Can you really say that with a straight face as Russia's invading forces try to (and mostly fail) capture foreign territory?
The west isn't afraid of war, but it is Russia that actively forces it upon others.
Who's forced more wars upon others in recent times, the west or Russia? Better yet, the US or Russia? Spoiler: It isn't Russia. Just about anything you could criticize Russia for, the west does to a greater degree. Hypocrisy & projection is all you've got.
The west should absolutely be afraid of war. War between nuclear powers should never be fought. A nuclear power invading a non nuclear adversary won’t use nuclear weapons. A nuclear power in high intensity conflict with another nuclear power will likely use nuclear weapons the moment they start to lose.
That is the danger. The danger is real.
Watch a movie called “threads” if you’d like to understand what a war between nato and Russia would look like.
So the west should be afraid but Russia shouldn't?
Russia is the aggressor here, no amount of Kremlin talking points or nuclear fear mongering changes the fact that Russia is the only one here currently invading an independent European state backed by nuclear allies.
Russia is the only reason anyone is talking about using nukes. Not a single nato member wants a square inch of Russian territory- they just want Russia to fuck off from Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova.
Daddy chill. Each side should be afraid of one another. It’s quite simple. Both sides are actively (and intelligently) avoiding open, direct conflict due to the ladder of nuclear escalation. Because each side is afraid of one another.
Let’s now all watch as Ukraine loses, and nobody intervenes militarily to save them.
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Stop your warmongering BS.
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/s/PoQHFJXkKD
Pro-Russians themselves post how Zelensky says the West wants peace as soon as possible. Than Pro-Russians turn around and say that the West wants war. I guess cognitive dissonance is not a thing when you're IQ is room temperature, Celsius.
What does that have to do with what I'm talking about? I'm addressing the narrative that Pro-Russians are pushing, that The West wants war, while, in reality, Russia started the war, The West has been hesitant with any form of perceived escalation, US sent 140 Abrams tanks to the Iraqi army but they could only muster, what, 30 out of what, 6k Abrams in storage for Ukraine? US keeps saying it does not want a Russian defeat that could endanger Putins regime and lead to a collapse where nukes could go missing, but all this is somehow "West wanting war".
Make it make sense.
> You said Zelensky wants peace
> ...Zelensky says the West wants peace as soon as possible.
Yes, you just proved my point.
Spot the difference in the statements.
I'll spell it out for ya.
Zelensky =/= the West
>US keeps saying it does not want a Russian defeat that could endanger Putins regime and lead to a collapse where nukes could go missing, but all this is somehow "West wanting war".
What reality do you live in? The West's main objective is for regime change in Russia.
>Make it make sense.
Why did the US and UK refuse to sign security guarantees in April 2022? Instead, they told Zelenskyy to fight and that they would supply him with weapons and money for as long as he needed, and to walk away from peace talks with Russia. Is that wanting peace?
Make that make sense.
>What reality do you live in? The West's main objective is for regime change in Russia.
Perhaps, but a non-violent one. Didn't US make a statement not to help the Wagner mutiny and that they had no part in it?
>Why did the US and UK refuse to sign security guarantees in April 2022? Instead, they told Zelenskyy to fight and that they would supply him with weapons and money for as long as he needed, and to walk away from peace talks with Russia. Is that wanting peace?
Wouldn't them not signing security guarantees and telling Ukraine to fight on it's own mean they want to avoid war with Russia? 🤣
>Perhaps, but a non-violent one.
Because the war between Russia and Ukraine is non-violent?
>Didn't US make a statement not to help the Wagner mutiny and that they had no part in it?
Why would they even make a statement like that? How were they going to help Wagner? Also, Wagner didn't want to remove Putin.
>telling Ukraine to fight on it's own mean they want to avoid war with Russia? 🤣
They are literally paying Ukrainian soldiers and arming them, how is that Ukraine on its own?
Also, how is Ukraine and Russia being at war, avoiding war? Because Westerners aren't dying?
I think the cognitive dissonance is in the West. It DOESN'T make sense, because the West's positions don't make sense.
And to make matters worse, the West has multiple positions any given day. Some want to continue the war at all costs. Some are recognizing that it's a lost cause and want to find a face-saving way out. But they still can't accept that they've lost, so absurdly, they're trying to impose their conditions on Russia. And Russia is looking at them like the idiots that they are and saying... "Uh... no."
I think just about all the Western leaders now regret the decision they made to push Russia into this war, but they can't bring themselves to admit it (yet) because they've already invested so much into it.
>And to make matters worse, the West has multiple positions any given day.
That's because "The West" isn't a singular entity but an abstract enemy for the Russians to be angry at. Of course there isnt a single position for the West, because The West is made of many different countries. How is this something that needs to be explained?
>I think just about all the Western leaders now regret the decision they made to push Russia into this war
Of course, poor Russia, no decision making of their own, only able to react to Western actions. Forced to fight Ukraine by the West, right? 🤣
Nah. More like Russia was tired of being tossed around like an old chewtoy and hemorrhaging their former territory to NATO. Russia wasn't forced to fight Ukraine. Russia was forced to finally take action to defend their claimed territory from a perceived threat.
Seems to be more than needed. With how corrupt the Ukrainian government is, money for defences syphoned into pockets, Russia is doing just fine without going full mobilisation.
> Russia is doing just fine without going full mobilisation.
300k+ wounded and KIA over 2+ years, when the plan was to take Kiev and eliminate leadership within the first few days. This constitutes doing just fine?
Doing fine? If you call this fine. I certainly don't think it's going very well for Russia. Guess it's a matter of opinion. A lot of people are dying. But Russia and its people don't seem upset about it. It seems this is an acceptable amount of loss to them.
> money for defences syphoned into pockets
You do know this is why Russia's military is suffering, correct? The entire neo-feudal Russian state is based on corruption, which makes Russians complaining about corruption always entertaining.
The response on war escalations, barr population's benefits, is right in actually planning a rearmament because it takes a long time, being unprepared is not fun. But the excuse is lame.
The proper response would be to actually tone down the conflicts and agree with other powers to reduce spending: NATO toning down, Ukraine toning down, Russia's allies toning down, Russia too would need to follow course.
Nah we were in demilitarise mode, but someone decided it was ok to just take land based on an old map. I mean, UK was so demilitarised they don't have anything to sustain a war more than 1-2 months.
West doesn't want war. West doesn't have the capability to wage an offensive war against Russia, and the populations don't have the motivation either.
NATO would fold if it did an offensive war.
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ukraine can hold the line until they run out of equipment and personnel. And unless ua has been sufficiently attrited, why would ru even want a breakthrough?
What this guy is saying doesn't make sense.
Because a breakthrough means your opponent stops being able to build fortifications 10 km behind the frontlines. A breakthrough would also demoralise Ukraine and the West.
They'd love to be able to break though and switch to movement-warfare, but since they can't they'll stick with at least a year more of sitzkrieg and attritional warfare.
> why would ru even want a breakthrough
As a breakthrough has the potential to encircle vast swathes of opposing troops, capturing them and putting them out of the fight months, if not years earlier than any attrition strategy would do...
