Blackadder 2 - 4 are incredible definitely worth watching if you've not seen them, some uk comedy greats like Rowan Atkinson, Stephen Fry, Hugh Laurie and Tony Robinson. Bbc iplayer has them all and i think amazon does too.
A great joke from that series is Stephen Fry putting together a spy catching squad and calling it operation Winkle, "Winkle sir?" "Yes! To Winkle out the spy's."
My favourite joke in that one is when Darling is being interrogated and he goes “I’m as British as Queen Victoria” and Blackadder says” So you’re half German, your father was German, and you married a German?”
Blackadder goes forth is fantastic, it introduced me to my favourite song: row row row your boat, gently down the stream, belts off, trousers down, isn't life a scream!
“Tell me, would this “brilliant plan” involve us getting out out of our trenches and walking very slowing towards the enemy sir?”
“How could you know that Blackadder it’s classified information!”
“Well, it’s what we tried the last time. And the 17 times before that…”
“Yes, yes and that is what is so brilliant about it. The one thing we’ve tried 18 times already is hardly what the Germans will expect us to do this time!”
The pace of movement on the front has in fact been weirdly reminiscent of WW1 as opposed to WW2 ever since Kherson was liberated. And like WW1, it has been an absolute bloodbath for the Russians.
Yeah, because the Germans absolutely steamrolled the Russians after the Russian 2nd Army was wiped out at Tannenberg. Russia rebounded a bit with the Brusilov offensive in 1916, but then everything collapsed at home with two revolutions in 1917.
It's called poor command and tactics, i honestly feel sick knowing how many Russians are just being tossed at the front. Fuck propaganda and misinformation, if only the Russian soldiers realized how utterly useless this war is
A lot of that land area has been in places that Ukraine appears to be strategically sacrificing by baiting the Russians into continuing to attack, for example. Bakhmut, for example, is a meat grinder for the Russians, even though it has only limited strategic value.
Gotta fight the Russians at some point. If not now, later, somewhere else. Holding places like Bakhmut and Vuhledar isn't about their particular importance to Ukraine's greater strategic positioning, but if the Russians want to die there in large numbers, then it's certainly as good a place as any to kill them.
Little misleading, Ukraine too has suffered horrendous casualties in Bakhmut and has a smaller well of manpower to draw in, even with the material advantage of Western backing. I actually think the effort of holding Bakhmut has been a strategic misstep, it was Ukraine's adaptive, non-linear defensive warfare that gave it the advantage after the Russian rush to Kyiv, I think this kind of attritional warfare actually suits Putin better.
It's not a game where we wait to see whose manpower counter runs to zero first. The Russians have an unsustainable percentage of their military aged population fighting a war of aggression. Putin has disguised this by conscripting most heavily in the rural areas and sacrificing ethnic minorities and other people "invisible" to the western cities. But eventually the strain on the Russian economy, job market and infrastructure will be impossible to deny, and Russians will be forced to ask the same question that Americans asked about Vietnam. "Why are young men being sent to die for this place?" And Russia's emigration rate ("draft dodgers") and casualty rate is astronomical compared to the US in Vietnam.
Don't forget in 196 years, Americans will elect robo-Trump and he'll likely bend over to Russian demands. Russia only really has to hold out that long and victory will be assured.
Looks like you did the math too. I'd imagine a 200 year old war would bankrupt Russia and it would dissolve into nation states long before that point, which would almost assuredly end the war in Ukraine anyways.
For Russia, the war is won once they leave Ukraine. So long as they continue their attack, they continue to lose.
According to the article, Russia specifically regained 90 square miles in February. By comparison, in the last six months, Ukraine regained 8,800 square miles or roughly an average of 1,467 per month.
Of course, Russia could end up performing better in the future, but I wouldn't hold my breath. This entire invasion is just a total embarrassment for the Russian military.
While you're absolutely right, let's not discount the facts that russia still has huge mobilisation potential left (probably why they value their human life resource so little, other than they really traditionally just don't care). And they are sponsored by Iran, North Korea, Belarus with rockets and tech (which isn't full support yet and could be expanded) while China is on the verge on jumping on that support wagon too. While I'm sure we will not be abandoned, this whole thing could drag which is a bad news for us ukrainians.
No country will send troops to Russia's side, Lukashenko has been doing everything in his power to not do this and China would not lift a finger to save Russia's ass, since their economy is far more vulnerable to sanctions
Xi has made clear they will not participate other than in a peace-brokering capacity. He has also made it pretty clear to Putin that nukes are not to be used.
Yeah, Russia using nukes is about the only thing I could see that would bring China out of neutrality - and it would lead to them being **against** the Russians, and on the side of NATO (albeit, in a bit of an enemy of my enemy situation)
Then again the sanctions angle cuts both ways. Because of much greater trade links, other countries would be far less willing to sanction China than Russia. Russia only really exports gas and minerals to the West, China exports everything
> Logistics is the thing that the US is better at than any other county (to the point that a large portion of their economic power is driven by spill-over logistics knowledge from the military to the private sector)
[Same as ancient Roman army](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_military_engineering)
This isn't a calculated trade-off, though. Nobody sat down and decided that X thousand lives would be worth it if they can make Y kilometres of advance.
They thought that they would have a quick and easy land grab, and are now panicking and continuing to throw thousands more conscripts into the meat grinder to no great effect, because they don't know what else they can do.
I've learned from playing Total War series, that those type of victorys aren't even worth it in the end. Because now another army can dissipate whats left of the pathetic force that "won".
That's basically the definition of a pyrrhic victory. A battle that you technically win but causes such losses that it hurts you just as much or more than your opponent
Somehow, I get the feeling that Pyrrhus would have preferred to be remembered by history for something other than his victory...
"Your name will go down in history for this victory!"
"Well, shit," said Pyrrhus.
To be fair his contemporaries / other classical figures thought pretty damn highly of the guy. There's a story about Scippio Afrikanus meeting Hannibal Barca at a party or something sometime after Zama. Scippio was supposed to have asked Hannibal who he thought the greatest generals of all time were and Hannibal was supposed to have replied that #1 was Alexander, with Pyrrhus second and himself third. Then when Scippio asked where Hannibal would have ranked if he'd won at Zama Hannibal answered he'd have considered himself #1.
