Russian command center of the 70th Guards Motorized Rifle Regiment was hit in occupied Zaporizhzia by HIMARS. It is reported that many officers gathered, including the commander https://twitter.com/user/status/1764731596664352794
Perun with yet another excellent and very timely video.
Short version, in his own words "The biggest trap in 2024 would be to think of this war as 'settled' in its outcome".
Even with the United States undermined and relegated to a temporary state of irrelevance, it doesn't seem likely that Russia would be able to knock Ukraine out of the war in 2024.
While the current situation means hard times for Ukrainians and frankly is an embarrassment to the US and the West more generally, it also means that there is nothing to suggest that further help to Ukraine would be somehow a waste.
On the contrary, Ukraine is still able to put up a good fight under the current conditions, which massively favor Russia. Russia is likely close to it's peak in near term military capability. They have been resupplied by North Korea and Iran, they've already fully militarized their economy, while the worst effects of that to their population are yet to arrive, and they are probably already utilisizing or have utilized most of their Soviet stockpile. This is as good as the Russian military is probably going to get.
In the opposite corner, much of the Wests planned support is still being built, while US support is held hostage by the pro-Putin Jihadist party, aka the Republicans.
Even in this situation, Ukraine isn't looking like it's going to lose the war in the near term. That is a testament that this war is far from decided. Russia will likely be able to move lines on a map, but they will pay a terrible cost for it, and if Ukraine gets the support it deserves and the West is capable of, they could absolutely still kick Russia out of their country.
Lines on a map go back and forth. Just because it's moving one way now doesn't mean that it's going to keep moving that way until the war is over. Just like Ukrainians moving the lines the other way didn't mean the war was over. A lot can be done, and there's plenty of time to do it.
As Perun points out, Germany was "winning" at the end of the 1st world war, if you just look at where the battle line was at that time.
Last edited by Itse; 03-05-2024 at 04:00 AM.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
In the opposite corner, much of the Wests planned support is still being built, while US support is held hostage by the pro-Putin Jihadist party, aka the Republicans.
.
Regan must be spinning in his grave.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
The Following User Says Thank You to undercoverbrother For This Useful Post:
The International Criminal Court's website reports that the commander of Russia's long-range aviation, Sergei Kobylash, and the commander of the Black Sea Fleet, Viktor Sokolov, are responsible for "the war crime of directing attacks at civilian objects and the war crime of causing excessive incidental harm to civilians or damage to civilian objects, and the crime against humanity of inhumane acts."
Seeing visual confirmation that Ukraine lost a HIMARS launcher in the last day or so. The video shows a missile strike on the launcher as they were loading it seems. This would be the first confirmed loss since the system was provided in June 2022.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to burn_this_city For This Useful Post:
Russia has already lost the war, even if Ukraine ultimately loses as well. Putin might be ok with hundreds of thousands of casualties, but the vast amounts of equipment destroyed is not so easily replaced, nor can Russia's prestige be recovered. Russia is no longer a credible conventional military threat to the West, for its armed forces can't even project decisive power into an immediate neighbour.
The strategy of making Europe dependent on Russian gas, and thus theoretically unable to resist Russian policy, ended up an utter failure. Rather than achieving Putin's other goal of dividing and neutralizing the West with a quick victory and enforced European helplessness, the war has reinvigorated and expanded NATO, and sidelined the regimes inside the EU sympathetic to Russian interests. That the West can send its extra equipment and spare change to Ukraine and frustrate Putin's ambitions shows how weak Russia has become, and so Russia has lost, and whatever they might salvage with a "victory" will still leave them in a far worse position than they were pre-invasion.
Best thing for Russia would be for Putin to die or be overthrown, and have his replacement reconcile with the West, as the other option is becoming a de facto Chinese client state. Either way, the dream of re-establishing a Russian empire is dead.
As long as they have nukes, they are a credible military threat.
