, will have to be abandoned.
Hasn't happened before and won't happen now. Making conclusions about encirclement based on some colored maps is naive. There multiple degrees of control over the territory, and so far in this war Russia has never been able to encircle large Ukrainian pockets of resistance.
The point is that Russia has 'control' of territory 1km away from the road, sure, but not with considerable forces. Ukraine when it decides to retreat can punch through that territory if need be.
They've also been close for months, too. It is not exactly a surprise offensive considering adiivka has been on the frontline since 2014.
Yes. 2014.
In even ww1 did better than that.
>The question now is whether Russia has any sort of capacity to keep up momentum when they take the city and whether Ukraine has developed sufficient defensive lines to prevent Russia from making a sizeable advance.
Hasn't this been said in some form or another each time Russia takes an Ukrainian town/village/city? The toll must be horrendous on the Russians but they seem to advance tiny bit by tiny bit while Ukraine's military aid from the US seems a distant possibility now.
I doubt that they can keep momentum. With how slow the advances are that's just not gonna happen. It's gonna turn out similar to bakhmut. The city has been a fortress for almost a decade now and there are more than enough bunkers around for them to keep them inside avdiivka.
Still sucks. It was probably very nice to have a stronghold just at donetzks doorstep. But the attrition rate here couldn't be more favorable to Ukraine probably, not because they can't shoot more with the limited ammunition but because Russia can only send in so much at once.
Russia will now just see a map with a couple square kilometers of gained land and just so impossibly much to take and set their sights on the next city to siege for who knows how many months
As much as I’d like to think Ukraine laid a trap in Avdiivka, and they actually have all the artillery shells they need to capitalize on this opportunity, this doesn’t sound great knowing that the US Congress has blocked assistance for 4-5 months now.
I think Reagan would have been played and controlled in precisely the same manner Trump has been if he was around and president today. Like Trump, he was known to just internalize and parrot the last thing that was said to him and was easily manipulated and controlled.
You are a falling prey to current modern opinions of him. Whatever else may be the case about his Presidency, Reagan was a full blown Cold Warrior type politician... he was, in fact, criticized more than a bit for the harshness of his stance on the USSR, with a common accusation leveled against him being that he was undermining all the progress towards detente that had been made by accelerating military build up.
*Soviet, not Russian. Modern Russian Federation is the model the modern US right is trying to emulate. They are at surface level a (ostensibly) white, male-dominated, aggressive crony capitalist society based on resource extraction, heavy industry and militarization, the men are seen as tough hard drinkers and women are seen as beautiful and submissive. Highly conservative, religious, anti LGBTQ etc etc.
The Russians are aware of this and try to inflame the western culture war as much as possible, for the exact reason that's happening now, to prevent US military interference in their imperialistic aims
Hes spinning so fast that you could power DC using just the energy generated by it.
Party of Lincoln? Dead.
Party of Reagan? Dead.
What's there now, is the Party of Trump.
I’ll join in on knocking Obama for underestimating Putin’s ambition and the geopolitical threat Russia posed, but there’s a world of difference between that and actively being a Russian puppet, admiring Putin, and actively sabotaging a friendly country in the process of defending itself against Russia. The US under Obama starting to train and prepare Ukraine’s military after 2014 played a major part in Ukraine resisting Russia’s invasion as well as it has.
The way I see it, the Cold War never ended: the US stopped playing and the Russians got smarter about it by taking the war to the internet with subtle propaganda and disinformation.
Buying off American republicans sure helped the Russians too.
Eh, The modern Russia thing is different.
At first, Putin legitimately attempted to bring Russia closer to the West. A number of perceived, or actual depending on your perspective, slights led to the famous Munich Security Conference speach where he basically said "You know what, fuck you too" to the International Community and started the current streak of Russian Ultra-Insecurity/Incel-as-a-culture issues
Putin is the criminal leader of a mafia state. Every single thing he's ever done has been to move the agenda of enriching himself and his closest allies more and more. When this war is over, his net worth will be greater than when it began.
No it wasn’t.
Russia had already invaded Georgia and Crimea.
Syrian Civil War was on.
Putin was in power.
Obama’s administration miscalculated.
I’d vote for him again, but not taking Russia seriously, to me, is the biggest mark on his legacy.
Remember that in 2012 we were still fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, with no end in sight. It was wrong not to make Russia as a top-level concern, but still an understandable mistake.
He said that being snarky as a response to the leading Republican candidate warning us about Putin's ambitions. 16 months later, during his term, Putin invaded Crimea.
Obama was very wrong. And his handling of it was even worse. Don't pretend "the global landscape was different" just because you liked the guy.
It was a different time and he did say that in response to Romney calling Russia our #1 geopolitical foe. Good sound bite but totally tone deaf to the threat Russia posed then and could (and would) potentially pose later. This was barely 4 years after they had invaded Georgia and less than 2 years later they would invade and occupy Ukrainian territory to include Crimea. It’s not like Russian foreign policy did a 180 after this debate. A lot of people in the US didn’t take the Russians as a serious threat or were simply ignorant of Putin’s ambitions. Maybe a little bit of both. There were bigger foreign policy issues at the forefront back then. I don’t blame Obama for having that stance then nor do I think Romney was crazy for feeling that way about Russia.
Dont kid yourself, Reagan would do whatever he thought was politically expedient. For instance, he abandoned his former friends in the gay community when AIDS struck because he didn't want to risk alienating the much larger demographics of conservatives that despised homosexuals. The man didn't lift a finger as tens of thousands of Americans died, even when he knew some of them
personally.
He was not a man of integrity, that's just part of the myth conservatives use to put him on a pedestal. Reagan would have been right there with the rest of the modern GOP embracing Putin's bullshit if the price was right. Fuck Ronald Reagan, and fuck every Republican since.
Reagan would look at the checks Russia has been writing the GOP, nod, and ask if they'd kindly keep some Americans hostage until after the election, thank you very much.
Did you see Tucker Carlson was granted an interview with Putin?
He's promoting whatever narrative Putin will spin because "he loves America" and "want[s] it to remain prosperous and free."
He is urging us to watch it so, "like a free citizen, and not a slave, you can decide for yourself," if Putin's reasons for invading and annexing a sovereign democratic nation and murdering and kidnapping it's people are just, or not.
https://www.reuters.com/world/putin-gave-tucker-carlson-an-interview-because-he-differs-one-sided-media-2024-02-07/
Trump did it because Putin told him to. Very different motivations.
Trump isn't smart enough to do what everyone thinks he is doing and it's worse than what everyone thinks he's doing. He's a puppet to a foreign dictator.
Trump hates America because America voted for Obama and he got teased at a White House dinner. He hates America because they didn’t vote for him.
If you listen to what he says it shows he holds nothing but contempts for this country.
Trump is being blackmailed by Putin into doing whatever Putin tells him to. Trump also hates Obama and is happy to punish his enemies. If trump comes back into power he will punish his enemies for certain.
Trump is happily doing Putin's bidding thinking he's going to win the long con. There is no blackmail. Trump is NOT a victim. There isn't a *crime* being committed *against* him.
It's not fucking blackmail. No.
"Victim Trump"? Wipe that from your fucking cerebral cortex. Don't spread it around like it's some legitimate concept. It fucking isn't.
