Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-24

TopCat said:
No comment on Ukrainian retreats?
Click to expand...

They'll probably spend most of the summer in retreat. Little and often rather than great swathes in one go, and it's quite possible that by autumn the Russians will have almost got the the same lines they got to in the spring of 2022.

So in two and a half years of war, with Russian casualties about half a million, and increasing that by about 900 a week in one 30km sector alone, they'll occupy about 25% of 'mainland' Ukraine. - the poorest country in Europe.

Which, you know, for a superpower...

There's a good chance that Ukr will lose control of Kharkiv, and given the relatively slow train crash the summer is likely to be, it's probable that the city and it's environs will be evacuated, or the people will just flee.

Hopefully Ukraines political leadership will learn from both Bakhmut, and from one element of the failures of the 2023 offensive, that places on a map only matter if they matter, and that it's far better to trade space for time, mass, and shortened supply lines, than to fight for every village.

The Ukrainian retreats of the last fortnight or so suggest they have, but whether it's possible for the political consensus to accept the military logic is a subject for tea leaves. War is a political act,and it is steered by politics - it's fine for military 'science' to say retreat, but politics has to cope with the slaughter of its civilians, the levelling of its cities, the deportation of its civilians population..
 
kebabking said:
They'll probably spend most of the summer in retreat. Little and often rather than great swathes in one go, and it's quite possible that by autumn the Russians will have almost got the the same lines they got to in the spring of 2022.

So in two and a half years of war, with Russian casualties about half a million, and increasing that by about 900 a week in one 30km sector alone, they'll occupy about 25% of 'mainland' Ukraine. - the poorest country in Europe.

Which, you know, for a superpower...

There's a good chance that Ukr will lose control of Kharkiv, and given the relatively slow train crash the summer is likely to be, it's probable that the city and it's environs will be evacuated, or the people will just flee.

Hopefully Ukraines political leadership will learn from both Bakhmut, and from one element of the failures of the 2023 offensive, that places on a map only matter if they matter, and that it's far better to trade space for time, mass, and shortened supply lines, than to fight for every village.

The Ukrainian retreats of the last fortnight or so suggest they have, but whether it's possible for the political consensus to accept the military logic is a subject for tea leaves. War is a political act,and it is steered by politics - it's fine for military 'science' to say retreat, but politics has to cope with the slaughter of its civilians, the levelling of its cities, the deportation of its civilians population..
Click to expand...
BIB- There are always people who can't flee. And it's very troubling.
 
kebabking said:
They'll probably spend most of the summer in retreat. Little and often rather than great swathes in one go, and it's quite possible that by autumn the Russians will have almost got the the same lines they got to in the spring of 2022.

So in two and a half years of war, with Russian casualties about half a million, and increasing that by about 900 a week in one 30km sector alone, they'll occupy about 25% of 'mainland' Ukraine. - the poorest country in Europe.

Which, you know, for a superpower...

There's a good chance that Ukr will lose control of Kharkiv, and given the relatively slow train crash the summer is likely to be, it's probable that the city and it's environs will be evacuated, or the people will just flee.

Hopefully Ukraines political leadership will learn from both Bakhmut, and from one element of the failures of the 2023 offensive, that places on a map only matter if they matter, and that it's far better to trade space for time, mass, and shortened supply lines, than to fight for every village.

The Ukrainian retreats of the last fortnight or so suggest they have, but whether it's possible for the political consensus to accept the military logic is a subject for tea leaves. War is a political act,and it is steered by politics - it's fine for military 'science' to say retreat, but politics has to cope with the slaughter of its civilians, the levelling of its cities, the deportation of its civilians population..
Click to expand...
The last sentence is very similar to one of the report backs from the recent conference on Ending War which was hosted by the Kissinger Centre /LSE/SAIS:

‘First, homefront is a determining factor in pushing for continuation of a war. Democracies are less likely to initiate a war termination via compromise than autocracies.

Second, politicians in democracies continue to push for victory long after the military realise that a war is unwinnable.

Third, the US is known to continue an unwinnable war for years…and then quits.

War atrocities do not prevent talks (Korea, Vietnam), but they do not lead to war termination as long as the public urges to teach a lesson to an aggressor. War fatigue creates a room for an armistice.

