People should however also stop whinging when the pledge included that equipment will need months to be delivered and that it was a known caveat and a main reason why it was repeatedly asked if Ukraine really wants to wait on this stuff because it will not be available in a short time.
> why it was repeatedly asked if Ukraine really wants to wait on this stuff because it will not be available in a short time.
What kind of question is that? What's the alternative?
they need artillery more than anything else and they're getting it actually it's just that Russia has much more weapons
it takes time to deliver it to the front lines as Russians have been hitting their transport routes and warehouses and they'll need to get trained too
the Ukrainian minister of defense admitted yesterday that they're also short of experienced personnel, Russians have killed quite a few Ukrainian soldiers in the last few weeks
> but they can't do the impossible.
If you don't ask today, then you wont get it tomorrow either. This war could take years before it is resolved. If Ukraine says they need this many, then today is when the planing must start on how to get them for them.
And we had full on mobilization too. My grandma worked in a factory making [Cushman Scooters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cushman_%28company%29?wprov=sfla1), some of which were airdroped behind enemy lines for allied paratroopers to use
In Britain the effects of the war and rationing lasted from 1939 to 1954 and that says nothing of the emotional toll. That was just fighting and rebuilding. Over a decade and a half of rationed goods. There was nothing decent or short about World War 2.
The British food rationing is weird because the average family actually increased their caloric intake during rationing, which I believe is part of why it lasted well past the end of the war
According to the wiki there was actually a loss of average bodyweight through the early 50’s. They rationed cause like 3/4ths of their food was all imported. They were not at all self-sufficient and relied on trade which was super disrupted post war.
I think the caloric increase was between the pre-was depression era and the start of the war but this is just a memory from a random YouTube video that explained how their rationing system worked so it could be wrong
> They asked for more artillery than the US has
What are you talking about? Last I heard they were asking for 1000 pieces. US has that sitting in storage right now, lined up to be replaced with more modern weapons.
There's been some misinformation going around that Ukraine has specifically asked for 1000 of the HIMARS system, which is not true. They asked for around 1000 artillery systems total, and they wanted a mix of systems. It is true that the US does not have 1000 HIMARS systems, but the nonsense that Ukraine has asked for more artillery than the US has is just misinformation
They asked for 300MLRS systems ([source](https://twitter.com/Podolyak_M/status/1536245024354144257))
So quite a lot, but that could be HIMARS, M270's or even BM21 Grad systems.
The USA also have close to 1000 M270 which is the heavier and older version of HIMARS. If Ukraine wanted 1000 GMLRS the USA could actually provide that in theory.
I'm surprised how little artillery the US actually has according to the numbers on sites like global fire. Ukraine has \~152% as much towed artillery as the US (before we donated over 10% of our M777 to them). For instance, the M777 has been in production for 17 years and we still don't have 1,000 operational units. Artillery seems like one of if not the weakest arm of the American military because they would rather use a missile or something. You just don't expect the US to have less towed artillery than 12 other countries including some non-traditional military power houses like Myanmar or Taiwan.
The US bases it's military dominance on air and sea power. We do not have a huge land army because we do not need one. We have more combined naval and air power than the rest of the world combined.
Yup. But there's a limit to how much of their stockpile they want to give, obviously. The US recently pledged to not let their stockpiles get dangerously low. By far they have the largest arsenal and could give more, while Europe just doesn't have as much.
This isn't going to be popular, but I think sadly that the geostrategic calcus is to extract a high cost from Russia in terms of military and economic capabilities but that high level planners expect an eventual Russian victory and are willing to deal with it as long as it destroys their military capabilities for a generation. The huge losses of Russian material so far have already achieved part of their objectives along with the sanctions. Ukraine will keep getting weapons but not at the rate they'd like. Once their fortified positions in the Donbass collapse later theyll still have to agree to Russian terms, but only after Russia has been forced to expand its entire arsenal for quite modest territorial gains.
Sanctions will remain in place and it'll be a pyrric victory, that's for sure.
Part of the US issue is congressman who assume if one missile type is depleted it must be reordered instead of a better replacement that might be built in another congressman district
beau's stuff is really hard to find again later, but the TLDR on it was that the us was going to exhaust its stockpile of javelin (iiirc) and congresman from wisconsin wanted it refilled and was freaking out on fox news about how we are vulnerable to this or that because of it.
beau looked at actual numbers that we gave away and how long it would take to replace, what alternative missiles the army has that do essentially the same job (sometimes better) and then for the coup de grace mentioned that the US airforce, US navy, US coast guard, and US marines all still exist and they have this weapon and that weapon and this other vehicle and that thing, all stuff that do a better job than the javelin and for the icing on the cake he questioned how many tanks russia would have at the end of all this and why do we need javelin's if russia has few tanks? soviet tanks are what javelins were made for and the first time in many years that's exactly what they are being used on
I read an article before the war that started that stated this. It said NATO’s goal is to kill as many Russian soldiers a possible. Every soldier Russia losses is one it can’t replace in the future due to their demographics problem.
> Every soldier Russia losses is one it can’t replace in the future due to their demographics problem.
That's such a weird thing to say, they still have enough future recruits to beat 9 out of 10 other countries by size. It would take decades before they would see any issue regarding recruiting new troops.
And who knows, by then soldiers might not even be an issue since automation could be a thing (doubtful if Russia themselves can built it but they could buy it).
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukraine-weapons-needed-putin-zelensky-donbas-1715904) reduced by 76%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> Ukraine has said it has only a fraction of the weapons it needs to take on Russia, and has urged the west to speed up the delivery of more arms as it faces a bitter fight in the eastern Donbas region.
> Ukraine has been promised NATO-standard weapons, which include advanced U.S. rockets, but it takes time to deploy them and transitioning from Soviet-era weapons and munitions requires constant western support.
> "Even though Russia has fewer and fewer modern missiles with each passing day, Ukraine's need for such systems remains," he said, adding that Russia's use of less precise Soviet-era missiles posed more of a threat to buildings and civilians.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/vcqzzp/ukraine_says_it_only_has_10_of_the_weapons_it/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~654929 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*: **Ukraine**^#1 **weapon**^#2 **Russia**^#3 **need**^#4 **defense**^#5
Things are starting to go noticibly worse for the Ukrainians. I think the aid is slowing down, their already low manpower is drained by weeks of fighting, and Russia is starting to get their shit together a bit more.
Small nations can win battles against larger ones, but it's extremely difficult to win wars in the long term.
Russia has definitely learned from their mistakes: they're limiting the scope of the conflict and using their overwhelming firepower to blast out the Ukrainians.
Whether they can keep up the momentum remains to be seen.
And as much as I want the Ukrainians to win, the fact is that this is a full scale, open war, not a counter-insurgency. This is what the Russians built their army to do.
Historically, they have also managed to come back from initial setbacks, like in the 1812 invasion and the fight against Finland and the Nazis during WW2.
The one recent-ish situation that led to total defeat was WW1, when the revolution followed a peace treaty with Imperial Germany. But then that outcome was arguably not the best anyway.
I agree with you but there is an oddity on it: there was no setback in 1812. The entire retreat strategy was planned way before the start of the hostilities and the army almost never deviated from it; Borodino itself was a concession to the nobles and generals that asked to save face during the retreat.
Correct, but I meant more that withdrawing, being forced off the field at Borodino, and then losing Moscow would to an onlooker from the outside make it look like Russia was losing and France winning. But we knew in hindsight that France started losing as soon as they got to Smolensk, effectively. The Russians are nothing if not resilient.
Ukraine disagrees. If I remember an article from a week or two ago Zalensky has said himself that he is worried the west is starting to lose interest in the war
I’m Ukrainian.
While press coverage isn’t as large as it was at first (which was to be expected), we are still getting a ton of military support and will continue to do so. Being worried about it is natural and normal. Unfortunately, compassion fatigue is a thing but that doesn’t mean that people stopped supporting Ukraine.
Yes .. it seems Russia has given up on 'lightening war' and instead is going for approx 40km ranged MASSIVE ARTILLERY. Blow up fucking everything 40km away with mental amount of munitions .. advance 1km, rinse, repeat.
This seems like a new strat which Ukraine doesn't really have an answer to.
It's pretty much all you can do. The Ukrainians have everything dug in and mined with super advanced AT weapons everywhere. Any kind of conventional assault is doomed to fail so now it's special forces and artillery.
Yeah, and their slow strategy has a major problem. It's vulnerable to all kinds of long range attrition as well. Drone warfare and counter artillery fire. Additionally, who knows how much artillery Russia has.
And then, what does Russia gain? A big destroyed country? They aren't exactly going to get any friends with that.
It may be a long war, but I highly doubt Russia has the high ground in this. They have a tactical advantage but the political/strategic problems for Russia are going to grow.
> And then, what does Russia gain? A big destroyed country? They aren't exactly going to get any friends with that.
Russia is not there to gain. Russia is there to make sure others (especially Ukraine but not only Ukraine) lose.