Is he being blackmailed though? Like for real, I used to believe that, but after the way the past 8 years have unfolded, taking everything into account, I almost think he just really likes Vladdy Daddy and wants to impress him.
I seriously doubt at this point that anything Putin releases would have any effect on his core base with their ability to just dismiss anything negative about Dear Leader as phake nooz and demonrat propergander
They're doing it because it benefits Russia. The agenda and manipulation happening is clear.
I wonder if it'll ever be uncovered how much certain GOP politicians were bribed by Russia and extensions. But by then it might already be too late.
I swear to god they are interested in repeating the 1929 Stock crash, and the depression, and everything else that went through it.
So I guess we'll see in 5 years if this country is completely screwed because this superpower forgot what happened the last time America tried "Isolationism"
Spoiler alert: It didn't work.
Basically, it's an election season issue. There isn't much to complain about for Republicans with current state of affairs and the economy doing well. The Border issue is going to be hammered home during the primaries and will use it to portray a their own picture. Its likely they wanted to hold funding for Ukraine to show that Ukraine isn't doing well on the front while simultaneously preventing the current president from taking away their only method of getting people to vote.
Irony here is dems agreed with their terms and they still didn't move on with the border solution simply because Trump halted it all. So that, if he wins the election, he can say he did it himself. This is all on actual conversations. Disgusting party at this point in America. Shameless.
I've been emailing my congressman. I know it's not much but it's what I can do. I'd suggest you all do the same. And remember who did what when you vote. Mostly, go vote.
Man, that's actually a lot. Not sure if closed/private (don't know how to call it) emails are effective in comparison with open letters and organised public support, but still, just intentions and initiative to actually do something is a lot, even if that something isn't huge by itself.
Most dangerous thing is demotivation which russian and pro-russian fuckers utilise in every possible way.
Russia knows exactly what's going on in American government. They have tons of very high level informants.
I'm sure they have chosen this timing carefully with that. They also have starlink.
This is very bad.
And Europe failed to deliver even half of the 1 million artillery shells they promised. When they start with these wave attacks you need artillery or air support to counter. Russia hasn’t changed its tactics since they started. How the two largest economic blocs in the world, the US and EU, can’t collectively deliver artillery ammo that requires zero advanced tech is beyond embarrassing. Biden had plenty of time to give Ukraine what they needed when this thing started, the EU should have handed them long range missiles long ago and is still holding back even though this thing is in their backyard. When historians look back at this era, they will struggle to explain how badly the US and the EU fumbled this for over two years and then got gridlocked in internal politics all to Ukraine’s detriment.
I thought about a trap straight away. I see no reason why it wouldn't be raining HIMARS or SCALP/Storm Shadow on the ingress point.
There's very little to save in Avdiivka now and everything to gain if RU troops mass in one area. They're certainly stupid enough to walk into a trap.
Wow if only Putin's Republicans didn't keep voting down Ukrainian aid.
You'd think the FBI would be having a field day with leads + donations, considering how much Russian money flows through the Florida GOP to the rest of the country.
Europe's donated a bit more by pound of flesh.
America's falling so far behind they might fall behind Canada for aid at this rate. Canada doesn't even have a functioning army, navy or airforce.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303450/bilateral-aid-to-ukraine-in-a-percent-of-donor-gdp/
Canada does have a functioning armed forces, just our (as in Canada, I am Canadian) readiness is pathetic. This is just because of decades of neglect. When my grandfather joined in 1966, Canada had 110,000 personnel, today it’s just over 60 thousand.
Canada was charging rent on soldiers at $500 a month, over a decade ago to share a room with 3-7 other people, like they were living in a Brampton basement.
Canada has had no interest in recruitment or retention, compensation or even veteran affairs benefits. All three Canadian parties voted on reducing benefits to veterans.
It's no wonder the Canadian military is derelict, between punishing their own personnel with their own incompetence and punishing their military with one of the worst military procurement systems in the world.
From what members are saying in r/CanadianForces, it seems the command is also acting as if enlisted personnel need the CAF more than the CAF need them too. It’s sad.
[Europe has collectively given more in absolute terms.](https://twitter.com/andrew_danieri/status/1755348360511226271?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1755348360511226271%7Ctwgr%5E8ca17be830947e4cf0756231361416f1f57ba288%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redditmedia.com%2Fmediaembed%2Fliveupdate%2F18hnzysb1elcs%2FLiveUpdate_495c8d4e-c64f-11ee-846a-b2f4ad0602a9%2F0)
Percent of gdp is not the best way to say who invested the most money. It is skewed towards poor countries.
This is also from the same source:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303432/total-bilateral-aid-to-ukraine/
If you look at pure military investment, America is still on top. But if you add up all European investments, they already surpass American investments. Which is only expected ofcourse, we have most to lose. We just don't have the military capability that the USA has.
Edit: I feel like I have to add that I do think percent of gdp is absolutely relevant. It is telling about how much a country is willing to sacrifice within their means. I only mean to say that it is not the best way to say who invested the most money, in absolute terms.
Lose* not trying to be a dick with correction but it's one I see all the time due to people not knowing rather than being a typo and they won't go unless they are corrected.
Percent from GDP is 100% relevant tho. I agree it doesn't tell the whole story, but it is 100% relevant as it showcases willingness and fear of the situation.
Yes it is - in fact, it's worse that America isn't - it means that the poorer countries are giving everything they've got in spite of their own deficiencies, where one with the 900B military budget that it likes boasting about it isn't putting much of it *to use* by comparison.
Despite dedicating 3.4% of their GDP to the military, they are #15 by per capita in military aid, or 0.2% of their GDP. A mere **1/17** of their military spending is going to the actual invasion of their allies' neighbours. Meanwhile, Denmark dedicates 1.2% of its budget to military expenditure, and has insofar dedicated 0.9% of its GDP to Ukrainian military aid, or **3/4 of their military expenditure**.
This is the same country that was just whining about other NATO members not putting in their fair share, but despite clearly putting the most into their *industry*, the US isn't doing as much *with* it as others are even with their smaller dedications of their budgets to the military.
This was like 6 months in the making. Avdiivka had to fall eventually. I'm always surprised how long Ukraine is staying in battles it's losing. I hate how dehumanizing this is but they must have a good ratio of own losses to Russian losses, otherwise it wouldn't be worth doing.
It’s more they have to hold the line somewhere, so they might as well hold the line at defensible locations like that or Bakhmut as long as they can to keep the devastation limited to one area. If they fell back, the new spot wouldn’t be drastically better, and the Russians would just follow them and fight them at the new spot anyways.
Ruined cities like Bakhmut or Avdiivka are easy to defend than open farm land. Defender advantage is greater in Urban environments, especially for a poor nation like Ukraine that is running out of artillery shells, ammo, and is out tech’d regarding ground armor (due to Russia’s air superiority along the front).
There's no reason to be surprised that Ukrainians continue fighting in Avdiivka. Retreating does not solve anything in the big picture of things - if they were to retreat, they would soon be in the same situation further west.
The goal is to defend on the most defensible lines while inflicting maximum losses on the Russians.
Judging by the videos coming out, they'll probably stay as long as possible to continue turning Russian equipment and men into shreds.
I hope they withdraw orderly with success though.. another Mariupol type siege gains them nothing.