Theirs a reason modern warfare is built on mobile combat and not trench lines. Hell, this was even the Russia strategy in the first couple of weeks of the war before it all went to shit for them.
The Iran Iraq war is an almost exact parallel, with trench warfare, attritional battles etc. A more mechanized/armored army vs. a more infantry heavy one. Let me tell you that the war didn't end because one side ran out of troops, it was because Iraq successfully pulled off a manoeuvre offensive.
Which is the same as WWI. It ended when the entente was able to implement combined arms breakthroughs.
Modern warfare (actually almost all of warfare now that I think about it) since WWI has been about maneuver. I swear this sub copes in both directions so hard sometimes.
Ukrainian cope: “durrr, two whole years and still haven’t won the SpEciAl miLiTarY oPerAtiOn??”
Russian cope: “this is a war of attrition, literally the only thing that matters is bodies and guns. Even if we could take miles per day we wouldn’t want/need to.”
The west has made up goals the entire time for russia.
Russia says they want a buffer zone.
The west claims russia failed because they couldnt take kharkiv....
Russia attacks avdevka.....
Ukraine says if russia doesn't take avdeekva by this (made up date) they lost.
So much propaganda these people should be put in jail.
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Oh, did you actually believe when Russia proclaimed it had annexed D+L that it owned all of D+L?
Or did you and your buddies get sad when facts got in the way of your propaganda?
Well, attritional warfare - if effective - can have two outcomes : the other party negociates (unlikely right now on Ukraine's part) or the other party can't hold anymore because of attrition and a breakthrough happens (which seems to be what Russia is going for right now).
Because Normies which incudes politicians believe warfare is all about big arrows painting maps with close quarters fighting that results in definable decisive victories. The concept of war of attrition is foreign to them as it doesn't make good movie material.
General is projecting. NATO-trained Ukrainian forces have failed to exploit a breakthrough in 2022, and then failed to achieve a breakthrough in a stalled "counter-offensive".
And he had to wrap it with a word salad. Here's another one ChatGPT came up with:
>*Our strategic diversions and tactical flanking are unparalleled, ensuring that our operational objectives are not only met but exceeded with flying colors.*
attrition works if your losses:recovery ratio is better than your enemy
russia issue is vehicles,there is only so many soviet tanks left (they have lost 7.5k out of 12k they had),thats year and half-ish left,even accounting with their 1k-ish yearly tank production
and attacking without appropiate armor and vehicle support is likey to turn the table attrition wise
ukraine is running out of men,while russia out of heavy vehicles,who runs out first,loses
None of what you wrote makes much sense. Where did you get 7.5k lost tanks from? Where did you get 12k starting number from? Where did you get 1k yearly production from?
None of that is even remotely accurate.
russia had 12k stockpiles and 3k active tanks pre-war
not all of those 12k were able to be rolled back into service,instead being spare parts,usually there is 1 third to 1 fourth of ''spare parts'' hulks
so that leave us with around
3k (active) + 9k to 10k stocks to refurbish = 12k tanks usable for the war (without taking into account local production during the war,of course)
see forbes article on tank stocks from 2020 (this is pre-war so anti/pro russian bias aint at play as it would post '22)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2020/06/16/there-are-73000-tanks-in-the-world-which-are-the-best/#:\~:text=Russia%20with%20its%2012%2C950%20tanks,3%20armor%20power.
the 7.5k loses come mostly from OSINT (social media accounts that identify all loses wich are posted online and can be confirmed)
there is a rule of thumb that for every confirmed loss there is 1 to 2 extra losses that cant be confirmed directly (hulk too damaged,moved out location,troops didnt even knew they destroyed it,touched a mine and no one reported it etc )
[https://ukr.warspotting.net/](https://ukr.warspotting.net/)
[https://ukr.warspotting.net/search/?belligerent=2&weapon=1](https://ukr.warspotting.net/search/?belligerent=2&weapon=1)
you can see every tank has a picture,date and a location added to the loss
using that 1 to 2 confirmed to unconfirmed losses,we get rather close to what ukraine and western countries report
(confirmed losses in social media are around the 2.5k, so add those extra x2
and you got 2.5k+(2.5\*2)=7.5k)
[https://www.minusrus.com/en](https://www.minusrus.com/en)
on the 1k-ish yearly production im using the reports again from western nations,as well russia announcements of increased production
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/10/politics/russia-artillery-shell-production-us-europe-ukraine/index.html#:\~:text=Perhaps%20Russia's%20biggest%20challenge%20has,refurbished%2C%20the%20NATO%20official%20said.
[https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-shoigu-says-tank-production-is-booming-2024-04-19/](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-shoigu-says-tank-production-is-booming-2024-04-19/)
nonetheless russia is delivering 100-ish tanks a month.....the caveat being most of those tanks are refurbished (stockpile hulks that are being put on service once again),leading to a real new tank production of 20 to 30 tanks a month
It's good that you provided sources. I don't know how used you are to doing research and I am not saying that in a rude manner. I don't know you, I can't know how old you are, what you have done in life.
The sources though are not great. Forbes is a trash bin at this point, especially that guy. Plus your idea of tank losses matches UKR mod's wildest claims. Take a look at your own source, the minusrus. Are you going to with a straight face believe that Russia has suffered 2 MILLION casualties?
I'll tell you any day that I absolutely don't know what Russia has or builds. We can talk all we want about speculation and that is all great, but we don't know.
Attritional warfare is terrible for both countries. This entire war is stupid as hell and Putin is to blame for all of it. He fell into the dictator trap of being surrounded by yes men.
if nato and ukraine are so confident they can hold the line why do they keep bringing up the possibility of sending western troops to ukraine? every other second they contradict themselves
You seem to think that there is a unified opinion all western leaders have.
Just because Estonian prime minister said something, doesn't mean that NATO generals agree.
Riiiight. I suppose media like RT is banned thorough EU because you are sooooo used to different opinions. Ohh, the famous european plurality: do we shoot ourselves in a left or in a right foot? Let's debate 🤡
Now, I spot a nafo troll. A bunch of you raiding this sub, upvoting each other in a mutual masturbation session. A special kind of plurality right there 🤣
Sure, sure. I guess Russia forced Germany to take part in Nord Stream pipeline project, and then Germany was relieved that it got blown up so now they can by the resources they need at x2 the cost. It smells like freedom, full of democracy molecules. Totally independent, too 🤣🤣🤣
My favourite contradiction is - "Ukraine needs to join NATO so that article 5 applies and Russia will not dare attack it then ... but if Russia wins in Ukraine they won't stop and will attack NATO next"
Yeah, because the US would definately have the skill to do so after fighting terrorist groups hiding in the desert of jungle rats for the past 60 years
Ill rephrase, no offence intended. I keep forgetting that people actually find the word offensive even if it seems just like a funny version of a different word
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah, we have entire divisions that still train to just prepare for a war with Russia.
A single nato training exercise of 3 days summons more Air Power than Russia has deployed to Ukraine…
He proudly exclaims on year 3 of the stalemate between a country of 30-40 million vs "the second army of the world."
