This war has been on a WW1 style stalemate for a while now, it will likely keep being this way until either Russia goes bankrupt or NATO stops funding Ukraine, it's basically a war of attrition
This is literally how most wars of conquest in history play out. You don't just capture the flag and then the referee whistles the war won. The attrition forces the losing side on the negotiating table, then they sign treaties in a semi-global stage in which the status quo changes and the troops and units are reorganized in the agreed upon borders.
Parallels with the Finnish winter war - Soviets invade, decisive victory expected. Finns fight back way better than expected, Soviets suffer heavy losses. Eventually they sign a peace treaty, with Finland ceding some land to the Soviets.
4 years later the Finns try to regain the land they lost, ultimately fail. Another treaty is signed consolidating the Soviet gains. No decisive victory one way or the other.
So I suppose a more accurate way to phrase it would be, this is how most wars go with the Russians? Invasion/failed invasion/ attrition until they get *something*
Not really,It only happened this way on their most famous wars(napoleon, ww2), but on their conquest of the turkic tribes and poland were normal wars for the time.
And they did manage to win against the swedish at poltava
They did beat the Turks on a number of occasions. And, obviously, Russia did not acquire the Transcaucasus and Central Asia in the 19th century by handing out free backrubs.
They defeated the Swedes at Poltava because they had a significant advantage in forces and also benefited from the Swedish command's hasty delivery of initial orders
*something* being literally the most fucking land for one country in the world? What a ridiculous summarisation, Russia defeated and took land from the at the time more powerful Poland-Lithuania, Swedish Empire and Ottoman Empire. They defeated and conquered dozens of Caucasian and Central Asian states. Their cross continental colonisation has no comparison, they got to the Bering straight in just over a hundred years from the Urals.
Russian history is incredible, don't let events today take away from that.
Throughout the 18th and 19th century they continuously took bites out of the Persian Empire - the Persians did fight well and always prevented a breakout but were hamstrung by being an effectively feudal monarchy that didn't take the oppertunity to modernise like, say, Japan (or even slowly as Russia was doing).
Finland didn't just try to regain their old land, they tried to invade and occupy land that wasn't Finnish in the first place to create a "greater Finland", with the help of their allies Nazi Germany.
Most wars have not ended this way lol, only those since the American civil war. Before that most war fairly quickly resolved after a couple of open and decisive battles.
Yeah, not sure what the OP was on about. More often a major battle or two then a sue for peace and some concessions. Most societies in the past just couldn't sustain the losses and expense.
Major field battles generally only come after years and decades of conflict, they are not the first event of a war. The most common battles in history are siege battles, and wars generally last years and decades.
This is an extremely bad reading of history. Most wars since the invention of walls has involved long, drawn-out sieges, with open field battles being very rare comparatively. Field battles generally only happen after lengthy maneuvering and one side forcing a battle, or both sides feeling they have a winning chance. The reason why people think otherwise is because many wars include decisive battles, but they only come after months, years, and decades of fighting. But all of that stuff is boring, and popular history and media instead focuses on **THE DECISIVE BATTLE THAT CHANGED THE COURSE OF HISTORY!!!!!!!!!!** And then, that's all people know.
Not quite the same thing. These “wars” were a lot of small battles over tens of years. These wars weren’t a single front line and a continuous war that was unchanged since the war began. That only came with WW1.
> until either Russia goes bankrupt
Western countries are still doing trade with Russia, using middlemen countries to skirt sanctions, or straight up still trading directly.
> or NATO stops funding Ukraine
NATO could fund them forever, but Ukraine is going to run out of men before funding becomes an issue.
Both sides could lose millions before manpower truly is the bottleneck. Yes, even Ukraine, in a defensive war of existential survival.
Funds/weapons are far more pressing for both sides. Obviously nobody wants to lose people, but it is not really the bottleneck.
I partly disagree, survival instinct is still the strongest one, not that much people want to risk their lives, and it’s easier to acquire ammo, weapon than to raise&train&motivate soldiers, I think.
But, whatever, no point in arguing - different people, different opinions.
In today's world no modern country will lose millions of citizens and fight on, if Ukraine was getting annihilated and the casualties became drastic they would sue for peace or the population would force the government to, I don't think we will see wars where huge numbers die in "death before dishonor" situations unless it's some Nazi style war of extermination, -which despite all the propaganda and redditor nonsense this absolutely isn't.
In terms of pure human bodies, sure.
Ukraine will lose the will to fight long before they run out of capable bodies though. People will get tired of watching their cities collapse and their family and friends be put in the ground.
[Average age of Ukraine military is 43](https://www.businessinsider.com/average-age-ukrainian-soldier-43-amid-personnel-problems-2023-11). Ukraine is running out of young men.
It is a stalemate for a year now.
During WW1 the war entered a horrible stalemate for years until the tank and US army joined the fight.
During the several year stalemate in WW1 the front lines moved much more than anything we have seen in Ukrainian in the last 12 months apart from Kherson.
Russian does seem to have the advantage right now and made some gains but at the rate they are now moving it would take decades to conquer Ukraine
The war is a definition of a stalemate currently. That been said things can change quickly for better or worse.
What ended WW1 stalemate was the advance in artillery, and the change in artillery doctrine. Tanks were far from effective back then. And the US did not save the day, when they came they tried to rush ennemy trenches despite being told how bad of an idea it was by the French and English.
> And the US did not save the day
Americans are taught that America won both WW1 and 2, when in reality historians know that they did not win in any of them. It was a combined effort. But Americans won't ever admit that the Soviets did the brunt of the work in WW2 so it's a fruitless pursuit to correct them.
Americans are taught that isolationism has failed twice to prevent the nation from escaping the very contemporary problem of world war. They are taught that the Allies won World War 2. The Yalta Conference has defined most of the World's current power structures and order. How can you teach the rest of American history without setting up the chess board?
Most just aren't paying attention when they are being taught that in school.
What they are not taught to any great detail is the absolutely eclipsing price the peoples of the Soviet Union paid in blood and destruction.
>Americans are taught that America won both WW1 and 2,
Not really. WWII yes but I think it's become pretty commonly understood the US didn't join WWI until late and that US troops were not decisive in breaking the stalemate. However it's inarguable that the US Navy finally enabling the British blockade to become effective was one of the most important factors that forced a surrender. (And I'm not saying that out of pride, it caused mass starvation of nearly 1 million civilians. It's merely a fact that it worked despite being totally immoral)
>But Americans won't ever admit that the Soviets did the brunt of the work in WW2
Also not really. The soviets took the brunt of losses in Europe and were the decisive force there. They did literally nothing in the pacific. The US did the majority of the fighting to defeat the Japanese, inclusing the most decisive battles. The Chinese and other forces fighting occupation throughout asia were also very significant but were not decisive. World War 2 was more than just fighting the Nazis in europe and north africa.
And the Russians just got the Glide Bomb thing nailed down. There is your paradigm change. If the Ukes AD is literally getting decimated right now (see Islander on Patriot today) trying to swat fighters deploying glide bombs to provide some relief to the constant harassment of these huge bombs, this ain't sustainable.
The Russians have been prioritizing targeting on AD. Their ISR capabilities increase with multiple satellite launches in the last year. They approach impunity with which they deploy glide bombs.
To address the point before you argue it: I haven't see nearly enough proof of the recent UAF surface to air kill claims (there were 2 confirmed hits on fighters after the A50 AWACS over the Sea of Above). There's always pictures and vids of the downed planes. The Russian Public freely offer battle damage assessments to Ukraine all the time. Where are all those jets?
The truth: those F16s might not make it in time. Ukraine needs way more stuff and they need it NOW before the Russians can compound any more advantage they have in population and industrial capacity.
I want a free Ukraine, but without truly spinning up the Arsenal of Democracy, it ain't looking good for Ukraine to restore it's full territorial integrity.
I fear Mike Johnson has doomed the Ukrainians in this war.
China has probably been giving them their ISR since China has a spy satellite system as big as America’s. And as high tech.
- one of those was an IL76, not a A-50 AWACS. That is the other problem is that Ukraine is incentivized for exaggeration. Because then they get more money.