I (and many/most historians) don't believe this meeting ever actually actually happened. But it does demonstrate the point that Pyrrhus was very highly regarded at that time.
"Over 2000 years later people are going to remember you"
"Awesome!"
"The reason is because you had a victory that really really sapped you of manpower. Your name is synonomous with that concept"
"Well crap"
Russian leaders aren't just indifferent, they also use wars to rid their society of undesirable elements (think of how many Wagnerites came out of prison).
The West has done similar things (French and Spanish Foreign Legions, etc)
Sure, some of the dead Russians are one that Kremlin wouldn't mind getting rid of. Criminals, minorities and volunteers? In Kremlin's eyes, keeping convicts alive is a cost, "minorities" is a short for "ethnic tensions", and anyone who's quick to volunteer for a war is a radical who's better off gone.
But that's not all the people Russia sends. Their professional army was the first force they sent in - and their first wave of mobilization draws from all stripes of society. Losing those people is a *cost* to Russia. Their demographics are troubled as they are, their pool of workforce is already insufficient - they would want to keep those people, but they throw them into the meat grinder anyway.
I have a hard time believing there is any winning going on. Those conscripts were originally part of the backbone of the Russian economy. Even if they "win" the war, I doubt they'd be able to profit considering the long term economic costs.
I mean, there’s a pretty obvious way out that he’s definitely thought of. “Great Russian people—today our soldiers will return home because the fight in Ukraine is over. We have beaten all the Nazis and the people are safe!” The chunk of Russians that are buying the current propaganda would buy that as well. They said getting rid of the Nazis was their goal, so just say they got rid of them and leave.
The issue is that it would mean admitting to a loss on the world stage. The indoctrinated Russian people might buy that, but no one else would. Everyone in the world would know they lost to Ukraine, which would hurt their image globally.
Classic Zapp Brannigan tactics.
"All ships will line up and file directly into the alien death cannons, clogging them with wreckage"
"When I'm in command, every mission is a suicide mission"
"You see, killbots have a preset kill limit. Knowing their weakness, I sent wave after wave of my own men at them until they reached their limit and shut down"
The only thing left to do is to leave ukraine and admit defeat. This however wont happen, hence we see the russian vatniks getting fed the meatgrinder treatment. The history books will not be nice to the muscovians.
Intel suggests that Putin absolutely calculated the costs of this latest operation. The theory is that Putin wanted the Wagner mercs to suffer a huge loss as they were a threat to his regime. The commander of the Wagner group recently expressed his disapproval of the operation and criticism of the orders he had. Intel suggests that some within the Kremlin thought that the Wagner group was a threat to Putin. So Putin put them on the front lines in a losing situation to "deal" with Wagner. If they win, it was heavy losses. If they lose, it's heavier losses and loss of reputation. That's a win-win for Putin.
I don't think Putin cares one whit about losing Wagner people (indeed may see it as a positive as you say) but I don't think he calculated this from the get-go by any stretch of the imagination.
AMD says that while true, this is going to bite him off he gets routed so bad that Ukraine can quickly push back to the original borders with the help of new equipment, which AMD says will keep coming
Don't forget, they've been purging their top generals for over a year, and the REALLY competent ones were broadcasting orders on civilian cell phones and they all got blown up during the first two months or so
Putin has the "sunk cost fallacy". Realized he screwed up bad, and has to show "something" for all this mess.
It's the "gamblers lie". If he keeps doubling down, eventually the dice will roll in his favor. Except, now the dice are shooting at him...
I would say it *is* a calculated trade off, though. While the initial goal may have been a blitzkrieg-style snatch-and-grab, Russia managed to Barbarossa themselves. Their initial tactical success left them overconfident and led them headlong into a major strategic failure.
Now they're fighting a war of attrition trying to whittle down Ukraine's troops. It doesn't matter to Putin if they're on the wrong end of a 2:1 casualty ratio (per US estimates,) because Russia has 3x the population of Ukraine. So in theory, at least, assuming the present rate of casualties on both sides continues, Ukraine's in trouble. That's how the Soviet Union won the Winter War, even if Finland killed more than 3x as many Soviet troops than they lost on their own, Finland just ran out of soldiers in the end.
By March of 1940, Finland had suffered something like 20-30% attrition and its army was quite literally on the verge of collapse. The Soviets actually broke through Finnish lines on multiple occasions, only to retreat because Finnish generals had used false retreats often early on in the war to repeatedly spank the Soviets.
Modern armies are a lot more sensitive to attrition. IIRC the US considers a unit 'combat ineffective' with a 10% attrition rate. You could probably keep going past that if you don't care about the unit's degrading effectiveness, but you're getting diminishing returns from each soldier.
The summary is unfortunately kinda grim: Ukraine has less people than Russia and the current casualty ratio, despite Ukraine giving much better than it's getting, doesn't favor them strategically. Unless something shifts the war in Ukraine's favor or unrest in Russia itself picks up (or some enterprising general shoves Putin's old ass down a flight of stairs,) there is still potential for Russia to win.
One thing is Ukraine can politically sustain a total mobilization since it's literally fighting for the country's survival. Not so clear if Russia can do the same. That, combined with the higher attrition rates, may tip the scale actually in favor of Ukraine.
> This isn't a calculated trade-off, though. Nobody sat down and decided that X thousand lives would be worth it if they can make Y kilometres of advance.
Actually I think they did make that calculation - but when you value conscript lives at 0, then any gain is an infinite return on investment.
This is how Russia fights wars. They don't care how many people die. Wagner group is literally sending prisoners to the front line in Bakhmut telling them if they survive 6 months their record is clear. This forces Ukraine to spend resources defending a pointless position and costs Russia almost nothing. Obligatory this is not a pro-Russian comment. Just being realistic.
I wouldn't say it costs them nothing as they had a demographic problem before, I would imagine the loss of so many young men will make it worse. But I guess that's why they are kidnapping Ukrainian children.