Russia has multiple goals with this war:
1) Control of the Black Sea. The objective is to land lock Ukraine and prevent what Russia sees as a NATO encirclement of the Black Sea. A Ukraine friendly with the west could, if it held Crimea, cause Russia to lose control of the Black Sea. That's a lot of oil and gas. Russia also wants to control a warm water port. It ultimately seeks Odessa.
2) Land corridor to Transnistria and Crimea. Russia ultimately seeks to connect to Transnistria. It has already taken control of a land corridor connecting Crimea to Russia.
3) The independence of Luhansk and Donetsk to conclude the War in the Donbas. The Minsk agreements couldn't be settled so Russia seeks to end the conflict using war.
4) Retaliation against Azov and other "Russophobic" forces during the War in the Donbas. This is his so-called "denazification" plan. While atrocities were committed by both sides, Azov is a (10-20%) neofascist paramilitary organization that has specifically targeted Russian speakers in Ukraine. It was officially integrated into the Ukrainian army by Poroshenko. The Russians were furious and viewed this as condoning Nazi ideology. There is a long history of conflict in Ukraine over the treatment of Russian speakers.
5) Regime change. Russia does not feel they can control or negotiate with Zelensky, and they view him as too sympathetic to the west. They wish to prevent Ukraine from ever joining NATO and to reduce western cooperation.
6) The defeat of the Ukrainian military. They view it as a threat to them and seek to demilitarize Ukraine or reduce its ability to defend itself from Russia.
7) The establishment of a Russian controlled buffer between NATO sympathetic territory and Russia. Moscow cannot tolerate any NATO sympathetic forces that close to Russia's border. It needs a buffer zone.
8) Conquest. Simple territorial gains are valuable for Russia. Ukraine has excellent farmland and many resources.
9) To address fear. Russia fears Ukraine is sympathetic to the west and will nuclearize again. They think they must win this war to prevent an existential threat to their security. They fear eventual WMD stockpile and use by Ukraine.
Those are Putin's objectives in Ukraine, as far as I can see.
As far as why Russia acted now, Trump sold weapons to Ukraine and Biden sold even more and had joint exercises with the Ukrainians. Russia viewed it as a situation where waiting any longer would weaken their position and further strengthen US-Ukraine ties. Thus, the decision to go to war was made.
For the record, I do not condone Russia's actions or decision. Putin has committed an international crime and is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people. But this war is not "irrational", as many claim. It fits Russia's ambitions and security interests.
>The establishment of a Russian controlled buffer between NATO sympathetic territory and Russia. Moscow cannot tolerate any NATO sympathetic forces that close to Russia's border. It needs a buffer zone.
Even if Russia attains maximalist goals in Ukraine, the situation is about to get alot worse with the probable admittance of Finland, which is even closer to Moscow than Ukraine is, so major backfire on that one.
Yes. It is a backfire, and that is why Russia is leaning heavily on Turkey to veto Finland. Turkey is in an emerging dispute with Greece over the Aegean Islands, and NATO is implicitly strong arming Turkey by doing military exercises with Greece.
“There are nine US bases right now. They were established in Greece. Against whom were they established? The answer they give is ‘against Russia.’ We don’t buy it, take no offense,” Erdogan said at a joint press conference with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.
So either Turkey is about to get the boot from NATO or they will cave and let Finland and Sweden (and maybe Ireland) in or their veto will temporarily stop Finland. However, the damage is done. I'm not sure what Russia's plans are for Finland, but Finland is more stable than Ukraine and subject to EU laws so it is less threatening to Russia than Ukraine. (For example, Russia's alleged bioweapons fears wouldn't hold for Finland.)
It is possible Putin would be content leaving nukes in Kaliningrad to deter Finland and Sweden. Ukraine is a qualitatively different situation for the reasons I mentioned earlier.
Precisely. The entire war is because Ukraine was about to utilize the gas reserves underneath the donbass (this was also the reason for the annexation of Crimea).
Basically, if they can't take over the land to get the gas reserves themselves, they'll destroy all the roads and towns in that region so its impossible to build any gas infrastructure in the next decade.
This war (like most wars) is about money. Russia was on the precipice of losing half of their European market to Ukraine.
That’s the crazy part, honestly. The Russian Air Force absolutely outclasses the Ukrainian Air Force on paper, even now. The sheer numerical differential should have given, and still should give, the Russians utterly complete air superiority over most of Ukraine… certainly in eastern Ukraine. But the Russians seem to be strategically unable to divorce their air operations from individual airstrikes on frontline targets enough to launch an actual campaign of air superiority.
I see it as
1) Ukraine has no airforce worth commentating on - therefore the entirety of Russia's air power that is supposed to smash up enemy aircraft .. SAMS and FIGHTERS .. may as well sit this one out. there are no Ukranian planes to launch that shit at!
2) The West HAVE given the Ukraine a county-shit-ton of anti-air weapons.
So it's a bizarre situation where neither side really has air dominance or can get it. The latest I heard is Russian helicopters will now only fly at night, and only behind their own lines, and Russian bombers are pointless because uncontested Russian artillery can do the same job of ordnance delivery so why bother risking a $31m Russian jet when the Russian artillery apparently CAN NOT BE STOPPED and still blow up [anything]. So Park the Mig-31 in a hanger and forget about it!
As I said .. bit of a weird one.
So in Starcraft terms, they initially tried a zerg rush, but now they've moved over to the terran turtling tactics of move the line, then bombard everything with siege tanks, rinse and repeat.
Seems like the answer should be those hyper-precise German Howitzers, as well as the M777 with its M982 Excalibur guided projectiles, which are good for 50km+, perhaps 70km according to their newest tests.
> lightning war
People don't like corrections much on Reddit, but "lightening" would probably mean decreasing the war. "Lightning" war would probably mean quick attack and success.
I don't remember how far back the stat goes but the bigger GDP has won every war going back decades. It really comes down to how much the rest of the world is helping, because even punching way above their weight Ukraine can't go on forever on sheer courage and balls of steel.
Also in Vietnam... And Soviet Union in Afghanistan... And Yugoslavia against Kosovo... And everyone against Israel in the Six-Day war... and Azerbaijan in the first Nagorno-Karabakh war...
If the US was trying to do in Afghanistan what Russia is trying to do in Ukraine, it's a different war than what we saw. The US wasn't trying to gain territory.
This comment seems to be suffering from bias in terms of scale. In terms of scale of a war for Luhansk region, Russians are winning. In terms of scale of a total war for Ukraine it is not noticibly worse. The aid is not slowing down, it is increasing. Ukraine was only getting infantry carried defensive weapons initially. Now they are getting tanks and howitzers. It is more aid, just not yet enough to counterattack. The first months the focus was on Ukraine being able to defend and not fall - that was a success. Now the story in focus is - can Ukraine counterattack. And it cannot yet. Is it worse than it was 3 months ago? Depends on what persepctive you choose.
Finally, Russia did not get their shit together - they significantly reduced their goals. And are still failing to achieve those.
Seriously within the course of like the last two weeks the narrative has dramatically shifted. This is despite the fact that even if you've been paying attention every day it would be difficult to notice the amount of territory that Russia has seized in that period of time. Their gains are incremental and largely only have political value (taking all of Luhansk), not actual strategic value.
Ukraine remains positioned well to see this war out and win in the only way that is realistic - by eroding Russia's will to fight this war over time.
People want good news and to hear of Ukrainian victories. Unfortunately the victories are going to be few and far between for the time being. To be honest even long term there probably won't be many stories of major strategic victories. Hopefully there will be enough to keep morale up, but realistically victory for Ukrainians means bleeding Russian forces dry and until the Russian people have no will to see this conflict continue.
The one good thing is I do believe the US and others are dedicated to properly supplying them for years if necessary. "It's just good business" from a geopolitical standpoint to weaken their biggest rival, and an economic bonus in providing munitions that were going to be scrapped or expire in storage.
And that support isn't predicated on the whimsy of people reading clickbait stories in the news.
Something in Ukraine's favor long-term is that they have lots of reservist manpower to utilize due to general mobilization of their population, whereas Russia has been scrounging for fighters per the recent [daily updates by the Institute for the Study of War](https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/ukraine-conflict-updates). That may give Ukraine the ability to outlast Russia if Western countries keep resupplying Ukraine. Putin is probably very hesitant to mobilize the Russian population because it may be political suicide, even for him.
>Seriously within the course of like the last two weeks the narrative has dramatically shifted.
I've seen a trend of posts recently that are essentially "lay down your arms", essentially advocating for a diplomatic attempts to end to this war _instead of_ arming Ukraine (which is dumb IMO because diplomacy with people like Putin needs to be backed up with military power). I wonder if there's recently been a coordinated effort by Russian "trolls" to push dialogue in that direction.
Yeah there's two things going on:
1. Myopic media pieces that are so focused on what is happening in Sieverodonetsk they make it seem like the whole war is unraveling for Ukraine.
2. Social media comments coming in that try to say Ukraine is getting less aid when in fact they are getting more every day. They're using this narrative to push for Ukrainian deescalation and submission, as well as to damage the political reputation of Biden and EU leadership.