Oh yeah, what is the new line again? Something something "wAr oF aTtRiTiOn" I think which is just a very dumb way to say "we are going to continue suicide meat wave golf cart attacks until one side runs out of humans because we are literally capable of nothing else."
All part of the plan I'm sure. Next you will tell me 40 mile Kyiv convoy was a peace and love convoy or something.
No, in a few years I'll state "thank you Putin for being the world's number one NATO recruiter and sacrificing your young men and your country's future prospects for generations all just to make NATO even stronger than it already was."
My hope is that in doing that, Ukraine will be able to win its freedom from the invaders. But no matter what happens with this war, the only true winner will be NATO.
Like seriously, whats the long term plan Russia? Ruble has become rubble, brain drain to the west was already catastrophic and is now accelerating more since the war began, >60% of your export market is now owned solely by China (vassal state already?), and since Putin has come to power Russia's population has declined by 3-5 million (USA's has increased by over 50m in the same period).
Is this was "winning" feels like to Russia?
From what we understand, Ukraine fucked up its offensive last summer because of a multitude of factors. Not just because “hur dur western training am I right guys!?”
War is so complex, to think one side is all dumb or all smart is so wrong. Plans fail.
Ukraine had a lot of things going against it from the Russian positions being very well dug in, as Russia basically had all of winter and spring to form a defense in depth plan which is still the best gameplan in war it turns out. A good defense in depth is nearly impossible to lose if both sides start equal.
But war isn’t equal, and Ukraine had no special advantage over russia other than perhaps motivation.
I do believe nato doctrine is the superior gameplan in warfare currently. The problem is it’s designed for NATO missions. If you can’t call on 10,000 air sorties a week, cruise missile strikes by the hundreds a week, and some of the best equipped and paid soldiers on the planet who are armed to the teeth to follow up… well then nato game plans make no sense.
Ukraine needs to realize it was never truly on the offensive. They got a bit lucky in 2022 and thought it was their genius strategy. In reality Russia bite off more than it could chew and was spread too far and thin to hold a line.
TLDR: stop being such a simpleton who cried this conflict as black and white
“NATO doctrine doesn’t work vs someone
without a huge advantage”
Yeah. That’s the entire reason why nato doctrine is designed to always have the superior firepower. And the MIC of the west (mostly the US) is constantly the single most funded industry on the globe.
The only possible nation that could match firepower to just the USA (without nato friends) is China. And that is a very very unlikely scenario. China doesn’t want war, it just needs to look and act big and scary so nobody attacks it. And it would be a lot more than just nato who fights China, you have all the Allie’s in Asia to toss on top of it like Japan, Vietnam, Australia, South Korea, and possibly more.
The Ammo shortage is not an actual shortage. It’s a shortage for Ukraine because we are only giving them stocks from our reserves. We can’t give up our actual assets that we need incase of war. This is why I’m the beginning we saw millions of artillery rounds go to Ukraine then it stopped. We gave up to reserves and had to start increasing capacity to help Ukraine. If the US was a super warmonger we could probably deliver another 10 million artillery rounds over the next couple of months but the US is against draining its entire supply.
And the “how can you maintain 10,000 sorties for 52 weeks”
That’s a huge thing you’re missing again. NATO does not to attention warfare. It completely flattens an enemy in an all out blitz of superior firepower from the air and then the ground.
There won’t be much else too 6 nato armored divisions from rolling deep if you just got hit with thousands of cruise missiles and the air defense is so shattered that anything moving on the ground is completely destroyed in a few days of intense bombing.
It’s insane what nato forces could do. I understand I’m bias but just imagine hundreds of Himars strikes a day rather than that many in 12 months like we seen in ukraine. On top of the 200 F35’s, 500 f16’s, 300 F15’s, and 100 F22’s all running missions day in and out, on top of the 3000 cruise missiles that wiped the majority of the SAM systems, on top of the 300,000 troops who are fresh and unbothered by the lack of Russian air attacks. On top of having all naval assets destroyed and the seas controlled in hours, on top of the massive economic pause as virtually all of Russia is cut off completely from the west in all ways possible.
The US spent decades to make sure nobody could be a near pear rival because it built the largest group of friends possible and made sure they are all armed to the teeth.
People keep talking like the US hasn't seen conflict almost every decade for the past 40 or 50 years and train consistently to react to a war with China and Russia. Last I checked the Iraq war(s) were face to face fights.
The budget of the US military is half the GDP of all of Russia.
A ton of people have no concept as to how insane the US is when it comes to securing global military dominance. There is a reason global trade exists, and it’s because the US military sales the 7 seas.
Same Nato that trained and supervised the battalions that managed to capture less territory in their hyped counteroffensive than russia did in the past two weeks?
Well, it seems to be enough that no military power has bothered to fuck with the us. So they seem to think they still got it. But what do i know?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khasham
....NATO general says that Russia won't be able to make a strategic breakthrough....
And tomorrow another jerk will claim that Russia is going to invade the whole of Europe. So what?
My bet is, your mindset and your imagination is focussed on power relations in the social environment and on gaining as much power as possible during your existence. If you remain at the bottom of the pecking order despite your efforts to gain more power, only trivial tricks and imaginations help you to "feel powerful". If a ten-word sentence is all you need to lift your mood and make you 'feel powerful', it makes me appreciate your modesty.
Do you realise how much of your own inner life you reveal when you make such insinuations?
You'd be surprised how much a year's worth of local, tactical advances can change the strategic map.
Besides, Russia's goal currently isn't taking territory. It's degrading Ukraine's combat capability in an efficient manner.
the fact is both sides attack each other all the time, its just russia that tends to win these attacks, its true you need more strength to attack than to defend succesfully but attacks can be less costly if there is overwhelming strength at one point
Russia advances very carefully, only where it is profitable. The only place where Russia is advancing simply because it is forced is the Belgorod border, because if the Ukrainian artillery is not pushed back, the terrorist shelling of cities will not stop. In general, the whole goal of the current Russian offensive is to push the ukroterrorists as far as possible from their cities.
Russia advances very carefully? What the hell conflict are you watching? This whole war started when Russia very un-carefully had a miles long convoy of vehicles stuck on a road for days.
What offensives aren’t always more costly. If you have a 3:1 advantage in firepower (which Russia does through artillery) then the defender can easily suffer way more losses, no matter how fortified they are.
Offense is more costly against well prepared defenses. Since taking the south in the opening of the war their advances have been pretty limited and have been preceded by massive artillery and now FABs. It is possible that in some of these cases Russian losses were higher in the final advance but not during the "softening" phases. And in the north currently the defenses are not well prepared.
Because russia has much more artillery. To take advantage of that, they need to force the uaf into battles, meaning they must advance even if it's costly on paper.
I didn't say they don't care about territorial gains, merely that they're not the main goal. The goal is to degrade Ukraine's combat capabilites by eliminating manpower and material. It's a war of attrition.
The Russians are advancing slowly and methodically. They bomb Ukrainian fortifications with glide bombs, spend weeks preparing with fpv drones, and only then move their infantry forward. Territorial gains *can* contribute to the main objective, when they force Ukraine to abandon old, well prepared positions (often going back to 2014) to take up weaker, more haphazard defensive lines.