Mariupol was surrounded very quickly though, during the initial Russian advances. Avdiivka has been slowly attrited over months, similar to Bakhmut, and Ukrainian forces should have made ample preparations to withdraw to a new line of defenses.
If they didn't for whatever reason and wind up being encircled, that would be a massive failure of command.
>Judging by the videos coming out, they'll probably stay as long as possible to continue turning Russian equipment and men into shreds.
But that would be at the cost of turning themselves and their equipment into shreds as well.
Defensive lines typically inflict greater casualties on the other side if the other side constantly tries to push into them. Further, holding lines forces the enemy to build up in certain areas which can be prime areas to target with your own offensive operations (ex: drones, missiles, etc). Russia does have a significant population advantage (I think 4:1), so Ukraine needs to find ways to try and counteract that. Overall, Ukraine is 'only' at a 2:1 casualty advantage over Russia (roughly 150k Ukrainian v 300k Russian). To sustain the war, Ukraine most likely needs to be picking fights that gives them a significant casualty advantage.
That's what Lincoln did after Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville and nearly after Meade failed to pursue Lee after Gettysburg. Removing a commander isn't weird or unusual or awkward, especially when things aren't going well.
Yes for Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville, but Meade was actually following orders to keep his army between Lee's and DC when he didn't pursue Lee. It's also debateable if his army was even in a condition to engage in a pursuit after fighting one of the bloodiest battles of the war. Meade also wasn't demoted or even reassigned, he remained the commander of the army of the Potomac for the rest of the war. It's just that Grant was promoted above him to commander of all US forces, a rank that hadn't been held by anyone since Washington himself. Grant and Meade worked together in the eastern theatre to ultimately capture Richmond and defeat Lee.
Right, Meade stayed on throughout the rest of the war. That's why I said *nearly*. Lincoln was displeased with Meade in the aftermath of Gettysburg, even if he was right not to purse Lee vigorously.
Of course it's all zelensky doing and orders... you can't keep giving up land and it makes sense for Russia to commit hard for it. Also I don't remember if avdiivka was his orders?
Zaluzhny wanted to give up both long ago and use the fresh forces in the summer counteroffensive. Instead Ze overruled and Ukraine had to use depleted forces and ultimately failed with the counteroffensive.. also lost Bakhmut and will lose Avdiivka in days. Ze shouldn’t meddle with military matters, but here we are.. GG
To me it just seems like any failure is blamed on Zelensky and anything good is Zaluzhny doing.. I think everyone knew they would lose Bakhmut and Avdiivka, it's about holding a line because you can't just fall back over and over.. you do need to hold some places.
I think that stuff about the counter-offensive just seems like fanfiction.
Ze was doing a good job holding the morale and drumming up foreign support. Not much on the military scene.. he is an actor by profession. When politicians start to overrule generals, it rarely goes well for the war effort.
Yup, that's a major problem when heads of state start acting like they are generals. What experience did Zelensky have with war prior to becoming president? None, absolutely none, and then to go against the advice and counsel of your generals during a war? Fucking stupid.
Given upcoming russian elections and republicans assisting putin, it is no surprise this is happening now. In my opinion, there is blood on the hands of those politicians that decided they care only for party (trump) and nothing else.
At a minimum sending military aid which also helps the US itself would normally be expected. But there was a time where I believed a mask wouldn't become political, yet we saw how that went.
I know republicans care so much about the US looking strong well guess what. If things go badly for Ukraine because US politicians got on their knees for putin. Well, history books will be written and it will be remembered for how much of a failure things have become. And shows great weakness to russia and China.
>it is no surprise this is happening now
This would have happened anyway. Congress has been in a deadlock for what, 2 months now? The dollars would not have magically granted Ukraine a high amount of artillery or more men to resist this.
But the main reason this push is happening now is so Putin has a victory to parade before their elections. The Russians have 40 days and nights left to flood Avdiivka with troops to get a result.
Ukraine needs a Noah.
Which unfortunately leads to the death of those on the front line. Weakness being shown by republicans will not be forgotten that's for sure. Especially when helping benefits the US as well. But hopefully enough pressure can amount for something to be done so to better assist them. In the end, sooner aid can get passed, sooner the support can get there.
And so it begins the fall of Avdiivka.
And the sad thing is this could have been avoided with enough ammuniton.
Ukraine needs to build much more domestic plants, so that the dependency of foreign support is lower.
Ukraine was poor in the 90s like developing 3rd world poor. They would gave bankrupted themselves if they heavily militarized after the fall of the USSR. Ukrainians wouldn't have to worry about a Russian invasion because their state would have imploded and turned failed stated by the early 2000s.
Extract the nuclear material and components and build new control circuits to replace the Russian ones.
Starting with pieces of a functional warhead has got to be a huge step up vs. starting from scratch.
Yes. Making a nuke isn't trivial but the hardest part by far is getting the nuclear material. Compared to that, the rest of the device is easy. Still not something you cook up in a garage.
With what money? They were broke at the time. It wasn't just pinky promises that convinced them to give up the nukes it was also in exchange for promises of financial assistance for their economy.
Ukraine was in no state to do this after the fall of the ussr. The real alternative was closer relations with Russia to receive help in maintaining them.
Ukraine never had nukes lol. They had Russian nukes in their territory guarded by soldiers loyal to Moscow, with all of the command and control systems also being in the Kremlin.
They were considered to be in Russia's sphere and eventually went down a path of being a puppet state like Belarus until the 2014 Revolution of Dignity. Massive protests coupled with an election that ousted Putin's buddy Yanukovych and led to Zelensky becoming President. It was clear to Russia that Ukraine would fall into the European sphere so they seized Crimea and waged a limited war in the Donbas where they propped up and had their own troops pretend to be insurrectionists over the next several years until the all-out invasion. That experience has probably contributed greatly to Ukraine's successes post-invasion, but they have had continuous pressure put on them since 2014.
> Almost impossible to do during a war. Ukrainians should have started preparing for this in 1990s, the moment they declared independence. Their political leaders really dropped the ball.
They ousted their last pro Russian leader (Yanukovic) in 2014 and Putin invaded Crimea about a week later.
As much as people like to hammer Russia, they are not yet beaten. Obviously they can still put up a fight, even if they only make marginal progress at a high human cost…
I remember I was listening to a podcast after the Kharkiv counter offensive and that was a point that "geopolitics expert" was trying to make. The first year in pretty much all Russian wars is a disaster,. After that they buckle down and turn it into a meatgrinder till you give.
I mean Russia lost her first two Napoleonic Wars, the Crimean War, the Russo-Japanese War, the Afghan War, and most infamously, failed from day 1 to day 1000 of World War One.
They aren't invincible. But you are right that they operate with a massive margin for error thanks to their numbers and the Kremlin's willingness to prioritize its wars.
It's a war of attrition as it's basically the only way for either side to make progress at this point, but Ukraine is taking high human costs as well, especially since Russia has far more men, artillery and drones.
As an American I feel fucking sick to my stomach. I written and called all the representatives I have, but for some FUCKING reason Qanon has taken over leadership of the Republican house. These people are literally "Eat, Drink, and Be Merry for tomorrow we die" nihilists. There is no humanist value or virtue that can persuade them.
The GOP party is a cult, it's really hard to change a cult around as they use feelings over logic. Our only hope is we can vote them out, without them getting violent.