Lastly, war termination via armistice is just a means to build a sustainable peace. It may work (Korea) or fail (World War 1)’
 
ska invita said:
Good post here from Owen Jones ... I think this is step 1, theres a lot more to say that follows about geopolitics and imperialist competition and conflict avoidance and resolution, but before all that this is base level:

"​


Russia's invasion of Ukraine strikes me as a major failure of war reporting.This was a brutal and unjustifiable invasion, and it's understandable that Western journalists would side with Ukraine on basic grounds of self-defence (as I did and do).The problem is this often took the form of cheerleading in news reporting, which by definition focused on information favourable to Ukraine's military chances, and disregarded information conversely favourable to Russia's military chances. It also has involved a large amount of deference to the claims of Ukraine's authorities.

That narrative was bolstered by the failure of Russia's initial war aims, and by Ukraine's partial successes in late 2022 in recapturing occupied land.But Ukraine's repeatedly vaunted 2023 counteroffensive was clearly a terrible failure.

The argument being made loudly now is that Ukraine has been starved of necessary weapons from the West, not least due to Republican shenanigans in Congress.But in some Western reporting you will glean other details which you can piece together, such as Ukraine's strategic failures, overhyping its military position (until it was clear Ukraine was in serious trouble), and poor use of supplied weapons.

Having to piece together often buried fragments is not an effective means of getting an accurate picture.Clearly making things difficult is a highly effective Russia-linked industry of misinformation. Many reporters may feel concerned that by discussing Ukraine's problems, they will legitimise Russian talking points.

They may also feel that there are problems which are exaggerated by Russia's propaganda campaign, which makes nuanced discussion difficult.That makes the need for sober, factual war reporting all the more necessary - not least in an old-style armed conflict between nation states based on national armies fighting each other. That of course includes accurately reporting on war crimes being committed.There's various other problems.

There's this whole space of think tanks full of people who clearly see themselves as warriors for Western civilisation, and who see Ukraine's war of self-defence as the key frontier. They've been influential in shaping coverage.Read this from the Atlantic Council last September, for example, headlined 'Ukraine’s counteroffensive is making real progress on the Crimean front'. Oh dear oh dear. https://atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/ukraines-counteroffensive-is-making-real-progress-on-the-crimean-front/…

There's also a big engaged audience on social media understandably very receptive to anti-Putin content. That incentivises content which tells them what they want to hear, and that's not about Ukraine's problems or Russia's military successes and advantages.


There has obviously been very good reporting, including from courageous seasoned war reporters who risk their lives.In general it has been hard to get an accurate picture of the balance of forces in this deeply unpleasant war, not least to get honest assessments of Ukraine's position and strategy.

That will leave many bewildered reading about Russia's current military advances. Many will have been left with the impression that a Russian collapse is simply a matter of time, not least when they read hyped claims that Ukraine could even regain annexed Crimea.

There's another problem, too. As a
@GuardianUS
investigation into CNN's pro-Israel bias uncovered, CNN whistleblowers suggested that tolerance for overt pro-Ukraine positioning in news reporting set a dangerous precedent (see attached).Obviously I do not want Russia's kleptocratic, irredentist gangster regime to achieve its war aims in Ukraine. Partisan cheerleading for Ukraine in news reporting is not going to make that less likely (arguably the opposite given it breeds complacency).

Here is surely a case study for why we need sober war reporting, with reporters who park their understandably profound sympathy for Ukraine with a clear-eyed factual look at the state of play.Anyway, those are just my thoughts, would welcome those of others!
Click to expand...
A thoughtful piece. Much of the problem being represented on this very thread in microcosm.
 
sleaterkinney said:
How?. He didn't mention NATO once?.
Click to expand...
I know you think you are making a joke and its all very funny and that, hilarious this war, but as I said that is the base level of the analyses, the war reporting in the West is deeply biased and some of the bias is not just a case of emotional-response support, but outright political agenda propaganda: "this whole space of think tanks full of people who clearly see themselves as warriors for Western civilisation, and who see Ukraine's war of self-defence as the key frontier. They've been influential in shaping coverage."

Once that is recognised the next question is what is the politics underpinning both sides of the conflict, how is that reported, and also what is the precise agenda of the think tanks/propagandists. Of course NATO comes up in that - unavoidable.
 