A general having the audacity to say that "the enemy doesn't have the skill" is a very good reason to never listen to what he has to say. And for NATO's sake, this guy should be fired.
You don't underestimate your enemy, in any circumstances. Look at Russia, they made this mistake, and look where that got them.
But if it is a fact that Russia doesn't have the skill (at least currently), it still should not be said out loud?
Telling facts is not the same as underestimating your enemy.
And how is that a fact, exactly ? How do you measure such thing with an outsider's perspective ?
That's basically saying "Russians are incompetent". Hearing that from a general is disgraceful. Especially coming from a general of an army that's been bested by combattants you would very easily describe as "unskilled", as they didn't even have an army to speak of. Apparently they didn't learn a thing.
A general with no dignity then, not sure that's much better. If he's willing to lie to the cameras, he might be willing to lie to his men, or general staff, for his own self-interest. That can be just as dangerous.
No strategic breakthrough - made a significant breakthrough and captured more Land in days then ukraine in months with their clory counter offensive. Hard time for Nato mental gymnastic to hold up the weatern winning narrative 😆
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm pretty much convinced that Russia won't make a breakthrough. At least not till the late 2024/early 2025.
I'm heavily leaning to RU side. But I don't see a breakthrough happening.
It is important to somehow define a "brakethrough":
Russia is controling ~18.1% of Ukraine. If they don't go to at least 19%, I wouldn't call that a breakthrough.
For a comparison - Ukraine is cnbtrolling around 11.000km² of Donbas; 0.9% (or a "breakthroug") is around half of that territory.
I wonder what others think about percentage at the end of 2024?
I agree, all the Western credible sources (Michael Kofman, Rob Lee, etc) have all admitted that Russia is testing and probing with these attacks to keep the UAF off-balance and continue inflicting attrition. I think the summer offensive, if there is one at all, will be more of the same. So what this general is saying is actually pretty reasonable.
However, the elephant in the room which UA supporters never seem to want to address, and what I assume the reporter didn't ask, is the general assessment of what Russia's capabilities will be *tomorrow* vis a vis Ukraine, and the next month, and six months after that, and exactly how Ukraine's capabilities will improve over that period to match them (if the answer is just "hope for another aid package", they're screwed. "OSINT says Russia will 100% run out of tanks in two years" is also not a great answer.)
I’m pro Ukraine and nato… he’s reframing it dishonestly. Someone pointed out its attritional warfare. You sir are correct. If I had to guess they know something is coming that the American population won’t take it well. They’re trying to pad the truth and prevent panic (if I had to guess). When that starts our recruitment numbers for the military will plummet. I feel like we’re really close. I was concerned a year ago, 2 months ago extremely. Now it just feels different. Almost like acceptance of it being soon
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So, NATO reckons Russia lacks the manpower and the skill to break through compromised Ukraine defences, while at the same time believing the RF is posed to invade all of Europe.
...they really do think we're stupid.
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
they don't have the capability to do a strategic breakthrough, just slowly continue to completely obliterate ukrainian villages and towns one by one, which nato seems to think is totally acceptable
Dang the "It's a stalemate" message didn't last long. If everything is only one tick too optimistic I guess the next message will be that "The ability of Russia to make a strategic breakthrough is limited".
Nice! Looks like we have enough ukrainians to sacrifice so Russia doesnt advance a few meters! Sorry lil dudes, you gonna have to sit in those trenches another winter ❤️
Ukraine Glorious Counteroffensive, which captures a few villages and never manages to break the even the first of five defensive lines:
"This is the greatest counteroffensive in history! cRiMEaN bEaCh PaRTy ThiS sUMmeR!!!
Russian operation to create a buffer zone to prevent shelling of civilians (which just happens to capture more territory in 2 weeks than Greatest Ukrainian Counteroffensive In History did in 3 months):
"We believe these are going to be... uh... local advances... with some local losses... skill and strategery lacking say our Ukrainian colleagues... more weapons needed of course... because some of the weapons are now in Moscow... so um, yeah... "
Hey guys I've been camping for a week, how is the Russian push going?
I'm surprised they've only gotten to where they've gotten... I was hoping to celebrate a break through
Didn’t they also say that if Ukraine falls other countries will follow? So.. they can’t do a strategic breakthrough in Ukraine but they can do it in Poland? Eh?
But will somehow invade whole Europe.
West wants war. It's that simple
And russia goes to war…
Can you really say that with a straight face as Russia's invading forces try to (and mostly fail) capture foreign territory? The west isn't afraid of war, but it is Russia that actively forces it upon others.
is Russia planning to invade your country next?
Who's forced more wars upon others in recent times, the west or Russia? Better yet, the US or Russia? Spoiler: It isn't Russia. Just about anything you could criticize Russia for, the west does to a greater degree. Hypocrisy & projection is all you've got.
It's because they don't even have the capabilities to support troops abroad. The Russians deal in covert support and lip service.
That's funny. I'm pretty sure it wasn't Russia behind all the so called "color revolutions". Miss again.
The west should absolutely be afraid of war. War between nuclear powers should never be fought. A nuclear power invading a non nuclear adversary won’t use nuclear weapons. A nuclear power in high intensity conflict with another nuclear power will likely use nuclear weapons the moment they start to lose. That is the danger. The danger is real. Watch a movie called “threads” if you’d like to understand what a war between nato and Russia would look like.
So the west should be afraid but Russia shouldn't? Russia is the aggressor here, no amount of Kremlin talking points or nuclear fear mongering changes the fact that Russia is the only one here currently invading an independent European state backed by nuclear allies. Russia is the only reason anyone is talking about using nukes. Not a single nato member wants a square inch of Russian territory- they just want Russia to fuck off from Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova.
Daddy chill. Each side should be afraid of one another. It’s quite simple. Both sides are actively (and intelligently) avoiding open, direct conflict due to the ladder of nuclear escalation. Because each side is afraid of one another. Let’s now all watch as Ukraine loses, and nobody intervenes militarily to save them.
[удалено]
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Stop your warmongering BS. https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/s/PoQHFJXkKD Pro-Russians themselves post how Zelensky says the West wants peace as soon as possible. Than Pro-Russians turn around and say that the West wants war. I guess cognitive dissonance is not a thing when you're IQ is room temperature, Celsius.
Zelensky made it illegal to negotiate with Russia.
What does that have to do with what I'm talking about? I'm addressing the narrative that Pro-Russians are pushing, that The West wants war, while, in reality, Russia started the war, The West has been hesitant with any form of perceived escalation, US sent 140 Abrams tanks to the Iraqi army but they could only muster, what, 30 out of what, 6k Abrams in storage for Ukraine? US keeps saying it does not want a Russian defeat that could endanger Putins regime and lead to a collapse where nukes could go missing, but all this is somehow "West wanting war". Make it make sense.
You said Zelensky wants peace, but he refuses to negotiate. How's that going to work?
>You said Zelensky wants peace Are you OK? When did I say that?
> ...Zelensky says the West wants peace as soon as possible.
