14 ms·
Ukraine will now see ruthless city battles – Russia’s Plan B
- noindiecred 5y agoJust as a tiny side note here, this is my (U.S. native English speaker) first encounter with the word “lakh,” and it seems an incredibly useful word.
- the_lucifer 5y agoHaha, for others here, lakh and crore stand for 10^5 and 10^7 respectively kind of an intermediary between the usual million and billion that we use in the west.
- cuteboy19 5y agoIndia came up with the beautiful decimal place value system but somehow got stuck with this defective system. Unlike the normal way to split numbers 1,234,567,000 We have the strange 123,45,67,000 Which is 1 hundred crore, 45 lakh, 67 thousand
- spupe 5y agoAn interesting perspective. Based on this and other sources, it seems there is no way Ukraine's resistance lasts more than a few weeks at best. On the other hand, it's totally unclear what Russia thinks it will achieve in the long run. This can turn into a scenario like Afghanistan, with the difference that Russia's GDP is over 10x smaller than the US, and crumbling under sanctions.
- deepsun 5y agoResistance heavily depends on supplies (ammo, weapons etc). With virtually unlimited supplies from EU, I wouldn't be so sure about "a few weeks".
- gerikson 5y agoThe Soviet Union managed to hang on in Afghanistan for 10 years...
- marius_k 5y agoNuke everything in few weeks? Yes, possible. Take over hearts and souls of Ukrainians in the next 30 years? Maybe. Long-term resistance in Ukraine is now guaranteed.
- MrDisposable 5y agoPutin is assembling another Security Counsil today. We'll see how it goes, but, in my opinion, an announce of a series of nuclear tests is not off the (comically long) table.
- MrDisposable 5y agoIn the long run, even if they win (and that's a pretty big if), they'll have to: 1) Neutralize and disarm the "territorial defence" militias who currently have about 30K assault rifles. 2) Maintain police precence on a large and hostile territory. 3) Provide food, shelter, and medical aid to thousands, if not tens of thousands of people displaced by the war. And they'll have to do that without oil and gas money, and without western medical supplies (which I assume will not be readily available anymore).
- jmpman 5y agoIsn’t Western Europe still taking Russian oil and gas? Why wouldn’t Ukraine attack the Russian gas pipelines? I understand that a conventional strike with an army is never going to happen, but there are many other options.
- MrDisposable 5y agoYes they still buy our oil and gas, and neither side attacks the pipeline despite the war, but I think it's a matter of time. In a couple of years Europe will stop buying our energy, but the consequences of this war (police presence, peacekeeping, rebuilding) will last for decades.
- pseudo0 5y agoIf they blow up the gas pipelines that transit Ukraine, Europe would be forced to turn on Nord Stream 2, which is 100% complete and just waiting for regulatory approval. Then Ukraine would be cut out entirely. It's in their best interest to leave the pipelines alone.
- martin_a 5y ago> Europe would be forced to turn on Nord Stream 2, which is 100% complete and just waiting for regulatory approval. Nord Stream 2 is history. The company behind it went bankrupt two days ago or sth. like this. Everybody who still held to that project in Germany has turned it down. Nord Stream 2 won't happen, instead NLG from Saudi Arabia seems to be a thing now, anything but supporting Russia and its war. Also, Germany declared that it wants to be energy-independent by 2035, 15 years earlier than planned as a result of the Russian aggression.
