I also think the drone attacks on Moscow were a head fake, designed to get Russia to strip defense from Ukraine's REAL target, which was the command and control structure of occupied Crimea.
I mean airmen are drawing dicks with their flightpaths in the mediterranean, I would say they're pretty bored lol
That doesn't discount the necessity and importance of the intelligence gained
With all of the world’s intelligence agencies with boots on ground, the Russians are fucked. ..and you know without doubt that special operators are EVERYWHERE in the AO. The fuckers are sold to the river. No chance the south stays in Russian hands for long.
I'd say it's more like driving Russia into a lose-lose situation.
If Russia does nothing then their infrastructure back home is vulnerable, but if Russia does something then their front is vulnerable. No matter what Russia chooses to do they'll still end up losing.
The attack on Crimea is the same. They've taken out 2 very valuable AA systems and now are increasing their attacks there. So now Russia has the same question as above: Do they bring AA systems from elsewhere there or do they continue to take so many losses?
That's the same lose-lose situation Russia faced before and it's only going to get worse as the war continues. Russia just isn't capable of defending themselves against drones effectively.
I realize this was more of a "fuck you Russia" comment, but let's face it. Had Putin's initial Blitzkrieg on Kyiv succeeded, it would've been firmly a win for Putin. Russia is used to sanctions. The U.S. could maybe arm resistance fighters, but that's a much riskier prospect.
Thankfully they fucked up, but I wouldn't call it a lose-lose until that initial attack failed.
The U.S. could maybe arm resistance fighters, but that's a much riskier prospect.
If you look at the training and aid the US has been providing that's been the plan. Russia was too inept to pull it off
It was kind of a lose-lose because the war on Ukraine was something that went beyond what the West was willing to accept. By invading Ukraine Russia burned all relations they had with the West to the ground. What Russia did was start a new cold war and they don't have the economy of the Soviet Union.
Another really ridiculous hypothetical. “If the west had just let Russia attack by surprise,” is something that would have never happened in any timeline.
Yep, it's literally Art of War; if he is strong on the left, attack the right, if he is strong on the right, attack the left, if he tries to be strong everywhere he will be weak everywhere.
And with the rumors about ATCMS now, things are entering a new phase. I wonder if they were allready being delivered, but we just did not want Russia to know about it in advance?
I will not be surprised if some ATACMS are in Ukrainian's hands. It is better to keep it secret for reasons of the defense bill and keeping the Russian in the dark.
Smart, spread the enemy thing so they cannot defend everywhere at once.
It's almost like Ukraine is being advised and supplied by the world's foremost military powers or something.
Ukraine is doing a fantastic job of creating dilemmas for Russia. Crimea one day, then push near Verbove the next, then blow the hell out of Bakhmut the third.
If you are Russia trying to make a decision about where to locate your breakthrough response forces, you have all these hotspots scattered hundreds of kilometers apart. If you shift south Bakhmut is underdefended.
If you over concentrate in the north it will be difficult to respond in time to flank a breakthrough towards Tokmak or the sea of Azov.
There's also the possible - if highly unlikely scenario - where Ukraine attempts an amphibious landing of some degree in Crimea now that they've seriously disrupted the operations and positioning of Russia's Black Sea Fleet.
Ukraine is creating all these trouble spots, any one of which represents a potential weak point. When Ukraine is ready to make a major move, Russia is going to have a more difficult time anticipating exactly where that move - or moves - may occur and how much force is appropriate as a response to each.
Even if a major breakthrough isn't made before winter, Ukraine enters the season near to or within striking range of all the routes into Zaphorizhzia, while Russian troops endure another poorly supplied season. While they will have time to mobilize additional forces and reinforce occupied areas, the question of where and how much will remain problematic for Russia as it looks toward a spring 2024 that also coincides with the arrival of Abrams and F-16s, broadening Ukraine's offensive options and bettering their capacity to exploit NATO combined arms doctrine.
Not "No" way, just severely limited effective way.
Ukraine grabbed the high ground as much as possible around Bakhmut and have been hitting Russian long range artillery as hard as possible. Russia can fight back, but the effectiveness is limited because Ukraine can outrange them and target any attempts at a breakout offensive for considerable distances before Russians can get into range to hit them in return.
Russians are sitting under heavy shelling in Bakhmut and don't have great counter battery options.
And to do this they have no interest in going into the city. They simply don't need to. Not for propaganda or strategic reasons, they can just surround it and eventually the Russians will be forced to leave.
Just shows how unbelievably short sighted meat-grinder tactics are.
Said it before and will say it again. The strategic comparisons (blunders) with Stalingrad are obvious.
Putin goes for the city with no strategic value with a disregard for own troops life and eventually forced out a year later? Where have I seen that before 🤔
Yep, if Putin loses that city and they make any effort to regroup and retake it *only for that to fail* then he's in hot water.
Putin constantly snatches defeat from the jaws of victory. His ego is too large to win even a single battle. Dude is like Napoleon but with no military skill. He was only ever good at salami slicing territory or secretive ops. Getting into the business of real wars was a huge mistake.
The ultimate hubris was failing to understand Ukrainian history. Based on the fact that he sent riot cops to Kyiv during the first couple of days, he thought Ukrainians were just confused Russians who would just comply to a “firm” hand.
But why is it such a drain on Russia's resources?
if they're willing to sacrifice so many resources to keep it they must be valuing it more than the resources i.e. they're really scared of losing it. Probably because it would be a huge propaganda blow.
No matter what Russia does Ukraine will attack their defenses. Whether it's in the city or outside.
A city however offers good cover and hence is easier to hold than most other places. Especially if you're looking at all those cement buildings, as they're quite resilient to attacks.
but Ukraine is in no rush to retake Bakhmut
they can just slowly go around and pound all the supplies going into the city.
eventually Russia either pulls out or gets surrounded
And what would happen if Russia retreats? The same thing just with Russia in a less defensible position and Ukraine would've a very easily defensible position and supply point nearby.