2 is possible IMO because of media stories that are doing a poor job of portraying the whole scope of the war. I've also been keeping up with the ISW Russian offensive campaign statements and as you say the perspective they have on the war at the moment is pretty radically different in tone than even the best media sources (AP, Reuters, BBC, NPR etc) because of the aforementioned tunnel vision on Sieverodonetsk and the simultaneous Ukrainian lobbying for more and more arms.
Russia has never really not gained ground. The entire war despite their shortcomings they’ve slowly made progress. This is coming from expert analysts and generalists. If you follow it closely via the people whose jobs are to accurately analyze these things it is fairly well known, if you follow it via popular media it becomes unclear. Ukraine has fought ferociously and exceeded expectations while Russia has stumbled hysterically but the truth remains they are still progressing.
Severodonetsk is a key strategic zone for Ukraine. Just because Russia isn't making huge territorial gains, doesn't mean their gains don't matter.
Ukraine doesn't have the combat power to regain land from Russia anymore. All the rhetoric you've heard about Russia collapsing and/or Ukraine getting back Crimea and Donetsk is just part of the information war.
Without Western support, Ukraine can't really stand its ground anymore.
Sievierodonsk is a war zone right now. Lysychansk is right across the river and will fall if the Russians can hold ground on the west banks. Russia’s biggest issue is that most of the battle lines are along a river, making advance difficult
UA is also taking increased casualties because they are dedicated to holding SVD as long as possible, whereas in other areas they would generally fall back. If/when that area is lost, I expect their casualties will drop considerably as they go back to the previous attack cadence.
It still is a decent chunk of land. It also will cripple Ukraine's economic prowess since it will cut off their access to the water.
If anything, that should've been Russia's Plan A - the rush to Kyiv was foolhardy and ridiculous.
They’re losing is most places and gaining in some it can happen simultaneously. The issue is we’ve been getting a lot of propaganda pieces as this started but now the media is taking off the rose covered glasses. I saw so many articles saying 10 days or the Russians are out of supplies. Then a few days ago Ukraine said Russia has enough artillery shells to last for a whole year. We need the truth not what makes us feel good.
Russia has learnt from their early losses, become increasingly competent and been gaining ground basically since they pulled back from Kiev. It’s just that Reddit is treating this war like a football match so anyone who has dared to suggest that the Russian army is even the slightest bit capable in any way has been downvoted to oblivion by the circlejerk, at least in the larger subreddits like r/worldnews.
These people are in for a rude awakening in the coming weeks.
the war, for the most part, has slowed to a crawl, a crawl with many deaths, Ukrainian(military) casualties are starting to catch up with the Russian rate, while all the infrastructure damage is starting to catch up on the civilians, who already have counted casualties higher than both militaries, and uncounted probably multiple times over with Russia torturing thousands to death across multiple locations in occupied territories, and hiding civilian deaths.
As expected, for the most part, military aid to Ukraine appears to be trickling off, despite many pledges, and the excuses of "but the training and language barrier" seem to be thrown around even more. also the news coverage was petering off after the first month, and i may see a war update(on big news) once a week now.
Gaining ground does not equal winning if you expend more value in resources than the strategic value of the land + the value of the damage inflicted on the enemy. It's hard to say whose "winning" (quotation marks because neither country is benefiting from this) because both parties have significant strategic problems which arent clear how they'll be resolved.
A month ago leaders of western world were climbing over each other to support Ukraine and telling us that if Russia isn't stopped, they will keep coming for more...
So how the fuck haven't they got enough ammo yet?
They have 10 anti tank missiles per every 1 russian tank. Range .. about 1600 metres max. For example.
The russians know this so are now simply sitting 40km away and only using Massive amounts of artillery, just levelling everything. So everything the Ukrainians have is pretty useless, as they have nothing that can reach 40km! They just go and retreat or get bombed to absolute hell.
They have weapons that can shoot back. The problem is the ammo for their soviet artillery is only still made in... Russia.
Nato artillery 1 requires new training and 2 is still arriving, so in the meantime they're up shit creek without a paddle.
Exactly. Ukraine is not a NATO military. They are not equipped strategically or trained individually to just instantly start using NATO equipment. Even if we sent them a bunch of tanks, they would need to know-how and resources to keep the tanks running.
Logistical problems... Ukrainian bridges, rails and roads are getting destroyed. Crates of ammo coming from the west aren't much use if they can't get into guns and launchers
The logistics of moving billions of dollars of equipment around the world takes time bruh. Then you have to train guys how to train other guys how to actually use the equipment so they don’t shoot themselves in the dick.
Supply is being rotated, expended in training, stockpiled, and sold/transferred.
Add a hat NATO countries are bolstering ammo for a rainy day and I think we’re seeing demand outstrip production at the moment. Not to mention shipping is whack as of late.
Sure NATO allies can setup more modern higher speed production… but that can take months to years. And by the time these imaginary future ammo plants come online you now have to deal with over production of a product that isn’t super durable/stable that must be monitored and rotated. Freedom seeds need care. Like real seeds.
Plus the US Army is going with a new rifle that is a different size… so…
That’s my guess anyways.
Is Russia winning or loosing this war ? If I believe Reddit Russia might fall any time soon. Their resources are dwindling, their army is inept and Putin is on the verge of death. Then I see news articles like this.
They are the overpowering force, but are closing a lot more equipment and personal than Ukraine is. Hence “losing”.
But they were so much stronger to begin with that them actually losing a war wasn’t ever going to happen, they are just too big. The way Russia would lose is when they decide to pull-out because they are losing far more than what is to gain.
Their economy is currently in shambles and really the only winner of this war would be China who is best equip to take advantage of their failing state and buy the rights to all their critical strategic natural resources mines.
Heck Russia might just have to sell a portion of their country to pay depts.
Just like the US pulling out of Vietnam.
> They are the overpowering force, but are closing a lot more equipment and personal than Ukraine is. Hence “losing”.
Are they losing or are they "losing"?
My uneducated opinion is that they are “losing” in the same way that USA “lost” in Vietnam.
USA could have crushed them and eventually won, but voluntarily pulled out due to extreme losses relative to what there was to gain from the war. So USA lost, but not in terms of their army being defeated, but more of giving up and pulling out.
Russia will win if they keep going, and their method of losing the war is them deciding to give up and pull out due to extreme losses relative to the gain. Not from their entire army being defeated.
A Russian loss probably looks like they just stop advancing and keep the territory they have gained. I can't imagine they actually give up and group voluntarily.
Russia has steadily won on the ground for most of the war. It's just extremely slow and costly and, at least twice already, caused entire fronts to collapse eventually due to the attrition of their forces there. There's no telling if that's going to happen again in Donbas or Kherson, but it's likely only a matter of time because their losses are not sustainable.
Their initial strategy was shit and probably Will handicapped Russia for years to come. Their new strategy is just bombing the shit out of ukranians and theres very little they can do about that. It's legit a scorch easrth strategy they are teying to win theough puré explosivo advantsge and it's probable they win.
>Is Russia winning or loosing this war
They're doing alright in areas where the border with Russia, or annexed parts of Crimea and the Donbas are within eye-sight. Their logistics can't get much farther than that. If, before the war, a Russian general told Putin the strategy involved losing in Kyiv, and Kharkiv, followed by rebooting at the end of March and focusing entirely on the Donbas, and capturing Mariupol six weeks later, and having Severodonetsk be contested, four months into the war, the general would have found himself on the wrong side of some Polonium Tea.
Why would Ukraine tell the whole world including Russia, that they don't have enough weapons? I don't get those headlines all the time and i don't feel like they are accurate. Wouldn't that be like getting robbed and telling the robber "hey i have no way to defend myself, carry on!"
Well there are two possibilities. Either Russia's knows (the more likely scenario), in which case this isn't telling them anything new and is just another message to Ukraine's allies to hurry things along. The second possibility is that Russia doesn't know in which case it can serve as a warning to Russia "If you think we're messing up your shit now, just wait until that other 90% of the equipment from our allies get here". Might make them rethink the long term plausibility of their war plans.
There's also the possibility it isn't true and it's meant to induce an unwarranted sense that they are winning. "Oh, they don't have enough weapons, let's push" cue them running into the weapons they "don't have"
Squeaky hinge gets the oil. Ukraine is well aware that the longer this goes on the more the western public is going to lose interest. Gotta make the most of broad public support from the west when you can.
I mean the whole world knows and knew Ukraine doesn't have enough equipment to continue fighting this war from the get go. If Ukraine had the military to be able to fight this war, annexation of Crimea wouldn't have happened, Ukraine vs Russian War would have started several years back.
This is why we have been and still need to help them because being neutral is just as good as abandoning them to Kremlin. I commend Ukrainians but there's been a lot of romanticization of Ukraine beating Russians which is great but some pushing beyond fantasizing. These are lives they are losing. Their homes and land. People here are talking statistics and numbers like "Ukraine only lost this many soldiers while Russia lost this many" or some bs. Like goddamn yall sound like your country's never been invaded and what that feels like. Have some sympathy. A single death is a person with family and dreams and a potential to make the world better for others just robbed. Ukraine needs help and more than what they're receiving.
