Please use this thread to continue discussing the war in Ukraine.
All mod instructions from the previous thread remain in force here
Original thread:
Yes, and a war economy does not in itself generate wealth, it needs funding from its national wealth, which is not sustainable in the lomg term.
Good advice. Lots of rumours. Zero evidence.
if the 42D genius in Kremlin manages to push the Swiss out of neutrality where does that leave us
Aside, rumours today that Lavrov is on his way to meet Prigozhin in hell
I'd be reasonably sure that the Ukrainian high command had a series of aims Goals and plans before they invaded Kursk , probably including showing the US that this isn't a frozen conflict ,
As it is we're not privy to their main aims ,
It's pretty certain that kursk has drawn potential resources from Donbass ,for both sides , it'll only be after it's all over that anyone can rate the kursk offensive as successful or failure , it's still in play..
Poison the sites with plutonium.
Only vast western support with long range capabilities will stop it, Russia may be bolloxed after this war but it will have a large skelp of Ukraine, Ukraine will be a failed state and every shi7 house group or state will have a green light to go for it because the west no longer will maintain global security and peace and we will all pay for that it for decades to come.
Kursk is an opportunity but also borne of desperation on the need to change the dynamic, much of Europe and Washington have decided to let things settle where they will
Russia has more mineral wealth that it could ever use, under the old pure communist system Ukraine and Russia were importing food. The Donbass and south west Russia is the best stretch of farm in the world but that's communism for ya.
The corn belt in America has similar soil, 6 inches deep. In the above it is often 6 feet deep. They grew grain at the same level per acre 2500 years ago as good hard wheat farms do now.
It's just that Russia is such a huge landmass that it's looks nearly impossible for Ukraine to do enough to really put the frighteners on the Russians that could change things .
Unfortunately, the biggest news from the Kursk region in the last few days appears to be that the Russians have (for now, at least) retaken Korenevo. Ukraine may have to do more in order to really peel Russian battalions away from hot areas like Pokrovsk, like directly threaten the city of Kursk, or something like that.
You and many others are assuming that not engaging in the Kursk offensive would mean they would not be losing the territory in Donbas.
Not engaging in Kursk would most likely just mean they have no Kursk and no Donbas. A little slower losing ground maybe but that's about it.
No, I didn’t and I am really surprised you ask that question. You regularly question other posters about their choice of sources but you decided that a journalist claiming Russian economy was flourishing met your standards and was worth 30min of your time.
I am not saying she is wrong by the way but I wouldn’t trust her.
Still can't figure out what Ukraine can achieve in Russia while appearing to lose more territory in the Donbas region .Certainly doesn't look like Putin will re deploy his troops so that Ukraine can occupy them enough to drive them back in the Donbas at the same time. Hopefully I am wrong but the outcome doesn't look good at this point .
They wont swap. Donbas contains Trillions in mineral wealth.
I don't know to be fair. They might have to redeploy their better forces out of kursk if Russia keep up the advances and make more head way so they might end up having to leave weaker forces in kursk in due time and redeploy them back against Russian forces in the donbass. I say more Russia might try and deal with kursk during the winter months.
One case of surrender is not representative of a broad trend (I wish it was). And even if Moscow comment was slightly tongue in cheek, the sentiment was genuine: Russia was in for a rout (I wish it was). So now you're the one taking things out of context.
that’s only half the story. For example, there are ,say, 1000 trucks to be driven every day in Russia but there are only 500 drivers available to drive them. That’s what happens when one conscripts/pick up civilians for the front line. They are never asked ‘AREYOU a truck driver’?
The soldiers in context did surrender once surrounded (after killing Ukraine hostages).
The "countdown" to moscow were tongue in cheek posts matching similar to what happened with Prizoghin.
These points were also made at the time but you attempted to skip past it and then started calling out other users again. Context matters, if you're going to constantly call out other users, expect to be challenged on it. I am able to supply in context evidence, you haven't thus far, thus they can be dismissed.
The posts about countdown to Moscow and Russian soldiers in Kursk surrendering as soon as a shot is fired spring to mind, Russian railway system on verge of collapse, there were plenty more.
However, rather than trying to deflect, why not answer the original question: is the situation in Pokrovsk part of a bigger plan, and if so what? And has the Kursk operation been a wise move several weeks in? I honestly don't know but am very open to hearing different viewpoints. What do you think?
I don't care what she says. I never referred to her (whoever she is) and what she said.
Last time you misrepresented the posts (hence why I specifically said context).
A few examples of you attempting to call out other users, each time without evidence, since you asked (I was going to post many examples, but I have limited it to just 2 for now, think of that as a courtesy):
If you're going to call out gullible users and fantasists, provide the evidence, otherwise it will be summarily dismissed.
If you aren't willing to engage with the content of it then your counter argument is irrelevant, because the journalist already takes your points into account. She is also not saying the sanctions are useless, just how their effect is far less than hoped
No and I'm not going to. The podcast isn't the one and only divine source of information.
This sounds like it was the probable plan, at least originally. And now? Hold bits of Kursk while losing more of the Donbass and hoping a swap deal can still be done in future?
Did you listen to the podcast?
They are having a massive effect. Sanctions are not gonna just cause a country to collapse after a week. Yes some people naively thought that and many many more Russian supporters are using the "see it didn't collapse" as some sort of win but sanctions are a long slog and and war economy booms will only last so long.
To look at WW1 as an example, winning a war by collapsing the home front takes time and Putin has been pretty smart so far in not upsetting the wrong cohorts at home.
Yes the surveillance has changed everything
I say they were hoping Russia would disengage from the donbass and move tens of thousands of troops from there to engage Ukraine in kursk. I say Ukraine would deal as much damage as they could to Russian forces there and just withdraw from kursk back into Ukraine. Then they would redeploy back to help Ukraine forces in the donbass and Russia would have to redeploy. I say it was more to get Russia to redeploy massive amount of Russians from the donbass to there. They were probably thinking putin won't allow this and will order massive forces there to stop this. But this hasn't happened.
It's the drones watching both sides that seriously curtails both sides. Can't really do much with them watching.
Did you listen to the podcast? It makes it clear the EU is unhappy and looking at ways to clamp down on the sanctions dodging. The main point is they are not having sufficient effect
I posted such things a couple of weeks ago, no interest in repeating the exercise, just waiting on a mote constructive reply than "Kremlin has sent out orders, the mask slips" etc