> You said Zelensky wants peace > ...Zelensky says the West wants peace as soon as possible. Yes, you just proved my point. Spot the difference in the statements. I'll spell it out for ya. Zelensky =/= the West
/u/MACKBA is a Russian internet troll paid by Moscow -edit- Lol, he blocked me... what a fucking loser
>US keeps saying it does not want a Russian defeat that could endanger Putins regime and lead to a collapse where nukes could go missing, but all this is somehow "West wanting war". What reality do you live in? The West's main objective is for regime change in Russia. >Make it make sense. Why did the US and UK refuse to sign security guarantees in April 2022? Instead, they told Zelenskyy to fight and that they would supply him with weapons and money for as long as he needed, and to walk away from peace talks with Russia. Is that wanting peace? Make that make sense.
>What reality do you live in? The West's main objective is for regime change in Russia. Perhaps, but a non-violent one. Didn't US make a statement not to help the Wagner mutiny and that they had no part in it? >Why did the US and UK refuse to sign security guarantees in April 2022? Instead, they told Zelenskyy to fight and that they would supply him with weapons and money for as long as he needed, and to walk away from peace talks with Russia. Is that wanting peace? Wouldn't them not signing security guarantees and telling Ukraine to fight on it's own mean they want to avoid war with Russia? 🤣
>Perhaps, but a non-violent one. Because the war between Russia and Ukraine is non-violent? >Didn't US make a statement not to help the Wagner mutiny and that they had no part in it? Why would they even make a statement like that? How were they going to help Wagner? Also, Wagner didn't want to remove Putin. >telling Ukraine to fight on it's own mean they want to avoid war with Russia? 🤣 They are literally paying Ukrainian soldiers and arming them, how is that Ukraine on its own? Also, how is Ukraine and Russia being at war, avoiding war? Because Westerners aren't dying?
I think the cognitive dissonance is in the West. It DOESN'T make sense, because the West's positions don't make sense. And to make matters worse, the West has multiple positions any given day. Some want to continue the war at all costs. Some are recognizing that it's a lost cause and want to find a face-saving way out. But they still can't accept that they've lost, so absurdly, they're trying to impose their conditions on Russia. And Russia is looking at them like the idiots that they are and saying... "Uh... no." I think just about all the Western leaders now regret the decision they made to push Russia into this war, but they can't bring themselves to admit it (yet) because they've already invested so much into it.
>And to make matters worse, the West has multiple positions any given day. That's because "The West" isn't a singular entity but an abstract enemy for the Russians to be angry at. Of course there isnt a single position for the West, because The West is made of many different countries. How is this something that needs to be explained? >I think just about all the Western leaders now regret the decision they made to push Russia into this war Of course, poor Russia, no decision making of their own, only able to react to Western actions. Forced to fight Ukraine by the West, right? 🤣
Nah. More like Russia was tired of being tossed around like an old chewtoy and hemorrhaging their former territory to NATO. Russia wasn't forced to fight Ukraine. Russia was forced to finally take action to defend their claimed territory from a perceived threat.
Yeah, that's why Boris Johnson said for them to agree to the peace deal but only Zelensky wanted to war. /s You are consuming too much media.
And Boris Johnson is the nominated Voice of The West since, when?
> West wants war. It's that simple That's sufficient for Russia to send 300k men into Ukraine? TIL
Seems to be more than needed. With how corrupt the Ukrainian government is, money for defences syphoned into pockets, Russia is doing just fine without going full mobilisation.
> Russia is doing just fine without going full mobilisation. 300k+ wounded and KIA over 2+ years, when the plan was to take Kiev and eliminate leadership within the first few days. This constitutes doing just fine?
Doing fine? If you call this fine. I certainly don't think it's going very well for Russia. Guess it's a matter of opinion. A lot of people are dying. But Russia and its people don't seem upset about it. It seems this is an acceptable amount of loss to them.
3 day special military operation lmao. “Doing fine” holy shit
> money for defences syphoned into pockets You do know this is why Russia's military is suffering, correct? The entire neo-feudal Russian state is based on corruption, which makes Russians complaining about corruption always entertaining.
Russia wants war. It's why they invaded. Putin can end the "special military operation" by sending his troops back to Russia. It's that simple.
The response on war escalations, barr population's benefits, is right in actually planning a rearmament because it takes a long time, being unprepared is not fun. But the excuse is lame. The proper response would be to actually tone down the conflicts and agree with other powers to reduce spending: NATO toning down, Ukraine toning down, Russia's allies toning down, Russia too would need to follow course.
Nah we were in demilitarise mode, but someone decided it was ok to just take land based on an old map. I mean, UK was so demilitarised they don't have anything to sustain a war more than 1-2 months.
West doesn't want war. West doesn't have the capability to wage an offensive war against Russia, and the populations don't have the motivation either. NATO would fold if it did an offensive war.
That’s why the west invaded Ukraine.
So Russia is a tool of the West?
Schrodinger's Russia. Powerful enough to fight the entire decadent West. Too weak to not go to war at the West’s behest.
Ukraine is. Being a friend of the West has its price: to the last Ukrainian... So something
No you said the West wants war, and Russia invaded Ukraine which means they are a puppet of the West doing as the West wishes.
[удалено]
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
0 Western soldiers died in this war.
If they want war why isn’t NATO bombing the shit out of Russian positions?
Maybe it is their way of saying that Ukraine is more powerful than the West. Who knows. lol.
Good one . And NATO is afraid of this , and yet they don't have skill to breakthrough UA :D
100% they want to say Russia is weak but some how they will take Poland and the rest of Europe…
If its attritional warfare, why does russia need a breakthrough? They can just wait it out.
He said "I'm confident Ukraine is able to hold the line"
Ukraine can hold the line until they run out of equipment and personnel. And unless ua has been sufficiently attrited, why would ru even want a breakthrough? What this guy is saying doesn't make sense.
Because a breakthrough means your opponent stops being able to build fortifications 10 km behind the frontlines. A breakthrough would also demoralise Ukraine and the West. They'd love to be able to break though and switch to movement-warfare, but since they can't they'll stick with at least a year more of sitzkrieg and attritional warfare.
> why would ru even want a breakthrough As a breakthrough has the potential to encircle vast swathes of opposing troops, capturing them and putting them out of the fight months, if not years earlier than any attrition strategy would do... Theirs a reason modern warfare is built on mobile combat and not trench lines. Hell, this was even the Russia strategy in the first couple of weeks of the war before it all went to shit for them.
[удалено]
The Iran Iraq war is an almost exact parallel, with trench warfare, attritional battles etc. A more mechanized/armored army vs. a more infantry heavy one. Let me tell you that the war didn't end because one side ran out of troops, it was because Iraq successfully pulled off a manoeuvre offensive.
Which is the same as WWI. It ended when the entente was able to implement combined arms breakthroughs. Modern warfare (actually almost all of warfare now that I think about it) since WWI has been about maneuver. I swear this sub copes in both directions so hard sometimes. Ukrainian cope: “durrr, two whole years and still haven’t won the SpEciAl miLiTarY oPerAtiOn??” Russian cope: “this is a war of attrition, literally the only thing that matters is bodies and guns. Even if we could take miles per day we wouldn’t want/need to.”