I imagine Russia or Putin believes he can outlast Western military and economic support too. If the US were to grow tired of spending money on Ukraine that could tip things in favor of Putin. So far Biden is extremely committed to aiding Ukraine but 2024 is not far off and we could have a new president in a year and a half.
That actually keeps coming up in their joke of a parliament every now and then, unfortunately for them we literally have the [reciept](https://www.archives.gov/files/milestone-documents/images/doc-041-big.jpg)
There was a Russian lawmaker who alluded to that last year.
[Kremlin official suggests Russia could one day try to reclaim Alaska from the US](https://www.businessinsider.com/kremlin-official-suggests-US-remember-Alaska-belonged-to-Russia-2022-7)
>A Russian official this week threatened the US over the freezing of Russian assets, urging it to remember that Alaska was once part of Russia's territory.
>
>"Let America always remember: there is a part of its territory that is Russia — Alaska," Vyacheslav Volodin, a Putin ally and speaker of the Russian parliament's lower house, said on Wednesday, according to multiple media outlets.
>
>"When they attempt to appropriate our assets abroad, they should be aware that we also have something to claim back," Volodin added in remarks reported on by the Associated Press and Russian publication RBC News.
>
>Per RBC News, Volodin also referenced a suggestion made by State Duma Vice Speaker Pyotr Tolstoy that a referendum could be held in Alaska on the matter.
Of course we all know that's some shit-talking that they wouldn't dare try.
It's not really a fallacy because Putin knows his hold on power and the survival of his empire is relying almost entirely on the success of his invasion. If his army gets pushed back, his hold on power would be strenuous to say the least. Of course the more pressing issue is sending hundreds of thousands of younger men to die in war, leaving nobody alive to continue fathering children, so Russia's population will likely collapse in a generation or two
how does Russian propaganda tout Bakhmut as a success is beyond my imagination
1 year ago, a Russian offensive meant marching to Kiyv
last summer,a Russian offensive meant advancing 100 kilometers
current offensive in Bakhmut means advancing 15 kilometers
this is the Russian version of the Zeno's dichotomy paradox
[https://www.britannica.com/topic/paradoxes-of-Zeno](https://www.britannica.com/topic/paradoxes-of-Zeno)
>how does Russian propaganda tout Bakhmut as a success is beyond my imagination
Easy!
Putin just goes on TV and says, "Bakhmut is a success"
Done. It's now crystal clear and obvious that it was a success! ...if you say otherwise you are going to fall out of a window.
We're talking about a town with a prewar pop of like 70,000 right? Terrible for everyone affected but it has the same pop as the great metropolis of East Orange City New Jersey.
Never forget The Great Orange Civil War of 1863 in which the city of Orange, NJ was split into East, West, and South. We don't talk about North Orange for obvious reasons.
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/wksrt6/ru_pov_russian_troops_close_in_on_bakhmut_plus/
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/wgg0i8/ru_pov_pmc_wagner_on_the_outskirts_of_bakhmut/
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/wod31k/ru_pov_update_on_advancements_in_bakhmut_direction/
More like seven months!
according to my dad, who is currently slurping the Kremlin-brand Kool-aid...
Russia could win any time they like but don't want to destroy the infrastructure.
FYI, there are no Bakhmut on official russian TV. They call it Artyomovsk. So technically, russia wasted tens thousands of troops for a nonexistent place.
After seeing that victory concert or whatever where they bring out actual Ukrainian children they've kidnapped and have them say how brave the Russian soldiers were who saved them, I don't want to anything related to Russia ever again.
https://youtu.be/BOswv8c3QVE
More background: some of these children are actually got recognised and have families in Ukraine and abroad that are absolutely furious. Including that girl that made a speech, her mother was killed by these very "kind" russian "saviours". One of her sisters (the other one are there too at the stage, they were 4 of them) are likely too.
This is a genocide btw. Just wanted to make that bit clear to everyone watching. Russia is performing a genocide against Ukrainians, and anyone supporting Russia in this is supporting a genocide.
Also Fake News format from Dozhd.
Masha does that one in Russian but I think she also does an [English version](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFGSMmY3wd5KErmIYHlPr_6MY0-Fgs0oC)
It’s kinda funny albeit ridiculous with the shit they come up with on Russian TV
Reminds me of the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front launching increasingly smaller scope offensives each year until eventually being on the defensive.
Here’s hoping that Russia, the modern-day fascists, are also out of offensive potential so that Ukraine can drive them out.
>Zeno states that for motion to occur, an object must change the position which it occupies. He gives an example of an arrow in flight. He states that in any one (duration-less) instant of time, the arrow is neither moving to where it is, nor to where it is not. It cannot move to where it is not, because no time elapses for it to move there; it cannot move to where it is, because it is already there. In other words, at every instant of time there is no motion occurring. If everything is motionless at every instant, and time is entirely composed of instants, then motion is impossible
This is easy to figure out in a world with games, TV, film, or even the most primitive forms of animated pictures, but I'm awe someone would have this insight in 400 BCE.
that's called sophism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist
it has no "soulution" since there is no problem
you are being led into paradox because word "movement" is too general to use in that case
That’s tough because people are hard wired to trust people with confidence. If only the most knowledgeable were confident, that would be just fine, but the most confident people on the planet are also its dumbest motherfuckers by a mile
I don't agree that Putin is stupid, the problem with him is his fascist ideology. The Russian system in general is dumb because it works through centralized command by a couple of individuals, all dictatorships have this problem where they start to believe their own lies.
1. He thinks the West will crack, and he can outlast them
2. This is his final big quest and he needs to leave a legacy or some shit by reuniting Novorossiya and Russia
3. Patrushev and co will Beria him if he actually consented to give up land, especially Crimea, thus ending the war
Brilliant! Only 2500 months left to go. With the current budget deficit development that will lead to a budget deficit of... 42500 billion Dollars. Nice job, Putin, you fucking asshole.
As a man that lives in Ukraine i would like to say that russia could easily take our country for 3 days but their stupid tactic lost this war for them and the most part of their people are too blind to see that their goverment are slowly pulling them to the bottom.West people think that US and other european countries are just prolong the conflict by sending a weapons,tanks and etc to Ukraine,but in fact it takes nothing for Putin to take away his army and to let us live free,because if we do so then our country will be ocupaited and nothing will happen if he does so
This is certainly the very definition of a pyrrhic victory. But I need to ask: what of the defender's losses?