- trashtester 5y agoIn principle, if the Ukrainian people is willing to fight till the end, they could turn the Zakarpattia province into a fortress. Protected behind the Carpathian mountains and with Nato countries on either side, and given continued arms deliveries from Nato countries, Russia may never be able to take that province
- baybal2 5y agoDon't think so. 60% of Russian big name military assets on the paper are stuck in Ukraine, and Belarus. Stuck in the mud, forests, without food, fuel, and comms. Russia is already mobilising its reserves from all the way back as Vladivostok (7000km away,) which means they had a very, very, very serious, life-threatening reason to do so. We can also conclude that Russia didn't commit its fancy new weapons to the assault, making the claim that most of them exist only on paper, and to appear on parades so more stronger. The state or Russian military hasn't changed at large since the Second Chechnya War, except now they lack military veterans from Soviet era. Russia is blessed by only having NATO as its only adversary, and this gives them ability to concentrate on Ukraine. If we had a hostile to Russia regime at least in Belarus, Georgia, or Kazakhstan, they would've gone for landgrab in Russia WITHOUT HESITATION now given just how weak is the Russian conventional military. People die, and go, cities fall, and are built again, but borders stay for centuries. This would've been a once in a century opportunity for them. Kazakhstan can return to being a nuclear state overnight if they capture Orenburg. 50% of Russian nuclear potential is a taxi ride away from Kazakhstan border.
- tucnak 5y agoThis analysis is completely wrong. Street fights benefit Ukrainian military, if anything. What we learned from the first week of war is that Ukrainian military is becoming increasingly efficient at this. The vast majority of damage dealt by Russians is done by means of air strike targeted at regional centres and metropolia (Kyiv, Kharkiv, Odessa.) and it usually doesn't impede Ukrainian military, but simply wrecks havoc upon civilian population. All the major battles are happening on the outskirts of regional centres (Bucha, Hostomel, Mariupol, etc.) with only but marginal number of Russian military reconnaissance-diversion groups puncturing deep into the cities themselves. In the street fight, Ukrainian military has the upper hand. Ukrainian territorial defence is already running at 30K+ assault rifles and plenty of ammo, this stuff is rapidly dispensing down to smaller towns in which fights will soon take place. The top priority (and in fact where much of the damage comes from) for Ukrainian military is to contest the airspace efficiently, which it can only achieve by means of Buk/S-300 air defence systems and the limited fleet of MiG-/Su- fighters available to them, but you have to see that it might just prove enough. Russian officers (Air force) are reluctant to fight this war, after all. They wouldn't want to lose their head in this... If anything, Ukraine is winning this war. And it _will_ win this war, unless Russia is able to achieve air superiority over the skies pronto, which is very, very unlikely.
- allisdust 5y agoThat's just pro Ukraine propaganda rehashed by Western press to keep up the morale. While admirable, this will result in disbelief when major cities do fall. Its not easy to win against enemies that don't care about the lives of their own soldiers. They want Ukraine (or at least major portions of it including resource rich east and the coastal areas) and they have the staying power (despite crazy articles proposing that war is costing costing Russia 20 billion usd per day).
- tucnak 5y agoSource: I'm Ukrainian, and my family members serve in the Ukrainian military / Territorial defence. So no, this isn't just rehashed pro-Ukraine Western propaganda.
- webmobdev 5y agoHere's another neutral perspective from 2 senior indian generals, who have trained with the Russian Army - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNHUDDqTgdI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNHUDDqTgdI - explaining why NATO / EU is being very careful in engaging militarily with Russia in Ukraine.
- more_corn 5y agoHow were you able to read the article with that little thing moving in the corner of your eye?
- naruvimama 5y agoIt is fool hardy to believe that the Russian forces are "not militarily capable" of doing to Ukraine what the US did in Iraq. Reduce cities to rubble, given the logistical advantage compared to what the US did in Iraq. I guess their objectives are pretty straight forward and since they are ethnically same as the Ukrainians do not target civilians. What worries me is the use of civilians as human shields, even reports of Indian students being locked up by the Ukrainian forces to be used as human shields. Let us remember that the US was ' ' close to carpet bombing Cuba during the cuban missile crisis. If you share borders with a regional superpower, stop dreaming about getting in bed with their enemies, let alone military ties.
- blunte 5y agoYou should investigate bold claims like the human shield one. Not only does it sound like Russian propaganda, multiple major news sites state that there is no evidence that this is true.