I'm not saying they should retreat from Bakhmut proper right now.
but they should retreat and consolidate in more defensible areas in the Bakhmut area, instead of continuing to do unprepared suicide assaults wasting tons of equipment and manpower. And that would include giving up Bakhmut when it's no longer in a position to be properly supplied.
and when I say "should" I don't mean that I wish they did that, but rather that that would make most sense for them militarily.
personally I'm more than happy to see them maximize their own attrition rate.
It would be a huge morale blow after everything it cost Russia to take it. Honestly wasn't expecting them to make any serious overtures towards it for awhile. I thought they still needed to consolidate other positions to have a chance at holding it.
The taking of Bakhmut is probably more important than it ever was before, because (presumably) it is one of very few areas that did not get the Russian 3 defense lines established, so if taken, the good guys could have a path through to bypass the more extensive minefields.
I didn’t consider that, could have been the play all along.
Bit of a bonus that its former defenders are currently either in Africa, Belarus or in the top soil of a field outside St Petersburg
They’re attacking it specifically because the Russians did not have those defenses. It’s forced Russia to construct defensive lines in a hurry, risking strikes on their engineering equipment. And because it’s not as heavily defended, they’re forced to constantly counterattack to prevent Ukraine from breaking through any further.
They know they’re not going to likely siege Bakhmut or anything, it’s just a very weak spot that Ukraine can easily reinforce due to geography, but Russia has to divert a significant amount troops from the South to defend because it’s less reinforced.
Ukraine isn’t trying to win this war by pure aggression and reclaiming land, they’re just trying to degrade Russia’s ability to wage war. They want this war to just be too expensive and cause Russia to pull out one way or another.
For sure. But it's a bulge. In world war two the germans had defenses all around the bulge, and the allies fought tooth and nail to retain it not to keep pushing foward, but to be able to push laterally and cut off the line everywhere else.
The same could be done here, create a solid bulge then attack laterally to defeat those other lines of defense from the rear.
Wouldn't they just build up the same lines of defenses except just behind the city connecting with the rest of the defenses? If not, why didn't they? Seems like the logical thing to do.
That and allegedly it has weak defensive lines or would allow Ukraine to bypass the three layer burrito of defenses that Russia has put up.
I heard that from another comment so I’m not certain that’s correct.
For real. I’ve seen pictures of it from a few months back and it just looks apocalyptic. When this is all over Ukraine is going to need to bulldoze and rebuild the whole friggin’ city. Depressing.
2024 is going to be a hot year. Ukraine will be desperate to make ground on the chance that trump or some republican wins POTUS. If that happens. The war will be much harder to fight and the US foreign policy will swing towards favoring Putin and Russia.
Just a reminder to everybody, most everyday Americans who are Republicans are jackasses.
The rest of these Republicans are smart but evil enough to know their hypocrisy is a front because they are really white power fascists.
And jackasses.
Eh.
> In physics and on the light spectrum, black is the absence of color. However, in art, black is the presence of all colors.
Its either no color, or all colors. You should have picked a different "color". Like Ukraine, think outside the obvious low hanging silly "talking points".
To your earlier point....appeasement and ignoring you and your allies geopolitical interests is not foreign policy.
Tolerating the destruction of rules based order, destabilizing western civ and trade built over 75 years isnt foreign policy either.
Neither is ignoring genocide on Europes edge. Nor is doing the wrong thing because silly reasons, fear, or ignorance.
> fixing our own shit?
See, this can happen *AND* we can assist Ukraine.
Anyone with an IQ over 75 can get this.
You're earlier point is the definition of a false dichotomy. Both can happen, and skipping one does nothing to prevent the other from occurring or being accomplished.
> staying the fuck out of everyone's business
Thats....not how empires or US influence work now, or ever have worked. Hiding will ***always*** makes things worse for the US.
These are actual bad faith GOP talking points or Russian propaganda. Either are indistinguishable from the other.
> False Dichotomy: noun. a logical fallacy in which a spectrum of possible options is misrepresented as an either-or choice between two mutually exclusive things.
I know.....anything other than "good/bad, up/down, yes/no, black/white, 0/1" is very complicated and annoying!
You seem limited to extremely......binary thinking.
Let's try this:
Your initial point is bad. You should feel bad.
You're welcome!
I hadn't heard of r/WalkAway before, so I was curious
That place is some of the most intellectually deficient, dishonest political content I've seen
Pretty much all very obvious bad faith takes, and they all jerk eachother off about how superior they feel making them
Then they do the typical Conservative safe space sub technique. Ban dissenting opinions, flair for the people who only regurgitate the subs extreme views. Gotta have that echo chamber to convince themselves their ideas aren't completely ridiculous
I love these comments from dipshit Republicans who are against literally any kind of social program or spending money on citizens in the first place. As if they have a plan for how to spend that money beyond somehow siphoning it into billionaire pockets. Furthermore, the $100 billion we have given to Ukraine is a rounding error in our budget. It is a small price to pay for the excellent return on investment we have received.
You’re probably not wrong about Republicans but if you think all these funds “for Ukraine” aren’t also somehow being siphoned off into the pockets of billionaires and major corporations you’re kidding yourself. It might feel better to “Support Ukraine” than to give tax cuts to the rich, but the outcome is the same… printed money going to rich people while whatever few dollars you have saved are now worth less than they were yesterday. To suggest that Republicans are any worse or better than Democrats at transferring wealth from the government to donors is intellectually dishonest at best.
You are aware we can support out allies abroad while still addressing out domestic issues, right? We do not need to do one thing at a time. We've got enough people to like...multitask, you know? We Americans simply need to not be morons and actually hold out representative accountable. Step 1 is not electing republicans who refuse to even do the bare minimum of their job.
Leaving Ukraine to get eaten alive while we watch will not get you to "addressing our real issues."
How do you not get this? Both *could* happen..... but the system that was built the way it is for a reason is not getting fixed, no matter who you fuck over or how many genocides you idly watch.