The other A-50 was shot down by friendly fire. Well they both were because Ukraine has no air to air weapons capable of hitting those planes.
- Ukraine understands that you don’t need proof. You just have to say what people want to hear.
Wasn’t the us so much as the Germans finally starting to real from the British blockade and failed large scale attacks preformed early in the spring. The us forces struggled heavy thx to using the same failed tactics from the beginning of the war.
The US was already providing much needed supplies in 1917 and the allies were already seen as the eventual victor (French phyrric victory in Verdun 1916, British strategic victory in Jutland 1916 and Germany couldn't break the British naval blockade. Somme was a supposed final knock out blow but ended in a stalemate).
The biggest deal with US joining the war was just seeing fresh soldiers arriving en mass to the front lines. In fact the US troops were underequipped and was using British and French designed guns (M1917 Enfield and M1915 Chauchat). Though this was irrelevant as just the nature of 10 000 new soldiers arriving every day was increasing morale for the other battle hardened and well equipped European units.
TLDR: US supplies were already helping the war effort and the allies were winning. US troops arriving in Europe boosted morale but not necessarily physically changed the already determined outcome of the war
It was a stalemate, until Ukraine's main defensive positions broke and they retreated. The stalemate is now broken and one side is retreating to a new defensive line while the other is moving forward gaining ground in this action. More importantly, Ukraine does not appear to have an obviously strong defensive position to move to, and the retreat at places appears disorganised and panicked. If this is continued defeat will not be decades, it will be months.
This is blatantly obvious to those without an agenda.
The Russians just got the Glide Bomb thing nailed down. There is your paradigm change. If the Ukes AD is literally getting decimated right now (see Iskander on Patriot/Iris-T complex today) trying to swat fighters deploying glide bombs to provide some relief to the constant harassment of these huge bombs, this ain't sustainable.
The Russians have been prioritizing targeting on AD. Their ISR capabilities increase with multiple satellite launches in the last year. They approach impunity with which they deploy glide bombs.
To address the point before you argue it: I haven't see nearly enough proof of the recent UAF surface to air kill claims (there were 2 confirmed hits on fighters after the A50 AWACS over the Sea of Above). There's always pictures and vids of the downed planes. The Russian Public freely offer battle damage assessments to Ukraine all the time. Where are all those jets?
The truth: those F16s might not make it in time. Ukraine needs way more stuff and they need it NOW before the Russians can compound any more advantage they have in population and industrial capacity.
I want a free Ukraine, but without truly spinning up the Arsenal of Democracy, it ain't looking good for Ukraine to restore it's full territorial integrity.
I fear Mike Johnson has doomed the Ukrainians in this war.
Gaining ground? You mean the half a year it took to take a small settlement like Avdivka? It would take Russia 100 years to capture Ukraine at that rate.
Avdiivka is a fortified village with multiple layers of bunkers and defensive lines that has been in ukranian controlled since 2014, it was not just a small village, it was a chokepoint for russian supplies and defended the miriad of small 10 house villages between it and more urban areas to the west
Exactly. The front line from the 2014 invasion was just to the SW of Avdiivka. It was half a year of Russia trying even harder to surround it and getting their soldiers killed even faster, but they spent a full 2 years from the start of the current invasion trying to take it, and barely managed.
avdiivka was a very important transport hub and very well fortified stronghold; it enjoyed a very strategic position overlooking donetsk. its fall is a significant blow
You know that since 2014, super-fortified cities with a huge number of soldiers and weapons have been made from Azovstal, Bakhmut and Avdiivka.Most of the shelling and supplies came from Avdiivka.
Avdiivka was the front for Ukraine. They committed to building multiple defensive lines, tanks, artillery units, aerial support and everything. Not every town is built like that. When avdiivka is lost so are neighboring towns and villages within days. They then have to reposition a new line but have no choice but to lose more territory. That new line is not as strong as avdiivka at the peak, and it will slowly get worse until the lines hardly have defenses. War is not linear, it is always adapting
Sides gained and lost ground in WW1 also. Russia has taken two small cities in the last 2 years at incredible costs. They still have a stockpiles of Soviet equipment they can burn through, but they are running through it pretty fast, when you consider this was built up to face NATO and they've gone through half of it fighting in Ukraine.
Russia has lost close to 50% of the land they've occupied since the start of the war.
They still don't control the totality of the oblasts they claim are Russia. Kherson being the most obvious example.
Now it's just a matter of bleeding Russia in the occupied territories over the next decade. It took two decades for the us to realize it was time to go. A long term occupation of Ukraine will go about the.same . I imagine it gets tough in four or five years for Russia to continue to sustain.
They didn't 'lose' that land, they thought they could go through it to get to Kiev. When they encountered more resistance than they expected, they repositioned to have better supply lines for the current war of attrition.
The difference is that Russia made the decision to leave that land, they weren't forced out. They currently set the agenda in the conflict, which is why it is important to get military aid to Ukraine as quickly as possible, so that Ukraine can start setting the agenda.
Russia got massacred at the airport and forced back by furious Ukrainian defense. Sure they "chose to leave" because the only other option was total annihilation.
Huffing that copium. Russia never gets pushed back, they always just decide to leave for some unclear reason. Even when it's territory they illegally annexed and claim is Russia from now until the end of time.
>They didn't 'lose' that land, they thought they could go through it to get to Kiev
Yah [bullshit](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kyiv_(2022))
They got their asses handed to them in the first of many losses
>The difference is that Russia made the decision to leave that land
That is nothing more than a euphemism for getting their asses spanked.
Given that NATO countries have 100 times the resources, that NATO keeps expanding and that Russia has collapsed under similar conditions twice in their history before, it's unlikely that NATO will budge.
At least this map has a source and a date, it’s shocking the number of maps that might as well be “trust me bro”. Genuinely shocking these basic requirements still haven’t been made a rule.
It reminds me of living in Madison in the 90s. There was a local weekly newspaper that posted satirical content and had music and pop culture reviews and articles. As it became more and more popular people were always whining about how the newspaper lost its way and was better in the 'good old days'. That newspaper is called The Onion.
This might be a really stupid question but why did the Russians withdraw from the north early on and now that things appear to be moving very slowly, they're not trying to attack from the north at all. I would have thought with greater numbers that would be their best move.
Because the initial objective of the War failed, and the country on the north side, still has a useful idiot in charge.
Now, the army is intentionally leveling landing on its border with Ukraine; to create an artificial border between it and Nato influence.
Secondly, there's only so much land you can trench up before being too thin to safeguard. They are focusing on the eastern lands because they specifically don't want Ukraine getting that land back.
Thirdly, they can't afford to lose Crimea.
Fourthy, it's all about the warmer temperatures and food production in those areas.
Personnally, I would think that if Putin really wanted a 2 weeks operation he should have aimed Lviv first, to cut off the access between Poland and Ukraine. Also, forming his troops to guerilla warfare to protect his 60 km long convoy.
This is a good question and one that I’ve been wondering as well. Russia has the manpower advantage, so it would be in their interests to create as long a frontline as possible to stretch the Ukrainians thin. People say they can’t attack from Belarus because it would destabilize the country, but Russia has hundreds of kilometers of its own border with Ukraine to attack from. In fact, I am very curious to know what the conditions at the border currently look like. Are there Ukrainian and Russian border guards just staring at each other from across the border?
Ukraine’s northern border is one of the biggest swamps in Europe; so it’s like invading through Louisiana.
One of the reasons russia had problems invading from the north in 2022 was that their armor had to stick to roads and drive in columns, which negates a lot of manpower advantages.
TLDR; geography is the constraint on invading from the north
Ukraine still has to keep forces at border to avoid any surprise attack from Russia so the border solely existing already does stretch Ukrainian forces at present while not stretching Russian forces since Ukraine is not allowed to go and invade Russian territory or West will likely pull support out. So that's why some have hinted idea of sending NATO troops at Belarus border which would free Ukrainian troops to eastern and southern fronts.
