It was 190k for the initial invasion, and many more reinforcements since after the invasion began.
It was like 40k for the initial invasion, which really is not a serious invasion - and if you recall, the Muricans were saying stuff like "Russia has now deployed 75% of its border forces".
Nah. It started a mobilization, but it's been a slow and ongoing process. Most of the "mobilized" people are just civil defense militia sitting outside the combat areas.
That's what they thought! And then some at least were sent to the front to serve as cannon fodder.
War requires a lot of training & equipment to make useful units, and Ukraine has had its outnumbered experienced units stretched thin blocking the slow Russian advances 1st around Izyum, then Popasna, then Severodonetsk.
That would mean that it's losing its experienced units to cheap Russian artillery barrages. Not a very good prospect. I suspect that Ukraine may simply collapse at some point, and Russia will take the entire South as well as Kiev - as parts of historic Russia.
A more limited objective is taking the south of Ukraine as well as the Soviet capital Kharkov.
Ukraine's strategy is to just dig in and make Russia pay a heavy price for every piece of land it slowly takes, in order to wear down the Russian forces and burn through Russia's ammunition supply, available equipment, and manpower, until Russia "runs out of steam" and has to stop.
I mean, it's not really burning thoruhg Russian manpower to shell the Ukrainians 24/7. I think that's why they're doing it Russian style rather than sending in forces.
The standout poors are all former soviet states & puppets.
Basically every country in Eastern Europe was one of the two. Except for Yugoslavia and to a lesser extent Romania. Not exactly great examples of success.
Ukraine, being one of the core parts of the Soviet Union
It seems to me that the longer you have been part of the USSR, the worse you will do. Not sure if causation or just correlation. But the Baltics were only incorporated in 1940. OTOH, Moldova is the worst country and it was also incorporated late.
Something Russia would never use because it would just get nuked back harder, and sanctions? You've never even seen sanctions until Russia tries to pop off a nuke. The "sanctions" on Russia right now are so limp dick it's laughable
Literally the most sanctioned country in the world. Biden bragged about crashing the Russian economy and reducing the value of the ruble by 50% to rubble.
Also tactical nukes aren't even the "wonder weapons" you think they are. They only kill in a relatively small area. You need a LOT of them to actually stop an offensive. The biggest danger of tactical nukes is the fact that they cause nuclear escalation until you're dealing with serious city killers.
No one's going to walk into an area where you're getting nukes on your ass. That simply is not going to happen. The threat ought to be sufficient, but if not, then one low-yield device will probably suffice.
Russia will never use a nuclear weapon, just as it never has in the past throughout the last 75 years. It knows the costs grossly outweigh the benefits.
Russian territory has never been attacked since it got nukes.
My post/comments were talking about the Northern Front specifically
Was it? But even if it was, you were saying that the Russians would 'collapse'. Turns out, they just gracefully withdrew.
The Russians, apparently having read my post and realized what a military genius I am
LOL!
The Ukrainians have refused to try to go on the offensive on other fronts
Are you sure? They have done a few offensives which quickly petered out with massive losses. Kharkov for example. They took a small strip of land at the cost of many lives, which the Russians then easily retook. Doesn't seem to be great military leadership in Kiev. They're better at firing their pistols at little kids.
In the long run, Ukraine wins any war of attrition for the simple fact that it has more people to reinforce with
Explain. Russia has more people. If it's losing, it'll simply order a general mobilization and vastly outnumber Ukraine. Ukraine has also lost 20% of its pre-2014 land, and many millions of people (though mostly women). An actual loss in Ukraine would threaten the regime in Russia, so that will never happen. Nuclear weapons will be used before that occurs.
and more fresh equipment periodically coming in from EU/NATO countries to replace its losses
Yeah, no. As colder seasons approach again, the EU is going to have to give, or Russia will cut off our gas and we freeze to death. Though I don't doubt that our political leadership is willing to let us freeze to death for its geopolitical ambitions.
And you really think the GAE can send enough artillery to dwarf Russia's enormous advantage in that area?
That would mean that it's losing its experienced units to cheap Russian artillery barrages. Not a very good prospect. I suspect that Ukraine may simply collapse at some point, and Russia will take the entire South as well as Kiev - as parts of historic Russia.