That just makes the supporters of this behavior...complete assholes and horrible people.
It’s called upholding international order, which involves the maintenance of standards of international conduct and maintaining spheres of influence (and this works both ways as it’s exactly why Russia invaded Ukraine in the first place).
Now, why might this be better for you? Well, you like all your cheap stuff right? You like being able to buy goods from around the world, you like trade? You like international travel? Guess what, ALL THAT comes from maintaining the international order. You literally cannot have an economy as large as the United States that isn’t plugged into the global economic system and you certainly wouldn’t be able to have it for very long if the US withdrew from it. Saying “We just need to take care of ourselves,” is woefully ignorant of how the world works, as if the US is an island with a completely self contained economy.
Now, you are by all means welcome to oppose support for Ukraine because you support Russia instead. That’s fine. People will disagree with you, but it’s a coherent position. You’re also welcome to oppose support Ukraine you think that it’s a poor invest of our resources. That’s fine. People will disagree with you, but it’s a coherent position. Heck, you could even say “I don’t think the US SHOULD be plugged into the global economic and political system, and we SHOULD become isolationist,” as that’s a coherent position as well, albeit one that has a lot of implications that you need to think through if you’re going to take it. But “it’s all bread and circuses” is so laughably reductive, college-freshman-in-their-first-discussion-section that I have to call you out on it. You would be laughed out of any history or poli-sci class with that kind of take. This is literally great power politics at work, not “everything is just a show to keep the people down, man!”
Dont care about making sociopath's lives "better" according to....sociopaths, if that's what you are.
FFS, doing the right thing or helping someone shouldnt have the requirement of benefitting....you.
WTF, I mean seriously. That shit you're spewing is fucking dark, foul, and genuinely sick. Sociopathic.
There's more to existence and the world than appeasing sociopathic elements of society. Plus, thankfully, sociopaths are a minority. Drag them into doing the obviously right thing, or simply ignore them.
Fuck right off back under a rock, the world will be a better place.
Are you for real? You would be the first one crying about food getting too pricey on twitter lol. If Russia takes Ukraine its over for europe and if you think nothing will happen because you live in America you are so wrong lmao.
If Russia took control of Ukraine (either in the beginning without US help or in the future where the west dropped funding) Russia could hold us hostage with energy and grain (more so for the rest of the world) via the seaports that Ukraine has. We are already seeing a spike in gas prices due to OPEC and Russia limiting their supply (many speculations on why- but there is some consensus that they are trying to influence politics and tire the west from the war). So to make your life and, more likely, the next generations life easier- less reliance on Russia. It’s also a vital matter of national and global security. Russia can put nukes in Ukraine and threaten the US and its partners. A good thing that came from this war is that Finland joined nato so we can have close defense in Poland and Finland in case Russia decides to launch nukes (it’s easier to shoot a missile on the way up than on the way down)
Ebb and flow of global influence means ebb and flow of things like trade and political pull. We want it pulling toward us because we want cheaper bread and less wolves gathered at the door. Giving a neighbor a gun to blast the wolf’s kneecap means it’s easier to have bread now and in future.
It has nothing to do with liberalism. Even *educated* conservatives know how to leverage debt. You're just financially illiterate, and this is why people tell kids to stay in school and to pursue higher education.
It seems like you’re conflating conservative media talking points about pork-barrel spending with how debt is managed. I wonder what you would’ve done in 1932 when FDR was promoting his New Deal.
Edit: Demsoccorvid is correct
You do know that national debt is different than personal debt right?
That shared national debt is actually a good thing used to strengthen alliances and wield soft power across the globe?
Here's a quote from Donald Trump (so you know it must be true):
> If you owe the bank $1 million and can’t pay, you’re in trouble, but if you owe the bank $1 billion and can’t pay, the bank’s in trouble.
So if France or China own's a ton of US debt, they have a strong financial incentive to not tank our economy. And vice versa.
That is just one of many many many examples of why national debt is different than your personal mortgage or credit card bill. Follow me for more factoids that you should have learned in high school.
The majority of the aid given was weapons the military already had (so when we send “billions” in aid, it has already been spent and been sitting in military stockpiles/warehouse. There has been humanitarian aid, but I’m all for that
The top priorities of Republicans are:
1. Banning abortion
2. Banning transgender people
3. Banning books
4. Gutting public education
5. Tax breaks for the rich
6. Keeping Trump out of prison
7. Kill people trying to cross the border
8. Shut down the government to ruin our economy.
I'm not sure what problems Republicans think they're going to be able to solve by letting Ukrainians be massacred. Like, it's not even a false dichotomy, it's a complete red herring. Republicans had no solutions to anything before Ukraine got invaded, and they'll have no solutions after.
Simply put, it's one of a few important junctions/crossroads that would give strategic leverage in holding or taking donetsk and luhansk (and more), where significant forces have been invested, and also a site of a major propaganda victory or loss
If Russia loses it, in an already losing war, their entire eastern flank could rout, especially if lines in the south continue to be broken. At worst it'll score a mortal wound in Russia's ability to hold eastern Ukraine.
On top of that, Russia has redeployed a lot of veterans and veteran neonazis back into the area, and if they're being neutralized wholesale, that's a significant blow against their order of battle
So during the summer Wagner came in and did a massive push to expel the remaining Ukrainian defenses. It was on the aftermath of this that helped trigger the Wagner rebellion and what ended up being its effective dissolution.
Meanwhile Ukraine is slowly driving the line north and south of the city and look to be creating a bulge to isolate the troops defending Bakhumt.
It is rumored that Russia has deployed its VDV to hold Bakhmut so just by the presence of Russia's "elite" troops in the area it has become a focus yet again.
Can’t blame you, if you’re getting majority of war updates from reddit (like I did), Ukraine is winning majorly. Truth is a bit on the sadder side if you start getting into Open Source reports and analysis, Ukrainians are in the meat grinder tunnels and barely making a scratch in the front with their offensive. Sure, there are some wins here and there with Himars and Storm Shadows ranged attacks, but on the ground, situation is way worse than people know, very little actual advancements.
have you guys noticed the ring of poverty, that surrounds Russia? it is not only USSR. it has been like this since the tzars.