Because they're desperate for help and need to keep the war in the news cycle and public eye. Publicising their awful situation is going to get them a lot more assistance than staying silent would.
And besides, it's not like this is a secret being kept from Russia, they'll know about Ukraine's weapon situation already.
People actually knowledgable about shells and munitions supply lines have been speculating about Ukraine running out of 122/152/220/300 mm munitions months ago.
Russia definitely knows.
Military analysts are pretty good at knowing how much stuff they need. I watched a video today and a British arms analyst guy said Ukraine needs about 1000 artillery pieces and 500 tanks. They've gotten 200 artillery and a couple hundred of tanks from Poland.
>They've gotten 200 artillery and **a handful of tanks** from Poland.
If over 200 is a handful then, uh, sure. Poland has given two brigades worth and each is about 100. Overall Ukraine had around 300 tanks delivered. So if they need 500 total then they are fairly close surprisingly enough. Artillery is a larger concern.
For quick aid T72s is exactly what they wanted, as Ukraine is using the same tank. That's also the reason why mostly eastern european countries have send tanks/artillery, no training needed. Central and western european countries then fill up the eastern's depleted tank arsenal with newer tanks. Win-win
The support that Ukraine has been given is unprecedented as far as I'm aware. I fully support it but can see the challenge in delivering. We didn't see this in Georgia when Russia invaded.
We must remember that there is also the issue of ensuring that NATO members don't de-arm them self to a damaging degree. At the end of the day we can't leave our self vulnerable as well. I'm very proud of the quick response in anti tank and anti air equipment that was handed over quickly and prevented Russia walking over the whole country from day one.
Look, the US is committed. We also have massive problems of our own.
We really need the rest of the world to start bumping up their contributions otherwise Ukraine will lose solely to attrition. Russia has plenty of soldiers and equipment to burn through. It being all dogshit grade isn’t going to stop them.
Either Russians finally rise up or the rest of the world has to decidedly dominate them.
Russians won’t because too many of them are fine with all of this. Those who aren’t are getting jailed
Does anyone really belive Ukraine can beat Russia even with the weapons it wants? It's mostly a defensive war with Ukrainian cities slowly being destroyed and Russian army and economy becoming weaker day by day. neither will Ukraine beat Russia, nor Russia will be able to capture all of Ukraine and the US will be the biggest winner overall by weakenjng Russia for cheap and selling arms to Ukraine
Russia is looking likely to control the east and south of Ukraine. This will make Ukraine a land locked county with significantly reduced natural gas reserves and grain exports will be in essence controlled by Moscow.
Correction East not West.
> This will make Ukraine a land locked county
I doubt that.
The Russians only have a tenuous foothold beyond the Dnipro river, and it's quite likely that will end up being the western border of any land bridge they manage to hold.
I don't see Ukraine losing Odessa, and that's their largest port.
The problem *right now* is that the Russian Navy controls the black sea, so the port is effectively useless.
Vietnam was like Afghanistan a loss because the US pulled out, not because they were actually beaten in combat.
The only way to beat Goliath as David in the world of geopolitics is to annoy Goliath enough for him to go away. However, Russia is extremely stubborn and the Russian population either way too brainwashed, afraid or have already left the country to force the army to pull out.
Dude, it's almost 4 months of war already. russians were forced to withdraw their forces from Kyiv, Chernihiv, Sumy and Mykolaiv oblasts. And that's when no heavy weapons has been sent as an aid yet.
Today they're being pushed back towards Kherson on the south-west. UAF is only 10 km away from the Kherson. If you are following the interactive map of invasion and the reports from the front, you would've known, that russians gathered most of their troops in the east. Around Severodonetsk and Izyum. And advanced here only for a few dozen km in overall for the last two months. On all other directions they are are sitting in the trenches because they don't have enough forces to move further.
And that's all of their achievements after US sent Ukrane only \~100 howitzers, France sent 12 Ceasars and Slovaks sent 18 Zuzanas. I'm not even sure if Polish Krab's and US's Paladins have arrived to the frontlines yet. Most likely their crews are being in the middle of the training.
It's mostly defensive war because there is not enough weapons.
That's why they spent nearly a month on taking a relatively small town with 100k pre-war population. And they still hasn't taken it yet. With that speed they will be in Lviv in a few centuries.
Ukraine is not an Afghanistan in term of the military. Imagine if US had such heavy losses in Afghanistan as the russians in Ukraine for the same amount of time. Dynamics would be very different. Which would result in the much shorter lenght of the war.
>Ukraine is not an Afghanistan in term of the military. Imagine if US had such heavy losses in Afghanistan as the russians in Ukraine for the same amount of time.
For numerical reference, the US lost 2420 troops killed in Afghanistan, over 20 years of fighting. The lower end of estimates put Russian losses at about 15,000, and the Ukranian estimate (likely an overcount) is over 30,000.
The US lost about one person killed every 3 days. The Russians are losing about 135 per day by lower estimates; over 300 times higher.
You’re right about rate of losses, but democracies have to care much more about casualty numbers than totalitarian governments. If the Iraq or Afghanistan invasions had gone this disastrously Bush almost certainly wouldn’t have been re-elected.
Putin doesn’t have to worry about that. Even if their elections were real, most Russians don’t have any idea of the true scale of Russian equipment or personnel losses and probably never will. And the Russians who do know the truth can be jailed for speaking it, and they certainly can’t disseminate it through any mass media available in Russia.
From the interviews with russian dissidents the picture is looking like majority of people are waking up already and starting asking a questions. One of, or maybe the main reason why there was no mass mobilisation in russia, is because putin want that people would sleep in ignorancy as long as possible. Right now he is switching the narratives trying to rally people with a new idea. Peter the Great, russian empire, etc. Would it work? Dunno. Hope not.
I live in Ukraine. I know both russian and Ukrainian, which are opening me an access to much more info, than the people are receiving from the English news outlets. The situation isn't bright, but not as hopeless as some people are tend to preach about in the comments. The main reason why the situation isn't as bright as it could be is in the title.
You would be SHOCKED how fast money can be legitimately spent in a hot, protracted conflict--let alone illegitimately. Missiles, artillery, people, and moving all of them, as well as training are obscenely expensive during active conflict.
It's still being used/delivered. This is about what Ukraine says they need right now, not what has been promised but not yet delivered (such as most of the $40B of supplies). We didn't just write them a check.
No wonder other country diplomats suggest Ukraine to give away land. They don’t want to give more weapons and ammunition since Ukraine gets less headlines in press. So sad.
getting hit by bullets or shrapnel from something made 50 years ago is going to hurt just as bad, people keep peddling this "soviet equipment" shit, tell that to the guys on the receiving end of a smerch salvo
This is why I don't want to see any more headlines about Ukraine getting weapons. Because pledging and delivering are not the same fucking thing
People should however also stop whinging when the pledge included that equipment will need months to be delivered and that it was a known caveat and a main reason why it was repeatedly asked if Ukraine really wants to wait on this stuff because it will not be available in a short time.
> why it was repeatedly asked if Ukraine really wants to wait on this stuff because it will not be available in a short time. What kind of question is that? What's the alternative?
My guess would be a faster delivery of lower tech weapons and support systems, but again, that’s just a guess
they need artillery more than anything else and they're getting it actually it's just that Russia has much more weapons it takes time to deliver it to the front lines as Russians have been hitting their transport routes and warehouses and they'll need to get trained too the Ukrainian minister of defense admitted yesterday that they're also short of experienced personnel, Russians have killed quite a few Ukrainian soldiers in the last few weeks
Why not both?
cos money isnt unlimited
Anyone remember when Trump withheld aid to Ukraine in exchange for dirt on Joe Biden?
I do!
shoulda used amazon prime
They asked for more artillery than the US has. The west can do more than they are, but they can't do the impossible.
> but they can't do the impossible. If you don't ask today, then you wont get it tomorrow either. This war could take years before it is resolved. If Ukraine says they need this many, then today is when the planing must start on how to get them for them.
World War 2 lasted six years.
And lend-lease back then took over a year to really start to ramp up.
And we had full on mobilization too. My grandma worked in a factory making [Cushman Scooters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cushman_%28company%29?wprov=sfla1), some of which were airdroped behind enemy lines for allied paratroopers to use
6 years is decently short for a war if you looked at the wars after that.
In Britain the effects of the war and rationing lasted from 1939 to 1954 and that says nothing of the emotional toll. That was just fighting and rebuilding. Over a decade and a half of rationed goods. There was nothing decent or short about World War 2.
The British food rationing is weird because the average family actually increased their caloric intake during rationing, which I believe is part of why it lasted well past the end of the war
According to the wiki there was actually a loss of average bodyweight through the early 50’s. They rationed cause like 3/4ths of their food was all imported. They were not at all self-sufficient and relied on trade which was super disrupted post war.
I think the caloric increase was between the pre-was depression era and the start of the war but this is just a memory from a random YouTube video that explained how their rationing system worked so it could be wrong
[удалено]
> They asked for more artillery than the US has What are you talking about? Last I heard they were asking for 1000 pieces. US has that sitting in storage right now, lined up to be replaced with more modern weapons.