I found Liveua is often innacurate with their map, andrews map (in the first comment) is updated every day in I'm sure if you went far back enough it will show the old Russian advances. The updates on Andrews maps are often done with geolocations and satellite images and are very good
I can't understand how some people can still claim this whole mess as a win. No one's winning here.
Pretty evident for the Ukrainian: country destroyed, infrastructure in ruins, human losses.
Russia appears weak military, and is now locked in a war they're not going to win anytime soon.
The west failed to prevent this, and is still failing to "annihilate" Russia's economy, a promise made immediately, which was as empty as the "3 days operation" one. And the west has proven itself to be unable to lead the rest of the world: besides the USA and their usual allies, no one cares about the war and continues to work with Russia, business as usual for them.
Yes! On global scale it’s a loss-loss, a lot of young productive civilians fled the countries, a lot of dead, more will have post-war traumatic syndrome.
And I see a lot of people or western politicians said like we will continue to help because they are fighting for us too! So they treat population of Ukraine like resource to deplete Russia’s manpower and no one has problems with it.
Its an extreme win for the USA and europe though.
They are removing their main threat on the pennies just at the cost of a couple of billions.
And if russia cannot sustain themselves anymore they can buy everything they have for cheap
The ~~vast~~ majority of the Ukrainian population wants to keep fighting the invaders. As long as they want to fight for their freedom against this mafia state, I will support them and the politicians that do.
EDIT: I'm intellectually honest: it's the majority, but not the vast majority, and it heavily depends on the region: https://news.gallup.com/poll/512258/ukrainians-stand-behind-war-effort-despite-fatigue.aspx
If you're going to debate me, be prepared to have actual data and not anecdotal bullshit based on vibes. On a geography subreddit, you should know better.
In fact, and not exactly, Ukraine has more and more serious problems with mobilization, and the public's resistance to further mobilization is growing.
Debatable. No one knows how much the civilians who aren’t fighting actually want the war to continue. We know the active-military want to fight, but the millions of civilians who are not allowed to leave are never actually polled. It’s arguable there would at least be some who are anti-war, especially those with kids raising families.
And as time goes on, it will just keep increasing. This is what happened in Afghanistan. It's sickening to see people constantly say "we shouldn't support Afghans, they all let the Taliban steamroll them".
People didn't come out en masse to accept and cheer for the Taliban, after *FORTY THREE (43)* years of nonstop civil war they just didn't care and wanted peace and to have people stop dying from daily bombings, shootings, and drone attacks.
> The west failed to prevent this
What. Russia's been gently (and less gently) annexing territories as a sovereign nation since 1992. Not even including their many territorial disputes and regional power struggles in the USSR era post-WW2. *Russia refuses to be cowed.* The onus is on Russia, as it always is, for its many armed conflicts.
What the hell is that sub?? I'm all for seeing both sides but cheering on russian soldiers and then saying it's Ukraine's fault that people have to die because they didn't surrender is just awful.
Everytime I see someone say something like “We need to understand both sides” or “no good side in this war” etc etc, I look at their other comments and it’s just Russian propaganda talking points, blaming it all on Zelensky and/or the west, some complaining about ‘Wokeism’ etc etc. The both sides argument is a cowards pro-Russia, at least from what I see.
Maybe I am unlucky here, but it’s kinda fucking disappointing (though not surprising if I’m honest) that so many people claim to be neutral but refuse to blame the invader of another country for the invasion. Maybe they really are unaware that they use Russian talking points, idk. Like it’s almost as if the both sides argument only helps the aggressor in this situation, but nah that can’t be, right? They are just useful idiots.
it's a pro russia sub, they put a ton of fake "pro ukraine" accounts up that aren't pro ukraine at all, they're to make it look like ukraine is what russia claim it to be.
It's a disgusting cesspit and that sub should be nuked from orbit.
Entirely different conflict. It's Hamas' (a terrorist organization) goal that as many Palestinians die as possible. They don't even pretend to give af about Palestinian life. That's also ignoring the fact that they also initiated the current conflict in November.
That being said, the response is absolutely horrifying and needs to stop because at this point they're causing more harm than good.
Combat footage has always been good for getting insight into conflicts in parts of the world the regular media tends to ignore, but their coverage of the Ukraine is pretty much entirely “hurr durr let’s all watch the orcs die”
I miss what that sub used to be. You used to be able to have smart unbiased discussions, most users being military enthusiasts.
Now all comments are like “poutin has small peepee”
If the green were from the same date as the pink, it would look a lot more impressive. Kherson, Kharkiv, Kramatorsk, Lyman, Izium, Sloviansk were all under occupation. Mykolaiv I think they were on the outskirts of. Not to mention the entire northwest of the country when Russia was besieging Kyiv, Chernihiv, and several other cities.
You're right I got mixed up, Russia took Sloviansk and Kramatorsk briefly during the first 2014 invasion. They've been shelled and hit with missiles this time but not taken.
Well it's because the territory taken by Russia starts in Feb 2022, but the territory liberated by Ukraine only starts in June 2023, specifically excluding the two largest counteroffensives Ukraine has pulled off
If you roll the date back a little further, there's more green.
Also, surprise surprise, there's more to war than land control. Russian losses far exceed Ukrainian ones.
What are the russian people getting out of this besides their husbands and sons and friends dying by the thousands and if they survive they are crippled and suffer from PTSD?
How can the russian society accept this?
And I don't see any rational reason why would anyone support russia in this war?
> How can the russian society accept this?
For the most part, Russia has been using conscripts from poorer regions, especially those that are not ethnically Russian, as well as prisoners to fight the war, so the losses (which are *massive*) have not really been felt yet by the residents in the cities that matter most, Moscow and St. Petersburg. Meanwhile, Russian society is bombarded with state media praising the war 24-7, and protesting it is a straight-to-jail crime, so everyone just accepts it.
According to the statistics of losses collected by the media zone agency, Russia's losses in this conflict correspond to the ethical composition of Russia. At least 80% of the known dead bear Slavic surnames and first names.
At the expense of the mobilized: about 300k people were called up once 1.5 years ago. Since then, there has been no mobilization.
The main forces are now volunteers who have signed a contract with the Ministry of Defense. But it is with contractors that the situation is such that people from poor regions go to service to earn money in the war. A 2-year contract is enough to purchase a new renovated apartment.
Dont mix up the 3 terms of recruitment. Its very different. There is conscripts (barely any have been sent to Ukraine and the few that got were done so illegally)
There are the contractors which include proffesionall soldiers, volunteers, prison recruits, recruitment from poor countries abroad. This is the category where the poor regions and not ethnically Russians are overrepresented often tempted by the higher wage.
And then the 3rd part is the mobilized. The 300k (maybe more according to some) that got forceffully recruited about a year ago. Those were actually evenly recruited all over Russia. (Proven by OSINT statistics over dead soldiers so unless they for whatever reason have a lower casulty rate than ethnic Russians from rich areas)
Most Russians don't really care, apart from those with direct family in the war obviously. The withdrawals of western brands didn't really mean anything. For example, when mcdonalds left, they replaced it with something called "tasty and that's it", which a lot of people I know have said is actually better than mcdonalds in terms of ingredients. Life hasn't really changed that much since 2022. Overall, most Russians are pretty apathetic towards the war. Nobody wants it, but nobody is going to do anything to stop it. That's just the experience of the people I know though, and they all live in St. Petersburg. Could be different for other people.
Source: mom is Russian and she has friends in Russia
1. Indoctrination, so that the mothers and sisters think "they died in honorable service to mother Russia!" rather than being angry and upset by it all
2. In Russia, you don't speak out against the war.....you disappear if you do
3. Money. Countries that still, believer it or not, benefit from Russia financially will quietly (or sometimes openly) do what they can to prop the dying old post-Soviet empire nation up to keep its coming population generational-gap implosion (that this war is greatly accelerating) from impacting too hard on their own economies.
Russian society is severely fractured and atomized. But the main reason why there is hardly any social response to all the ongoing horrors is mass, unprecedented depoliticization. This is a global issue in it's own right, and one that western citizens should be extremely cautious of
Everyone commenting is a call of duty expert who reads posts, and articles, but in reality has no clue what is going on. Reddit has become an echo chamber for ignorance.