As a Brit Ive argued only with republicans on platforms about this. And it boils down too hunter biden being in Ukraine...and trump talking nicely about Putin..and now Carlson in Russia..... Russia is now a part of US politics not policy...
If Avdiivka falls - this will have a lot bigger implications than people realize.
If the rumors of 10 Ukrainian batallions about to be cut off in Avdiivka are true, this will be a huge loss for Ukraine
We are talking about 10k+ soldiers being captured by Russians
Might be a major tipping point in the conflict
They'll surely try and withdraw before a complete encirclement gets underway. Really worrying though. It would be disastrous if they allow a siege to develop.
I think they’ll definitely evacuate before that happens, there have been very few encirclements in this war due to how slow forces have been able to move.
Most of those 10k soldiers are not just stand there and defend if the city falls. They will run to inner parts of Ukraine.
Still it will be a loss for Ukraine but doubt 10k soldiers get caught like that.
thats mathematically and geographically insane thing to say the area of the city/town does not accomodate such numbers what are you smoking
you can count the know battalions/brigades and it doesnt add up and they arent deployed 100%
I agree but that is what was reported a month+ ago by Ukraine
I think the numbers are closer to 1000-2000 in reality maybe even fewer if they retreated
The answer here is the Republican Party. They’ve been towing the line for Putin for a while. Hell, right now one of their favorite media personalities is doing broadcasts from Moscow.
It was pretty much that, when Russia exposed how ineffective its military was before all the problems with weapons deliveries, real or manufactured, that contributed to the failure of Ukraine’s counter offensive. Even so, whatever American money was/is spent on Ukraine is negligible compared to what happens in the event of a Ukrainian capitulation.
To call it a victory for the US, it is sufficient that Ukraine has the ability to maintain its defence going forward despite losses like this one, which diminishes Russian influence everywhere else. This isn’t assured now, by their own choice.
One wonders why the European countries aren’t to blame. This war is in Europe, yes? Maybe European countries should have spent on their military instead of relying on the US for security while making fun of Americans for not having healthcare.
It took them 9 months to get Bakhmut and it will likely take them 12 months to take Avdiika. At this rate they will conquer Ukraine in 200 years or so.
The US is failing Ukraine regardless of whether Republicans are the issue. 800 billion invested into the military and were useless in these conflicts popping up all over the world.
It is a disgrace that the Republicans are deliberately causing mayhem because trumped up told them to, simply to undermine tge democrats.. He, and they have blood on their hands! Hope they and their followers are proud.
It seems inevitable that Avdiivka will fall in the relatively near future at this stage, Russian forces have been advancing steadily on a daily basis now after being unable to make any meaningful progress for months. The question now is whether Russia has any sort of capacity to keep up momentum when they take the city and whether Ukraine has developed sufficient defensive lines to prevent Russia from making a sizeable advance.
zaluzhny said it would be around March, way back in december as the aid debate was starting seems correct
It was inevitable 2 months ago, and projection was around March. Now it is a question of how many troops Ukraine will take out before Russia takes full control, and Ukraine has the most experienced/elite people there, and they are being sorounded.
could be like bakhmut. RU keeps pushing and pushing, but UA makes them pay for every inch. ~~then later is able to push back and retake~~.
[Russia still controls Bakhmut though?](https://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Bakhmut%20Battle%20Map%20Draft%20February%207%2C%202024.png)
Yes, but they were saying that it was a long back and forth before it fell. It was "days from falling" for months. This time could develop the same way and we are yet many weeks/months before Ukraine finally withdraws. They essentially left Bakhmut when there was no good defensive position to hold on to anymore. Because the whole place was essentially leveled to the ground.
That’s what I’m thinking too. These “victories” for Russians wouldn’t be considered victories by our standards. So many deaths and lost equipment simply to be able to say you took the remains of a city.
But it's important to remember that our standards aernt being tested. A valuable lesson from the Vietnam war. If the kill ratio is 10 men for every 1. And yet they can tolerate 20 to 1...for years, then victory will go to the side that eats it.
Lincoln made the same calculation N. Vietnam made: The Union could lose twice the troops the south loses and still win the war.
Yeah methinks Russia is going to use their numbers to outgrind Ukraine. This ain’t looking too good.
Russia (govt and population) is also not new to "eating it". That's kinda their thing.
> If the kill ratio is 10 men for every 1 Russia's population is about 3.5 times that of Ukraine's. Russia can't sustain a 10:1 casualty rate for long.
The point is more...precidential. Rather than literal. Of how in a war of attrition, only the sides involved will know the truth of their own situation. As James Willbanks, a US strategist in the Vietnam War described, on the flawed thinking of defence secretary Robert McNamara: “When McNamara wants to know what Ho Chi Minh is thinking, he interviews himself.”
I think today we have more accurate numbers of enemy losses than in past times by a huge amount.
Yes but Russia is after land, they don't care about the lives required to take it. Russian lives are the cheapest asset they have.
There are more people in russia than in ukraine. Ukraine cannot win a war of attrition.
Russia has lost a number of wars, when the tide turns enough they have a habit of suing for peace. The Finnish winter war, Afghanistan, first Chechnya war. For some reason many in the west have this false idea that Russia can't lose wars but they can and do. If we give Ukraine what they needed we would end up with a ceasefire on more favourable terms for Ukraine. They're not getting everything back but it's far better than all the alternatives
Yeah, I never get this either. In fact, Russia has a horrible track record for wars fought beyond its own borders. It also puzzles me how people think that Russia is this tough nation that can take any punishment, without considering the fact that Ukraine was a part of the Soviet Union as well as the Russian Empire. Either its true and it goes for both, or it is not. Besides, in a (at least perceived) existential war countries can lose absurd numbers of people without giving up. North Vietnam, both Iran and Iraq in that war, the nations of the Soviet Union in WW2, the list goes on. Losing 5% of your population is not uncommon, terrible as it is.
A war of attrition isn't about manpower but about firepower. If Ukraine gets the weapons they need they absolutely can win a war of attrition against Russia. Having 100 guys with rifles doesn't really help if they get ripped apart by artillery before they even lay eyes on the enemy.
Yet another 'liberated' town. Nothing like expending tens of thousands of troops and hundreds of tanks/ifvs to conquer a city that you've utterly destroyed. This whole war is so senseless and an absolute waste of life, equipment, and effort.
Russia doesn’t care about their conscripts and they are happy to have an empty razed city. Their goal is to cripple Ukraine and maybe take some territory.
My understanding is that's the point.
I think this heavily depends on how many of the Ukrainian forces will be able to escape Avdiivka before they are cut off in the north-west which is the only remaining escape route. They are encircled completely by Russian forces except for 1 road out
You are completely misreading the situation. Just like many times before in this war, fears of encirclement are way overblown. Russian hold on the territory is too tenuous to prevent an organized retreat, if Ukrainians decide to do that. Instead, Russians are advancing street by street in the south-east of the city.
In the latest updated maps the Russians are less than a 1 KM from the main highway that's been supplying the city. True there are local roads still open but they're not paved and in the muddy season heavy vehicles will get bogged down. The soldiers themselves have a good chance to walk out of an encirclement but all the heavy weapons and equipment, especially the western donated stuff, will have to be abandoned.