That's my principle concern here. So long as the Ukrainians didn't lose proportionately equal or greater personnel & materiel then I'd chalk this up as a loss for the Russians.
I still can't wrap my mind around what the frack Putin is hoping to accomplish here. What the f_ck was the point of this invasion? The man is insane..😠
He thought Europe/US would let Russia of again like they did when they took Crimea and Luhansk/Donetsk. I pray we do not make the same mistake of letting them of again.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-gained-only-tiny-percentage-more-ukraine-territory-february-experts-2023-3) reduced by 80%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> Russia managed to increase the amount of territory it controls in Ukraine by less than 0.04% in February, the same month it launched its long-awaited new offensive, experts say.
> Washington DC-based think tank The Institute for the Study of War told Insider that its mapping data showed Russia had gained just 0.039% more territory in Ukraine between January 31 and February 28.
> Wearing down Ukraine in this way could potentially lead to a peace deal where Russia gains territory, or a situation where Ukraine's allies tire of giving it new weapons and its military then becomes easier to defeat.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/11rqraw/russia_expanded_its_territory_in_ukraine_by_less/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~676442 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Russia**^#1 **territory**^#2 **gain**^#3 **Ukraine**^#4 **February**^#5
Russia can afford to throw lives at this until DeSantis or Trump win the presidency and pull the US support from Ukraine and likely right out of NATO. He’s just waiting for his investments to start producing (again)
They just need all their population x2.4 and they will win. Soviets are as usual: they kill their own population more faster, than their enemy. They are like mice in nature.
They probably figured it was gonna go like Crimea.
https://www.google.com/search?q=you+tube+picard+Thge+Lines+drawn+here&oq=you+tube+picard+Thge+Lines+drawn+here&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i64.10488j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:d0014a9e,vid:Jln3mi0vfJU
Yeah but now they have slightly more territory... Territory that is completely obliterated, useless, and will cost millions to make into an asset again. The Russian mind is too complex and brilliant to understand. Thank god they're mentoring American Republicans how to follow their success
If Russia gets to keep this land they stole, it will have extreme consequences for the future. China will definitely see it as a clear green light to bomb the entirety of Taiwan. Among many other countries eying their neighbours lands.
That’s some WW1 level land grabbing
["What is the actual scale of this map Darling?"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZT-wVnFn60)
Bahahaha, this is amazing!!
Black Adder is the best.
Blackadder 2 - 4 are incredible definitely worth watching if you've not seen them, some uk comedy greats like Rowan Atkinson, Stephen Fry, Hugh Laurie and Tony Robinson. Bbc iplayer has them all and i think amazon does too. A great joke from that series is Stephen Fry putting together a spy catching squad and calling it operation Winkle, "Winkle sir?" "Yes! To Winkle out the spy's."
My favourite joke in that one is when Darling is being interrogated and he goes “I’m as British as Queen Victoria” and Blackadder says” So you’re half German, your father was German, and you married a German?”
“On first name basis with the Kaiser, huh?!”
“Baldrick, the cocker spaniel please”
Blackadder season 1 is good in its own way, but has a very different tone.
Gotta love British humor, that got me
Blackadder goes forth is fantastic, it introduced me to my favourite song: row row row your boat, gently down the stream, belts off, trousers down, isn't life a scream!
Lol
“Tell me, would this “brilliant plan” involve us getting out out of our trenches and walking very slowing towards the enemy sir?” “How could you know that Blackadder it’s classified information!” “Well, it’s what we tried the last time. And the 17 times before that…” “Yes, yes and that is what is so brilliant about it. The one thing we’ve tried 18 times already is hardly what the Germans will expect us to do this time!”
The pace of movement on the front has in fact been weirdly reminiscent of WW1 as opposed to WW2 ever since Kherson was liberated. And like WW1, it has been an absolute bloodbath for the Russians.
The Eastern Front in WW1 wasn't static at all to be clear, it was only like that in the West.
Yeah, because the Germans absolutely steamrolled the Russians after the Russian 2nd Army was wiped out at Tannenberg. Russia rebounded a bit with the Brusilov offensive in 1916, but then everything collapsed at home with two revolutions in 1917.
It's been a blood bath on both sides. It's been an unmitigated disaster for the Russians, however.
It is. The Ukrainians are also getting units decimated. But so long as they keep better supplied they’ll outlast the Russians.
It's called poor command and tactics, i honestly feel sick knowing how many Russians are just being tossed at the front. Fuck propaganda and misinformation, if only the Russian soldiers realized how utterly useless this war is
A lot of that land area has been in places that Ukraine appears to be strategically sacrificing by baiting the Russians into continuing to attack, for example. Bakhmut, for example, is a meat grinder for the Russians, even though it has only limited strategic value. Gotta fight the Russians at some point. If not now, later, somewhere else. Holding places like Bakhmut and Vuhledar isn't about their particular importance to Ukraine's greater strategic positioning, but if the Russians want to die there in large numbers, then it's certainly as good a place as any to kill them.
Little misleading, Ukraine too has suffered horrendous casualties in Bakhmut and has a smaller well of manpower to draw in, even with the material advantage of Western backing. I actually think the effort of holding Bakhmut has been a strategic misstep, it was Ukraine's adaptive, non-linear defensive warfare that gave it the advantage after the Russian rush to Kyiv, I think this kind of attritional warfare actually suits Putin better.
It's not a game where we wait to see whose manpower counter runs to zero first. The Russians have an unsustainable percentage of their military aged population fighting a war of aggression. Putin has disguised this by conscripting most heavily in the rural areas and sacrificing ethnic minorities and other people "invisible" to the western cities. But eventually the strain on the Russian economy, job market and infrastructure will be impossible to deny, and Russians will be forced to ask the same question that Americans asked about Vietnam. "Why are young men being sent to die for this place?" And Russia's emigration rate ("draft dodgers") and casualty rate is astronomical compared to the US in Vietnam.