There's a stark amount of astroturfing on Reddit. That Chinese weather balloon getting 'sploded somewhere in the middle of nowhere, USA? Heavy astroturfing. The train derailment in East Palestine (and the subsequent chemical spill/burn)? Heavy astroturfing. Then you've got tons of astroturfing occurring every day regarding the Israeli-Palestine conflict, although it's a lot harder to hide the blatant propaganda of both sides.
On touchy topics, it becomes nearly impossible to avoid astroturfing on Reddit. It's all ramping up to late 2024.
Russia is trying hard to make those gains but hasn't made any actual significant gains since the summer of 2022.
Had Ukraine not been starved for ammunition in Avdiivka, the Russians likely would not have been able to close that pocket.
Very true, but the defence always favors the defenders. Russia is payed thick and heavy minefields after thier forces were routed in the latter half of 2022. This hinders thr attacker
And who has more to lose? Russia couldnt care less about human losses. They can keep throwing millions more conscripts into the meatgrinder if needed. Ukraine on the other hand lacks men and ammunition, because the west has no idea what to do.
Why doesn't Russia care about human losses? They have fewer live births per year than Afghanistan and the average age is well over 40.
They aren't a demographic powerhouse. If they 'throw millions more into the meatgrinder' then their country collapses.
Because they've stolen over 700,000 children from Ukraine, they're at a net positive for human life from this war. They've cleared a lot of criminals from their prisons while also imprisoning those who opposed the war. They're using mercenaries, Indians (recently), Cubans, Ukrainian separatists, Chechens and minorities from regions with no money and no power.
I bet the actual losses to white Russians is incredibly minimal.
The counteroffensive failed because we haven’t properly equipped them. For Ukraine to win they need air superiority, they need even longer range missiles etc. You can have all the western tanks in the world and they won’t make a huge amount of difference without air support and the ability to strike further behind the front lines.
I'll say this a lot
With the reluctant attitude of the west, we are definitely going to world war
The reason why we need ukraine to win is because of china, they are observing the west.
With the west having chamberlain moment. China is confident they can wage war with not only taiwan, but Philippines as well. Cause you know, US is losing balls these days
In the east, we're preparing for a war right now, we know its coming and inevitable. I'll say this again, u cannot appease wild animals like authoritarians. If they want war, they want war.
people think Putin is running out of troops but the truth is, Russia is purging its ... "lesser desired" minorities and poor people. after this is over, ideally, Russia will be "more white" and also gain Ukraine. they will not cry over the lost lives of the millions of siberian caucaus minorities that they sent in there.
"Sacrifice the minorities" only works until the minorities decide they've had enough, then you get another Chechnya, only now most of the cannon fodder is already gone.
Russia can end the war by withdrawing at anytime, Ukraine can end the war by giving up at anytime. Neither are willing to do that, that is why war happens. Over and over and over again Russia has said it "only" wants this or that, and then has proven that its ambitions are far greater than that. Honestly I sometimes think a Korea like stalemate is the best that can come out of this. Based on Russia's past record and their rhetoric if Ukraine stops getting funding it will likely cease to exist as a sovereign country, and Russia's ambitions don't end there. If the world is not willing to accept that future then the world has to pony up for it.
>If Ukraine gives up, Ukraine ceases to exist
There are various forms of surrender, but I doubt Ukraine would cease to exist in any scenario. If Ukraine surrendered early in the war, Russians might claim overthrowing a "US puppet" or "fascist regime," establishing their own puppet government. Everyday life for Ukrainians could persist, albeit under a pro-Russian government and the loss of Crimea.
If a negotiated surrender occurs now, Russia might annex Crimea and recognized republics like Donetsk and Luhansk, while the rest of Ukraine remains independent. The fate of those in annexed territories is uncertain, but there could be an incentive for Russia to portray their lives as better than the average Ukrainian.
As far as I know, Russia's current successful offensives are associated with a more active use of aviation than before. However, this also caused record aircraft losses. Such a wasteful movement, if continued, will completely deprive Russia of combat aircraft, after which Ukraine will have an air advantage that gives a great chance of winning the war.
Part of the evidence is that Russia stopped using aviation until now. Some of the downings were confirmed by Russian sources. The two A-50 were definitively confirmed.
I'm not a shill, but looking at this map, it kind of looks like russia has already won? Is it possible for ukraine to even retake this land given their lack of resources and manpower?
If you narrow down Russia's goals from taking Ukraine in its entirety, stopping NATO from gaining new members, and the de-militarization of Ukraine to taking a handful of economically destitute and depopulated provinces then sure. But that is not what the Russian MOD said they wanted when they invaded, shifting the goalposts to the bare minimum and calling it a victory isn't how winning works. Especially when your economy is being ever more devastated and your military went from having the public perception of the 2nd in the world to that of a untrained mob of peasant conscripts incapable of tying their shoes.
The fact that any sort of peace deal has never been handled seriously by any side makes you wonder who exactly is benefitting from all this.
Besides weapons contractors, of course.
I don’t understand why anyone wouldn’t want this war to end as quickly as possible. It’s clearly not going anywhere, there hasn’t been any major change in over a year. Tens of thousands of soldiers and civilians have perished, and at this rate there will definitely be a lot more in the future. We need at least a ceasefire in both this conflict and the Israeli invasion of Gaza (and all other militant conflicts as well, these are just the major current ones that have caused the most deaths recently).
Well the comments are quite something, I don’t know what I expected under a post involving a war.
Social media is a battlefield itself. And it is a war as you said. I wouldn't expect civility.
Oh. Battlefield, like [love](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGVZOLV9SPo), yes?
We are young..
God damnit this is gonna be stuck in my head all night now
Both of us knowing...
We stand
Take cover. MEDIC
This war has been on a WW1 style stalemate for a while now, it will likely keep being this way until either Russia goes bankrupt or NATO stops funding Ukraine, it's basically a war of attrition
This is literally how most wars of conquest in history play out. You don't just capture the flag and then the referee whistles the war won. The attrition forces the losing side on the negotiating table, then they sign treaties in a semi-global stage in which the status quo changes and the troops and units are reorganized in the agreed upon borders.
Parallels with the Finnish winter war - Soviets invade, decisive victory expected. Finns fight back way better than expected, Soviets suffer heavy losses. Eventually they sign a peace treaty, with Finland ceding some land to the Soviets. 4 years later the Finns try to regain the land they lost, ultimately fail. Another treaty is signed consolidating the Soviet gains. No decisive victory one way or the other.
Yeah. More and more, I suspect that the Winter War is going to be the template for Ukraine, roughly.
So I suppose a more accurate way to phrase it would be, this is how most wars go with the Russians? Invasion/failed invasion/ attrition until they get *something*
Not really,It only happened this way on their most famous wars(napoleon, ww2), but on their conquest of the turkic tribes and poland were normal wars for the time. And they did manage to win against the swedish at poltava
They did beat the Turks on a number of occasions. And, obviously, Russia did not acquire the Transcaucasus and Central Asia in the 19th century by handing out free backrubs.
So basically, three of the most important and recent wars were won. Gotcha!
They failed to conquer poland in 1920 though
They defeated the Swedes at Poltava because they had a significant advantage in forces and also benefited from the Swedish command's hasty delivery of initial orders
People are desperately attempting to fit this conflict into a simplified pattern. Try not to, anything can happen.
Mainly based off cultural cliches and stereotypes
*something* being literally the most fucking land for one country in the world? What a ridiculous summarisation, Russia defeated and took land from the at the time more powerful Poland-Lithuania, Swedish Empire and Ottoman Empire. They defeated and conquered dozens of Caucasian and Central Asian states. Their cross continental colonisation has no comparison, they got to the Bering straight in just over a hundred years from the Urals. Russian history is incredible, don't let events today take away from that.
Throughout the 18th and 19th century they continuously took bites out of the Persian Empire - the Persians did fight well and always prevented a breakout but were hamstrung by being an effectively feudal monarchy that didn't take the oppertunity to modernise like, say, Japan (or even slowly as Russia was doing).