Hasn't happened before and won't happen now. Making conclusions about encirclement based on some colored maps is naive. There multiple degrees of control over the territory, and so far in this war Russia has never been able to encircle large Ukrainian pockets of resistance.
[удалено]
The point is that Russia has 'control' of territory 1km away from the road, sure, but not with considerable forces. Ukraine when it decides to retreat can punch through that territory if need be.
They've also been close for months, too. It is not exactly a surprise offensive considering adiivka has been on the frontline since 2014. Yes. 2014. In even ww1 did better than that.
This is incorrect, they’ve made gains in the SE and E as well.
That's right, I meant south-east.
>The question now is whether Russia has any sort of capacity to keep up momentum when they take the city and whether Ukraine has developed sufficient defensive lines to prevent Russia from making a sizeable advance. Hasn't this been said in some form or another each time Russia takes an Ukrainian town/village/city? The toll must be horrendous on the Russians but they seem to advance tiny bit by tiny bit while Ukraine's military aid from the US seems a distant possibility now.
I doubt that they can keep momentum. With how slow the advances are that's just not gonna happen. It's gonna turn out similar to bakhmut. The city has been a fortress for almost a decade now and there are more than enough bunkers around for them to keep them inside avdiivka. Still sucks. It was probably very nice to have a stronghold just at donetzks doorstep. But the attrition rate here couldn't be more favorable to Ukraine probably, not because they can't shoot more with the limited ammunition but because Russia can only send in so much at once. Russia will now just see a map with a couple square kilometers of gained land and just so impossibly much to take and set their sights on the next city to siege for who knows how many months
As much as I’d like to think Ukraine laid a trap in Avdiivka, and they actually have all the artillery shells they need to capitalize on this opportunity, this doesn’t sound great knowing that the US Congress has blocked assistance for 4-5 months now.
US Republicans
Reagan would turn in his grave if he saw how the republicans of today are undermining the global position of the USA...
Reagan would vomit at seeing how Republicans serve Putin. Back in the 80's all our movie villains were Russian.
I think Reagan would have been played and controlled in precisely the same manner Trump has been if he was around and president today. Like Trump, he was known to just internalize and parrot the last thing that was said to him and was easily manipulated and controlled.
I think Reagan would be backing Ukraine, he had to deal with Russia and managed to negotiate nuclear arms reduction.
You are a falling prey to current modern opinions of him. Whatever else may be the case about his Presidency, Reagan was a full blown Cold Warrior type politician... he was, in fact, criticized more than a bit for the harshness of his stance on the USSR, with a common accusation leveled against him being that he was undermining all the progress towards detente that had been made by accelerating military build up.
Yeah this crap would have resulted in full on McCarthyism and witch hunts resulting in the traitors being strung up by their toes back then.
No he wasn’t
*Soviet, not Russian. Modern Russian Federation is the model the modern US right is trying to emulate. They are at surface level a (ostensibly) white, male-dominated, aggressive crony capitalist society based on resource extraction, heavy industry and militarization, the men are seen as tough hard drinkers and women are seen as beautiful and submissive. Highly conservative, religious, anti LGBTQ etc etc. The Russians are aware of this and try to inflame the western culture war as much as possible, for the exact reason that's happening now, to prevent US military interference in their imperialistic aims
Hes spinning so fast that you could power DC using just the energy generated by it. Party of Lincoln? Dead. Party of Reagan? Dead. What's there now, is the Party of Trump.
"The 1980's called, they want their foreign policy back." Obama
I’ll join in on knocking Obama for underestimating Putin’s ambition and the geopolitical threat Russia posed, but there’s a world of difference between that and actively being a Russian puppet, admiring Putin, and actively sabotaging a friendly country in the process of defending itself against Russia. The US under Obama starting to train and prepare Ukraine’s military after 2014 played a major part in Ukraine resisting Russia’s invasion as well as it has.
When he said this 10+ years ago the global landscape was very different. Unfortunately we are backsliding into a new Cold War.
The way I see it, the Cold War never ended: the US stopped playing and the Russians got smarter about it by taking the war to the internet with subtle propaganda and disinformation. Buying off American republicans sure helped the Russians too.
It ended with Gorbachev. Then Putin took over and decided to start the extra-cold war.
Nah more like the room temp war, as he faked not being our enemy for twenty years.
The lukewar?
booo
Yup Trump has many business links to Russia and took loans from them to stay afloat.
Eh, The modern Russia thing is different. At first, Putin legitimately attempted to bring Russia closer to the West. A number of perceived, or actual depending on your perspective, slights led to the famous Munich Security Conference speach where he basically said "You know what, fuck you too" to the International Community and started the current streak of Russian Ultra-Insecurity/Incel-as-a-culture issues
Putin is the criminal leader of a mafia state. Every single thing he's ever done has been to move the agenda of enriching himself and his closest allies more and more. When this war is over, his net worth will be greater than when it began.
When Putin is over, his net worth will be about 6 cents worth of compost
And this time with less allies if republicans are elected.
No it wasn’t. Russia had already invaded Georgia and Crimea. Syrian Civil War was on. Putin was in power. Obama’s administration miscalculated. I’d vote for him again, but not taking Russia seriously, to me, is the biggest mark on his legacy.
Remember that in 2012 we were still fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, with no end in sight. It was wrong not to make Russia as a top-level concern, but still an understandable mistake.
Obama made that statement in 2012, which was two years before the Crimean invasion. The other points you make are correct.
He said that being snarky as a response to the leading Republican candidate warning us about Putin's ambitions. 16 months later, during his term, Putin invaded Crimea. Obama was very wrong. And his handling of it was even worse. Don't pretend "the global landscape was different" just because you liked the guy.
It was a different time and he did say that in response to Romney calling Russia our #1 geopolitical foe. Good sound bite but totally tone deaf to the threat Russia posed then and could (and would) potentially pose later. This was barely 4 years after they had invaded Georgia and less than 2 years later they would invade and occupy Ukrainian territory to include Crimea. It’s not like Russian foreign policy did a 180 after this debate. A lot of people in the US didn’t take the Russians as a serious threat or were simply ignorant of Putin’s ambitions. Maybe a little bit of both. There were bigger foreign policy issues at the forefront back then. I don’t blame Obama for having that stance then nor do I think Romney was crazy for feeling that way about Russia.
Dont kid yourself, Reagan would do whatever he thought was politically expedient. For instance, he abandoned his former friends in the gay community when AIDS struck because he didn't want to risk alienating the much larger demographics of conservatives that despised homosexuals. The man didn't lift a finger as tens of thousands of Americans died, even when he knew some of them personally. He was not a man of integrity, that's just part of the myth conservatives use to put him on a pedestal. Reagan would have been right there with the rest of the modern GOP embracing Putin's bullshit if the price was right. Fuck Ronald Reagan, and fuck every Republican since.
Reagan would look at the checks Russia has been writing the GOP, nod, and ask if they'd kindly keep some Americans hostage until after the election, thank you very much.
He was an actor. Actors get paid to read what's on the paper and pretend they believe it.