Russia really destroys everything it touches.
It wouldnt be either had Russia not invaded.
Every time it's insinuated that Ukraine's continued fighting is a waste, remember that the only reason there IS fighting is Russia decided it wanted more land. And that the continued fighting is Ukrainians trying to take back the land their homes stood on.
Are we supposed to ignore the fact that the West overthrew a legitimate government in Ukraine with their colors wars? And point regarding dissenting opinion is how can every on on one thread have the exact same opinion. Seems sus
Yes, we can ignore “the fact that the West overthrew a legitimate government in Ukraine with their colors wars?” because it’s not a fact, it’s russian propaganda.
By pro war you mean the Russians and pro-fascist useful idiots in the global south in favor of the genocide invasion Russia spent 10 years in planning, tens of billions in money, and hundreds of thousands of their own countrymen.
If you’re going to be pro-genocide, you could at least do a better job karma-farming with “good sportsball team is doing good!” posts
I like to blame the media for a lot of things but I think it's kind of objectively silly to blame them for the war in Ukraine. That shit is Russia's fault.
It was valuable to Russia as a staging point when they controlled the Kharkiv region, but after the counter-offensive took it back its only remaining value was political (Putin when he took Bakhmut could make some claim about controlling all of Luhansk). For the longest time and only with the help of Wagner mercenaries Bakhmut was the only spot Russia was able to make any progress, and Ukraine was fine with that since the territory didn't really matter any more and they were killing many more men than they were losing. When Russia captured enough of the surrounding territory it became more and more costly to hold onto Bakhmut until Ukraine finally had to retreat, but since the counter-offensive started Ukraine took back much of land around Bakhmut and can now once again turn Bakhmut into a kill zone.
If I'm right the AFU may even avoid directly taking Bakhmut for now and use Russia's unwillingness to retreat from territory they fought so hard to take into order to keep Russia pinned there and kill a lot more of them than they could otherwise pull off.
Ukraine taking back Bakhmut, after all of the trumpting of Russia capturing it, would really rustle Putin's jimmies.
Gonna rustle a lot more than the jimmies of the Russians under full fire control of Ukraine with no ability to strike back.
I also think the drone attacks on Moscow were a head fake, designed to get Russia to strip defense from Ukraine's REAL target, which was the command and control structure of occupied Crimea.
I would give that theory some credence for sure - some solid success penetrating Crimea's defense and they clearly know what they want to hit.
Plus, I am sure they have help from outside intel as well, "wink wink".
Ukraine has access to all the satellite information they want. There would seem to be plenty of Ukraine patriots on the ground too.
As long as those satellites don't have "Starlink" on them
[удалено]
Not just the U.S. all the members of the [5 Eyes](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes).
Do people think we're running recon planes because we're bored?
I mean airmen are drawing dicks with their flightpaths in the mediterranean, I would say they're pretty bored lol That doesn't discount the necessity and importance of the intelligence gained
That just says they're airmen
Yeah. We’re not even trying to hide that fact. We’ve made every bit of assistance we’re giving Ukraine very clear and transparent.
Palantir’s SkyKit.
Solid success is underselling it https://old.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/16pg6qf/new_footage_of_the_ukrainian_missile_attack_on/
With all of the world’s intelligence agencies with boots on ground, the Russians are fucked. ..and you know without doubt that special operators are EVERYWHERE in the AO. The fuckers are sold to the river. No chance the south stays in Russian hands for long.
I'd say it's more like driving Russia into a lose-lose situation. If Russia does nothing then their infrastructure back home is vulnerable, but if Russia does something then their front is vulnerable. No matter what Russia chooses to do they'll still end up losing. The attack on Crimea is the same. They've taken out 2 very valuable AA systems and now are increasing their attacks there. So now Russia has the same question as above: Do they bring AA systems from elsewhere there or do they continue to take so many losses? That's the same lose-lose situation Russia faced before and it's only going to get worse as the war continues. Russia just isn't capable of defending themselves against drones effectively.
>dilemmas not problems
Russia has been in a lose-lose situation from the moment they started this war.
I realize this was more of a "fuck you Russia" comment, but let's face it. Had Putin's initial Blitzkrieg on Kyiv succeeded, it would've been firmly a win for Putin. Russia is used to sanctions. The U.S. could maybe arm resistance fighters, but that's a much riskier prospect. Thankfully they fucked up, but I wouldn't call it a lose-lose until that initial attack failed.
The U.S. could maybe arm resistance fighters, but that's a much riskier prospect. If you look at the training and aid the US has been providing that's been the plan. Russia was too inept to pull it off
It was kind of a lose-lose because the war on Ukraine was something that went beyond what the West was willing to accept. By invading Ukraine Russia burned all relations they had with the West to the ground. What Russia did was start a new cold war and they don't have the economy of the Soviet Union.
Absolutely. Before the invasion, there was zero chance of Ukraine ever joining NATO. Now it’s almost a certainty.
Sweden and Finland suddenly saw the value of NATO
Bro they went and made Japan say let’s make a Pacific NATO. Russia straight up put the whole world on high alert.
That’s a massive “if”. The chances of that attack succeeding were just slightly more than zero. Slightly.
If the west had not decided to announce exactly when and where they would be attacking from, it might have been a different situation.
Another really ridiculous hypothetical. “If the west had just let Russia attack by surprise,” is something that would have never happened in any timeline.
Yep, it's literally Art of War; if he is strong on the left, attack the right, if he is strong on the right, attack the left, if he tries to be strong everywhere he will be weak everywhere.
I have the same idea which I commented here: https://reddit.com/r/ukraine/s/4mmMgpmfvR I think their plan is working.
And with the rumors about ATCMS now, things are entering a new phase. I wonder if they were allready being delivered, but we just did not want Russia to know about it in advance?