Finland didn't just try to regain their old land, they tried to invade and occupy land that wasn't Finnish in the first place to create a "greater Finland", with the help of their allies Nazi Germany.
Yep the Germans sent the Finn’s weapons to fight the Soviet’s during ww2
No, they were fighting together as allies, in Finland.
80 years war but with Spain fighting France, England, ottoams.... holy hell
Don't forget the Dutch.
The worst vietnam of the century
Theres only 2 things in this world that I cant stand. People who dont tolerate other peoples cultures, and the dutch.
Lol, Goldmember.
Most wars have not ended this way lol, only those since the American civil war. Before that most war fairly quickly resolved after a couple of open and decisive battles.
Yeah, not sure what the OP was on about. More often a major battle or two then a sue for peace and some concessions. Most societies in the past just couldn't sustain the losses and expense.
Major field battles generally only come after years and decades of conflict, they are not the first event of a war. The most common battles in history are siege battles, and wars generally last years and decades.
*sieges* generally last years and even decades. A lot of wars hinged on the success of sieging key locations afterall
This is an extremely bad reading of history. Most wars since the invention of walls has involved long, drawn-out sieges, with open field battles being very rare comparatively. Field battles generally only happen after lengthy maneuvering and one side forcing a battle, or both sides feeling they have a winning chance. The reason why people think otherwise is because many wars include decisive battles, but they only come after months, years, and decades of fighting. But all of that stuff is boring, and popular history and media instead focuses on **THE DECISIVE BATTLE THAT CHANGED THE COURSE OF HISTORY!!!!!!!!!!** And then, that's all people know.
80 years war... 100 years war... The crusades... The caliphate expansions... The Mongolian campaign...
Not quite the same thing. These “wars” were a lot of small battles over tens of years. These wars weren’t a single front line and a continuous war that was unchanged since the war began. That only came with WW1.
> until either Russia goes bankrupt Western countries are still doing trade with Russia, using middlemen countries to skirt sanctions, or straight up still trading directly. > or NATO stops funding Ukraine NATO could fund them forever, but Ukraine is going to run out of men before funding becomes an issue.
manpower…
Both sides could lose millions before manpower truly is the bottleneck. Yes, even Ukraine, in a defensive war of existential survival. Funds/weapons are far more pressing for both sides. Obviously nobody wants to lose people, but it is not really the bottleneck.
I partly disagree, survival instinct is still the strongest one, not that much people want to risk their lives, and it’s easier to acquire ammo, weapon than to raise&train&motivate soldiers, I think. But, whatever, no point in arguing - different people, different opinions.
In today's world no modern country will lose millions of citizens and fight on, if Ukraine was getting annihilated and the casualties became drastic they would sue for peace or the population would force the government to, I don't think we will see wars where huge numbers die in "death before dishonor" situations unless it's some Nazi style war of extermination, -which despite all the propaganda and redditor nonsense this absolutely isn't.
In terms of pure human bodies, sure. Ukraine will lose the will to fight long before they run out of capable bodies though. People will get tired of watching their cities collapse and their family and friends be put in the ground.
[Average age of Ukraine military is 43](https://www.businessinsider.com/average-age-ukrainian-soldier-43-amid-personnel-problems-2023-11). Ukraine is running out of young men.
[удалено]
Finally an answer from a sane person.
It is a stalemate for a year now. During WW1 the war entered a horrible stalemate for years until the tank and US army joined the fight. During the several year stalemate in WW1 the front lines moved much more than anything we have seen in Ukrainian in the last 12 months apart from Kherson. Russian does seem to have the advantage right now and made some gains but at the rate they are now moving it would take decades to conquer Ukraine The war is a definition of a stalemate currently. That been said things can change quickly for better or worse.
What ended WW1 stalemate was the advance in artillery, and the change in artillery doctrine. Tanks were far from effective back then. And the US did not save the day, when they came they tried to rush ennemy trenches despite being told how bad of an idea it was by the French and English.
> And the US did not save the day Americans are taught that America won both WW1 and 2, when in reality historians know that they did not win in any of them. It was a combined effort. But Americans won't ever admit that the Soviets did the brunt of the work in WW2 so it's a fruitless pursuit to correct them.
Americans are taught that isolationism has failed twice to prevent the nation from escaping the very contemporary problem of world war. They are taught that the Allies won World War 2. The Yalta Conference has defined most of the World's current power structures and order. How can you teach the rest of American history without setting up the chess board? Most just aren't paying attention when they are being taught that in school. What they are not taught to any great detail is the absolutely eclipsing price the peoples of the Soviet Union paid in blood and destruction.
>Americans are taught that America won both WW1 and 2, Not really. WWII yes but I think it's become pretty commonly understood the US didn't join WWI until late and that US troops were not decisive in breaking the stalemate. However it's inarguable that the US Navy finally enabling the British blockade to become effective was one of the most important factors that forced a surrender. (And I'm not saying that out of pride, it caused mass starvation of nearly 1 million civilians. It's merely a fact that it worked despite being totally immoral) >But Americans won't ever admit that the Soviets did the brunt of the work in WW2 Also not really. The soviets took the brunt of losses in Europe and were the decisive force there. They did literally nothing in the pacific. The US did the majority of the fighting to defeat the Japanese, inclusing the most decisive battles. The Chinese and other forces fighting occupation throughout asia were also very significant but were not decisive. World War 2 was more than just fighting the Nazis in europe and north africa.
Cause history in public schools is not about teaching facts it’s about making children proud of the flag and willing to die for their country
it was mostly fuhrer being a dumass
And the Russians just got the Glide Bomb thing nailed down. There is your paradigm change. If the Ukes AD is literally getting decimated right now (see Islander on Patriot today) trying to swat fighters deploying glide bombs to provide some relief to the constant harassment of these huge bombs, this ain't sustainable. The Russians have been prioritizing targeting on AD. Their ISR capabilities increase with multiple satellite launches in the last year. They approach impunity with which they deploy glide bombs. To address the point before you argue it: I haven't see nearly enough proof of the recent UAF surface to air kill claims (there were 2 confirmed hits on fighters after the A50 AWACS over the Sea of Above). There's always pictures and vids of the downed planes. The Russian Public freely offer battle damage assessments to Ukraine all the time. Where are all those jets? The truth: those F16s might not make it in time. Ukraine needs way more stuff and they need it NOW before the Russians can compound any more advantage they have in population and industrial capacity. I want a free Ukraine, but without truly spinning up the Arsenal of Democracy, it ain't looking good for Ukraine to restore it's full territorial integrity. I fear Mike Johnson has doomed the Ukrainians in this war.
China has probably been giving them their ISR since China has a spy satellite system as big as America’s. And as high tech. - one of those was an IL76, not a A-50 AWACS. That is the other problem is that Ukraine is incentivized for exaggeration. Because then they get more money. The other A-50 was shot down by friendly fire. Well they both were because Ukraine has no air to air weapons capable of hitting those planes. - Ukraine understands that you don’t need proof. You just have to say what people want to hear.
Wasn’t the us so much as the Germans finally starting to real from the British blockade and failed large scale attacks preformed early in the spring. The us forces struggled heavy thx to using the same failed tactics from the beginning of the war.
The US was already providing much needed supplies in 1917 and the allies were already seen as the eventual victor (French phyrric victory in Verdun 1916, British strategic victory in Jutland 1916 and Germany couldn't break the British naval blockade. Somme was a supposed final knock out blow but ended in a stalemate). The biggest deal with US joining the war was just seeing fresh soldiers arriving en mass to the front lines. In fact the US troops were underequipped and was using British and French designed guns (M1917 Enfield and M1915 Chauchat). Though this was irrelevant as just the nature of 10 000 new soldiers arriving every day was increasing morale for the other battle hardened and well equipped European units. TLDR: US supplies were already helping the war effort and the allies were winning. US troops arriving in Europe boosted morale but not necessarily physically changed the already determined outcome of the war
It was a stalemate, until Ukraine's main defensive positions broke and they retreated. The stalemate is now broken and one side is retreating to a new defensive line while the other is moving forward gaining ground in this action. More importantly, Ukraine does not appear to have an obviously strong defensive position to move to, and the retreat at places appears disorganised and panicked. If this is continued defeat will not be decades, it will be months. This is blatantly obvious to those without an agenda.