[удалено]
Did you see Tucker Carlson was granted an interview with Putin? He's promoting whatever narrative Putin will spin because "he loves America" and "want[s] it to remain prosperous and free." He is urging us to watch it so, "like a free citizen, and not a slave, you can decide for yourself," if Putin's reasons for invading and annexing a sovereign democratic nation and murdering and kidnapping it's people are just, or not. https://www.reuters.com/world/putin-gave-tucker-carlson-an-interview-because-he-differs-one-sided-media-2024-02-07/
Fucker Turdlson
> Now they reject the deal because they are amoral liars who hate America No, they did it because Trump told them to. Literal cult.
I don’t see how my claim is any different than your claim.
Trump did it because Putin told him to. Very different motivations. Trump isn't smart enough to do what everyone thinks he is doing and it's worse than what everyone thinks he's doing. He's a puppet to a foreign dictator.
Trump hates America because America voted for Obama and he got teased at a White House dinner. He hates America because they didn’t vote for him. If you listen to what he says it shows he holds nothing but contempts for this country.
Trump is being blackmailed by Putin into doing whatever Putin tells him to. Trump also hates Obama and is happy to punish his enemies. If trump comes back into power he will punish his enemies for certain.
Trump is happily doing Putin's bidding thinking he's going to win the long con. There is no blackmail. Trump is NOT a victim. There isn't a *crime* being committed *against* him. It's not fucking blackmail. No. "Victim Trump"? Wipe that from your fucking cerebral cortex. Don't spread it around like it's some legitimate concept. It fucking isn't.
Is he being blackmailed though? Like for real, I used to believe that, but after the way the past 8 years have unfolded, taking everything into account, I almost think he just really likes Vladdy Daddy and wants to impress him. I seriously doubt at this point that anything Putin releases would have any effect on his core base with their ability to just dismiss anything negative about Dear Leader as phake nooz and demonrat propergander
I can't possibly imagine being so uninformed that I have conversations like this on the internet.
Putin and Trump are our generations Hitler and Mussolini.
No, they did it because they hate the country and want it to collapse, so they privatize everything and turn the American people into serfs.
They're doing it because it benefits Russia. The agenda and manipulation happening is clear. I wonder if it'll ever be uncovered how much certain GOP politicians were bribed by Russia and extensions. But by then it might already be too late.
Republicans hate America because America had the gall to elect Barack Obama twice.
I swear to god they are interested in repeating the 1929 Stock crash, and the depression, and everything else that went through it. So I guess we'll see in 5 years if this country is completely screwed because this superpower forgot what happened the last time America tried "Isolationism" Spoiler alert: It didn't work.
Putins Republicans*
Rasputicans
Basically, it's an election season issue. There isn't much to complain about for Republicans with current state of affairs and the economy doing well. The Border issue is going to be hammered home during the primaries and will use it to portray a their own picture. Its likely they wanted to hold funding for Ukraine to show that Ukraine isn't doing well on the front while simultaneously preventing the current president from taking away their only method of getting people to vote.
Irony here is dems agreed with their terms and they still didn't move on with the border solution simply because Trump halted it all. So that, if he wins the election, he can say he did it himself. This is all on actual conversations. Disgusting party at this point in America. Shameless.
I've been emailing my congressman. I know it's not much but it's what I can do. I'd suggest you all do the same. And remember who did what when you vote. Mostly, go vote.
Man, that's actually a lot. Not sure if closed/private (don't know how to call it) emails are effective in comparison with open letters and organised public support, but still, just intentions and initiative to actually do something is a lot, even if that something isn't huge by itself. Most dangerous thing is demotivation which russian and pro-russian fuckers utilise in every possible way.
Personal communication, when timed with others doing the same, is the most effective way for an individual to influence their elected representatives.
Zelensky said they were OK til February. We're almost half way though February now.
Russia knows exactly what's going on in American government. They have tons of very high level informants. I'm sure they have chosen this timing carefully with that. They also have starlink. This is very bad.
And Europe failed to deliver even half of the 1 million artillery shells they promised. When they start with these wave attacks you need artillery or air support to counter. Russia hasn’t changed its tactics since they started. How the two largest economic blocs in the world, the US and EU, can’t collectively deliver artillery ammo that requires zero advanced tech is beyond embarrassing. Biden had plenty of time to give Ukraine what they needed when this thing started, the EU should have handed them long range missiles long ago and is still holding back even though this thing is in their backyard. When historians look back at this era, they will struggle to explain how badly the US and the EU fumbled this for over two years and then got gridlocked in internal politics all to Ukraine’s detriment.
Republicans . Anti Americans . Pieces of trash
I thought about a trap straight away. I see no reason why it wouldn't be raining HIMARS or SCALP/Storm Shadow on the ingress point. There's very little to save in Avdiivka now and everything to gain if RU troops mass in one area. They're certainly stupid enough to walk into a trap.
‘We have liberated Avdiivka’ is what Putin will say when theres half a city gone and other half burning
Wow if only Putin's Republicans didn't keep voting down Ukrainian aid. You'd think the FBI would be having a field day with leads + donations, considering how much Russian money flows through the Florida GOP to the rest of the country.
I agree with you but also Europe can also do way better than the paltry aid it's been giving.
Europe's donated a bit more by pound of flesh. America's falling so far behind they might fall behind Canada for aid at this rate. Canada doesn't even have a functioning army, navy or airforce. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303450/bilateral-aid-to-ukraine-in-a-percent-of-donor-gdp/
Canada does have a functioning armed forces, just our (as in Canada, I am Canadian) readiness is pathetic. This is just because of decades of neglect. When my grandfather joined in 1966, Canada had 110,000 personnel, today it’s just over 60 thousand.
Canada was charging rent on soldiers at $500 a month, over a decade ago to share a room with 3-7 other people, like they were living in a Brampton basement. Canada has had no interest in recruitment or retention, compensation or even veteran affairs benefits. All three Canadian parties voted on reducing benefits to veterans. It's no wonder the Canadian military is derelict, between punishing their own personnel with their own incompetence and punishing their military with one of the worst military procurement systems in the world.
From what members are saying in r/CanadianForces, it seems the command is also acting as if enlisted personnel need the CAF more than the CAF need them too. It’s sad.
[Europe has collectively given more in absolute terms.](https://twitter.com/andrew_danieri/status/1755348360511226271?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1755348360511226271%7Ctwgr%5E8ca17be830947e4cf0756231361416f1f57ba288%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redditmedia.com%2Fmediaembed%2Fliveupdate%2F18hnzysb1elcs%2FLiveUpdate_495c8d4e-c64f-11ee-846a-b2f4ad0602a9%2F0)
That has a very key word there. Commitment. Not realized donations. European states have committed far more than they've given.
Percent of gdp is not the best way to say who invested the most money. It is skewed towards poor countries. This is also from the same source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303432/total-bilateral-aid-to-ukraine/ If you look at pure military investment, America is still on top. But if you add up all European investments, they already surpass American investments. Which is only expected ofcourse, we have most to lose. We just don't have the military capability that the USA has. Edit: I feel like I have to add that I do think percent of gdp is absolutely relevant. It is telling about how much a country is willing to sacrifice within their means. I only mean to say that it is not the best way to say who invested the most money, in absolute terms.
Not to mention they took in 99% of refugees which is wayyy more challenging than shipping some bombs across the pond
Lose* not trying to be a dick with correction but it's one I see all the time due to people not knowing rather than being a typo and they won't go unless they are corrected.