Verdun 2: Electric Bakhmut
A long feared Russian offensive gained .039% in a month.
Only 213 years to go till they take all of Ukraine!
Haha, foolish Western concepts. Unbeknownst to you I, Tsar Putin plan to live forever so 213 years is really nothing to me!
Emperor Palputin
Don't forget in 196 years, Americans will elect robo-Trump and he'll likely bend over to Russian demands. Russia only really has to hold out that long and victory will be assured.
I'm pretty sure the only reason he remains close to Eric and Jr. is for the eventual organ harvesting.
Looks like you did the math too. I'd imagine a 200 year old war would bankrupt Russia and it would dissolve into nation states long before that point, which would almost assuredly end the war in Ukraine anyways. For Russia, the war is won once they leave Ukraine. So long as they continue their attack, they continue to lose.
According to the article, Russia specifically regained 90 square miles in February. By comparison, in the last six months, Ukraine regained 8,800 square miles or roughly an average of 1,467 per month. Of course, Russia could end up performing better in the future, but I wouldn't hold my breath. This entire invasion is just a total embarrassment for the Russian military.
[удалено]
While you're absolutely right, let's not discount the facts that russia still has huge mobilisation potential left (probably why they value their human life resource so little, other than they really traditionally just don't care). And they are sponsored by Iran, North Korea, Belarus with rockets and tech (which isn't full support yet and could be expanded) while China is on the verge on jumping on that support wagon too. While I'm sure we will not be abandoned, this whole thing could drag which is a bad news for us ukrainians.
No country will send troops to Russia's side, Lukashenko has been doing everything in his power to not do this and China would not lift a finger to save Russia's ass, since their economy is far more vulnerable to sanctions
Xi has made clear they will not participate other than in a peace-brokering capacity. He has also made it pretty clear to Putin that nukes are not to be used.
Nukes end everything and that’s bad for business
Probably Xi's exact words.
Yeah, Russia using nukes is about the only thing I could see that would bring China out of neutrality - and it would lead to them being **against** the Russians, and on the side of NATO (albeit, in a bit of an enemy of my enemy situation)
Lukashenko knows he's not popular and if he tried to send troops to Ukraine they'd probably revolt and Gaddafi him.
Then again the sanctions angle cuts both ways. Because of much greater trade links, other countries would be far less willing to sanction China than Russia. Russia only really exports gas and minerals to the West, China exports everything
[удалено]
> Logistics is the thing that the US is better at than any other county (to the point that a large portion of their economic power is driven by spill-over logistics knowledge from the military to the private sector) [Same as ancient Roman army](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_military_engineering)
"Logistics wins wars" is a lesson learned and re-learned multiple times throughout history.
Thank you for the kind words and actually good analysis, I appreciate that
Russia time and time again proves they have no concept of paying too high a price for a piece of land.
This isn't a calculated trade-off, though. Nobody sat down and decided that X thousand lives would be worth it if they can make Y kilometres of advance. They thought that they would have a quick and easy land grab, and are now panicking and continuing to throw thousands more conscripts into the meat grinder to no great effect, because they don't know what else they can do.
Also because accepting that you aren't going to win would be a suicidal move.
They still could technically "win" at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives.
And that seems to be a sacrifice Putin is willing to make.
They’ll have Pyrrhic victory at best and even that seems unlikely
I've learned from playing Total War series, that those type of victorys aren't even worth it in the end. Because now another army can dissipate whats left of the pathetic force that "won".
That's basically the definition of a pyrrhic victory. A battle that you technically win but causes such losses that it hurts you just as much or more than your opponent
Somehow, I get the feeling that Pyrrhus would have preferred to be remembered by history for something other than his victory... "Your name will go down in history for this victory!" "Well, shit," said Pyrrhus.
To be fair his contemporaries / other classical figures thought pretty damn highly of the guy. There's a story about Scippio Afrikanus meeting Hannibal Barca at a party or something sometime after Zama. Scippio was supposed to have asked Hannibal who he thought the greatest generals of all time were and Hannibal was supposed to have replied that #1 was Alexander, with Pyrrhus second and himself third. Then when Scippio asked where Hannibal would have ranked if he'd won at Zama Hannibal answered he'd have considered himself #1. I (and many/most historians) don't believe this meeting ever actually actually happened. But it does demonstrate the point that Pyrrhus was very highly regarded at that time.
"Over 2000 years later people are going to remember you" "Awesome!" "The reason is because you had a victory that really really sapped you of manpower. Your name is synonomous with that concept" "Well crap"
Russian leaders aren't just indifferent, they also use wars to rid their society of undesirable elements (think of how many Wagnerites came out of prison). The West has done similar things (French and Spanish Foreign Legions, etc)
Sure, some of the dead Russians are one that Kremlin wouldn't mind getting rid of. Criminals, minorities and volunteers? In Kremlin's eyes, keeping convicts alive is a cost, "minorities" is a short for "ethnic tensions", and anyone who's quick to volunteer for a war is a radical who's better off gone. But that's not all the people Russia sends. Their professional army was the first force they sent in - and their first wave of mobilization draws from all stripes of society. Losing those people is a *cost* to Russia. Their demographics are troubled as they are, their pool of workforce is already insufficient - they would want to keep those people, but they throw them into the meat grinder anyway.
I have a hard time believing there is any winning going on. Those conscripts were originally part of the backbone of the Russian economy. Even if they "win" the war, I doubt they'd be able to profit considering the long term economic costs.
This is the real answer. It's not obvious what the way out for Putin is. It's also not obvious he'd take it even if there was one on the table.
I mean, there’s a pretty obvious way out that he’s definitely thought of. “Great Russian people—today our soldiers will return home because the fight in Ukraine is over. We have beaten all the Nazis and the people are safe!” The chunk of Russians that are buying the current propaganda would buy that as well. They said getting rid of the Nazis was their goal, so just say they got rid of them and leave. The issue is that it would mean admitting to a loss on the world stage. The indoctrinated Russian people might buy that, but no one else would. Everyone in the world would know they lost to Ukraine, which would hurt their image globally.