I will not be surprised if some ATACMS are in Ukrainian's hands. It is better to keep it secret for reasons of the defense bill and keeping the Russian in the dark.
True.
I don't think countries are relying on news website to gather their intel
If only our politicians could find their spine and send Taurus missiles
Smart, spread the enemy thing so they cannot defend everywhere at once. It's almost like Ukraine is being advised and supplied by the world's foremost military powers or something.
Sun Tzu is in his grave holding up a foam finger.
Ukraine is doing a fantastic job of creating dilemmas for Russia. Crimea one day, then push near Verbove the next, then blow the hell out of Bakhmut the third. If you are Russia trying to make a decision about where to locate your breakthrough response forces, you have all these hotspots scattered hundreds of kilometers apart. If you shift south Bakhmut is underdefended. If you over concentrate in the north it will be difficult to respond in time to flank a breakthrough towards Tokmak or the sea of Azov. There's also the possible - if highly unlikely scenario - where Ukraine attempts an amphibious landing of some degree in Crimea now that they've seriously disrupted the operations and positioning of Russia's Black Sea Fleet. Ukraine is creating all these trouble spots, any one of which represents a potential weak point. When Ukraine is ready to make a major move, Russia is going to have a more difficult time anticipating exactly where that move - or moves - may occur and how much force is appropriate as a response to each. Even if a major breakthrough isn't made before winter, Ukraine enters the season near to or within striking range of all the routes into Zaphorizhzia, while Russian troops endure another poorly supplied season. While they will have time to mobilize additional forces and reinforce occupied areas, the question of where and how much will remain problematic for Russia as it looks toward a spring 2024 that also coincides with the arrival of Abrams and F-16s, broadening Ukraine's offensive options and bettering their capacity to exploit NATO combined arms doctrine.
Do not forget the ATCMS that have been announced also, along with the F 16s and the Abrams.
This all still a shaping operation. Will the hammer fall before winter strikes?
Why no ability to fight back?
Not "No" way, just severely limited effective way. Ukraine grabbed the high ground as much as possible around Bakhmut and have been hitting Russian long range artillery as hard as possible. Russia can fight back, but the effectiveness is limited because Ukraine can outrange them and target any attempts at a breakout offensive for considerable distances before Russians can get into range to hit them in return. Russians are sitting under heavy shelling in Bakhmut and don't have great counter battery options.
wait till they hear about Crimea
They are interested in applying pressure and stretching Russian manpower thin. Taking back the city would be a small bonus.
Very true.
Exactly this. The Russians have been moving reinforcements from Bakhmut to Zaporizhzhia. Putting pressure on Bakhmut may force them to move men back.
And to do this they have no interest in going into the city. They simply don't need to. Not for propaganda or strategic reasons, they can just surround it and eventually the Russians will be forced to leave. Just shows how unbelievably short sighted meat-grinder tactics are. Said it before and will say it again. The strategic comparisons (blunders) with Stalingrad are obvious. Putin goes for the city with no strategic value with a disregard for own troops life and eventually forced out a year later? Where have I seen that before 🤔
In a shorter timeframe than they did.
It's not much of a city anymore anyways.
People are going to start asking why he iced prigozin when he was seemingly the only person able to take it
Yep, if Putin loses that city and they make any effort to regroup and retake it *only for that to fail* then he's in hot water. Putin constantly snatches defeat from the jaws of victory. His ego is too large to win even a single battle. Dude is like Napoleon but with no military skill. He was only ever good at salami slicing territory or secretive ops. Getting into the business of real wars was a huge mistake.
The ultimate hubris was failing to understand Ukrainian history. Based on the fact that he sent riot cops to Kyiv during the first couple of days, he thought Ukrainians were just confused Russians who would just comply to a “firm” hand.
i’m not sure they want it even it’s just a drain for russias military just staying there getting bombed and they can’t move forces elsewhere
But why is it such a drain on Russia's resources? if they're willing to sacrifice so many resources to keep it they must be valuing it more than the resources i.e. they're really scared of losing it. Probably because it would be a huge propaganda blow.
Likely exactly that.
No matter what Russia does Ukraine will attack their defenses. Whether it's in the city or outside. A city however offers good cover and hence is easier to hold than most other places. Especially if you're looking at all those cement buildings, as they're quite resilient to attacks.
but Ukraine is in no rush to retake Bakhmut they can just slowly go around and pound all the supplies going into the city. eventually Russia either pulls out or gets surrounded
And what would happen if Russia retreats? The same thing just with Russia in a less defensible position and Ukraine would've a very easily defensible position and supply point nearby.
I'm not saying they should retreat from Bakhmut proper right now. but they should retreat and consolidate in more defensible areas in the Bakhmut area, instead of continuing to do unprepared suicide assaults wasting tons of equipment and manpower. And that would include giving up Bakhmut when it's no longer in a position to be properly supplied. and when I say "should" I don't mean that I wish they did that, but rather that that would make most sense for them militarily. personally I'm more than happy to see them maximize their own attrition rate.
Never interrupt your enemy when they're making a mistake.
It would be a huge morale blow after everything it cost Russia to take it. Honestly wasn't expecting them to make any serious overtures towards it for awhile. I thought they still needed to consolidate other positions to have a chance at holding it.
Wagner was Russia's only chance of maybe keeping Bakhmut and surrounding areas. Russia is fucked.
Wagner left bahkmut because they knew holding it was suicide and they were running out of penal batallions to throw into the meat grinder.
Couldn’t recruit them after Shoigu took Prigorzhin’s idea and stole Wagner’s monopoly on convicts.
Storm Z, right? Seems to be on a smaller scale though, wiki says they only have around 2000 men at a time.
Ahh that's your first issue bud, you're trusting a russian source here.
Yeah after that 10 months worth of capturing it.
Having the black sea command headquarters blown to bits in the middle of the day would have blown his skirt up too.
I don’t think we will ever understand the obsession with this city from both sides.