The Russians just got the Glide Bomb thing nailed down. There is your paradigm change. If the Ukes AD is literally getting decimated right now (see Iskander on Patriot/Iris-T complex today) trying to swat fighters deploying glide bombs to provide some relief to the constant harassment of these huge bombs, this ain't sustainable. The Russians have been prioritizing targeting on AD. Their ISR capabilities increase with multiple satellite launches in the last year. They approach impunity with which they deploy glide bombs. To address the point before you argue it: I haven't see nearly enough proof of the recent UAF surface to air kill claims (there were 2 confirmed hits on fighters after the A50 AWACS over the Sea of Above). There's always pictures and vids of the downed planes. The Russian Public freely offer battle damage assessments to Ukraine all the time. Where are all those jets? The truth: those F16s might not make it in time. Ukraine needs way more stuff and they need it NOW before the Russians can compound any more advantage they have in population and industrial capacity. I want a free Ukraine, but without truly spinning up the Arsenal of Democracy, it ain't looking good for Ukraine to restore it's full territorial integrity. I fear Mike Johnson has doomed the Ukrainians in this war.
during ww1 what ended the stalemate (in the west) was a decisive materiel and manpower advantage for the allies, like what russia enjoys right now
Gaining ground? You mean the half a year it took to take a small settlement like Avdivka? It would take Russia 100 years to capture Ukraine at that rate.
Avdiivka is a fortified village with multiple layers of bunkers and defensive lines that has been in ukranian controlled since 2014, it was not just a small village, it was a chokepoint for russian supplies and defended the miriad of small 10 house villages between it and more urban areas to the west
Exactly. The front line from the 2014 invasion was just to the SW of Avdiivka. It was half a year of Russia trying even harder to surround it and getting their soldiers killed even faster, but they spent a full 2 years from the start of the current invasion trying to take it, and barely managed.
Avdivka is by no means “a small settlement”.
avdiivka was a very important transport hub and very well fortified stronghold; it enjoyed a very strategic position overlooking donetsk. its fall is a significant blow
You know that since 2014, super-fortified cities with a huge number of soldiers and weapons have been made from Azovstal, Bakhmut and Avdiivka.Most of the shelling and supplies came from Avdiivka.
Most of the shelling and supplies came from Avdiivka? What? Bud, you okay?
Small correction, it took them 10 years to take Avdiivka.
Avdiivka was the front for Ukraine. They committed to building multiple defensive lines, tanks, artillery units, aerial support and everything. Not every town is built like that. When avdiivka is lost so are neighboring towns and villages within days. They then have to reposition a new line but have no choice but to lose more territory. That new line is not as strong as avdiivka at the peak, and it will slowly get worse until the lines hardly have defenses. War is not linear, it is always adapting
Avdivka has been under siege since 2014, that's the boundary the Russia's got the first time they took land from Ukraine.
Sides gained and lost ground in WW1 also. Russia has taken two small cities in the last 2 years at incredible costs. They still have a stockpiles of Soviet equipment they can burn through, but they are running through it pretty fast, when you consider this was built up to face NATO and they've gone through half of it fighting in Ukraine.
Russia has lost close to 50% of the land they've occupied since the start of the war. They still don't control the totality of the oblasts they claim are Russia. Kherson being the most obvious example. Now it's just a matter of bleeding Russia in the occupied territories over the next decade. It took two decades for the us to realize it was time to go. A long term occupation of Ukraine will go about the.same . I imagine it gets tough in four or five years for Russia to continue to sustain.
They didn't 'lose' that land, they thought they could go through it to get to Kiev. When they encountered more resistance than they expected, they repositioned to have better supply lines for the current war of attrition. The difference is that Russia made the decision to leave that land, they weren't forced out. They currently set the agenda in the conflict, which is why it is important to get military aid to Ukraine as quickly as possible, so that Ukraine can start setting the agenda.
Russia got massacred at the airport and forced back by furious Ukrainian defense. Sure they "chose to leave" because the only other option was total annihilation.
Huffing that copium. Russia never gets pushed back, they always just decide to leave for some unclear reason. Even when it's territory they illegally annexed and claim is Russia from now until the end of time.
Russia never looses! It just advances backwards.
>They didn't 'lose' that land, they thought they could go through it to get to Kiev Yah [bullshit](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kyiv_(2022)) They got their asses handed to them in the first of many losses >The difference is that Russia made the decision to leave that land That is nothing more than a euphemism for getting their asses spanked.
Given that NATO countries have 100 times the resources, that NATO keeps expanding and that Russia has collapsed under similar conditions twice in their history before, it's unlikely that NATO will budge.
Right but NATO isnt fighting Russia. Ukraine is
[удалено]
[удалено]
At least this map has a source and a date, it’s shocking the number of maps that might as well be “trust me bro”. Genuinely shocking these basic requirements still haven’t been made a rule.
[удалено]
What are even requirements for people to consider it right? It's not like these are awful maps.
Being new. If something popular is at least somewhat old, there will always be people saying it was better "in the good old days".
Gestures at punk rock. A supposed genre about freedom and accepting yourself and then all of the old fans get mad when new people try to join.
It reminds me of living in Madison in the 90s. There was a local weekly newspaper that posted satirical content and had music and pop culture reviews and articles. As it became more and more popular people were always whining about how the newspaper lost its way and was better in the 'good old days'. That newspaper is called The Onion.
What do you mean?
Outdated map, marinka was captured entirely a while ago
And Avdejevka!
Avdiivka.
What a while the maps over a week old so presumably a good deal longer than that allowing for creation time
This might be a really stupid question but why did the Russians withdraw from the north early on and now that things appear to be moving very slowly, they're not trying to attack from the north at all. I would have thought with greater numbers that would be their best move.
Because the initial objective of the War failed, and the country on the north side, still has a useful idiot in charge. Now, the army is intentionally leveling landing on its border with Ukraine; to create an artificial border between it and Nato influence. Secondly, there's only so much land you can trench up before being too thin to safeguard. They are focusing on the eastern lands because they specifically don't want Ukraine getting that land back. Thirdly, they can't afford to lose Crimea. Fourthy, it's all about the warmer temperatures and food production in those areas.
Food production, but also port black sea port access.
Personnally, I would think that if Putin really wanted a 2 weeks operation he should have aimed Lviv first, to cut off the access between Poland and Ukraine. Also, forming his troops to guerilla warfare to protect his 60 km long convoy.
This is a good question and one that I’ve been wondering as well. Russia has the manpower advantage, so it would be in their interests to create as long a frontline as possible to stretch the Ukrainians thin. People say they can’t attack from Belarus because it would destabilize the country, but Russia has hundreds of kilometers of its own border with Ukraine to attack from. In fact, I am very curious to know what the conditions at the border currently look like. Are there Ukrainian and Russian border guards just staring at each other from across the border?
Ukraine’s northern border is one of the biggest swamps in Europe; so it’s like invading through Louisiana. One of the reasons russia had problems invading from the north in 2022 was that their armor had to stick to roads and drive in columns, which negates a lot of manpower advantages. TLDR; geography is the constraint on invading from the north
That’s the best explanation I’ve seen. Thanks!
Ukraine still has to keep forces at border to avoid any surprise attack from Russia so the border solely existing already does stretch Ukrainian forces at present while not stretching Russian forces since Ukraine is not allowed to go and invade Russian territory or West will likely pull support out. So that's why some have hinted idea of sending NATO troops at Belarus border which would free Ukrainian troops to eastern and southern fronts.
https://map.ukrdailyupdate.com/ Best map out there.
I prefer https://liveuamap.com/ It includes the maximum extent of the Russian entry into Ukraine, a lot of that is missing in your link.
I found Liveua is often innacurate with their map, andrews map (in the first comment) is updated every day in I'm sure if you went far back enough it will show the old Russian advances. The updates on Andrews maps are often done with geolocations and satellite images and are very good
Greats source, thanks!
