Russia - threadbanned users in OP

30k gone from Ukraine means 90k gone from Russia......this rate of attrition means there will be no one left to shoot Ukraine soldiers

The 37k mentioned would extend the war by 37 days, you make it sound like they will run out in 37 days.

Anyways you're not taking into account the injured returning to the Frontline, not all wounds will prevent that. I can't find the quote, but it was a high % (<75%) of wounded soldiers return to the fight after a month.

Russia will have to do a mobilisation well before Ukraine run out of soldiers. Gonna be harder to get the Russian public on-site for a mobilisation now Puta admitted it's a land grab and nothing to do with Nazis, NATO, chem/bio labs or Ukraine wanting nukes or any other excuses he used.

They would not want to tell Scholz where they'll meet Zelensky lest he pass it up to his handler.

Put the cursor below it and hit Delete.

That's the way it seems to be going anyhow. Unless UA gets a trainload of weapons, and the rest, it will be attrition for years. But! how long can Russia sustain sanctions? And! how long has Putnut got to live?

thats not how war works lad

Is there a bit of a blame game starting, a positioning of pieces.

Scholz, Macron and Draghi going to Kyiv. The 3 amigos most likely of any from Europe to tell Zelensky to accept facts on the ground and pull back from Donbass.

Biden using the words "negotiated settlement" and "land transfer m"last week, Zelensky upping the repetition of how Ukraine has lost too many people to just hand over land to Russia.

Like I said above, Scholz, Macron and Draghi aren't just going for a social call. They have been regularly in contact with Putin.

If Russia gets a negotiated settlement, it will be a significant victory for them, sanctions or no sanctions.

Jesus Christ, people need to take a step back. We didn't hear of any Ukrainian casualties at the beginning of this war and now in the last few weeks, that we do, they can't sustain. We are now seeing the downside of the information war, so take a step back, take a deep breath and look up what a war of attrition actually means. When people see from the Guardian "Tide maybe turning" or from the BBC "Low morale among Ukrainians" we get hundred posts saying I have a bad feeling.

If social media was around in 1943 the people of Ireland would be practicing the Nazi salute reading some of the bizarre posts here.

An ex-General on sky news said last week that could be next year before Ukraine could launch any kind of major offensive. Let that sink in and then you may get a inkling of what a war of attrition actually means.

Severodonetsk is not of importance but it is important to putin because it is 3-5% of remaining unconquered territory in the Luhansk region so he can sell that to the Russian people. This in itself of why it's a political strategy for putin and not a military strategy. And this is simply why many western media call it a strategic city. A loss would be devastating to the Russian morale and strategic position.

Ukrainian forces could just fall back to a safe, offensive position from which they could keep the pressure on.

Will they be backed in that.

I hope they do. Some of the noises out of political capitals is certainly worth noting.

The Americans and Uk spent 20 years in Afghanistan, they are not going to flick a switch after a few months in Ukraine.

Edit: Especially when Ukraine is not losing

Russia controls less Ukrainian territory than they did at the end of March, 2.5 months ago. So it's not like their grand offensive has had a lot of success since, even if it looks like they'll be able to win in the east eventually.