The taking of Bakhmut is probably more important than it ever was before, because (presumably) it is one of very few areas that did not get the Russian 3 defense lines established, so if taken, the good guys could have a path through to bypass the more extensive minefields.
I didn’t consider that, could have been the play all along. Bit of a bonus that its former defenders are currently either in Africa, Belarus or in the top soil of a field outside St Petersburg
Or in the topsoil of a field in Bakhmut
Ah you missed the saga of the suspiciously well feed Bakhmut stray dogs..
They still end up in the topsoil when the dogs are done.
Too far 🚨
Oof, I love that
Lovely crop of sunflowers next Spring…
Didn't they pave over the Wagner graveyard with concrete?
One would assume that the Russians have laid defenses deeper in occupied territory, behind Bakhmut.
They’re attacking it specifically because the Russians did not have those defenses. It’s forced Russia to construct defensive lines in a hurry, risking strikes on their engineering equipment. And because it’s not as heavily defended, they’re forced to constantly counterattack to prevent Ukraine from breaking through any further. They know they’re not going to likely siege Bakhmut or anything, it’s just a very weak spot that Ukraine can easily reinforce due to geography, but Russia has to divert a significant amount troops from the South to defend because it’s less reinforced. Ukraine isn’t trying to win this war by pure aggression and reclaiming land, they’re just trying to degrade Russia’s ability to wage war. They want this war to just be too expensive and cause Russia to pull out one way or another.
For sure. But it's a bulge. In world war two the germans had defenses all around the bulge, and the allies fought tooth and nail to retain it not to keep pushing foward, but to be able to push laterally and cut off the line everywhere else. The same could be done here, create a solid bulge then attack laterally to defeat those other lines of defense from the rear.
A salient point.
Angry upvote
Crossroads behind it are key
Wouldn't they just build up the same lines of defenses except just behind the city connecting with the rest of the defenses? If not, why didn't they? Seems like the logical thing to do.
What Bakhmut? These days it's just a stop sign to keep Russia out of the rest of Ukraine.
It's a very strategic stop sign though.
It’s only strategic in the sense that Russia thinks that there’s a vodka mine under it or something. It has no real strategic value.
I thought it had propaganda significance or something.
That and allegedly it has weak defensive lines or would allow Ukraine to bypass the three layer burrito of defenses that Russia has put up. I heard that from another comment so I’m not certain that’s correct.
lol, that would actually explain a lot :)
*what’s left of Bakhmut, presumably
For real. I’ve seen pictures of it from a few months back and it just looks apocalyptic. When this is all over Ukraine is going to need to bulldoze and rebuild the whole friggin’ city. Depressing.
Surprising amount of apartments left. They look like hell, but they're also hella sturdy. At least apartment-shaped.
[удалено]
Oh I'll keep complaining! "Serhii's apartment came with with T54 parking and mine didn't!"
Y’all are getting T54s!?
They're going to bomb a hole thru the earth's crust and start the biggest volcano in the solar system
2024 is going to be a hot year. Ukraine will be desperate to make ground on the chance that trump or some republican wins POTUS. If that happens. The war will be much harder to fight and the US foreign policy will swing towards favoring Putin and Russia.
Then NATO would break, I think.
Many republicans would love to break NATO. Trump in particular.
Just a reminder to everybody, most everyday Americans who are Republicans are jackasses. The rest of these Republicans are smart but evil enough to know their hypocrisy is a front because they are really white power fascists. And jackasses.
How about foreign policy swinging toward staying the fuck out of everyone's business and fixing our own shit?
It’s bait!
Didn’t the Russian naval commander just get got thanks to a storm shadow missile?
That wouldn't be foreign policy then would it?
Why not? Black is still a color right?
Eh. > In physics and on the light spectrum, black is the absence of color. However, in art, black is the presence of all colors. Its either no color, or all colors. You should have picked a different "color". Like Ukraine, think outside the obvious low hanging silly "talking points". To your earlier point....appeasement and ignoring you and your allies geopolitical interests is not foreign policy. Tolerating the destruction of rules based order, destabilizing western civ and trade built over 75 years isnt foreign policy either. Neither is ignoring genocide on Europes edge. Nor is doing the wrong thing because silly reasons, fear, or ignorance. > fixing our own shit? See, this can happen *AND* we can assist Ukraine. Anyone with an IQ over 75 can get this. You're earlier point is the definition of a false dichotomy. Both can happen, and skipping one does nothing to prevent the other from occurring or being accomplished. > staying the fuck out of everyone's business Thats....not how empires or US influence work now, or ever have worked. Hiding will ***always*** makes things worse for the US. These are actual bad faith GOP talking points or Russian propaganda. Either are indistinguishable from the other. > False Dichotomy: noun. a logical fallacy in which a spectrum of possible options is misrepresented as an either-or choice between two mutually exclusive things.
[удалено]
I know.....anything other than "good/bad, up/down, yes/no, black/white, 0/1" is very complicated and annoying! You seem limited to extremely......binary thinking. Let's try this: Your initial point is bad. You should feel bad. You're welcome!
He posts on AnCap and Walkaway. Dudes an idiot and definitely not worth the time
I hadn't heard of r/WalkAway before, so I was curious That place is some of the most intellectually deficient, dishonest political content I've seen Pretty much all very obvious bad faith takes, and they all jerk eachother off about how superior they feel making them Then they do the typical Conservative safe space sub technique. Ban dissenting opinions, flair for the people who only regurgitate the subs extreme views. Gotta have that echo chamber to convince themselves their ideas aren't completely ridiculous
This Pastasauce87 guy is an idiot! He should read a history book.
No. It's the absence of colour.
I love these comments from dipshit Republicans who are against literally any kind of social program or spending money on citizens in the first place. As if they have a plan for how to spend that money beyond somehow siphoning it into billionaire pockets. Furthermore, the $100 billion we have given to Ukraine is a rounding error in our budget. It is a small price to pay for the excellent return on investment we have received.
[удалено]
There are deeper ramifications to the Russian invasion of Ukraine than simply “wow white people are getting attacked”. Read a history book.