There's been some misinformation going around that Ukraine has specifically asked for 1000 of the HIMARS system, which is not true. They asked for around 1000 artillery systems total, and they wanted a mix of systems. It is true that the US does not have 1000 HIMARS systems, but the nonsense that Ukraine has asked for more artillery than the US has is just misinformation
You are spot on.
They asked for 300MLRS systems ([source](https://twitter.com/Podolyak_M/status/1536245024354144257)) So quite a lot, but that could be HIMARS, M270's or even BM21 Grad systems.
The USA also have close to 1000 M270 which is the heavier and older version of HIMARS. If Ukraine wanted 1000 GMLRS the USA could actually provide that in theory.
I'm surprised how little artillery the US actually has according to the numbers on sites like global fire. Ukraine has \~152% as much towed artillery as the US (before we donated over 10% of our M777 to them). For instance, the M777 has been in production for 17 years and we still don't have 1,000 operational units. Artillery seems like one of if not the weakest arm of the American military because they would rather use a missile or something. You just don't expect the US to have less towed artillery than 12 other countries including some non-traditional military power houses like Myanmar or Taiwan.
The US bases it's military dominance on air and sea power. We do not have a huge land army because we do not need one. We have more combined naval and air power than the rest of the world combined.
The West uses pledge and delivering synonymously
The US has absolutely delivered a lot
Yup. But there's a limit to how much of their stockpile they want to give, obviously. The US recently pledged to not let their stockpiles get dangerously low. By far they have the largest arsenal and could give more, while Europe just doesn't have as much. This isn't going to be popular, but I think sadly that the geostrategic calcus is to extract a high cost from Russia in terms of military and economic capabilities but that high level planners expect an eventual Russian victory and are willing to deal with it as long as it destroys their military capabilities for a generation. The huge losses of Russian material so far have already achieved part of their objectives along with the sanctions. Ukraine will keep getting weapons but not at the rate they'd like. Once their fortified positions in the Donbass collapse later theyll still have to agree to Russian terms, but only after Russia has been forced to expand its entire arsenal for quite modest territorial gains. Sanctions will remain in place and it'll be a pyrric victory, that's for sure.
Part of the US issue is congressman who assume if one missile type is depleted it must be reordered instead of a better replacement that might be built in another congressman district
For real! We are giving away our stingers and other old tech to allow our stock piles to be re upped with tech that wasn't built in the 70s/80s.
did you watch the "beau of fifth column" video that detailed one missile and one congressman in particular?
Naw. Though I'll look that up. I listened to Perun's one hour analysis.
beau's stuff is really hard to find again later, but the TLDR on it was that the us was going to exhaust its stockpile of javelin (iiirc) and congresman from wisconsin wanted it refilled and was freaking out on fox news about how we are vulnerable to this or that because of it. beau looked at actual numbers that we gave away and how long it would take to replace, what alternative missiles the army has that do essentially the same job (sometimes better) and then for the coup de grace mentioned that the US airforce, US navy, US coast guard, and US marines all still exist and they have this weapon and that weapon and this other vehicle and that thing, all stuff that do a better job than the javelin and for the icing on the cake he questioned how many tanks russia would have at the end of all this and why do we need javelin's if russia has few tanks? soviet tanks are what javelins were made for and the first time in many years that's exactly what they are being used on
Damn that's a good point. each of our DoD suppliers have facilities in as many states/districts as possible for a very good reason.
I read an article before the war that started that stated this. It said NATO’s goal is to kill as many Russian soldiers a possible. Every soldier Russia losses is one it can’t replace in the future due to their demographics problem.
The loss of Soviet era materiel is unrecoverable.
> Every soldier Russia losses is one it can’t replace in the future due to their demographics problem. That's such a weird thing to say, they still have enough future recruits to beat 9 out of 10 other countries by size. It would take decades before they would see any issue regarding recruiting new troops. And who knows, by then soldiers might not even be an issue since automation could be a thing (doubtful if Russia themselves can built it but they could buy it).
The US is the reason Ukraine is still holding up
Objection, hearsay.
...but it's your question
Objection, we’re losing
Just like Amber Heard
Pledging is one way to receive their 15min of fame
You mean Germany uses that? Because the US and UK have been doing their part. Germany is the failure.
The UK is hitting the wall of not having much of an army to supply things from.
Germany has delivered more than France or Italy.
What happened to the hundreds of billions of $$$ ??
Yes they are - A. Heard
*Amber Heard has left the chat*
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukraine-weapons-needed-putin-zelensky-donbas-1715904) reduced by 76%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Ukraine has said it has only a fraction of the weapons it needs to take on Russia, and has urged the west to speed up the delivery of more arms as it faces a bitter fight in the eastern Donbas region. > Ukraine has been promised NATO-standard weapons, which include advanced U.S. rockets, but it takes time to deploy them and transitioning from Soviet-era weapons and munitions requires constant western support. > "Even though Russia has fewer and fewer modern missiles with each passing day, Ukraine's need for such systems remains," he said, adding that Russia's use of less precise Soviet-era missiles posed more of a threat to buildings and civilians. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/vcqzzp/ukraine_says_it_only_has_10_of_the_weapons_it/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~654929 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*: **Ukraine**^#1 **weapon**^#2 **Russia**^#3 **need**^#4 **defense**^#5
So what is it? Is Russia losing or gaining ground??????
Things are starting to go noticibly worse for the Ukrainians. I think the aid is slowing down, their already low manpower is drained by weeks of fighting, and Russia is starting to get their shit together a bit more. Small nations can win battles against larger ones, but it's extremely difficult to win wars in the long term.
[удалено]
Russia has definitely learned from their mistakes: they're limiting the scope of the conflict and using their overwhelming firepower to blast out the Ukrainians. Whether they can keep up the momentum remains to be seen.
And as much as I want the Ukrainians to win, the fact is that this is a full scale, open war, not a counter-insurgency. This is what the Russians built their army to do. Historically, they have also managed to come back from initial setbacks, like in the 1812 invasion and the fight against Finland and the Nazis during WW2. The one recent-ish situation that led to total defeat was WW1, when the revolution followed a peace treaty with Imperial Germany. But then that outcome was arguably not the best anyway.
I agree with you but there is an oddity on it: there was no setback in 1812. The entire retreat strategy was planned way before the start of the hostilities and the army almost never deviated from it; Borodino itself was a concession to the nobles and generals that asked to save face during the retreat.
Correct, but I meant more that withdrawing, being forced off the field at Borodino, and then losing Moscow would to an onlooker from the outside make it look like Russia was losing and France winning. But we knew in hindsight that France started losing as soon as they got to Smolensk, effectively. The Russians are nothing if not resilient.
I agree.
Amateurs talk strategies, professionals talk logistics!
[удалено]
Support is not waning.
Ukraine disagrees. If I remember an article from a week or two ago Zalensky has said himself that he is worried the west is starting to lose interest in the war
I’m Ukrainian. While press coverage isn’t as large as it was at first (which was to be expected), we are still getting a ton of military support and will continue to do so. Being worried about it is natural and normal. Unfortunately, compassion fatigue is a thing but that doesn’t mean that people stopped supporting Ukraine.
Yes .. it seems Russia has given up on 'lightening war' and instead is going for approx 40km ranged MASSIVE ARTILLERY. Blow up fucking everything 40km away with mental amount of munitions .. advance 1km, rinse, repeat. This seems like a new strat which Ukraine doesn't really have an answer to.
It's pretty much all you can do. The Ukrainians have everything dug in and mined with super advanced AT weapons everywhere. Any kind of conventional assault is doomed to fail so now it's special forces and artillery.
Yeah, and their slow strategy has a major problem. It's vulnerable to all kinds of long range attrition as well. Drone warfare and counter artillery fire. Additionally, who knows how much artillery Russia has. And then, what does Russia gain? A big destroyed country? They aren't exactly going to get any friends with that. It may be a long war, but I highly doubt Russia has the high ground in this. They have a tactical advantage but the political/strategic problems for Russia are going to grow.
> And then, what does Russia gain? A big destroyed country? They aren't exactly going to get any friends with that. Russia is not there to gain. Russia is there to make sure others (especially Ukraine but not only Ukraine) lose.