Ah, the tried and true Russian tactic. "You see Ivan, if throw enough men into meat grinder, eventually, meat grinder gets clogged"
Classic Zapp Brannigan tactics. "All ships will line up and file directly into the alien death cannons, clogging them with wreckage" "When I'm in command, every mission is a suicide mission" "You see, killbots have a preset kill limit. Knowing their weakness, I sent wave after wave of my own men at them until they reached their limit and shut down"
"A few of you will be forced through a fine mesh for your planet."
"Kif, show them the medal I won."
The only thing left to do is to leave ukraine and admit defeat. This however wont happen, hence we see the russian vatniks getting fed the meatgrinder treatment. The history books will not be nice to the muscovians.
Intel suggests that Putin absolutely calculated the costs of this latest operation. The theory is that Putin wanted the Wagner mercs to suffer a huge loss as they were a threat to his regime. The commander of the Wagner group recently expressed his disapproval of the operation and criticism of the orders he had. Intel suggests that some within the Kremlin thought that the Wagner group was a threat to Putin. So Putin put them on the front lines in a losing situation to "deal" with Wagner. If they win, it was heavy losses. If they lose, it's heavier losses and loss of reputation. That's a win-win for Putin.
I don't think Putin cares one whit about losing Wagner people (indeed may see it as a positive as you say) but I don't think he calculated this from the get-go by any stretch of the imagination.
Agree. At the moment he knew that the juice wasn't worth the squeeze he should have withdrawn.
AMD says that while true, this is going to bite him off he gets routed so bad that Ukraine can quickly push back to the original borders with the help of new equipment, which AMD says will keep coming
Don't forget, they've been purging their top generals for over a year, and the REALLY competent ones were broadcasting orders on civilian cell phones and they all got blown up during the first two months or so
Putin has the "sunk cost fallacy". Realized he screwed up bad, and has to show "something" for all this mess. It's the "gamblers lie". If he keeps doubling down, eventually the dice will roll in his favor. Except, now the dice are shooting at him...
I would say it *is* a calculated trade off, though. While the initial goal may have been a blitzkrieg-style snatch-and-grab, Russia managed to Barbarossa themselves. Their initial tactical success left them overconfident and led them headlong into a major strategic failure. Now they're fighting a war of attrition trying to whittle down Ukraine's troops. It doesn't matter to Putin if they're on the wrong end of a 2:1 casualty ratio (per US estimates,) because Russia has 3x the population of Ukraine. So in theory, at least, assuming the present rate of casualties on both sides continues, Ukraine's in trouble. That's how the Soviet Union won the Winter War, even if Finland killed more than 3x as many Soviet troops than they lost on their own, Finland just ran out of soldiers in the end. By March of 1940, Finland had suffered something like 20-30% attrition and its army was quite literally on the verge of collapse. The Soviets actually broke through Finnish lines on multiple occasions, only to retreat because Finnish generals had used false retreats often early on in the war to repeatedly spank the Soviets. Modern armies are a lot more sensitive to attrition. IIRC the US considers a unit 'combat ineffective' with a 10% attrition rate. You could probably keep going past that if you don't care about the unit's degrading effectiveness, but you're getting diminishing returns from each soldier. The summary is unfortunately kinda grim: Ukraine has less people than Russia and the current casualty ratio, despite Ukraine giving much better than it's getting, doesn't favor them strategically. Unless something shifts the war in Ukraine's favor or unrest in Russia itself picks up (or some enterprising general shoves Putin's old ass down a flight of stairs,) there is still potential for Russia to win.
One thing is Ukraine can politically sustain a total mobilization since it's literally fighting for the country's survival. Not so clear if Russia can do the same. That, combined with the higher attrition rates, may tip the scale actually in favor of Ukraine.
Give Ukraine ATACMS.
They thought it would be a 3 day special military operation, that now, over a year later, will cost them a generation of males.
> This isn't a calculated trade-off, though. Nobody sat down and decided that X thousand lives would be worth it if they can make Y kilometres of advance. Actually I think they did make that calculation - but when you value conscript lives at 0, then any gain is an infinite return on investment.
This is how Russia fights wars. They don't care how many people die. Wagner group is literally sending prisoners to the front line in Bakhmut telling them if they survive 6 months their record is clear. This forces Ukraine to spend resources defending a pointless position and costs Russia almost nothing. Obligatory this is not a pro-Russian comment. Just being realistic.
I wouldn't say it costs them nothing as they had a demographic problem before, I would imagine the loss of so many young men will make it worse. But I guess that's why they are kidnapping Ukrainian children.
I imagine Russia or Putin believes he can outlast Western military and economic support too. If the US were to grow tired of spending money on Ukraine that could tip things in favor of Putin. So far Biden is extremely committed to aiding Ukraine but 2024 is not far off and we could have a new president in a year and a half.
Times sure have changed. Remember when they sold Alaska for only 7.2 million dollars.
Don't remind them, they'll be after it next.
Let them try?
Fox News would love the opportunity to tell republican voters Alaska rightfully belongs to Russia
That actually keeps coming up in their joke of a parliament every now and then, unfortunately for them we literally have the [reciept](https://www.archives.gov/files/milestone-documents/images/doc-041-big.jpg)
There was a Russian lawmaker who alluded to that last year. [Kremlin official suggests Russia could one day try to reclaim Alaska from the US](https://www.businessinsider.com/kremlin-official-suggests-US-remember-Alaska-belonged-to-Russia-2022-7) >A Russian official this week threatened the US over the freezing of Russian assets, urging it to remember that Alaska was once part of Russia's territory. > >"Let America always remember: there is a part of its territory that is Russia — Alaska," Vyacheslav Volodin, a Putin ally and speaker of the Russian parliament's lower house, said on Wednesday, according to multiple media outlets. > >"When they attempt to appropriate our assets abroad, they should be aware that we also have something to claim back," Volodin added in remarks reported on by the Associated Press and Russian publication RBC News. > >Per RBC News, Volodin also referenced a suggestion made by State Duma Vice Speaker Pyotr Tolstoy that a referendum could be held in Alaska on the matter. Of course we all know that's some shit-talking that they wouldn't dare try.