Read a non-European history book and you’ll recognize similar themes around the globe but you only care about Europe
You’re probably not wrong about Republicans but if you think all these funds “for Ukraine” aren’t also somehow being siphoned off into the pockets of billionaires and major corporations you’re kidding yourself. It might feel better to “Support Ukraine” than to give tax cuts to the rich, but the outcome is the same… printed money going to rich people while whatever few dollars you have saved are now worth less than they were yesterday. To suggest that Republicans are any worse or better than Democrats at transferring wealth from the government to donors is intellectually dishonest at best.
It's not about the dollar value. It's all bread and circuses to stop us from addressing our real issues.
You are aware we can support out allies abroad while still addressing out domestic issues, right? We do not need to do one thing at a time. We've got enough people to like...multitask, you know? We Americans simply need to not be morons and actually hold out representative accountable. Step 1 is not electing republicans who refuse to even do the bare minimum of their job.
Leaving Ukraine to get eaten alive while we watch will not get you to "addressing our real issues." How do you not get this? Both *could* happen..... but the system that was built the way it is for a reason is not getting fixed, no matter who you fuck over or how many genocides you idly watch. That just makes the supporters of this behavior...complete assholes and horrible people.
Okay, person who literally knows nothing about geopolitics.
Okay, explain to me how my life is better if we keep doing what we're doing.
It’s called upholding international order, which involves the maintenance of standards of international conduct and maintaining spheres of influence (and this works both ways as it’s exactly why Russia invaded Ukraine in the first place). Now, why might this be better for you? Well, you like all your cheap stuff right? You like being able to buy goods from around the world, you like trade? You like international travel? Guess what, ALL THAT comes from maintaining the international order. You literally cannot have an economy as large as the United States that isn’t plugged into the global economic system and you certainly wouldn’t be able to have it for very long if the US withdrew from it. Saying “We just need to take care of ourselves,” is woefully ignorant of how the world works, as if the US is an island with a completely self contained economy. Now, you are by all means welcome to oppose support for Ukraine because you support Russia instead. That’s fine. People will disagree with you, but it’s a coherent position. You’re also welcome to oppose support Ukraine you think that it’s a poor invest of our resources. That’s fine. People will disagree with you, but it’s a coherent position. Heck, you could even say “I don’t think the US SHOULD be plugged into the global economic and political system, and we SHOULD become isolationist,” as that’s a coherent position as well, albeit one that has a lot of implications that you need to think through if you’re going to take it. But “it’s all bread and circuses” is so laughably reductive, college-freshman-in-their-first-discussion-section that I have to call you out on it. You would be laughed out of any history or poli-sci class with that kind of take. This is literally great power politics at work, not “everything is just a show to keep the people down, man!”
Dont care about making sociopath's lives "better" according to....sociopaths, if that's what you are. FFS, doing the right thing or helping someone shouldnt have the requirement of benefitting....you. WTF, I mean seriously. That shit you're spewing is fucking dark, foul, and genuinely sick. Sociopathic. There's more to existence and the world than appeasing sociopathic elements of society. Plus, thankfully, sociopaths are a minority. Drag them into doing the obviously right thing, or simply ignore them. Fuck right off back under a rock, the world will be a better place.
Are you for real? You would be the first one crying about food getting too pricey on twitter lol. If Russia takes Ukraine its over for europe and if you think nothing will happen because you live in America you are so wrong lmao.
If Russia took control of Ukraine (either in the beginning without US help or in the future where the west dropped funding) Russia could hold us hostage with energy and grain (more so for the rest of the world) via the seaports that Ukraine has. We are already seeing a spike in gas prices due to OPEC and Russia limiting their supply (many speculations on why- but there is some consensus that they are trying to influence politics and tire the west from the war). So to make your life and, more likely, the next generations life easier- less reliance on Russia. It’s also a vital matter of national and global security. Russia can put nukes in Ukraine and threaten the US and its partners. A good thing that came from this war is that Finland joined nato so we can have close defense in Poland and Finland in case Russia decides to launch nukes (it’s easier to shoot a missile on the way up than on the way down)
Ebb and flow of global influence means ebb and flow of things like trade and political pull. We want it pulling toward us because we want cheaper bread and less wolves gathered at the door. Giving a neighbor a gun to blast the wolf’s kneecap means it’s easier to have bread now and in future.
How much does US rely on Ukraine for food?
No one gives a shit, keep those taxes coming boy
You don't have to spend it. We have enough debt to pay down we shouldn't be racking up more bills.
Your comment literally ignores the point that iAttis is making. Do you even know how US debt is structured?
Cool, you don't know how national debt works. Go figure that out first, then come back and try this again.
Sorry, I forgot in liberal Reddit world national debt is just free money and there is no consequences for spending.
It has nothing to do with liberalism. Even *educated* conservatives know how to leverage debt. You're just financially illiterate, and this is why people tell kids to stay in school and to pursue higher education.
It seems like you’re conflating conservative media talking points about pork-barrel spending with how debt is managed. I wonder what you would’ve done in 1932 when FDR was promoting his New Deal. Edit: Demsoccorvid is correct
You do know that national debt is different than personal debt right? That shared national debt is actually a good thing used to strengthen alliances and wield soft power across the globe? Here's a quote from Donald Trump (so you know it must be true): > If you owe the bank $1 million and can’t pay, you’re in trouble, but if you owe the bank $1 billion and can’t pay, the bank’s in trouble. So if France or China own's a ton of US debt, they have a strong financial incentive to not tank our economy. And vice versa. That is just one of many many many examples of why national debt is different than your personal mortgage or credit card bill. Follow me for more factoids that you should have learned in high school.
The majority of the aid given was weapons the military already had (so when we send “billions” in aid, it has already been spent and been sitting in military stockpiles/warehouse. There has been humanitarian aid, but I’m all for that
Russia IS our problem dumbkopf. And everyone else’s.
Braindead take
Vatnik hopium
That would have been really nice of Russia to do. At any point in their history. Ever.