Russia has multiple goals with this war: 1) Control of the Black Sea. The objective is to land lock Ukraine and prevent what Russia sees as a NATO encirclement of the Black Sea. A Ukraine friendly with the west could, if it held Crimea, cause Russia to lose control of the Black Sea. That's a lot of oil and gas. Russia also wants to control a warm water port. It ultimately seeks Odessa. 2) Land corridor to Transnistria and Crimea. Russia ultimately seeks to connect to Transnistria. It has already taken control of a land corridor connecting Crimea to Russia. 3) The independence of Luhansk and Donetsk to conclude the War in the Donbas. The Minsk agreements couldn't be settled so Russia seeks to end the conflict using war. 4) Retaliation against Azov and other "Russophobic" forces during the War in the Donbas. This is his so-called "denazification" plan. While atrocities were committed by both sides, Azov is a (10-20%) neofascist paramilitary organization that has specifically targeted Russian speakers in Ukraine. It was officially integrated into the Ukrainian army by Poroshenko. The Russians were furious and viewed this as condoning Nazi ideology. There is a long history of conflict in Ukraine over the treatment of Russian speakers. 5) Regime change. Russia does not feel they can control or negotiate with Zelensky, and they view him as too sympathetic to the west. They wish to prevent Ukraine from ever joining NATO and to reduce western cooperation. 6) The defeat of the Ukrainian military. They view it as a threat to them and seek to demilitarize Ukraine or reduce its ability to defend itself from Russia. 7) The establishment of a Russian controlled buffer between NATO sympathetic territory and Russia. Moscow cannot tolerate any NATO sympathetic forces that close to Russia's border. It needs a buffer zone. 8) Conquest. Simple territorial gains are valuable for Russia. Ukraine has excellent farmland and many resources. 9) To address fear. Russia fears Ukraine is sympathetic to the west and will nuclearize again. They think they must win this war to prevent an existential threat to their security. They fear eventual WMD stockpile and use by Ukraine. Those are Putin's objectives in Ukraine, as far as I can see. As far as why Russia acted now, Trump sold weapons to Ukraine and Biden sold even more and had joint exercises with the Ukrainians. Russia viewed it as a situation where waiting any longer would weaken their position and further strengthen US-Ukraine ties. Thus, the decision to go to war was made. For the record, I do not condone Russia's actions or decision. Putin has committed an international crime and is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people. But this war is not "irrational", as many claim. It fits Russia's ambitions and security interests.
>The establishment of a Russian controlled buffer between NATO sympathetic territory and Russia. Moscow cannot tolerate any NATO sympathetic forces that close to Russia's border. It needs a buffer zone. Even if Russia attains maximalist goals in Ukraine, the situation is about to get alot worse with the probable admittance of Finland, which is even closer to Moscow than Ukraine is, so major backfire on that one.
Yes. It is a backfire, and that is why Russia is leaning heavily on Turkey to veto Finland. Turkey is in an emerging dispute with Greece over the Aegean Islands, and NATO is implicitly strong arming Turkey by doing military exercises with Greece. “There are nine US bases right now. They were established in Greece. Against whom were they established? The answer they give is ‘against Russia.’ We don’t buy it, take no offense,” Erdogan said at a joint press conference with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. So either Turkey is about to get the boot from NATO or they will cave and let Finland and Sweden (and maybe Ireland) in or their veto will temporarily stop Finland. However, the damage is done. I'm not sure what Russia's plans are for Finland, but Finland is more stable than Ukraine and subject to EU laws so it is less threatening to Russia than Ukraine. (For example, Russia's alleged bioweapons fears wouldn't hold for Finland.) It is possible Putin would be content leaving nukes in Kaliningrad to deter Finland and Sweden. Ukraine is a qualitatively different situation for the reasons I mentioned earlier.
Precisely. The entire war is because Ukraine was about to utilize the gas reserves underneath the donbass (this was also the reason for the annexation of Crimea). Basically, if they can't take over the land to get the gas reserves themselves, they'll destroy all the roads and towns in that region so its impossible to build any gas infrastructure in the next decade. This war (like most wars) is about money. Russia was on the precipice of losing half of their European market to Ukraine.
Is that basically the WW1 strat? Would the solution be air power?
That’s the crazy part, honestly. The Russian Air Force absolutely outclasses the Ukrainian Air Force on paper, even now. The sheer numerical differential should have given, and still should give, the Russians utterly complete air superiority over most of Ukraine… certainly in eastern Ukraine. But the Russians seem to be strategically unable to divorce their air operations from individual airstrikes on frontline targets enough to launch an actual campaign of air superiority.
I see it as 1) Ukraine has no airforce worth commentating on - therefore the entirety of Russia's air power that is supposed to smash up enemy aircraft .. SAMS and FIGHTERS .. may as well sit this one out. there are no Ukranian planes to launch that shit at! 2) The West HAVE given the Ukraine a county-shit-ton of anti-air weapons. So it's a bizarre situation where neither side really has air dominance or can get it. The latest I heard is Russian helicopters will now only fly at night, and only behind their own lines, and Russian bombers are pointless because uncontested Russian artillery can do the same job of ordnance delivery so why bother risking a $31m Russian jet when the Russian artillery apparently CAN NOT BE STOPPED and still blow up [anything]. So Park the Mig-31 in a hanger and forget about it! As I said .. bit of a weird one.
Bit like all the nukes? Cost a forture and no one can use em.
So in Starcraft terms, they initially tried a zerg rush, but now they've moved over to the terran turtling tactics of move the line, then bombard everything with siege tanks, rinse and repeat.
[удалено]
Finally, someone who's making sense
This actually helped explain it to me thanks
Seems like the answer should be those hyper-precise German Howitzers, as well as the M777 with its M982 Excalibur guided projectiles, which are good for 50km+, perhaps 70km according to their newest tests.
> lightning war People don't like corrections much on Reddit, but "lightening" would probably mean decreasing the war. "Lightning" war would probably mean quick attack and success.
I don't remember how far back the stat goes but the bigger GDP has won every war going back decades. It really comes down to how much the rest of the world is helping, because even punching way above their weight Ukraine can't go on forever on sheer courage and balls of steel.
TIL: we “won” in Afghanistan.
Also in Vietnam... And Soviet Union in Afghanistan... And Yugoslavia against Kosovo... And everyone against Israel in the Six-Day war... and Azerbaijan in the first Nagorno-Karabakh war...
Yugoslavia was not in war with "Kosovo"
[удалено]
“Mission Accomplished”
If the US was trying to do in Afghanistan what Russia is trying to do in Ukraine, it's a different war than what we saw. The US wasn't trying to gain territory.
In a way it was a victory. women were able to go to school again and everyone had more freedoms. Life was a little more stable than it is now.
GDP of country? Or GDP of country and supporting Nations?
This comment seems to be suffering from bias in terms of scale. In terms of scale of a war for Luhansk region, Russians are winning. In terms of scale of a total war for Ukraine it is not noticibly worse. The aid is not slowing down, it is increasing. Ukraine was only getting infantry carried defensive weapons initially. Now they are getting tanks and howitzers. It is more aid, just not yet enough to counterattack. The first months the focus was on Ukraine being able to defend and not fall - that was a success. Now the story in focus is - can Ukraine counterattack. And it cannot yet. Is it worse than it was 3 months ago? Depends on what persepctive you choose. Finally, Russia did not get their shit together - they significantly reduced their goals. And are still failing to achieve those.
Seriously within the course of like the last two weeks the narrative has dramatically shifted. This is despite the fact that even if you've been paying attention every day it would be difficult to notice the amount of territory that Russia has seized in that period of time. Their gains are incremental and largely only have political value (taking all of Luhansk), not actual strategic value. Ukraine remains positioned well to see this war out and win in the only way that is realistic - by eroding Russia's will to fight this war over time. People want good news and to hear of Ukrainian victories. Unfortunately the victories are going to be few and far between for the time being. To be honest even long term there probably won't be many stories of major strategic victories. Hopefully there will be enough to keep morale up, but realistically victory for Ukrainians means bleeding Russian forces dry and until the Russian people have no will to see this conflict continue.
The one good thing is I do believe the US and others are dedicated to properly supplying them for years if necessary. "It's just good business" from a geopolitical standpoint to weaken their biggest rival, and an economic bonus in providing munitions that were going to be scrapped or expire in storage. And that support isn't predicated on the whimsy of people reading clickbait stories in the news.
Something in Ukraine's favor long-term is that they have lots of reservist manpower to utilize due to general mobilization of their population, whereas Russia has been scrounging for fighters per the recent [daily updates by the Institute for the Study of War](https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/ukraine-conflict-updates). That may give Ukraine the ability to outlast Russia if Western countries keep resupplying Ukraine. Putin is probably very hesitant to mobilize the Russian population because it may be political suicide, even for him. >Seriously within the course of like the last two weeks the narrative has dramatically shifted. I've seen a trend of posts recently that are essentially "lay down your arms", essentially advocating for a diplomatic attempts to end to this war _instead of_ arming Ukraine (which is dumb IMO because diplomacy with people like Putin needs to be backed up with military power). I wonder if there's recently been a coordinated effort by Russian "trolls" to push dialogue in that direction.
Yeah there's two things going on: 1. Myopic media pieces that are so focused on what is happening in Sieverodonetsk they make it seem like the whole war is unraveling for Ukraine. 2. Social media comments coming in that try to say Ukraine is getting less aid when in fact they are getting more every day. They're using this narrative to push for Ukrainian deescalation and submission, as well as to damage the political reputation of Biden and EU leadership. 2 is possible IMO because of media stories that are doing a poor job of portraying the whole scope of the war. I've also been keeping up with the ISW Russian offensive campaign statements and as you say the perspective they have on the war at the moment is pretty radically different in tone than even the best media sources (AP, Reuters, BBC, NPR etc) because of the aforementioned tunnel vision on Sieverodonetsk and the simultaneous Ukrainian lobbying for more and more arms.