- naruvimama 5y agoIf you can not see through how people with rifles are going to defeat the world's second or third strongest military. It is not like the Russians have a logistics disadvantage, they are literally surrounding Ukraine. As much as I might be disillusioned, the very fact of pressing citizens to carry rifle, and making them believe they are "winning" is my definition of human shield.
- artem247 5y agoYou have no clue what is happening on the ground. Nobody is pressing citizens to join territorial defense, they do auxiliary duties, they are not surrogate for proper army. Ukrainian army uses artillery, attack drones extensively, so your point of people with rifles has no value. Whatever, you don’t get what is happening in Ukraine.
- LeanderK 5y agoI think the more ruthless russia is going to act, the more resistance ukraine mount even in defeat via guerrilla groups. So brutally conquering the cities only helps the military objective but not the overall one. It cements western support for the ukraine and sanctions, antagonises russia for the civilians. I think Putin really counts on europe to be weak, dividd and unwilling to act decisively. A brutal conquest will lead to large-scale public pressure on the governments on europe and heavy military support. Also, western europe ist still heavily influencing other parts of the world and can turn public opinion in the most distant places. So I don't think that Putin can establish an authoritarian regime against a united europe in Ukraine. Also, there are large land-borders and we have the much deeper pockets. We could pump NLAWs and Stingers in there like there's no tomorrow. You can't rule a nation using guided missiles. Even now ukraine experienced a renewed nationalism only fueled by the common enemy russia. It's the first step for failure, he can't win against the people. This article misses the point. His objective is not to win militarily, but to influence the nation or take it under his control. I also wonder whether his opinion on the basics is right. He dismisses Ukraine defence of the cities, but they still get a lot of supplies from western nations. If kiev is flooded with anti-tank weapons and anti-aircraft weapons the assault will be more brutal.
- stockerta 5y agoYes, even the pro-russian parties in ukraine are speeking out against them. Nobody will see them as non opressors, even if they put back the ousted pro-russian Viktor Yanukovych.
- djohnston 5y agoOut of curiosity, would be it be in the realm of possibility that Ukraine dispatches an offensive force into Russian territory? Maybe it could get the pressure off with a long needle.
- Balero 5y agoWhilst this might (emphasis on the might) be a good idea in a purely military world, it would not be useful in the real world. Military action is an extension of politics. Ukraine is viewed as the good people being attacked by the bad. They get a lot of support, both home and abroad because of this. If they launch even a limited attack into Russian or Belarusian territory they will compromise this position, and potentially lose support now or in the future at home or abroad. You can never forget that war is politics, and not the other way around.
- belval 5y agoThis would be the worst thing they can do right now. They don't stand any chance of winning against Russia if the Russians suddenly have a reason to hate them. By playing only defense, they are a victim, even a martyr. Who doesn't empathize with someone having to pick up a weapon and fight for their country/survival. It's the stuff of songs and legends.
- bigbizisverywyz 5y agoWhat might be nice instead is of Ukraine can buy a few French Exocet missiles and attack the Russian fleet in the Black sea. That might hit them where it hurts.
- foxyv 5y agoAs I understand it, they have been attacking Russian ships. I guess there is some speculation that Russians have been using civilian shipping as cover, resulting in two non-Russian ships being damaged by fire meant for warships.
- PoignardAzur 5y ago
- more_corn 5y agoYou know what I love? A little fucking moving thing in the corner of my eye when I'm trying to read something. No wait I hate that. You can't even block it with ublock origin. How the do frontend people not realize how annoying that is.
- 0x38B 5y agoWe're already seeing ruthless city battles; see https://t.me/uniannet/34755 https://t.me/uniannet/34755. They said 33 civilians are reported dead from Russian air strikes. And in Irpin' outside Kyiv, heavy fighting for the city continues - here (1) they've destroyed (in the words of the soldier "f'ed up") 4 Russian vehicles and are "Holding out". 1: https://t.me/uniannet/34752 https://t.me/uniannet/34752