Dang it, should have noticed it. Not my first language so I need to stop and think for words like to too and lose loose
Percent from GDP is 100% relevant tho. I agree it doesn't tell the whole story, but it is 100% relevant as it showcases willingness and fear of the situation.
Yes it is - in fact, it's worse that America isn't - it means that the poorer countries are giving everything they've got in spite of their own deficiencies, where one with the 900B military budget that it likes boasting about it isn't putting much of it *to use* by comparison. Despite dedicating 3.4% of their GDP to the military, they are #15 by per capita in military aid, or 0.2% of their GDP. A mere **1/17** of their military spending is going to the actual invasion of their allies' neighbours. Meanwhile, Denmark dedicates 1.2% of its budget to military expenditure, and has insofar dedicated 0.9% of its GDP to Ukrainian military aid, or **3/4 of their military expenditure**. This is the same country that was just whining about other NATO members not putting in their fair share, but despite clearly putting the most into their *industry*, the US isn't doing as much *with* it as others are even with their smaller dedications of their budgets to the military.
Now imagine if Ukraine was in North America and not Europe. The numbers would be different then.
[удалено]
John McCain warned us exactly how it would come down.
This was like 6 months in the making. Avdiivka had to fall eventually. I'm always surprised how long Ukraine is staying in battles it's losing. I hate how dehumanizing this is but they must have a good ratio of own losses to Russian losses, otherwise it wouldn't be worth doing.
It’s more they have to hold the line somewhere, so they might as well hold the line at defensible locations like that or Bakhmut as long as they can to keep the devastation limited to one area. If they fell back, the new spot wouldn’t be drastically better, and the Russians would just follow them and fight them at the new spot anyways.
Ruined cities like Bakhmut or Avdiivka are easy to defend than open farm land. Defender advantage is greater in Urban environments, especially for a poor nation like Ukraine that is running out of artillery shells, ammo, and is out tech’d regarding ground armor (due to Russia’s air superiority along the front).
There's no reason to be surprised that Ukrainians continue fighting in Avdiivka. Retreating does not solve anything in the big picture of things - if they were to retreat, they would soon be in the same situation further west. The goal is to defend on the most defensible lines while inflicting maximum losses on the Russians.
They’ll retreat before they get surrounded. Avdiivka has a lot of experienced and elite forces that they cannot afford to get stuck in a pocket.
Judging by the videos coming out, they'll probably stay as long as possible to continue turning Russian equipment and men into shreds. I hope they withdraw orderly with success though.. another Mariupol type siege gains them nothing.
Mariupol was surrounded very quickly though, during the initial Russian advances. Avdiivka has been slowly attrited over months, similar to Bakhmut, and Ukrainian forces should have made ample preparations to withdraw to a new line of defenses. If they didn't for whatever reason and wind up being encircled, that would be a massive failure of command.
>Judging by the videos coming out, they'll probably stay as long as possible to continue turning Russian equipment and men into shreds. But that would be at the cost of turning themselves and their equipment into shreds as well.
Defensive lines typically inflict greater casualties on the other side if the other side constantly tries to push into them. Further, holding lines forces the enemy to build up in certain areas which can be prime areas to target with your own offensive operations (ex: drones, missiles, etc). Russia does have a significant population advantage (I think 4:1), so Ukraine needs to find ways to try and counteract that. Overall, Ukraine is 'only' at a 2:1 casualty advantage over Russia (roughly 150k Ukrainian v 300k Russian). To sustain the war, Ukraine most likely needs to be picking fights that gives them a significant casualty advantage.
Seems like an awkward time for Zelenskyy to be talking about shaking up the military ranks. Tough situation
That's what Lincoln did after Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville and nearly after Meade failed to pursue Lee after Gettysburg. Removing a commander isn't weird or unusual or awkward, especially when things aren't going well.
Yes for Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville, but Meade was actually following orders to keep his army between Lee's and DC when he didn't pursue Lee. It's also debateable if his army was even in a condition to engage in a pursuit after fighting one of the bloodiest battles of the war. Meade also wasn't demoted or even reassigned, he remained the commander of the army of the Potomac for the rest of the war. It's just that Grant was promoted above him to commander of all US forces, a rank that hadn't been held by anyone since Washington himself. Grant and Meade worked together in the eastern theatre to ultimately capture Richmond and defeat Lee.
Right, Meade stayed on throughout the rest of the war. That's why I said *nearly*. Lincoln was displeased with Meade in the aftermath of Gettysburg, even if he was right not to purse Lee vigorously.
[удалено]
US doctrine in WW2 was generals were out so fast it was a blur.
Yep, and we did it in Korea with MacArthur.
[удалено]
Google who they put in place of Zaluzhny, in short, the one who lost the battle for Bakhmut in 2023 and made many more mistakes.
Except wasting resources at Bakhmut and Avdiivka was Zelensky’s demand an Zaluzhny advocated against it.
Of course it's all zelensky doing and orders... you can't keep giving up land and it makes sense for Russia to commit hard for it. Also I don't remember if avdiivka was his orders?
Zaluzhny wanted to give up both long ago and use the fresh forces in the summer counteroffensive. Instead Ze overruled and Ukraine had to use depleted forces and ultimately failed with the counteroffensive.. also lost Bakhmut and will lose Avdiivka in days. Ze shouldn’t meddle with military matters, but here we are.. GG
To me it just seems like any failure is blamed on Zelensky and anything good is Zaluzhny doing.. I think everyone knew they would lose Bakhmut and Avdiivka, it's about holding a line because you can't just fall back over and over.. you do need to hold some places. I think that stuff about the counter-offensive just seems like fanfiction.
Ze was doing a good job holding the morale and drumming up foreign support. Not much on the military scene.. he is an actor by profession. When politicians start to overrule generals, it rarely goes well for the war effort.
Yup, that's a major problem when heads of state start acting like they are generals. What experience did Zelensky have with war prior to becoming president? None, absolutely none, and then to go against the advice and counsel of your generals during a war? Fucking stupid.
It’s not really a military failing though, if they had ammo they could wipe out most of these waves.
The Republicans are Russians now and we need to accept that.
The GOP are commies!
No, not commies. Fascist traitors.
Too many words. They're "Reds". More concise.
Commies among themselves, fascists against those beneath them and lickspittles for those above them. It is a shining example of human banality
Given upcoming russian elections and republicans assisting putin, it is no surprise this is happening now. In my opinion, there is blood on the hands of those politicians that decided they care only for party (trump) and nothing else. At a minimum sending military aid which also helps the US itself would normally be expected. But there was a time where I believed a mask wouldn't become political, yet we saw how that went. I know republicans care so much about the US looking strong well guess what. If things go badly for Ukraine because US politicians got on their knees for putin. Well, history books will be written and it will be remembered for how much of a failure things have become. And shows great weakness to russia and China.
>it is no surprise this is happening now This would have happened anyway. Congress has been in a deadlock for what, 2 months now? The dollars would not have magically granted Ukraine a high amount of artillery or more men to resist this.
But the main reason this push is happening now is so Putin has a victory to parade before their elections. The Russians have 40 days and nights left to flood Avdiivka with troops to get a result. Ukraine needs a Noah.
We’d settle for artillery shells, man
Which unfortunately leads to the death of those on the front line. Weakness being shown by republicans will not be forgotten that's for sure. Especially when helping benefits the US as well. But hopefully enough pressure can amount for something to be done so to better assist them. In the end, sooner aid can get passed, sooner the support can get there.