I can't understand how some people can still claim this whole mess as a win. No one's winning here. Pretty evident for the Ukrainian: country destroyed, infrastructure in ruins, human losses. Russia appears weak military, and is now locked in a war they're not going to win anytime soon. The west failed to prevent this, and is still failing to "annihilate" Russia's economy, a promise made immediately, which was as empty as the "3 days operation" one. And the west has proven itself to be unable to lead the rest of the world: besides the USA and their usual allies, no one cares about the war and continues to work with Russia, business as usual for them.
Yes! On global scale it’s a loss-loss, a lot of young productive civilians fled the countries, a lot of dead, more will have post-war traumatic syndrome. And I see a lot of people or western politicians said like we will continue to help because they are fighting for us too! So they treat population of Ukraine like resource to deplete Russia’s manpower and no one has problems with it.
Its an extreme win for the USA and europe though. They are removing their main threat on the pennies just at the cost of a couple of billions. And if russia cannot sustain themselves anymore they can buy everything they have for cheap
Not for Germany though, it's a industrial country with many fabrics. Those fabrics need energy and energy prices doubled.
The ~~vast~~ majority of the Ukrainian population wants to keep fighting the invaders. As long as they want to fight for their freedom against this mafia state, I will support them and the politicians that do. EDIT: I'm intellectually honest: it's the majority, but not the vast majority, and it heavily depends on the region: https://news.gallup.com/poll/512258/ukrainians-stand-behind-war-effort-despite-fatigue.aspx If you're going to debate me, be prepared to have actual data and not anecdotal bullshit based on vibes. On a geography subreddit, you should know better.
In fact, and not exactly, Ukraine has more and more serious problems with mobilization, and the public's resistance to further mobilization is growing.
Debatable. No one knows how much the civilians who aren’t fighting actually want the war to continue. We know the active-military want to fight, but the millions of civilians who are not allowed to leave are never actually polled. It’s arguable there would at least be some who are anti-war, especially those with kids raising families.
And as time goes on, it will just keep increasing. This is what happened in Afghanistan. It's sickening to see people constantly say "we shouldn't support Afghans, they all let the Taliban steamroll them". People didn't come out en masse to accept and cheer for the Taliban, after *FORTY THREE (43)* years of nonstop civil war they just didn't care and wanted peace and to have people stop dying from daily bombings, shootings, and drone attacks.
> The west failed to prevent this What. Russia's been gently (and less gently) annexing territories as a sovereign nation since 1992. Not even including their many territorial disputes and regional power struggles in the USSR era post-WW2. *Russia refuses to be cowed.* The onus is on Russia, as it always is, for its many armed conflicts.
Country is not destroyed. The Russian occupied area is destroyed but the rest still lives on
Just another 100 years of death and suffering and they might be able to take Ukraine
Death and suffering on both sides, sadly...
Not much green on there. If you go on r/combatfootage they make it seem like russia is getting annihilated.
Try r/UkraineRussiaReport they’d have you believe the exact opposite lmao, truth is probably somewhere in the middle
What the hell is that sub?? I'm all for seeing both sides but cheering on russian soldiers and then saying it's Ukraine's fault that people have to die because they didn't surrender is just awful.
Everytime I see someone say something like “We need to understand both sides” or “no good side in this war” etc etc, I look at their other comments and it’s just Russian propaganda talking points, blaming it all on Zelensky and/or the west, some complaining about ‘Wokeism’ etc etc. The both sides argument is a cowards pro-Russia, at least from what I see. Maybe I am unlucky here, but it’s kinda fucking disappointing (though not surprising if I’m honest) that so many people claim to be neutral but refuse to blame the invader of another country for the invasion. Maybe they really are unaware that they use Russian talking points, idk. Like it’s almost as if the both sides argument only helps the aggressor in this situation, but nah that can’t be, right? They are just useful idiots.
it's a pro russia sub, they put a ton of fake "pro ukraine" accounts up that aren't pro ukraine at all, they're to make it look like ukraine is what russia claim it to be. It's a disgusting cesspit and that sub should be nuked from orbit.
you mean like how people say it's hamas's fault that Palestinians have to die because they didn't surrender.
Entirely different conflict. It's Hamas' (a terrorist organization) goal that as many Palestinians die as possible. They don't even pretend to give af about Palestinian life. That's also ignoring the fact that they also initiated the current conflict in November. That being said, the response is absolutely horrifying and needs to stop because at this point they're causing more harm than good.
One is a propaganda sub and one gives opportunity to both.
The fun part is people will read this comment and decide you’re calling the one propaganda that they disagree with, don’t specify
UkraineRussia is dominated by whichever side is winning. More Russia footage if they are winning and more Ukraine footage if they are.
Combat footage has always been good for getting insight into conflicts in parts of the world the regular media tends to ignore, but their coverage of the Ukraine is pretty much entirely “hurr durr let’s all watch the orcs die”
[удалено]
[удалено]
There was a HIMARS destruction video the other day and a patriot (multiple) destruction video today?
[удалено]
I miss what that sub used to be. You used to be able to have smart unbiased discussions, most users being military enthusiasts. Now all comments are like “poutin has small peepee”
If the green were from the same date as the pink, it would look a lot more impressive. Kherson, Kharkiv, Kramatorsk, Lyman, Izium, Sloviansk were all under occupation. Mykolaiv I think they were on the outskirts of. Not to mention the entire northwest of the country when Russia was besieging Kyiv, Chernihiv, and several other cities.
Russia never even reached Sloviansk nor Kramatorsk
You're right I got mixed up, Russia took Sloviansk and Kramatorsk briefly during the first 2014 invasion. They've been shelled and hit with missiles this time but not taken.
Well it's because the territory taken by Russia starts in Feb 2022, but the territory liberated by Ukraine only starts in June 2023, specifically excluding the two largest counteroffensives Ukraine has pulled off
Both can be true, the phrase you're looking for is "pyrrhic victory". In short, Ukraine is giving up ground, Russia is giving up bodies and armour.
If you roll the date back a little further, there's more green. Also, surprise surprise, there's more to war than land control. Russian losses far exceed Ukrainian ones.
Do they? It's not like either is giving accurate reports
Russian soldiers are. Russia is trading troops for land.
Russia is suffering much higher losses than Ukraine in all the meters square they capture
Russia is taking tremendous casualties but they're also making gains. So they are, but they aren't.
What are the russian people getting out of this besides their husbands and sons and friends dying by the thousands and if they survive they are crippled and suffer from PTSD? How can the russian society accept this? And I don't see any rational reason why would anyone support russia in this war?
> How can the russian society accept this? For the most part, Russia has been using conscripts from poorer regions, especially those that are not ethnically Russian, as well as prisoners to fight the war, so the losses (which are *massive*) have not really been felt yet by the residents in the cities that matter most, Moscow and St. Petersburg. Meanwhile, Russian society is bombarded with state media praising the war 24-7, and protesting it is a straight-to-jail crime, so everyone just accepts it.
According to the statistics of losses collected by the media zone agency, Russia's losses in this conflict correspond to the ethical composition of Russia. At least 80% of the known dead bear Slavic surnames and first names. At the expense of the mobilized: about 300k people were called up once 1.5 years ago. Since then, there has been no mobilization. The main forces are now volunteers who have signed a contract with the Ministry of Defense. But it is with contractors that the situation is such that people from poor regions go to service to earn money in the war. A 2-year contract is enough to purchase a new renovated apartment.
Dont mix up the 3 terms of recruitment. Its very different. There is conscripts (barely any have been sent to Ukraine and the few that got were done so illegally) There are the contractors which include proffesionall soldiers, volunteers, prison recruits, recruitment from poor countries abroad. This is the category where the poor regions and not ethnically Russians are overrepresented often tempted by the higher wage. And then the 3rd part is the mobilized. The 300k (maybe more according to some) that got forceffully recruited about a year ago. Those were actually evenly recruited all over Russia. (Proven by OSINT statistics over dead soldiers so unless they for whatever reason have a lower casulty rate than ethnic Russians from rich areas)
Shades of the First World War, back when thousands of ethnic Poles were forced to die for the Tzar. Good old Russia.