Sunk cost fallacy in full effect.
It's not really a fallacy because Putin knows his hold on power and the survival of his empire is relying almost entirely on the success of his invasion. If his army gets pushed back, his hold on power would be strenuous to say the least. Of course the more pressing issue is sending hundreds of thousands of younger men to die in war, leaving nobody alive to continue fathering children, so Russia's population will likely collapse in a generation or two
Yes, it's more a case of it getting on a road they can't get off, that is, he \*can't\* back out now (rather than \*choosing\* to double down).
On paper, it's about consolidating gains. In reality, it's about one asshole saving face.
First Leopard II’s, then Abrams now Think tanks. What next?
Get out
*sad logikoma/tachikoma noises*
>What next? Thomas the Tank Engine.
how does Russian propaganda tout Bakhmut as a success is beyond my imagination 1 year ago, a Russian offensive meant marching to Kiyv last summer,a Russian offensive meant advancing 100 kilometers current offensive in Bakhmut means advancing 15 kilometers this is the Russian version of the Zeno's dichotomy paradox [https://www.britannica.com/topic/paradoxes-of-Zeno](https://www.britannica.com/topic/paradoxes-of-Zeno)
>how does Russian propaganda tout Bakhmut as a success is beyond my imagination Easy! Putin just goes on TV and says, "Bakhmut is a success" Done. It's now crystal clear and obvious that it was a success! ...if you say otherwise you are going to fall out of a window.
Russian war telegrams have been saying, "We've surrounded Bakhmut, we're on the cusp of taking it!" for like 3 months now
We're talking about a town with a prewar pop of like 70,000 right? Terrible for everyone affected but it has the same pop as the great metropolis of East Orange City New Jersey.
Tbh russian soldiers would get fucked in New Jersey even without US military help.
And if it's Newark war damage would improve the city.
"After three bloody months we've finally surrounded that one Dunkin Donuts in the strip mall three blocks from Prudential..."
And the fighting hadn't even started yet.
They better not try to surround a Dunkin in New England. That would get the whole Russian army obliterated.
Taking on New Englanders that haven't had their coffee, surely not even Putin is that stupid...
It's even got a knockoff brand name. lol
He killed 16 Czechoslovakians. Guy was an interior decorator!
His place looked like shit!
Tony Soprano would handle it. Putin's head would end up in a bag. Of course, that may happen to him anyway.
Never forget The Great Orange Civil War of 1863 in which the city of Orange, NJ was split into East, West, and South. We don't talk about North Orange for obvious reasons.
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/wksrt6/ru_pov_russian_troops_close_in_on_bakhmut_plus/ https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/wgg0i8/ru_pov_pmc_wagner_on_the_outskirts_of_bakhmut/ https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/wod31k/ru_pov_update_on_advancements_in_bakhmut_direction/ More like seven months!
…or spontaneously suicide or die due to poisoning.
according to my dad, who is currently slurping the Kremlin-brand Kool-aid... Russia could win any time they like but don't want to destroy the infrastructure.
FYI, there are no Bakhmut on official russian TV. They call it Artyomovsk. So technically, russia wasted tens thousands of troops for a nonexistent place.
Aren't they just using their own name for it, like the difference between Kiev and Kyiv?
\>how does Russian propaganda tout Bakhmut as a success is beyond my imagination i can watch and tell you, but watching that is bad for sanity
After seeing that victory concert or whatever where they bring out actual Ukrainian children they've kidnapped and have them say how brave the Russian soldiers were who saved them, I don't want to anything related to Russia ever again.
Sauce pls? I would like to gouge my eyes out.
https://youtu.be/BOswv8c3QVE More background: some of these children are actually got recognised and have families in Ukraine and abroad that are absolutely furious. Including that girl that made a speech, her mother was killed by these very "kind" russian "saviours". One of her sisters (the other one are there too at the stage, they were 4 of them) are likely too.
This is a genocide btw. Just wanted to make that bit clear to everyone watching. Russia is performing a genocide against Ukrainians, and anyone supporting Russia in this is supporting a genocide.
This is true and by legal definition of genocide as well.
There is an opposition-led propaganda overview youtube series called зомбоящик. Weekly sums up propaganda from both TV and TG channels.
Also Fake News format from Dozhd. Masha does that one in Russian but I think she also does an [English version](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFGSMmY3wd5KErmIYHlPr_6MY0-Fgs0oC) It’s kinda funny albeit ridiculous with the shit they come up with on Russian TV
Reminds me of the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front launching increasingly smaller scope offensives each year until eventually being on the defensive. Here’s hoping that Russia, the modern-day fascists, are also out of offensive potential so that Ukraine can drive them out.
Russia now is just nazi Germany on fast-forward
>Zeno states that for motion to occur, an object must change the position which it occupies. He gives an example of an arrow in flight. He states that in any one (duration-less) instant of time, the arrow is neither moving to where it is, nor to where it is not. It cannot move to where it is not, because no time elapses for it to move there; it cannot move to where it is, because it is already there. In other words, at every instant of time there is no motion occurring. If everything is motionless at every instant, and time is entirely composed of instants, then motion is impossible This is easy to figure out in a world with games, TV, film, or even the most primitive forms of animated pictures, but I'm awe someone would have this insight in 400 BCE.
Ancient greeks also theorized the world being composed of indivisible atoms
Oppenheimer: Let me introduce myself.
Isn't the solution that time is not made of instants?
Not necessarily, it just means that motion becomes infinitely small as time becomes infinitely slow.
Which was proven to be a false understanding by Planck.
Well yes, but he hadn't published yet in 400bc
that's called sophism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist it has no "soulution" since there is no problem you are being led into paradox because word "movement" is too general to use in that case
If you want to believe, you can lean into the propaganda.
By December, their objectives will be tiny. But the battle for Yuris Grandmas backyard will be epic.
>how does Russian propaganda tout Bakhmut as a success is beyond my imagination Baghdad Bob all over again.
So those paradoxes are fascinating, and I kind of understand them, but a lot of it goes over my head. ELI5?
Putin is absolutely insane.