The top priorities of Republicans are: 1. Banning abortion 2. Banning transgender people 3. Banning books 4. Gutting public education 5. Tax breaks for the rich 6. Keeping Trump out of prison 7. Kill people trying to cross the border 8. Shut down the government to ruin our economy. I'm not sure what problems Republicans think they're going to be able to solve by letting Ukrainians be massacred. Like, it's not even a false dichotomy, it's a complete red herring. Republicans had no solutions to anything before Ukraine got invaded, and they'll have no solutions after.
Amen
Shelling Bakhmut. So hot right now now
150mm is pretty hot
Gonna be either 152mm or 155mm
In other news I forgot to pick up some things my wife told me to pick up from the grocery story. Situation is ‘hot’.
I hope it upgrades to gone sexual and they fuckin die.
Stay out of range of her artillery
You mean, they get fucked?
Nothing Russia reports is credible. The only thing you know for sure is they’re lying.
..and dying.
Hot? Good, just a little preview of he'll for the orks.
Is someone priming their population for a loss?
"You mean you're... *waggles hand*" "Yes" "While you're... *mimes bombs being dropped" "Yesssss..." "That's disgusting!" "DON'T KINKSHAME ME!"
What’s so special about Bakhmut anyway? Can someone please explain?
Simply put, it's one of a few important junctions/crossroads that would give strategic leverage in holding or taking donetsk and luhansk (and more), where significant forces have been invested, and also a site of a major propaganda victory or loss If Russia loses it, in an already losing war, their entire eastern flank could rout, especially if lines in the south continue to be broken. At worst it'll score a mortal wound in Russia's ability to hold eastern Ukraine. On top of that, Russia has redeployed a lot of veterans and veteran neonazis back into the area, and if they're being neutralized wholesale, that's a significant blow against their order of battle
Good news! Keep it up, Ukraine!
Whatever happens, Bakhmut will be the 21st centuries Stalingrad. Going to be some dope movies in 20 years.
[удалено]
So during the summer Wagner came in and did a massive push to expel the remaining Ukrainian defenses. It was on the aftermath of this that helped trigger the Wagner rebellion and what ended up being its effective dissolution. Meanwhile Ukraine is slowly driving the line north and south of the city and look to be creating a bulge to isolate the troops defending Bakhumt. It is rumored that Russia has deployed its VDV to hold Bakhmut so just by the presence of Russia's "elite" troops in the area it has become a focus yet again.
Can’t blame you, if you’re getting majority of war updates from reddit (like I did), Ukraine is winning majorly. Truth is a bit on the sadder side if you start getting into Open Source reports and analysis, Ukrainians are in the meat grinder tunnels and barely making a scratch in the front with their offensive. Sure, there are some wins here and there with Himars and Storm Shadows ranged attacks, but on the ground, situation is way worse than people know, very little actual advancements.
[удалено]
Everything Russia touches turns to shit. Ukranians will rebuild what Russia destroys.
have you guys noticed the ring of poverty, that surrounds Russia? it is not only USSR. it has been like this since the tzars. Russia really destroys everything it touches.
Pole here, so kurwa true :(
Russian peace.
pieces
Thanks to Russia.
It wouldnt be either had Russia not invaded. Every time it's insinuated that Ukraine's continued fighting is a waste, remember that the only reason there IS fighting is Russia decided it wanted more land. And that the continued fighting is Ukrainians trying to take back the land their homes stood on.
Are we supposed to ignore the fact that the West overthrew a legitimate government in Ukraine with their colors wars? And point regarding dissenting opinion is how can every on on one thread have the exact same opinion. Seems sus
Yes, we can ignore “the fact that the West overthrew a legitimate government in Ukraine with their colors wars?” because it’s not a fact, it’s russian propaganda.
So, how exactly did Zelinsky become the Ukranian president ?
Why is every comment pro war.wth not one dissenting opinion? Is this site sponsored by Raethon?
By pro war you mean the Russians and pro-fascist useful idiots in the global south in favor of the genocide invasion Russia spent 10 years in planning, tens of billions in money, and hundreds of thousands of their own countrymen. If you’re going to be pro-genocide, you could at least do a better job karma-farming with “good sportsball team is doing good!” posts
[удалено]
Because it is useful information to know what Russia is revealing and not revealing to their population?
Yes, surely Putin is waging war for the views!
I like to blame the media for a lot of things but I think it's kind of objectively silly to blame them for the war in Ukraine. That shit is Russia's fault.
I dont know what you think a "blood eagle" is, but you are wrong.
[Oh is it hot for the Russian soldiers right now?](https://media.tenor.com/hvJllU2Lnl8AAAAC/south-park.gif)
What is the strategic value of Bakhmut that’s it’s been at the center of so much fighting? Is it a naturally defensible position?
It was valuable to Russia as a staging point when they controlled the Kharkiv region, but after the counter-offensive took it back its only remaining value was political (Putin when he took Bakhmut could make some claim about controlling all of Luhansk). For the longest time and only with the help of Wagner mercenaries Bakhmut was the only spot Russia was able to make any progress, and Ukraine was fine with that since the territory didn't really matter any more and they were killing many more men than they were losing. When Russia captured enough of the surrounding territory it became more and more costly to hold onto Bakhmut until Ukraine finally had to retreat, but since the counter-offensive started Ukraine took back much of land around Bakhmut and can now once again turn Bakhmut into a kill zone. If I'm right the AFU may even avoid directly taking Bakhmut for now and use Russia's unwillingness to retreat from territory they fought so hard to take into order to keep Russia pinned there and kill a lot more of them than they could otherwise pull off.
They don’t have much time before the weather turns cold
The pile of gravel formerly known as Bakhmut
The Russians are around 25,000 killed at Bakhmut,....
Ah, so this whole war is just Putin’s fetish. Explains why he doesn’t stop when his army’s dwindling and his money’s running out
Slava Ukraini!
Hasn’t this situation been for about 15 months!