Collapse? When light infantry have already proved more than capable of stopping Russian advances throughout the whole war? Ukraine can't "collapse" when a babushka with an NLAW can stop a Russian tank column. Wars of attrition don't result in collapse. They grind both sides until one side's political leadership realizes continuing isn't worth it. Since the war is an existential threat for Ukraine, that means Russia either has to mass mobilize or eventually fold or accept a stalemate.
I mean, it's not really burning thoruhg Russian manpower to shell the Ukrainians 24/7. I think that's why they're doing it Russian style rather than sending in forces.
The Russians are still pushing troops and taking losses. They're trying to conserve their manpower because they're running low, but it's impossible to kill everyone with artillery. Defenders will just dig in and hide and you won't even know they're there until they start shooting. Also, Russia is taking plenty of losses to things like artillery duels and counter-battery fire, too. It's a war of attrition, and both sides are taking losses.
Literally the most sanctioned country in the world.
The sanctions on Russia are very weak. Nothing like what is on Iran, let alone North Korea.
Biden bragged about crashing the Russian economy and reducing the value of the ruble by 50% to rubble.
Biden is an idiot and senile. All the western leaders talked big and lied to exaggerate the sanctions as a PR thing, while in substance, the steps they took were super weak. The market, being immune to bullshit, immediately caused to ruble to rebound BECAUSE the market has decided that the sanctions were a joke.
Russian territory has never been attacked since it got nukes.
you were saying that the Russians would 'collapse'. Turns out, they just gracefully withdrew.
I said they'd collapse if they kept on doing what they were doing and trying to push. Obviously you can't "collapse" if you run away instead of fighting. The Russian leaders obviously agreed with me and pulled out since they realized the same thing I did.
Are you sure? They have done a few offensives which quickly petered out with massive losses. Kharkov for example. They took a small strip of land at the cost of many lives, which the Russians then easily retook.
None of that happened. Maybe Russian sources are claiming that. Ukraine has only done really small scale attacks in very limited areas to take a few villages here and there. Ukraine has successfully pushed the Russians back quite a distance north and east of Kharkiv but they only do small attacks against areas that Russians only lightly defend. Ukraine does not try to do any big offensives, and does not try to attack into areas that Russia has stocked a lot of troops.
Explain. Russia has more people. If it's losing, it'll simply order a general mobilization and vastly outnumber Ukraine.
If Putin could order a mobilization, he already would have. Since he hasn't, that's proof he can't. Putin isn't Stalin. He can't do whatever he wants. He has to worry about being overthrown or balcony diving or internal revolt. Ukraine doesn't pose a threat to Russia. Russians aren't worried that Ukraine is going to march on Moscow. All "losing" means for Russia is that Russia has to leave Ukraine alone and suffer a loss of pride. That's not enough for the Russian people to tolerate a mass mobilization.
An actual loss in Ukraine would threaten the regime in Russia, so that will never happen. Nuclear weapons will be used before that occurs.
LOL no. Russia and Putin will threaten nukes because they think the calculus favors it, but will never use nukes because they know the calculus strongly punishes it. Putin would be more threatened by mobilization than defeat. Putin would be more threatened by using nukes than defeat. If Russia is defeated or concedes, it is far more likely most countries would lift sanctions after a while.
Yeah, no. As colder seasons approach again, the EU is going to have to give, or Russia will cut off our gas and we freeze to death.
The EU is in no danger of freezing to death. If Russia cut off 100% of oil supplies, the EU would just have to pay more for alternative sources, and in some cases (like Germany) would be forced to resort to coal to cover shortfalls, which would make environmentalists seethe, but tough shit.
Also Ukraine doesn't NEED more EU stuff longer term. The US already has enough of a credit line to give Ukraine $1 billion in military supplies per month pretty much indefinitely. The $40 billion credit line Congress gave Biden will cover the current aid rate for over a year. There's no way Russia has the logistical capacity to keep doing what it has been doing these past 2 months, for a whole year. It's burning through its manpower, ammo, and equipment reserves faster than it can replace them. Russia is going to have to stop and settle into a stalemate situation soon enough, probably in 2-3 months.
And you really think the GAE can send enough artillery to dwarf Russia's enormous advantage in that area?