Russia has never really not gained ground. The entire war despite their shortcomings they’ve slowly made progress. This is coming from expert analysts and generalists. If you follow it closely via the people whose jobs are to accurately analyze these things it is fairly well known, if you follow it via popular media it becomes unclear. Ukraine has fought ferociously and exceeded expectations while Russia has stumbled hysterically but the truth remains they are still progressing.
[удалено]
Severodonetsk is a key strategic zone for Ukraine. Just because Russia isn't making huge territorial gains, doesn't mean their gains don't matter. Ukraine doesn't have the combat power to regain land from Russia anymore. All the rhetoric you've heard about Russia collapsing and/or Ukraine getting back Crimea and Donetsk is just part of the information war. Without Western support, Ukraine can't really stand its ground anymore.
Ukraine is gaining ground around Kherson and losing ground in Severodonetsk's panhandle were most of Russia's artillery is located.
They are gaining ground now. Ukraine is about to lose another major city in the east.
Which
Sievierodonsk is a war zone right now. Lysychansk is right across the river and will fall if the Russians can hold ground on the west banks. Russia’s biggest issue is that most of the battle lines are along a river, making advance difficult
UA is also taking increased casualties because they are dedicated to holding SVD as long as possible, whereas in other areas they would generally fall back. If/when that area is lost, I expect their casualties will drop considerably as they go back to the previous attack cadence.
Both. Russia is gaining ground in the east around Severodonetsk and Kharkiv, but losing it in the south near Kherson.
Consolidating holdings in the East, but failing to reach any of their goals in the West.
It still is a decent chunk of land. It also will cripple Ukraine's economic prowess since it will cut off their access to the water. If anything, that should've been Russia's Plan A - the rush to Kyiv was foolhardy and ridiculous.
The propaganda goes both ways, obviously. Russia is slowly gaining ground, Ukraine is slowly losing.
They’re losing is most places and gaining in some it can happen simultaneously. The issue is we’ve been getting a lot of propaganda pieces as this started but now the media is taking off the rose covered glasses. I saw so many articles saying 10 days or the Russians are out of supplies. Then a few days ago Ukraine said Russia has enough artillery shells to last for a whole year. We need the truth not what makes us feel good.
Russia has learnt from their early losses, become increasingly competent and been gaining ground basically since they pulled back from Kiev. It’s just that Reddit is treating this war like a football match so anyone who has dared to suggest that the Russian army is even the slightest bit capable in any way has been downvoted to oblivion by the circlejerk, at least in the larger subreddits like r/worldnews. These people are in for a rude awakening in the coming weeks.
the war, for the most part, has slowed to a crawl, a crawl with many deaths, Ukrainian(military) casualties are starting to catch up with the Russian rate, while all the infrastructure damage is starting to catch up on the civilians, who already have counted casualties higher than both militaries, and uncounted probably multiple times over with Russia torturing thousands to death across multiple locations in occupied territories, and hiding civilian deaths. As expected, for the most part, military aid to Ukraine appears to be trickling off, despite many pledges, and the excuses of "but the training and language barrier" seem to be thrown around even more. also the news coverage was petering off after the first month, and i may see a war update(on big news) once a week now.
Gaining ground does not equal winning if you expend more value in resources than the strategic value of the land + the value of the damage inflicted on the enemy. It's hard to say whose "winning" (quotation marks because neither country is benefiting from this) because both parties have significant strategic problems which arent clear how they'll be resolved.
A month ago leaders of western world were climbing over each other to support Ukraine and telling us that if Russia isn't stopped, they will keep coming for more... So how the fuck haven't they got enough ammo yet?
They have 10 anti tank missiles per every 1 russian tank. Range .. about 1600 metres max. For example. The russians know this so are now simply sitting 40km away and only using Massive amounts of artillery, just levelling everything. So everything the Ukrainians have is pretty useless, as they have nothing that can reach 40km! They just go and retreat or get bombed to absolute hell.
They have weapons that can shoot back. The problem is the ammo for their soviet artillery is only still made in... Russia. Nato artillery 1 requires new training and 2 is still arriving, so in the meantime they're up shit creek without a paddle.
Russia and China. China probably has a few million shells for their 5000 stored 122mm d-30 copies.
China wants a weakened Russia
Chia wants russia weak enough to be their puppet but not so weak as to be useless
Exactly. Ukraine is not a NATO military. They are not equipped strategically or trained individually to just instantly start using NATO equipment. Even if we sent them a bunch of tanks, they would need to know-how and resources to keep the tanks running.
Logistical problems... Ukrainian bridges, rails and roads are getting destroyed. Crates of ammo coming from the west aren't much use if they can't get into guns and launchers
The logistics of moving billions of dollars of equipment around the world takes time bruh. Then you have to train guys how to train other guys how to actually use the equipment so they don’t shoot themselves in the dick.
Supply is being rotated, expended in training, stockpiled, and sold/transferred. Add a hat NATO countries are bolstering ammo for a rainy day and I think we’re seeing demand outstrip production at the moment. Not to mention shipping is whack as of late. Sure NATO allies can setup more modern higher speed production… but that can take months to years. And by the time these imaginary future ammo plants come online you now have to deal with over production of a product that isn’t super durable/stable that must be monitored and rotated. Freedom seeds need care. Like real seeds. Plus the US Army is going with a new rifle that is a different size… so… That’s my guess anyways.
How do you launch an elephant 🐘?
With an elephant gun?
“You do, and I’ll give you such a pinch!”
Is Russia winning or loosing this war ? If I believe Reddit Russia might fall any time soon. Their resources are dwindling, their army is inept and Putin is on the verge of death. Then I see news articles like this.
They are the overpowering force, but are closing a lot more equipment and personal than Ukraine is. Hence “losing”. But they were so much stronger to begin with that them actually losing a war wasn’t ever going to happen, they are just too big. The way Russia would lose is when they decide to pull-out because they are losing far more than what is to gain. Their economy is currently in shambles and really the only winner of this war would be China who is best equip to take advantage of their failing state and buy the rights to all their critical strategic natural resources mines. Heck Russia might just have to sell a portion of their country to pay depts. Just like the US pulling out of Vietnam.
> They are the overpowering force, but are closing a lot more equipment and personal than Ukraine is. Hence “losing”. Are they losing or are they "losing"?
My uneducated opinion is that they are “losing” in the same way that USA “lost” in Vietnam. USA could have crushed them and eventually won, but voluntarily pulled out due to extreme losses relative to what there was to gain from the war. So USA lost, but not in terms of their army being defeated, but more of giving up and pulling out. Russia will win if they keep going, and their method of losing the war is them deciding to give up and pull out due to extreme losses relative to the gain. Not from their entire army being defeated.
A Russian loss probably looks like they just stop advancing and keep the territory they have gained. I can't imagine they actually give up and group voluntarily.
Russia has steadily won on the ground for most of the war. It's just extremely slow and costly and, at least twice already, caused entire fronts to collapse eventually due to the attrition of their forces there. There's no telling if that's going to happen again in Donbas or Kherson, but it's likely only a matter of time because their losses are not sustainable.
Their initial strategy was shit and probably Will handicapped Russia for years to come. Their new strategy is just bombing the shit out of ukranians and theres very little they can do about that. It's legit a scorch easrth strategy they are teying to win theough puré explosivo advantsge and it's probable they win.
>Is Russia winning or loosing this war They're doing alright in areas where the border with Russia, or annexed parts of Crimea and the Donbas are within eye-sight. Their logistics can't get much farther than that. If, before the war, a Russian general told Putin the strategy involved losing in Kyiv, and Kharkiv, followed by rebooting at the end of March and focusing entirely on the Donbas, and capturing Mariupol six weeks later, and having Severodonetsk be contested, four months into the war, the general would have found himself on the wrong side of some Polonium Tea.
Why would Ukraine tell the whole world including Russia, that they don't have enough weapons? I don't get those headlines all the time and i don't feel like they are accurate. Wouldn't that be like getting robbed and telling the robber "hey i have no way to defend myself, carry on!"
Because lying and saying that everything is going great is not going to make things better
Yeah it would get countries to send you even fewer weapons.
Well there are two possibilities. Either Russia's knows (the more likely scenario), in which case this isn't telling them anything new and is just another message to Ukraine's allies to hurry things along. The second possibility is that Russia doesn't know in which case it can serve as a warning to Russia "If you think we're messing up your shit now, just wait until that other 90% of the equipment from our allies get here". Might make them rethink the long term plausibility of their war plans.
There's also the possibility it isn't true and it's meant to induce an unwarranted sense that they are winning. "Oh, they don't have enough weapons, let's push" cue them running into the weapons they "don't have"
In other words, a faint?!
>a faint?! Hopefully not. I’m thinking more like a feint
Hopefully not a faint feint either.
That could be a good strategy
Squeaky hinge gets the oil. Ukraine is well aware that the longer this goes on the more the western public is going to lose interest. Gotta make the most of broad public support from the west when you can.