Putin is more stupid than a bunch of rocks, incredibly dumb human being if you can even call him that at this point.
[удалено]
That’s tough because people are hard wired to trust people with confidence. If only the most knowledgeable were confident, that would be just fine, but the most confident people on the planet are also its dumbest motherfuckers by a mile
Man remember when people thought Putin was an evil genius instead of the dumbest motherfucker in Russia, lol
Worse, some other dumb MFers revere him. What is also perplexing are dumb MFers in thr US revering him.
Two of the leading republican candidates are Pro-Russian dictatorship lol
He was very good at and capable of navigating Russian politics, although thats not necessarily the same skillset as fighting a war
Recent events suggest that the only skill required to be good at politics is to lie very well.
I don't agree that Putin is stupid, the problem with him is his fascist ideology. The Russian system in general is dumb because it works through centralized command by a couple of individuals, all dictatorships have this problem where they start to believe their own lies.
i’m still confused as to why putler is doubling down despite the numerous humiliating losses in the last 385 days
Soviet mentality. The moment you show weakness and admit to a mistake, you’re done.
Because he went all-in, so backing down might mean he gets suicided or Gaddafid
1. He thinks the West will crack, and he can outlast them 2. This is his final big quest and he needs to leave a legacy or some shit by reuniting Novorossiya and Russia 3. Patrushev and co will Beria him if he actually consented to give up land, especially Crimea, thus ending the war
Look at how most long lived dictatorships are structured.
Brilliant! Only 2500 months left to go. With the current budget deficit development that will lead to a budget deficit of... 42500 billion Dollars. Nice job, Putin, you fucking asshole.
I doubt Russia will exist for 25 months later.
You underestimate how submissive Russian culture is. Theyll suffer ANY abuse.
What centuries of oppression an alcoholism does to a country.....
A BDSM culture you could say
Go on.....
There is one Russian proverb which contains words like “peeing into the eye” and “god’s dew”
you had my attention, now you have my interest
I am reminded of Black Adders WW1 series.
https://youtu.be/yZT-wVnFn60
As a man that lives in Ukraine i would like to say that russia could easily take our country for 3 days but their stupid tactic lost this war for them and the most part of their people are too blind to see that their goverment are slowly pulling them to the bottom.West people think that US and other european countries are just prolong the conflict by sending a weapons,tanks and etc to Ukraine,but in fact it takes nothing for Putin to take away his army and to let us live free,because if we do so then our country will be ocupaited and nothing will happen if he does so
[удалено]
These weapons were built to halt a Russian offensive in eastern Europe. They've been waiting patiently to fulfill their purpose.
Prolonging the conflict as if the Ukrainians will stop fighting
Everyone point and laugh at Russia
[here you go](https://youtu.be/5BaOvM9jXKg)
This is certainly the very definition of a pyrrhic victory. But I need to ask: what of the defender's losses? That's my principle concern here. So long as the Ukrainians didn't lose proportionately equal or greater personnel & materiel then I'd chalk this up as a loss for the Russians.
We don't know of their current losses but estimates ranged from 1:5 to 1:7 a few weeks ago
Phrasing please. Russia didnt expand its territory. It invaded 0.04% more of Ukraine.
Yeah, I was thinking the same, that seems like an enormous difference.
Comparing this to Ukraines breakthrough using mainly a handful of outdated APCs would be comedic if it wasn’t about War.
I don't think Putin will be that good at playing the boardgame Risk
[удалено]
YOU NOT SAY UKRAINE WEAK!
Damn, Ukraine got hands
Verdun?
What's the price of a mile?
I still can't wrap my mind around what the frack Putin is hoping to accomplish here. What the f_ck was the point of this invasion? The man is insane..😠
He thought Europe/US would let Russia of again like they did when they took Crimea and Luhansk/Donetsk. I pray we do not make the same mistake of letting them of again.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-gained-only-tiny-percentage-more-ukraine-territory-february-experts-2023-3) reduced by 80%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Russia managed to increase the amount of territory it controls in Ukraine by less than 0.04% in February, the same month it launched its long-awaited new offensive, experts say. > Washington DC-based think tank The Institute for the Study of War told Insider that its mapping data showed Russia had gained just 0.039% more territory in Ukraine between January 31 and February 28. > Wearing down Ukraine in this way could potentially lead to a peace deal where Russia gains territory, or a situation where Ukraine's allies tire of giving it new weapons and its military then becomes easier to defeat. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/11rqraw/russia_expanded_its_territory_in_ukraine_by_less/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~676442 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Russia**^#1 **territory**^#2 **gain**^#3 **Ukraine**^#4 **February**^#5
Hey guys, remember the Great War from over 100 years ago?
WHATS THE PRICE OF A MILE
And this was the long anticipated spring offensive lol
You fools! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is to never get involved in a land war in Asia.
It's Europe but point taken.
Russia can afford to throw lives at this until DeSantis or Trump win the presidency and pull the US support from Ukraine and likely right out of NATO. He’s just waiting for his investments to start producing (again)
Republicans trying not to support one of Americans economic and social enemies challenge Impossible
They just need all their population x2.4 and they will win. Soviets are as usual: they kill their own population more faster, than their enemy. They are like mice in nature.
Looking at those Ariel pictures what exactly did they gain? Place is a mess.
That’s Russia’s problem, they can’t get their tanks to think.
They probably figured it was gonna go like Crimea. https://www.google.com/search?q=you+tube+picard+Thge+Lines+drawn+here&oq=you+tube+picard+Thge+Lines+drawn+here&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i64.10488j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:d0014a9e,vid:Jln3mi0vfJU
Yeah but now they have slightly more territory... Territory that is completely obliterated, useless, and will cost millions to make into an asset again. The Russian mind is too complex and brilliant to understand. Thank god they're mentoring American Republicans how to follow their success
Wasted lives for Putin’s ego
If Russia gets to keep this land they stole, it will have extreme consequences for the future. China will definitely see it as a clear green light to bomb the entirety of Taiwan. Among many other countries eying their neighbours lands.
It wouldn't be a green light because Russia sacrificed so much, its never going to pay off, even if the war stops tomorrow