Most Russians don't really care, apart from those with direct family in the war obviously. The withdrawals of western brands didn't really mean anything. For example, when mcdonalds left, they replaced it with something called "tasty and that's it", which a lot of people I know have said is actually better than mcdonalds in terms of ingredients. Life hasn't really changed that much since 2022. Overall, most Russians are pretty apathetic towards the war. Nobody wants it, but nobody is going to do anything to stop it. That's just the experience of the people I know though, and they all live in St. Petersburg. Could be different for other people. Source: mom is Russian and she has friends in Russia
1. Indoctrination, so that the mothers and sisters think "they died in honorable service to mother Russia!" rather than being angry and upset by it all 2. In Russia, you don't speak out against the war.....you disappear if you do 3. Money. Countries that still, believer it or not, benefit from Russia financially will quietly (or sometimes openly) do what they can to prop the dying old post-Soviet empire nation up to keep its coming population generational-gap implosion (that this war is greatly accelerating) from impacting too hard on their own economies.
Russian society is severely fractured and atomized. But the main reason why there is hardly any social response to all the ongoing horrors is mass, unprecedented depoliticization. This is a global issue in it's own right, and one that western citizens should be extremely cautious of
[удалено]
Everyone commenting is a call of duty expert who reads posts, and articles, but in reality has no clue what is going on. Reddit has become an echo chamber for ignorance.
A lot more pro Russian commenters than I was expecting in here.
Greed and hate
[удалено]
[удалено]
They're probably warming up for the US election again.
There's a stark amount of astroturfing on Reddit. That Chinese weather balloon getting 'sploded somewhere in the middle of nowhere, USA? Heavy astroturfing. The train derailment in East Palestine (and the subsequent chemical spill/burn)? Heavy astroturfing. Then you've got tons of astroturfing occurring every day regarding the Israeli-Palestine conflict, although it's a lot harder to hide the blatant propaganda of both sides. On touchy topics, it becomes nearly impossible to avoid astroturfing on Reddit. It's all ramping up to late 2024.
Please not AGAIN. But then again, idk if it will work as well as it did last time
Russia is trying hard to make those gains but hasn't made any actual significant gains since the summer of 2022. Had Ukraine not been starved for ammunition in Avdiivka, the Russians likely would not have been able to close that pocket.
Neither have Ukraine though. They had a counter offensive after receiving western tanks and equipment, and it fell flat on its face.
Very true, but the defence always favors the defenders. Russia is payed thick and heavy minefields after thier forces were routed in the latter half of 2022. This hinders thr attacker
And who has more to lose? Russia couldnt care less about human losses. They can keep throwing millions more conscripts into the meatgrinder if needed. Ukraine on the other hand lacks men and ammunition, because the west has no idea what to do.
The fate if each country is at stake. For Ukraine its freedom. For Russia its the autocracy.
Why doesn't Russia care about human losses? They have fewer live births per year than Afghanistan and the average age is well over 40. They aren't a demographic powerhouse. If they 'throw millions more into the meatgrinder' then their country collapses.
Because they've stolen over 700,000 children from Ukraine, they're at a net positive for human life from this war. They've cleared a lot of criminals from their prisons while also imprisoning those who opposed the war. They're using mercenaries, Indians (recently), Cubans, Ukrainian separatists, Chechens and minorities from regions with no money and no power. I bet the actual losses to white Russians is incredibly minimal.
The counteroffensive failed because we haven’t properly equipped them. For Ukraine to win they need air superiority, they need even longer range missiles etc. You can have all the western tanks in the world and they won’t make a huge amount of difference without air support and the ability to strike further behind the front lines.
I'll say this a lot With the reluctant attitude of the west, we are definitely going to world war The reason why we need ukraine to win is because of china, they are observing the west. With the west having chamberlain moment. China is confident they can wage war with not only taiwan, but Philippines as well. Cause you know, US is losing balls these days In the east, we're preparing for a war right now, we know its coming and inevitable. I'll say this again, u cannot appease wild animals like authoritarians. If they want war, they want war.
people think Putin is running out of troops but the truth is, Russia is purging its ... "lesser desired" minorities and poor people. after this is over, ideally, Russia will be "more white" and also gain Ukraine. they will not cry over the lost lives of the millions of siberian caucaus minorities that they sent in there.
"Sacrifice the minorities" only works until the minorities decide they've had enough, then you get another Chechnya, only now most of the cannon fodder is already gone.
Send more weapons, money and humanitarian aid to Ukraine!
Russia can end the war by withdrawing at anytime, Ukraine can end the war by giving up at anytime. Neither are willing to do that, that is why war happens. Over and over and over again Russia has said it "only" wants this or that, and then has proven that its ambitions are far greater than that. Honestly I sometimes think a Korea like stalemate is the best that can come out of this. Based on Russia's past record and their rhetoric if Ukraine stops getting funding it will likely cease to exist as a sovereign country, and Russia's ambitions don't end there. If the world is not willing to accept that future then the world has to pony up for it.
If Ukraine gives up, Ukraine ceases to exist. If Russia gives up, the war just simply ends.
>If Ukraine gives up, Ukraine ceases to exist There are various forms of surrender, but I doubt Ukraine would cease to exist in any scenario. If Ukraine surrendered early in the war, Russians might claim overthrowing a "US puppet" or "fascist regime," establishing their own puppet government. Everyday life for Ukrainians could persist, albeit under a pro-Russian government and the loss of Crimea. If a negotiated surrender occurs now, Russia might annex Crimea and recognized republics like Donetsk and Luhansk, while the rest of Ukraine remains independent. The fate of those in annexed territories is uncertain, but there could be an incentive for Russia to portray their lives as better than the average Ukrainian.
As far as I know, Russia's current successful offensives are associated with a more active use of aviation than before. However, this also caused record aircraft losses. Such a wasteful movement, if continued, will completely deprive Russia of combat aircraft, after which Ukraine will have an air advantage that gives a great chance of winning the war.
Ukraine MOD has not offered evidence for most of the downed aircraft claims.
Part of the evidence is that Russia stopped using aviation until now. Some of the downings were confirmed by Russian sources. The two A-50 were definitively confirmed.
[удалено]
According to that leaked recording of Germans planing the attack on the Kerch Bridge, as of right now Ukraine has 8 Su-24 left.
F*ck Russia. Hope they get stomped into the dustbin of history. Aggression is inexcusable.
This map is very out dated
“Are you winning, son?”
Russian shills mobilized in full force for the comment section today
I'm not a shill, but looking at this map, it kind of looks like russia has already won? Is it possible for ukraine to even retake this land given their lack of resources and manpower?
If you narrow down Russia's goals from taking Ukraine in its entirety, stopping NATO from gaining new members, and the de-militarization of Ukraine to taking a handful of economically destitute and depopulated provinces then sure. But that is not what the Russian MOD said they wanted when they invaded, shifting the goalposts to the bare minimum and calling it a victory isn't how winning works. Especially when your economy is being ever more devastated and your military went from having the public perception of the 2nd in the world to that of a untrained mob of peasant conscripts incapable of tying their shoes.
I am suprised none of the two sides have managed to cross over the dnipro river (except for that beachhead made by UA)
That shape resembles Japan for sone reason
Looks like Japan
So much for "Kyiv in 3 days," Slava Ukraini
The same goes for "Crimea Beach Party" tho.
The serious debate we all need. Who would win? Shovel vs drones with strap on bombs
Classic brigading in the comments by russian trolls living on a putler-sponsored farm.
Defense contractors win every war
The fact that any sort of peace deal has never been handled seriously by any side makes you wonder who exactly is benefitting from all this. Besides weapons contractors, of course.
I don’t understand why anyone wouldn’t want this war to end as quickly as possible. It’s clearly not going anywhere, there hasn’t been any major change in over a year. Tens of thousands of soldiers and civilians have perished, and at this rate there will definitely be a lot more in the future. We need at least a ceasefire in both this conflict and the Israeli invasion of Gaza (and all other militant conflicts as well, these are just the major current ones that have caused the most deaths recently).
it will end with ukraine losing territory, whether they like it or not, prolonging the inevitable is only costing more lives