As long as they have nukes, they are a credible military threat.
Nukes aren't a good weapon system. Their potential use cases are so limited that they are almost never a good substitute for actual military power.
All they really do is protect you from complete military takeover by an outside force. Which is definitely something, but it's almost impossible to achieve a reasonable, useful military goal with nukes.
Nukes aren't a good weapon system. Their potential use cases are so limited that they are almost never a good substitute for actual military power.
All they really do is protect you from complete military takeover by an outside force. Which is definitely something, but it's almost impossible to achieve a reasonable, useful military goal with nukes.
100%. Nukes are only really a deterrent to invasion, not to interference from foreign powers in an extraterritorial conflict. Using them in that context would only serve to attract the single thing they are meant to deter: military action within your own borders.
This threat of Russian nukes has been a red herring this entire time, and I don't think the west is overly concerned about them. What is keeping the west out of Ukraine is not Russian nukes, it is the domestic political nightmare, which would undoubtedly follow direct interference.
100%. Nukes are only really a deterrent to invasion, not to interference from foreign powers in an extraterritorial conflict. Using them in that context would only serve to attract the single thing they are meant to deter: military action within your own borders.
This threat of Russian nukes has been a red herring this entire time, and I don't think the west is overly concerned about them. What is keeping the west out of Ukraine is not Russian nukes, it is the domestic political nightmare, which would undoubtedly follow direct interference.
Also, a total war with Russia would be a terrible and scary thing.
Obviously the West could kick their asses, quickly. Sink their navy, take down their air force...
... but since they couldn't take over Russia or force a regime change, what then? Russia lobbing missiles just everywhere? Russian submarines hunting down merchant ships? Famine due to Russia not selling fertilizer and food? And what's the way out if things escalate, when you can't force a surrender, but Russia has no path to victory? That's a realistic nuclear war scenario.
It's why I think the Wests big mistake was to let things get this far. The best time to go all in on supporting Ukraine was early in the war. The better time is now. The longer Russians are deluded that there's something to be won in Ukraine, the harder it will be when they realize they already lost this war a long time ago.
In other news, Sweden is officially a part of NATO as of today.
The only time Nukes were ever used in a battle scenario was to induce the surrender of a foreign combatant, though. I suppose that's sort of a "deterrent to continue war" but it wasn't defensive at all.
MAD might make that less pertinent in these times, but I don't think it's valid to say they're only useful as a deterrent. There's a whole category of low-yield nukes envisioned for tactical no defensive purposes, too. They're non-practical in todays world because of international law and image... but not useless for these purposes.
The only time Nukes were ever used in a battle scenario was to induce the surrender of a foreign combatant, though. I suppose that's sort of a "deterrent to continue war" but it wasn't defensive at all.
MAD might make that less pertinent in these times, but I don't think it's valid to say they're only useful as a deterrent. There's a whole category of low-yield nukes envisioned for tactical no defensive purposes, too. They're non-practical in todays world because of international law and image... but not useless for these purposes.
Fair enough, though we can't short change the difference in circumstance between nukes being used in an offensive capacity by a nation who is the only owner of nukes, vs. our current environment.
100%. Nukes are only really a deterrent to invasion, not to interference from foreign powers in an extraterritorial conflict. Using them in that context would only serve to attract the single thing they are meant to deter: military action within your own borders.
This threat of Russian nukes has been a red herring this entire time, and I don't think the west is overly concerned about them. What is keeping the west out of Ukraine is not Russian nukes, it is the domestic political nightmare, which would undoubtedly follow direct interference.
I think the threat of nuclear war is real. It won't be a volley of massive strikes between two countries like the common scenario portrayed though. it will be a more gradual escalation when some country starts to use low-yield tactical nukes to take out military staging areas and other targets. The line is constantly getting pushed and there has already been talk in both the West and Russia about tactical nukes not being a red line that triggers full scale intercontinental nuclear war.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