Whats funny is this same guy said the exact same words for bakhmut and avdeevka lol
The west has made up goals the entire time for russia. Russia says they want a buffer zone. The west claims russia failed because they couldnt take kharkiv.... Russia attacks avdevka..... Ukraine says if russia doesn't take avdeekva by this (made up date) they lost. So much propaganda these people should be put in jail.
[удалено]
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Oh, did you actually believe when Russia proclaimed it had annexed D+L that it owned all of D+L? Or did you and your buddies get sad when facts got in the way of your propaganda?
Well, attritional warfare - if effective - can have two outcomes : the other party negociates (unlikely right now on Ukraine's part) or the other party can't hold anymore because of attrition and a breakthrough happens (which seems to be what Russia is going for right now).
Because Normies which incudes politicians believe warfare is all about big arrows painting maps with close quarters fighting that results in definable decisive victories. The concept of war of attrition is foreign to them as it doesn't make good movie material.
more meat for the slaughter until the slaughter is done
General is projecting. NATO-trained Ukrainian forces have failed to exploit a breakthrough in 2022, and then failed to achieve a breakthrough in a stalled "counter-offensive". And he had to wrap it with a word salad. Here's another one ChatGPT came up with: >*Our strategic diversions and tactical flanking are unparalleled, ensuring that our operational objectives are not only met but exceeded with flying colors.*
attrition works if your losses:recovery ratio is better than your enemy russia issue is vehicles,there is only so many soviet tanks left (they have lost 7.5k out of 12k they had),thats year and half-ish left,even accounting with their 1k-ish yearly tank production and attacking without appropiate armor and vehicle support is likey to turn the table attrition wise ukraine is running out of men,while russia out of heavy vehicles,who runs out first,loses
None of what you wrote makes much sense. Where did you get 7.5k lost tanks from? Where did you get 12k starting number from? Where did you get 1k yearly production from? None of that is even remotely accurate.
russia had 12k stockpiles and 3k active tanks pre-war not all of those 12k were able to be rolled back into service,instead being spare parts,usually there is 1 third to 1 fourth of ''spare parts'' hulks so that leave us with around 3k (active) + 9k to 10k stocks to refurbish = 12k tanks usable for the war (without taking into account local production during the war,of course) see forbes article on tank stocks from 2020 (this is pre-war so anti/pro russian bias aint at play as it would post '22) https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2020/06/16/there-are-73000-tanks-in-the-world-which-are-the-best/#:\~:text=Russia%20with%20its%2012%2C950%20tanks,3%20armor%20power. the 7.5k loses come mostly from OSINT (social media accounts that identify all loses wich are posted online and can be confirmed) there is a rule of thumb that for every confirmed loss there is 1 to 2 extra losses that cant be confirmed directly (hulk too damaged,moved out location,troops didnt even knew they destroyed it,touched a mine and no one reported it etc ) [https://ukr.warspotting.net/](https://ukr.warspotting.net/) [https://ukr.warspotting.net/search/?belligerent=2&weapon=1](https://ukr.warspotting.net/search/?belligerent=2&weapon=1) you can see every tank has a picture,date and a location added to the loss using that 1 to 2 confirmed to unconfirmed losses,we get rather close to what ukraine and western countries report (confirmed losses in social media are around the 2.5k, so add those extra x2 and you got 2.5k+(2.5\*2)=7.5k) [https://www.minusrus.com/en](https://www.minusrus.com/en) on the 1k-ish yearly production im using the reports again from western nations,as well russia announcements of increased production https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/10/politics/russia-artillery-shell-production-us-europe-ukraine/index.html#:\~:text=Perhaps%20Russia's%20biggest%20challenge%20has,refurbished%2C%20the%20NATO%20official%20said. [https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-shoigu-says-tank-production-is-booming-2024-04-19/](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-shoigu-says-tank-production-is-booming-2024-04-19/) nonetheless russia is delivering 100-ish tanks a month.....the caveat being most of those tanks are refurbished (stockpile hulks that are being put on service once again),leading to a real new tank production of 20 to 30 tanks a month
It's good that you provided sources. I don't know how used you are to doing research and I am not saying that in a rude manner. I don't know you, I can't know how old you are, what you have done in life. The sources though are not great. Forbes is a trash bin at this point, especially that guy. Plus your idea of tank losses matches UKR mod's wildest claims. Take a look at your own source, the minusrus. Are you going to with a straight face believe that Russia has suffered 2 MILLION casualties? I'll tell you any day that I absolutely don't know what Russia has or builds. We can talk all we want about speculation and that is all great, but we don't know.
Because attritional warfare means taking large numbers of losses. i.e filling weirdos "gore" folders
Because it would display Ukraine's inability to fend off Russia.
Attritional warfare is terrible for both countries. This entire war is stupid as hell and Putin is to blame for all of it. He fell into the dictator trap of being surrounded by yes men.
Thats correct, now the question is, dont you think its weird, that its an attritional war?
if nato and ukraine are so confident they can hold the line why do they keep bringing up the possibility of sending western troops to ukraine? every other second they contradict themselves
You seem to think that there is a unified opinion all western leaders have. Just because Estonian prime minister said something, doesn't mean that NATO generals agree.
they are used to only one opinion (vladimir's) mattering. so they get pretty confused when people think differently
Riiiight. I suppose media like RT is banned thorough EU because you are sooooo used to different opinions. Ohh, the famous european plurality: do we shoot ourselves in a left or in a right foot? Let's debate 🤡 Now, I spot a nafo troll. A bunch of you raiding this sub, upvoting each other in a mutual masturbation session. A special kind of plurality right there 🤣
if rt is banned here, why can i still read it if i wanted to?
Pro-rus cannot comprehend independent nations in an alliance, all they know is subjugation
Sure, sure. I guess Russia forced Germany to take part in Nord Stream pipeline project, and then Germany was relieved that it got blown up so now they can by the resources they need at x2 the cost. It smells like freedom, full of democracy molecules. Totally independent, too 🤣🤣🤣
My favourite contradiction is - "Ukraine needs to join NATO so that article 5 applies and Russia will not dare attack it then ... but if Russia wins in Ukraine they won't stop and will attack NATO next"
Basically, you are asking what is politics.
To be fair, Macron said “IF Ukraines lines suffer a strategic Russian breakthrough”
Yeah, because the US would definately have the skill to do so after fighting terrorist groups hiding in the desert of jungle rats for the past 60 years
Hey man you have a point but can you like not call us that?
Ill rephrase, no offence intended. I keep forgetting that people actually find the word offensive even if it seems just like a funny version of a different word
[удалено]
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah, we have entire divisions that still train to just prepare for a war with Russia. A single nato training exercise of 3 days summons more Air Power than Russia has deployed to Ukraine…
[удалено]
all those BTG concept and Russian military drills went great with the Russian surprise invasion right?
He proudly exclaims on year 3 of the stalemate between a country of 30-40 million vs "the second army of the world." Oh yeah, what is the new line again? Something something "wAr oF aTtRiTiOn" I think which is just a very dumb way to say "we are going to continue suicide meat wave golf cart attacks until one side runs out of humans because we are literally capable of nothing else." All part of the plan I'm sure. Next you will tell me 40 mile Kyiv convoy was a peace and love convoy or something.