The US is sending Ukraine superior quality artillery, combined with integrated counter battery radars and shit that completely outclasses what Russia uses. The US artillery is all automated with computers and shit. A drone can see a target 25km away, data link that to the command unit for an arty battery, the command unit then sends the fire solution to the arty digitally with a few clicks, and the arty can immediately fire, all this in a matter of seconds. Russia has no capability anything like that. The only reason that Russia isn't getting BTFO in artillery duels, is that Ukrainian troop quality is very inconsistent (NATO pros would BTFO the Russians) and it will take time to develop the doctrine and integration and numbers of units in order to actually use the US systems to their full potential. That said, US reports are that Ukraine has already used SIGINT systems and HIMARS to successfully hit Russian HQs, which is something that has been happening an embarrassing amount throughout the war because Russian troops use cheap chinese radios that are easy to track.
So OVERALL, I see Ukraine getting stronger as it develops the experience and skills to better use superior US equipment, while Russia gets weaker as it runs down its supply of ammunition + can't replace its vehicles and equipment as fast as it is losing it. Bear in mind Russia loses a lot of equipment just to wear and tear and breakdowns, not just to Ukraine hitting it with weapons. Russian logistics & maintenance have been pretty bad. It's also really difficult for them to sustain once they get away from the railroads they rely heavily on for supply.
It was like 40k for the initial invasion, which really is not a serious invasion - and if you recall, the Muricans were saying stuff like "Russia has now deployed 75% of its border forces".
That's what they thought! And then some at least were sent to the front to serve as cannon fodder.
That would mean that it's losing its experienced units to cheap Russian artillery barrages. Not a very good prospect. I suspect that Ukraine may simply collapse at some point, and Russia will take the entire South as well as Kiev - as parts of historic Russia.
A more limited objective is taking the south of Ukraine as well as the Soviet capital Kharkov.
I mean, it's not really burning thoruhg Russian manpower to shell the Ukrainians 24/7. I think that's why they're doing it Russian style rather than sending in forces.
Basically every country in Eastern Europe was one of the two. Except for Yugoslavia and to a lesser extent Romania. Not exactly great examples of success.
It seems to me that the longer you have been part of the USSR, the worse you will do. Not sure if causation or just correlation. But the Baltics were only incorporated in 1940. OTOH, Moldova is the worst country and it was also incorporated late.
Literally the most sanctioned country in the world. Biden bragged about crashing the Russian economy and reducing the value of the ruble by 50% to rubble.
No one's going to walk into an area where you're getting nukes on your ass. That simply is not going to happen. The threat ought to be sufficient, but if not, then one low-yield device will probably suffice.
Russian territory has never been attacked since it got nukes.
Was it? But even if it was, you were saying that the Russians would 'collapse'. Turns out, they just gracefully withdrew.
LOL!
Are you sure? They have done a few offensives which quickly petered out with massive losses. Kharkov for example. They took a small strip of land at the cost of many lives, which the Russians then easily retook. Doesn't seem to be great military leadership in Kiev. They're better at firing their pistols at little kids.
Explain. Russia has more people. If it's losing, it'll simply order a general mobilization and vastly outnumber Ukraine. Ukraine has also lost 20% of its pre-2014 land, and many millions of people (though mostly women). An actual loss in Ukraine would threaten the regime in Russia, so that will never happen. Nuclear weapons will be used before that occurs.
Yeah, no. As colder seasons approach again, the EU is going to have to give, or Russia will cut off our gas and we freeze to death. Though I don't doubt that our political leadership is willing to let us freeze to death for its geopolitical ambitions.
And you really think the GAE can send enough artillery to dwarf Russia's enormous advantage in that area?
Collapse? When light infantry have already proved more than capable of stopping Russian advances throughout the whole war? Ukraine can't "collapse" when a babushka with an NLAW can stop a Russian tank column. Wars of attrition don't result in collapse. They grind both sides until one side's political leadership realizes continuing isn't worth it. Since the war is an existential threat for Ukraine, that means Russia either has to mass mobilize or eventually fold or accept a stalemate.