And so it begins the fall of Avdiivka. And the sad thing is this could have been avoided with enough ammuniton. Ukraine needs to build much more domestic plants, so that the dependency of foreign support is lower.
[удалено]
Ukraine was poor in the 90s like developing 3rd world poor. They would gave bankrupted themselves if they heavily militarized after the fall of the USSR. Ukrainians wouldn't have to worry about a Russian invasion because their state would have imploded and turned failed stated by the early 2000s.
If you’re taking this back to the 90’s then they should’ve just kept their nukes, everything else would’ve been irrelevant.
Ukraine had no ability to use the nukes, they couldn't circumvent the launch codes. Russia controlled the nukes, Ukraine just had possession of them.
Extract the nuclear material and components and build new control circuits to replace the Russian ones. Starting with pieces of a functional warhead has got to be a huge step up vs. starting from scratch.
Yes. Making a nuke isn't trivial but the hardest part by far is getting the nuclear material. Compared to that, the rest of the device is easy. Still not something you cook up in a garage.
With what money? They were broke at the time. It wasn't just pinky promises that convinced them to give up the nukes it was also in exchange for promises of financial assistance for their economy.
Ukraine was in no state to do this after the fall of the ussr. The real alternative was closer relations with Russia to receive help in maintaining them.
Ukraine never had nukes lol. They had Russian nukes in their territory guarded by soldiers loyal to Moscow, with all of the command and control systems also being in the Kremlin.
They were considered to be in Russia's sphere and eventually went down a path of being a puppet state like Belarus until the 2014 Revolution of Dignity. Massive protests coupled with an election that ousted Putin's buddy Yanukovych and led to Zelensky becoming President. It was clear to Russia that Ukraine would fall into the European sphere so they seized Crimea and waged a limited war in the Donbas where they propped up and had their own troops pretend to be insurrectionists over the next several years until the all-out invasion. That experience has probably contributed greatly to Ukraine's successes post-invasion, but they have had continuous pressure put on them since 2014.
> Almost impossible to do during a war. Ukrainians should have started preparing for this in 1990s, the moment they declared independence. Their political leaders really dropped the ball. They ousted their last pro Russian leader (Yanukovic) in 2014 and Putin invaded Crimea about a week later.
As much as people like to hammer Russia, they are not yet beaten. Obviously they can still put up a fight, even if they only make marginal progress at a high human cost…
I remember I was listening to a podcast after the Kharkiv counter offensive and that was a point that "geopolitics expert" was trying to make. The first year in pretty much all Russian wars is a disaster,. After that they buckle down and turn it into a meatgrinder till you give.
Never underestimate the Russian ability to muddle through.
I mean Russia lost her first two Napoleonic Wars, the Crimean War, the Russo-Japanese War, the Afghan War, and most infamously, failed from day 1 to day 1000 of World War One. They aren't invincible. But you are right that they operate with a massive margin for error thanks to their numbers and the Kremlin's willingness to prioritize its wars.
“Quantity has a quality all of it’s own” - Stalin
It's a war of attrition as it's basically the only way for either side to make progress at this point, but Ukraine is taking high human costs as well, especially since Russia has far more men, artillery and drones.
The Republicans are making great advances in this war, sorry, I meant Russia
Republicans have blood on their hands.
Also gold in their hands
As an American I feel fucking sick to my stomach. I written and called all the representatives I have, but for some FUCKING reason Qanon has taken over leadership of the Republican house. These people are literally "Eat, Drink, and Be Merry for tomorrow we die" nihilists. There is no humanist value or virtue that can persuade them.
The GOP party is a cult, it's really hard to change a cult around as they use feelings over logic. Our only hope is we can vote them out, without them getting violent.
As a Brit Ive argued only with republicans on platforms about this. And it boils down too hunter biden being in Ukraine...and trump talking nicely about Putin..and now Carlson in Russia..... Russia is now a part of US politics not policy...
Breaks my heart to see Ukraine fall and there’s literally nothing I can do about it
Donate $5 to the fundraisers in r/ukraine.
It seems America is no longer willing to defend Europe. Whenever America goes isolationist you know another world war is on the menu
If Avdiivka falls - this will have a lot bigger implications than people realize. If the rumors of 10 Ukrainian batallions about to be cut off in Avdiivka are true, this will be a huge loss for Ukraine We are talking about 10k+ soldiers being captured by Russians Might be a major tipping point in the conflict
They'll surely try and withdraw before a complete encirclement gets underway. Really worrying though. It would be disastrous if they allow a siege to develop.
Hopefully they can. The Russians have pushed around the rim of an old quarry and are in spitting distance of the main road.
I think they’ll definitely evacuate before that happens, there have been very few encirclements in this war due to how slow forces have been able to move.
Most of those 10k soldiers are not just stand there and defend if the city falls. They will run to inner parts of Ukraine. Still it will be a loss for Ukraine but doubt 10k soldiers get caught like that.
They likely have already begun to retreat. They are not going to lose 10k+ soldiers lmao. For weeks I have been hearing about an orderly fall back.
thats mathematically and geographically insane thing to say the area of the city/town does not accomodate such numbers what are you smoking you can count the know battalions/brigades and it doesnt add up and they arent deployed 100%
I agree but that is what was reported a month+ ago by Ukraine I think the numbers are closer to 1000-2000 in reality maybe even fewer if they retreated
One wonders how America snatched defeat from the jaws of victory
The answer here is the Republican Party. They’ve been towing the line for Putin for a while. Hell, right now one of their favorite media personalities is doing broadcasts from Moscow.
When exactly was the “jaw of victory” the failed counter offensive?
It was pretty much that, when Russia exposed how ineffective its military was before all the problems with weapons deliveries, real or manufactured, that contributed to the failure of Ukraine’s counter offensive. Even so, whatever American money was/is spent on Ukraine is negligible compared to what happens in the event of a Ukrainian capitulation. To call it a victory for the US, it is sufficient that Ukraine has the ability to maintain its defence going forward despite losses like this one, which diminishes Russian influence everywhere else. This isn’t assured now, by their own choice.
One wonders why the European countries aren’t to blame. This war is in Europe, yes? Maybe European countries should have spent on their military instead of relying on the US for security while making fun of Americans for not having healthcare.
Looks like our shell hunger is news to many people...
Ukraine will retreat and recapture
Let’s hope Ukraine can inflict absolutely massive casualties while preserving their own forces
It took them 9 months to get Bakhmut and it will likely take them 12 months to take Avdiika. At this rate they will conquer Ukraine in 200 years or so.
The US is failing Ukraine regardless of whether Republicans are the issue. 800 billion invested into the military and were useless in these conflicts popping up all over the world.
The US is failing it's own citizens... why should we expect us to treat anyone else any better (aside from Israel of course)?
US Republicans cheer on the vandals
It is a disgrace that the Republicans are deliberately causing mayhem because trumped up told them to, simply to undermine tge democrats.. He, and they have blood on their hands! Hope they and their followers are proud.
>Fewer than 950 residents remain of an estimated pre-war population of around 33,000 people, he added. Damn can’t imagine stilling living there.
Donate to Ukraine armed forces: https://war.ukraine.ua/donate/
Thanks, Republicans.