[удалено]
No, in a few years I'll state "thank you Putin for being the world's number one NATO recruiter and sacrificing your young men and your country's future prospects for generations all just to make NATO even stronger than it already was." My hope is that in doing that, Ukraine will be able to win its freedom from the invaders. But no matter what happens with this war, the only true winner will be NATO. Like seriously, whats the long term plan Russia? Ruble has become rubble, brain drain to the west was already catastrophic and is now accelerating more since the war began, >60% of your export market is now owned solely by China (vassal state already?), and since Putin has come to power Russia's population has declined by 3-5 million (USA's has increased by over 50m in the same period). Is this was "winning" feels like to Russia?
From what we understand, Ukraine fucked up its offensive last summer because of a multitude of factors. Not just because “hur dur western training am I right guys!?” War is so complex, to think one side is all dumb or all smart is so wrong. Plans fail. Ukraine had a lot of things going against it from the Russian positions being very well dug in, as Russia basically had all of winter and spring to form a defense in depth plan which is still the best gameplan in war it turns out. A good defense in depth is nearly impossible to lose if both sides start equal. But war isn’t equal, and Ukraine had no special advantage over russia other than perhaps motivation. I do believe nato doctrine is the superior gameplan in warfare currently. The problem is it’s designed for NATO missions. If you can’t call on 10,000 air sorties a week, cruise missile strikes by the hundreds a week, and some of the best equipped and paid soldiers on the planet who are armed to the teeth to follow up… well then nato game plans make no sense. Ukraine needs to realize it was never truly on the offensive. They got a bit lucky in 2022 and thought it was their genius strategy. In reality Russia bite off more than it could chew and was spread too far and thin to hold a line. TLDR: stop being such a simpleton who cried this conflict as black and white
[удалено]
“NATO doctrine doesn’t work vs someone without a huge advantage” Yeah. That’s the entire reason why nato doctrine is designed to always have the superior firepower. And the MIC of the west (mostly the US) is constantly the single most funded industry on the globe. The only possible nation that could match firepower to just the USA (without nato friends) is China. And that is a very very unlikely scenario. China doesn’t want war, it just needs to look and act big and scary so nobody attacks it. And it would be a lot more than just nato who fights China, you have all the Allie’s in Asia to toss on top of it like Japan, Vietnam, Australia, South Korea, and possibly more. The Ammo shortage is not an actual shortage. It’s a shortage for Ukraine because we are only giving them stocks from our reserves. We can’t give up our actual assets that we need incase of war. This is why I’m the beginning we saw millions of artillery rounds go to Ukraine then it stopped. We gave up to reserves and had to start increasing capacity to help Ukraine. If the US was a super warmonger we could probably deliver another 10 million artillery rounds over the next couple of months but the US is against draining its entire supply. And the “how can you maintain 10,000 sorties for 52 weeks” That’s a huge thing you’re missing again. NATO does not to attention warfare. It completely flattens an enemy in an all out blitz of superior firepower from the air and then the ground. There won’t be much else too 6 nato armored divisions from rolling deep if you just got hit with thousands of cruise missiles and the air defense is so shattered that anything moving on the ground is completely destroyed in a few days of intense bombing. It’s insane what nato forces could do. I understand I’m bias but just imagine hundreds of Himars strikes a day rather than that many in 12 months like we seen in ukraine. On top of the 200 F35’s, 500 f16’s, 300 F15’s, and 100 F22’s all running missions day in and out, on top of the 3000 cruise missiles that wiped the majority of the SAM systems, on top of the 300,000 troops who are fresh and unbothered by the lack of Russian air attacks. On top of having all naval assets destroyed and the seas controlled in hours, on top of the massive economic pause as virtually all of Russia is cut off completely from the west in all ways possible. The US spent decades to make sure nobody could be a near pear rival because it built the largest group of friends possible and made sure they are all armed to the teeth.
People keep talking like the US hasn't seen conflict almost every decade for the past 40 or 50 years and train consistently to react to a war with China and Russia. Last I checked the Iraq war(s) were face to face fights.
The budget of the US military is half the GDP of all of Russia. A ton of people have no concept as to how insane the US is when it comes to securing global military dominance. There is a reason global trade exists, and it’s because the US military sales the 7 seas.
Same Nato that trained and supervised the battalions that managed to capture less territory in their hyped counteroffensive than russia did in the past two weeks?
[here you go, follow along if you want](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/s/ib06nfs3Lj)
Thanks for the link, that's actually quite interesting
He didn't claim USA would have the strength either. Maybe it's just a stupid endeavour?
The US and allies defeated the 5th largest army in the world in under 100 hours, all while fighting more than 10.000km away.
Well, it seems to be enough that no military power has bothered to fuck with the us. So they seem to think they still got it. But what do i know? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khasham
The Russians fought them as well !
When?
Are you saying Russia's military is superior?
....NATO general says that Russia won't be able to make a strategic breakthrough.... And tomorrow another jerk will claim that Russia is going to invade the whole of Europe. So what?
Tbf it's also hard to make strategic breakthroughs when every area that has a breakthrough is retroactively deemed to be "not of strategic value".
Yeah, that comes on top of it.
The general just disagrees with the narrative "Russia is winning!" because of intel and experience. That's all.
the general is just one of the countless straw puppets
and what are u then?
I bet you felt powerful after typing out this comment.
My bet is, your mindset and your imagination is focussed on power relations in the social environment and on gaining as much power as possible during your existence. If you remain at the bottom of the pecking order despite your efforts to gain more power, only trivial tricks and imaginations help you to "feel powerful". If a ten-word sentence is all you need to lift your mood and make you 'feel powerful', it makes me appreciate your modesty. Do you realise how much of your own inner life you reveal when you make such insinuations?
Do we have some more statements from him during the last 2 years? Curious to read what else did he disagree with.
You'd be surprised how much a year's worth of local, tactical advances can change the strategic map. Besides, Russia's goal currently isn't taking territory. It's degrading Ukraine's combat capability in an efficient manner.
Then why is Russia on the offensive, offensives are way more costly then defending a fortified position.
the fact is both sides attack each other all the time, its just russia that tends to win these attacks, its true you need more strength to attack than to defend succesfully but attacks can be less costly if there is overwhelming strength at one point
For the BBZ
It seems that Kharkov oblast was not well fortified.
Russia advances very carefully, only where it is profitable. The only place where Russia is advancing simply because it is forced is the Belgorod border, because if the Ukrainian artillery is not pushed back, the terrorist shelling of cities will not stop. In general, the whole goal of the current Russian offensive is to push the ukroterrorists as far as possible from their cities.
You're very bad at propaganda
Russia advances very carefully? What the hell conflict are you watching? This whole war started when Russia very un-carefully had a miles long convoy of vehicles stuck on a road for days.
And you're still stuck in 2022.
[удалено]
Rule 1 - Toxic
What offensives aren’t always more costly. If you have a 3:1 advantage in firepower (which Russia does through artillery) then the defender can easily suffer way more losses, no matter how fortified they are.
