It's just 170,000. Basically nothing.

It was 190k for the initial invasion, and many more reinforcements since after the invasion began. Plus the Russian military has a lot of non-combat troops like logistics troops that are supporting the actual combat forces. So Russia deployed pretty much everything it had, which is why even though there was a rule against using conscripts in Ukraine, they were sent in anyway in large numbers.

The fact that Russia is manpower-poor despite having loads and loads of equipment, has been a defining feature of how the war has played out.

Ukraine has fully mobilized (even tens of thousands of women)

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. 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.

Russia is now making advances despite being at a numerical disadvantage - not even mobilized.

Russia is not at a numerical disadvantage in the areas in which it is attacking, and Russia has overwhelmingly numerical superiority in those areas in terms of fires: artillery & air strikes. Ukraine can't keep aircraft out of the Severodonetsk area because its in a salient getting hit from artillery on all sides, so they can't keep a SAM presence there.

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.

What a monumental failure the Ukrainian state is.

Yes, because of Soviet and later Russian influence. Had Ukraine been allowed to incorporate into the EU, for example, its economy would have rapidly grown. I expect that 10 years from now, Ukraine will be in the EU and its economy will be growing rapidly. Look here at this chart of various european countries in GDP per capita. The standout poors are all former soviet states & puppets. Poland has had massive economic growth. Estonia and Slovenia, too. Ukraine, being one of the core parts of the Soviet Union, has a lot more catching up to do, but if it emulates Western standards, it will blow past Russia just as nations like Poland have.

What's a tactical nuke?

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. Only a few banks got cut off from SWIFT. Most of Russia's exports are unaffected, and most affected exports are only inconvenienced. If Russia pops off a nuke, the whole world, including India and China, would be forced to completely cut Russia off North Korea style.

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.

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.

I will remind you that somewhere in March (or April, not sure), you told me that if Russia did not break through within the month, the GAE puppet would start driving them back. Nothing of the sort happened though

I will remind you that my prediction was 100% correct.

My post/comments were talking about the Northern Front specifically, in March, and I said within 3 weeks. Well guess what happened about 2.5 weeks later? The Russians, apparently having read my post and realized what a military genius I am, completely bugged out of the whole Northern sector in order to avoid getting pocketed, which is absolutely what would have happened had they not run away.

Basically, with a super wide front, Ukraine had the advantage in that it could build up more light infantry and spread them around everywhere and end up paralyzing the Russians and then hitting them at critical points with experienced units (conscripts can do ok on defense but can't attack). So the Russians pulled back and narrowed the war to very small fronts in order to leverage their big advantage in tanks and artillery. The Ukrainians have refused to try to go on the offensive on other fronts, and instead have chosen to shift their experienced units into blocking positions to slow the Russians down in attrition warfare.

BOTH sides have chosen to adopt the "low risk attrition warfare" approach, instead of risking maneuver warfare. This changed the character of the war to an entirely different phase where neither side can win decisive battles. Instead, it's going to just be an artillery grind, which is what I predicted early on in April once Russia pulled out of the North. Ukraine kept saying "send us fighters" and I kept saying "fuck the fighters, send them artillery" because I knew we had an artillery war now, and that's exactly what we've had since April.

In the long run, Ukraine wins any war of attrition for the simple fact that it has more people to reinforce with, and more fresh equipment periodically coming in from EU/NATO countries to replace its losses. It's just a matter of time until Russia gets worn down enough. It seems rather obvious to me that Russia's game plan is to simply conquer everything it can in Donbas until it runs out of steam, and then once it runs out of steam, declare victory and start giving terms. It remains to be seen whether Ukraine has the capability to meaningfully counter-attack defended Russian areas. I am not sure that it can.

It's just 170,000. Basically nothing.

It was 190k for the initial invasion, and many more reinforcements since after the invasion began. Plus the Russian military has a lot of non-combat troops like logistics troops that are supporting the actual combat forces. So Russia deployed pretty much everything it had, which is why even though there was a rule against using conscripts in Ukraine, they were sent in anyway in large numbers.

The fact that Russia is manpower-poor despite having loads and loads of equipment, has been a defining feature of how the war has played out.

Ukraine has fully mobilized (even tens of thousands of women)

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. 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.

Russia is now making advances despite being at a numerical disadvantage - not even mobilized.

Russia is not at a numerical disadvantage in the areas in which it is attacking, and Russia has overwhelmingly numerical superiority in those areas in terms of fires: artillery & air strikes. Ukraine can't keep aircraft out of the Severodonetsk area because its in a salient getting hit from artillery on all sides, so they can't keep a SAM presence there.

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.

What a monumental failure the Ukrainian state is.

Yes, because of Soviet and later Russian influence. Had Ukraine been allowed to incorporate into the EU, for example, its economy would have rapidly grown. I expect that 10 years from now, Ukraine will be in the EU and its economy will be growing rapidly. Look here at this chart of various european countries in GDP per capita. The standout poors are all former soviet states & puppets. Poland has had massive economic growth. Estonia and Slovenia, too. Ukraine, being one of the core parts of the Soviet Union, has a lot more catching up to do, but if it emulates Western standards, it will blow past Russia just as nations like Poland have.

What's a tactical nuke?

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. Only a few banks got cut off from SWIFT. Most of Russia's exports are unaffected, and most affected exports are only inconvenienced. If Russia pops off a nuke, the whole world, including India and China, would be forced to completely cut Russia off North Korea style.

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.

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.

I will remind you that somewhere in March (or April, not sure), you told me that if Russia did not break through within the month, the GAE puppet would start driving them back. Nothing of the sort happened though

I will remind you that my prediction was 100% correct.

My post/comments were talking about the Northern Front specifically, in March, and I said within 3 weeks. Well guess what happened about 2.5 weeks later? The Russians, apparently having read my post and realized what a military genius I am, completely bugged out of the whole Northern sector in order to avoid getting pocketed, which is absolutely what would have happened had they not run away.

Basically, with a super wide front, Ukraine had the advantage in that it could build up more light infantry and spread them around everywhere and end up paralyzing the Russians and then hitting them at critical points with experienced units (conscripts can do ok on defense but can't attack). So the Russians pulled back and narrowed the war to very small fronts in order to leverage their big advantage in tanks and artillery. The Ukrainians have refused to try to go on the offensive on other fronts, and instead have chosen to shift their experience units into blocking positions to slow the Russians down in attrition warfare.

BOTH sides have chosen to adopt the "low risk attrition warfare" approach, instead of risking maneuver warfare. This changed the character of the war to an entirely different phase where neither side can win decisive battles. Instead, it's going to just be an artillery grind, which is what I predicted early on in April once Russia pulled out of the North. Ukraine kept saying "send us fighters" and I kept saying "fuck the fighters, send them artillery" because I knew we had an artillery war now, and that's exactly what we've had since April.

In the long run, Ukraine wins any war of attrition for the simple fact that it has more people to reinforce with, and more fresh equipment periodically coming in from EU/NATO countries to replace its losses. It's just a matter of time until Russia gets worn down enough. It seems rather obvious to me that Russia's game plan is to simply conquer everything it can in Donbas until it runs out of steam, and then once it runs out of steam, declare victory and start giving terms. It remains to be seen whether Ukraine has the capability to meaningfully counter-attack defended Russian areas. I am not sure that it can.