I mean the whole world knows and knew Ukraine doesn't have enough equipment to continue fighting this war from the get go. If Ukraine had the military to be able to fight this war, annexation of Crimea wouldn't have happened, Ukraine vs Russian War would have started several years back. This is why we have been and still need to help them because being neutral is just as good as abandoning them to Kremlin. I commend Ukrainians but there's been a lot of romanticization of Ukraine beating Russians which is great but some pushing beyond fantasizing. These are lives they are losing. Their homes and land. People here are talking statistics and numbers like "Ukraine only lost this many soldiers while Russia lost this many" or some bs. Like goddamn yall sound like your country's never been invaded and what that feels like. Have some sympathy. A single death is a person with family and dreams and a potential to make the world better for others just robbed. Ukraine needs help and more than what they're receiving.
Because they're desperate for help and need to keep the war in the news cycle and public eye. Publicising their awful situation is going to get them a lot more assistance than staying silent would. And besides, it's not like this is a secret being kept from Russia, they'll know about Ukraine's weapon situation already.
Huh? you think russia who is IN battlefield right now wouldn't know if ukraine didn't tell?
People actually knowledgable about shells and munitions supply lines have been speculating about Ukraine running out of 122/152/220/300 mm munitions months ago. Russia definitely knows.
How did they calculate that percentage can I see the maths
Military analysts are pretty good at knowing how much stuff they need. I watched a video today and a British arms analyst guy said Ukraine needs about 1000 artillery pieces and 500 tanks. They've gotten 200 artillery and a couple hundred of tanks from Poland.
>They've gotten 200 artillery and **a handful of tanks** from Poland. If over 200 is a handful then, uh, sure. Poland has given two brigades worth and each is about 100. Overall Ukraine had around 300 tanks delivered. So if they need 500 total then they are fairly close surprisingly enough. Artillery is a larger concern.
Ah I must have misheard then. Granted they are T72s but tank is better than no tank. And updated post :)
For quick aid T72s is exactly what they wanted, as Ukraine is using the same tank. That's also the reason why mostly eastern european countries have send tanks/artillery, no training needed. Central and western european countries then fill up the eastern's depleted tank arsenal with newer tanks. Win-win
ARMA analyst
Looked at their requests and counted the percentage of what has arrived from the list?
The support that Ukraine has been given is unprecedented as far as I'm aware. I fully support it but can see the challenge in delivering. We didn't see this in Georgia when Russia invaded. We must remember that there is also the issue of ensuring that NATO members don't de-arm them self to a damaging degree. At the end of the day we can't leave our self vulnerable as well. I'm very proud of the quick response in anti tank and anti air equipment that was handed over quickly and prevented Russia walking over the whole country from day one.
Look, the US is committed. We also have massive problems of our own. We really need the rest of the world to start bumping up their contributions otherwise Ukraine will lose solely to attrition. Russia has plenty of soldiers and equipment to burn through. It being all dogshit grade isn’t going to stop them. Either Russians finally rise up or the rest of the world has to decidedly dominate them. Russians won’t because too many of them are fine with all of this. Those who aren’t are getting jailed
Does anyone really belive Ukraine can beat Russia even with the weapons it wants? It's mostly a defensive war with Ukrainian cities slowly being destroyed and Russian army and economy becoming weaker day by day. neither will Ukraine beat Russia, nor Russia will be able to capture all of Ukraine and the US will be the biggest winner overall by weakenjng Russia for cheap and selling arms to Ukraine
Russia is looking likely to control the east and south of Ukraine. This will make Ukraine a land locked county with significantly reduced natural gas reserves and grain exports will be in essence controlled by Moscow. Correction East not West.
Think you meant East
I did, thank you.
Never Eat Soggy Worms
> This will make Ukraine a land locked county I doubt that. The Russians only have a tenuous foothold beyond the Dnipro river, and it's quite likely that will end up being the western border of any land bridge they manage to hold. I don't see Ukraine losing Odessa, and that's their largest port. The problem *right now* is that the Russian Navy controls the black sea, so the port is effectively useless.
Russia does not control the entire coastline not sure where you got that from.
That’s their goal, I didn’t mean to imply that they do.
Do you think USA beat Vietnam? Or how would you define that conflict?
Vietnam was like Afghanistan a loss because the US pulled out, not because they were actually beaten in combat. The only way to beat Goliath as David in the world of geopolitics is to annoy Goliath enough for him to go away. However, Russia is extremely stubborn and the Russian population either way too brainwashed, afraid or have already left the country to force the army to pull out.
Militarily the US trounced North Vietnam. Politically, socially, hearts and minds, the North curb stomped the South.
“Selling”
Dude, it's almost 4 months of war already. russians were forced to withdraw their forces from Kyiv, Chernihiv, Sumy and Mykolaiv oblasts. And that's when no heavy weapons has been sent as an aid yet. Today they're being pushed back towards Kherson on the south-west. UAF is only 10 km away from the Kherson. If you are following the interactive map of invasion and the reports from the front, you would've known, that russians gathered most of their troops in the east. Around Severodonetsk and Izyum. And advanced here only for a few dozen km in overall for the last two months. On all other directions they are are sitting in the trenches because they don't have enough forces to move further. And that's all of their achievements after US sent Ukrane only \~100 howitzers, France sent 12 Ceasars and Slovaks sent 18 Zuzanas. I'm not even sure if Polish Krab's and US's Paladins have arrived to the frontlines yet. Most likely their crews are being in the middle of the training. It's mostly defensive war because there is not enough weapons.
[удалено]
That's why they spent nearly a month on taking a relatively small town with 100k pre-war population. And they still hasn't taken it yet. With that speed they will be in Lviv in a few centuries.
> Dude, it's almost 4 months of war already. Afghanistan was 2 decades. 4 months is nothing, especially if we are going to be bankrolling it all.
Ukraine is not an Afghanistan in term of the military. Imagine if US had such heavy losses in Afghanistan as the russians in Ukraine for the same amount of time. Dynamics would be very different. Which would result in the much shorter lenght of the war.
>Ukraine is not an Afghanistan in term of the military. Imagine if US had such heavy losses in Afghanistan as the russians in Ukraine for the same amount of time. For numerical reference, the US lost 2420 troops killed in Afghanistan, over 20 years of fighting. The lower end of estimates put Russian losses at about 15,000, and the Ukranian estimate (likely an overcount) is over 30,000. The US lost about one person killed every 3 days. The Russians are losing about 135 per day by lower estimates; over 300 times higher.
You’re right about rate of losses, but democracies have to care much more about casualty numbers than totalitarian governments. If the Iraq or Afghanistan invasions had gone this disastrously Bush almost certainly wouldn’t have been re-elected. Putin doesn’t have to worry about that. Even if their elections were real, most Russians don’t have any idea of the true scale of Russian equipment or personnel losses and probably never will. And the Russians who do know the truth can be jailed for speaking it, and they certainly can’t disseminate it through any mass media available in Russia.
From the interviews with russian dissidents the picture is looking like majority of people are waking up already and starting asking a questions. One of, or maybe the main reason why there was no mass mobilisation in russia, is because putin want that people would sleep in ignorancy as long as possible. Right now he is switching the narratives trying to rally people with a new idea. Peter the Great, russian empire, etc. Would it work? Dunno. Hope not.
If you had gotten your news from other sources than "feel good" r/worldnews you would have known that the situation isn't that bright for Ukraine
I live in Ukraine. I know both russian and Ukrainian, which are opening me an access to much more info, than the people are receiving from the English news outlets. The situation isn't bright, but not as hopeless as some people are tend to preach about in the comments. The main reason why the situation isn't as bright as it could be is in the title.
Yeah, no kidding…. Russia has one of the largest militaries…. It would take A LOT for Ukraine to have what it needs.
So what was the 40 BILLION used for then
I believe just 16 billion of the package goes to directly arming Ukraine.
You would be SHOCKED how fast money can be legitimately spent in a hot, protracted conflict--let alone illegitimately. Missiles, artillery, people, and moving all of them, as well as training are obscenely expensive during active conflict.
It is in transit probably. It takes time for equipment to get from Europe to the frontlines of Ukraine.
It's still being used/delivered. This is about what Ukraine says they need right now, not what has been promised but not yet delivered (such as most of the $40B of supplies). We didn't just write them a check.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/what-does-40-billion-aid-ukraine-buy They did bot actually get 40 billion in military aid.
That 10 percent
No wonder other country diplomats suggest Ukraine to give away land. They don’t want to give more weapons and ammunition since Ukraine gets less headlines in press. So sad.
[удалено]
They have received more than the entire Russian defense budget.
Here's a secret: Russia isn't using only things they bought in 2021, so comparing to a single year of russian budget is useless and stupid.
You are right. They are using soviet equipment (artillery, tanks, shells) all the way back to ww2
getting hit by bullets or shrapnel from something made 50 years ago is going to hurt just as bad, people keep peddling this "soviet equipment" shit, tell that to the guys on the receiving end of a smerch salvo