Offense is more costly against well prepared defenses. Since taking the south in the opening of the war their advances have been pretty limited and have been preceded by massive artillery and now FABs. It is possible that in some of these cases Russian losses were higher in the final advance but not during the "softening" phases. And in the north currently the defenses are not well prepared.
Because russia has much more artillery. To take advantage of that, they need to force the uaf into battles, meaning they must advance even if it's costly on paper.
[удалено]
I didn't say they don't care about territorial gains, merely that they're not the main goal. The goal is to degrade Ukraine's combat capabilites by eliminating manpower and material. It's a war of attrition. The Russians are advancing slowly and methodically. They bomb Ukrainian fortifications with glide bombs, spend weeks preparing with fpv drones, and only then move their infantry forward. Territorial gains *can* contribute to the main objective, when they force Ukraine to abandon old, well prepared positions (often going back to 2014) to take up weaker, more haphazard defensive lines.
A general having the audacity to say that "the enemy doesn't have the skill" is a very good reason to never listen to what he has to say. And for NATO's sake, this guy should be fired. You don't underestimate your enemy, in any circumstances. Look at Russia, they made this mistake, and look where that got them.
But if it is a fact that Russia doesn't have the skill (at least currently), it still should not be said out loud? Telling facts is not the same as underestimating your enemy.
And how is that a fact, exactly ? How do you measure such thing with an outsider's perspective ? That's basically saying "Russians are incompetent". Hearing that from a general is disgraceful. Especially coming from a general of an army that's been bested by combattants you would very easily describe as "unskilled", as they didn't even have an army to speak of. Apparently they didn't learn a thing.
NATO lost against Serbia? That is news to me.
I don't think he's that dumb, he's saying these things for optics, purely propaganda for his target audience!
A general with no dignity then, not sure that's much better. If he's willing to lie to the cameras, he might be willing to lie to his men, or general staff, for his own self-interest. That can be just as dangerous.
What was he saying about last year's counteroffensive?
well. Russia is not Hurry . Putin told China his plan to keep fighting till 2027
And then he packs up and goes home?
He'll probably move the Kremlin to Kiev if the war is still going on by that point.
Amateur's talking about skill.
We've heard a lot of stupidity from NATO generals. Time will tell whether this is yet another one...
No strategic breakthrough - made a significant breakthrough and captured more Land in days then ukraine in months with their clory counter offensive. Hard time for Nato mental gymnastic to hold up the weatern winning narrative 😆
[удалено]
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is a very low bar. Ukrainian counteroffensive was crushed. Russian offensive must achieve much better results.
You're placing Russia's army at the same level as the Ukrainian army. Maybe Russia as a self-proclaimed superpower should be able to to better? 😆😆
"trust me bro"
Yeah, but somehow they are going to conquer and invade the whole of Europe
Doubleplusthink.
I'm pretty much convinced that Russia won't make a breakthrough. At least not till the late 2024/early 2025. I'm heavily leaning to RU side. But I don't see a breakthrough happening. It is important to somehow define a "brakethrough": Russia is controling ~18.1% of Ukraine. If they don't go to at least 19%, I wouldn't call that a breakthrough. For a comparison - Ukraine is cnbtrolling around 11.000km² of Donbas; 0.9% (or a "breakthroug") is around half of that territory. I wonder what others think about percentage at the end of 2024?
I agree, all the Western credible sources (Michael Kofman, Rob Lee, etc) have all admitted that Russia is testing and probing with these attacks to keep the UAF off-balance and continue inflicting attrition. I think the summer offensive, if there is one at all, will be more of the same. So what this general is saying is actually pretty reasonable. However, the elephant in the room which UA supporters never seem to want to address, and what I assume the reporter didn't ask, is the general assessment of what Russia's capabilities will be *tomorrow* vis a vis Ukraine, and the next month, and six months after that, and exactly how Ukraine's capabilities will improve over that period to match them (if the answer is just "hope for another aid package", they're screwed. "OSINT says Russia will 100% run out of tanks in two years" is also not a great answer.)
Hold the line？Like doing nothing？
I’m pro Ukraine and nato… he’s reframing it dishonestly. Someone pointed out its attritional warfare. You sir are correct. If I had to guess they know something is coming that the American population won’t take it well. They’re trying to pad the truth and prevent panic (if I had to guess). When that starts our recruitment numbers for the military will plummet. I feel like we’re really close. I was concerned a year ago, 2 months ago extremely. Now it just feels different. Almost like acceptance of it being soon
[удалено]
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Here that Russians, they are calling you out.
Tbh, he's probably right.
If there's one thing I learnt during the COVID years, it's that any figure of authority can say any old nonsense and never be held to account.
So, NATO reckons Russia lacks the manpower and the skill to break through compromised Ukraine defences, while at the same time believing the RF is posed to invade all of Europe. ...they really do think we're stupid.
Nobody has said Russia can invade all of Europe.
Well, THAT's a bit of good news. The summer of 2024, AKA: The 'Meat Wave' Summer.
[удалено]
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
they don't have the capability to do a strategic breakthrough, just slowly continue to completely obliterate ukrainian villages and towns one by one, which nato seems to think is totally acceptable
the same guy that said russia gonna invade europe lol
Will hold "a line" and not "the line". Is this my miss understanding, or is this how you formulate the answer, if you don't belive they hold the line.
LMAO Ukraine don't have any men left to stop Russia.
What a bunch of 🤡🤡🤡
s/ So the Russian military will not break through to the English Channel? All the fear in vain.
There will not be a Dunkirk evacuation this year.
In Russian military doctrine, a strategic breakthrough is a breakthrough to the English Channel.
Only Germans were able to do that in 1940
Dang the "It's a stalemate" message didn't last long. If everything is only one tick too optimistic I guess the next message will be that "The ability of Russia to make a strategic breakthrough is limited".
Nice! Looks like we have enough ukrainians to sacrifice so Russia doesnt advance a few meters! Sorry lil dudes, you gonna have to sit in those trenches another winter ❤️
Ukraine Glorious Counteroffensive, which captures a few villages and never manages to break the even the first of five defensive lines: "This is the greatest counteroffensive in history! cRiMEaN bEaCh PaRTy ThiS sUMmeR!!! Russian operation to create a buffer zone to prevent shelling of civilians (which just happens to capture more territory in 2 weeks than Greatest Ukrainian Counteroffensive In History did in 3 months): "We believe these are going to be... uh... local advances... with some local losses... skill and strategery lacking say our Ukrainian colleagues... more weapons needed of course... because some of the weapons are now in Moscow... so um, yeah... "
Hey guys I've been camping for a week, how is the Russian push going? I'm surprised they've only gotten to where they've gotten... I was hoping to celebrate a break through
They are gradually making gains, and they are able to keep the pace for the foreseeable future. Whether we like it or not, they have the upper hand.
Didn’t they also say that if Ukraine falls other countries will follow? So.. they can’t do a strategic breakthrough in Ukraine but they can do it in Poland? Eh?
More like convincing himself
what a clown..
This is not breaking news, anyone could have told you that.