Ax^ said:
amazed anyone surprised by Russia advance ATM

Ukraine screaming for arms for months . have been green light but it not like they going to appear in Kyiv overnight

so why would you not attack whilst the logistics are being set up rather than waiting for a prepared opponent
Click to expand...
It was eminently sensible. Hang about and see if they would run out of weapons, because that's an easy romp home. When said weapons get promised, attack before they show up.
 
There is an interesting article on SMO fighter ops in this month's AFM...

Ukraine are outgunned by R-77. Russian Flanker-Es and Foxhounds have them for breakfast beyond visual range.

Consequently they have stopped all defensive counter air ops and only engage cruise missiles and those Iranian flying lawnmowers at very low level.

Total Ukrainian Flanker and Fulcrum losses are 45. 30 in the air and 15 on the ground. Of the 30 airborne kills, 9 were friendly fire! 23 crew KIA.
 
ska invita said:
I know you think you are making a joke and its all very funny and that, hilarious this war, but as I said that is the base level of the analyses, the war reporting in the West is deeply biased and some of the bias is not just a case of emotional-response support, but outright political agenda propaganda: "this whole space of think tanks full of people who clearly see themselves as warriors for Western civilisation, and who see Ukraine's war of self-defence as the key frontier. They've been influential in shaping coverage."

Once that is recognised the next question is what is the politics underpinning both sides of the conflict, how is that reported, and also what is the precise agenda of the think tanks/propagandists. Of course NATO comes up in that - unavoidable.
Click to expand...
I am making a joke, you're right.

"both sides of the conflict, agendas, propagandists etc etc" - bullshit
 
I’m no military strategist, but how many Russian lives were sacrificed to take the massively smaller than Kharkiv town of Bakhmut when they had the professional Nazis of Wagner to help them? The Nazi chief of Wagner said 20,000 of his own men died for that small town, Kharkiv is around 10 times the size. And now the Russian Army no longer has those guys to help them. Fucking bloodbath coming if Putin gets his way here.
 
Bahnhof Strasse said:
I’m no military strategist, but how many Russian lives were sacrificed to take the massively smaller than Kharkiv town of Bakhmut when they had the professional Nazis of Wagner to help them? The Nazi chief of Wagner said 20,000 of his own men died for that small town, Kharkiv is around 10 times the size. And now the Russian Army no longer has those guys to help them. Fucking bloodbath coming if Putin gets his way here.
Click to expand...

We think about 20k - so 40k in total for the Russians. Big add on to that is that while the Russians were throwing the kitchen sink at Bakhmut, lots of other little fights spread across Ukraine.weren't getting any air or artillery support or reinforcements, so the number is probably bigger than that.

Of course, Ukraine made the same mistake - it decided that because the Russians thought Bakhmut was important, it was important, and they then invested far too much in it's defence when try could have got away with inflicting very serious casualties on the Russians and running away before the Russians returned the favour.
 
kebabking said:
We think about 20k - so 40k in total for the Russians. Big add on to that is that while the Russians were throwing the kitchen sink at Bakhmut, lots of other little fights spread across Ukraine.weren't getting any air or artillery support or reinforcements, so the number is probably bigger than that.

Of course, Ukraine made the same mistake - it decided that because the Russians thought Bakhmut was important, it was important, and they then invested far too much in it's defence when try could have got away with inflicting very serious casualties on the Russians and running away before the Russians returned the favour.
Click to expand...
There were reports in the Washington post about Ukraine throwing cooks, truck drivers into the maw.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

platinumsage
Ukraine and the Russian invasion, Feb 2022 - tangentially related crap
30 31 32 33 34
Replies
1K
Views
53K
Dystopiary
Dystopiary
tim
The 2023 Russian Coup.
51 52 53 54 55
Replies
2K
Views
70K
_Russ_
_Russ_
Dogsauce
The Russian defenestration thread
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
maomao
maomao
platinumsage
Ukraine invasion memes and viral content
70 71 72 73 74
Replies
2K
Views
123K
The39thStep
The39thStep
Pickman's model
Ukraine after the war
2 3
Replies
62
Views
6K
phildwyer
phildwyer
Back
Top Bottom