The Russians are still pushing troops and taking losses. They're trying to conserve their manpower because they're running low, but it's impossible to kill everyone with artillery. Defenders will just dig in and hide and you won't even know they're there until they start shooting. Also, Russia is taking plenty of losses to things like artillery duels and counter-battery fire, too. It's a war of attrition, and both sides are taking losses.
The sanctions on Russia are very weak. Nothing like what is on Iran, let alone North Korea.
Biden is an idiot and senile. All the western leaders talked big and lied to exaggerate the sanctions as a PR thing, while in substance, the steps they took were super weak. The market, being immune to bullshit, immediately caused to ruble to rebound BECAUSE the market has decided that the sanctions were a joke.
[Technically it has](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict#Battle_of_Zhenbao_(Damansky)_Island) but the nukes didn't matter. Nobody was in a position to attack Russia anyway. It subjugated all of its neighbors. Nukes have never been used since WW2 because they cancel each other out through MAD.
I said they'd collapse if they kept on doing what they were doing and trying to push. Obviously you can't "collapse" if you run away instead of fighting. The Russian leaders obviously agreed with me and pulled out since they realized the same thing I did.
None of that happened. Maybe Russian sources are claiming that. Ukraine has only done really small scale attacks in very limited areas to take a few villages here and there. Ukraine has successfully pushed the Russians back quite a distance north and east of Kharkiv but they only do small attacks against areas that Russians only lightly defend. Ukraine does not try to do any big offensives, and does not try to attack into areas that Russia has stocked a lot of troops.
If Putin could order a mobilization, he already would have. Since he hasn't, that's proof he can't. Putin isn't Stalin. He can't do whatever he wants. He has to worry about being overthrown or balcony diving or internal revolt. Ukraine doesn't pose a threat to Russia. Russians aren't worried that Ukraine is going to march on Moscow. All "losing" means for Russia is that Russia has to leave Ukraine alone and suffer a loss of pride. That's not enough for the Russian people to tolerate a mass mobilization.
LOL no. Russia and Putin will threaten nukes because they think the calculus favors it, but will never use nukes because they know the calculus strongly punishes it. Putin would be more threatened by mobilization than defeat. Putin would be more threatened by using nukes than defeat. If Russia is defeated or concedes, it is far more likely most countries would lift sanctions after a while.
The EU is in no danger of freezing to death. If Russia cut off 100% of oil supplies, the EU would just have to pay more for alternative sources, and in some cases (like Germany) would be forced to resort to coal to cover shortfalls, which would make environmentalists seethe, but tough shit.
Also Ukraine doesn't NEED more EU stuff longer term. The US already has enough of a credit line to give Ukraine $1 billion in military supplies per month pretty much indefinitely. The $40 billion credit line Congress gave Biden will cover the current aid rate for over a year. There's no way Russia has the logistical capacity to keep doing what it has been doing these past 2 months, for a whole year. It's burning through its manpower, ammo, and equipment reserves faster than it can replace them. Russia is going to have to stop and settle into a stalemate situation soon enough, probably in 2-3 months.
The US is sending Ukraine superior quality artillery, combined with integrated counter battery radars and shit that completely outclasses what Russia uses. The US artillery is all automated with computers and shit. A drone can see a target 25km away, data link that to the command unit for an arty battery, the command unit then sends the fire solution to the arty digitally with a few clicks, and the arty can immediately fire, all this in a matter of seconds. Russia has no capability anything like that. The only reason that Russia isn't getting BTFO in artillery duels, is that Ukrainian troop quality is very inconsistent (NATO pros would BTFO the Russians) and it will take time to develop the doctrine and integration and numbers of units in order to actually use the US systems to their full potential. That said, US reports are that Ukraine has already used SIGINT systems and HIMARS to successfully hit Russian HQs, which is something that has been happening an embarrassing amount throughout the war because Russian troops use cheap chinese radios that are easy to track.
So OVERALL, I see Ukraine getting stronger as it develops the experience and skills to better use superior US equipment, while Russia gets weaker as it runs down its supply of ammunition + can't replace its vehicles and equipment as fast as it is losing it. Bear in mind Russia loses a lot of equipment just to wear and tear and breakdowns, not just to Ukraine hitting it with weapons. Russian logistics & maintenance have been pretty bad. It's also really difficult for them to sustain once they get away from the railroads they rely heavily on for supply.