5 ms·

It is save to say that they are not fighting an all out war and it is not just because it is unpopular but because they don’t need to yet. Ukraine has already m

It is save to say that they are not fighting an all out war and it is not just because it is unpopular but because they don’t need to yet. Ukraine has already mobilized everyone they will likely ever be able to mobilize and has run out of domestically available stockpiles.

oneoff786 4y ago
It’s not safe to say that at all. They’ve abandoned 2 major objectives and have lost tens of thousands of troops. Morale is at rock bottom. It will be very difficult to pull off a general mobilization in Russia, especially in Moscow.
- orbifold 4y ago
  An all out war would mean full mobilisation of the 2-4 million soldiers Russia has, strategic bombardment on a much larger scale, a war economy. Russia is fighting with a full-strength expeditionary force, Ukraine has conscripted every man of fighting age they could find and has forbidden men from leaving the country.
  - oneoff786 4y ago
    Ukraine has huge reserves of applicants for war that need training time. They’re hardly at max strength. It’s just a gradual build up. Russia doesn’t have strong strategic bombardment capabilities, nor even air superiority. They’re also running out of military hardware needed to make use of. Their shitty 80 year old tanks are scraping the bottom of the barrel here. Again, yes, Russia could go all out. They could launch nukes. But it’s something that would be very difficult. Putin may not survive if he tries to mobilize Moscow.
- 541N7 4y ago
- thriftwy 4y ago
  > Morale is at rock bottom. This claim is doing its rounds starting from the day one. This being the 100th day... ...maybe you're talking about the morale of all those dudes sheltering in Georgia and Turkey?
  - oneoff786 4y ago
    Russia’s own military bloggers confirm this. These are the last people to do anything but parrot the government line. The fact that morale has been low since the start is not evidence that it’s higher now. Russia’s performance has been consistently poor
    - thriftwy 4y ago
      Well: Melitopol and Berdyansk and Kherson taken without a fight. Mariupol fell, Izyum fell, Liman fell and now Severodonetsk is falling. 90% of LNR is now controlled by Russia and allies. That's a lot of consistently poor performance for you. I don't think you are qualified to read Russia's military bloggers. They usually write things such as "in this and that division, there are such and such problems". How does that translate to your claim that morale (of whom? of everybody?) being at rock bottom (for how long?)
      - oneoff786 4y ago
        You’re welcome to believe otherwise. I feel optimistic. Donbas may fall. I think Ukraine will be able to hold off the rest and retake significant territory in the south.
- yucky 4y ago
  >They’ve abandoned 2 major objectives Which two objectives? They got their land bridge for Crimea and are almost fully in control of the Donbas. They also have ensured Ukraine can't join NATO now, unless they want to officially cede all of that land to Russia in exchange for peace, since a requirement to join NATO is that a country be in control of their borders. From a logical standpoint, why would they want Kyiv and western Ukraine? 90% of the natural resources are in the east in addition to the reasons stated above for wanting control of those areas.
  - oneoff786 4y ago
    Kyiv and Kharkiv
    - yucky 4y ago
      I actually don't think they've abandoned Kharkiv, and I don't think Kyiv ever really was an objective. Kharkiv makes sense for several reasons (sizable Russian population, proximity to border and located near vast amounts of natural resources) while Kyiv is nothing but problems with no return. Ukraine being able to (at least temporarily) push the Russians from Kharkiv was huge for them, while the attack on Kyiv always seemed like just a list of targets that Russia just wanted to take out early on. Of course, I have no idea what is going on behind the scenes so who really knows.
  - TMWNN 4y ago
    >They also have ensured Ukraine can't join NATO now, unless they want to officially cede all of that land to Russia in exchange for peace, since a requirement to join NATO is that a country be in control of their borders. This was true before the start of the current war in February, and had been true since 2014. Said war has made NATO making some sort of exception for rump Ukraine as member significantly more likely to happen.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
    > From a logical standpoint, why would they want Kyiv You tell me. Russia certainly tried to seize Kyiv in the opening days of the invasion. I think that bloody action carries more weight as a statement of intent, than your question does. Also, I think you were aware of it.
attentive 4y ago
> Ukraine has already mobilized everyone they will likely ever be able to mobilize false

oneoff786 4y ago

It’s not safe to say that at all. They’ve abandoned 2 major objectives and have lost tens of thousands of troops. Morale is at rock bottom. It will be very difficult to pull off a general mobilization in Russia, especially in Moscow.

orbifold 4y ago
An all out war would mean full mobilisation of the 2-4 million soldiers Russia has, strategic bombardment on a much larger scale, a war economy. Russia is fighting with a full-strength expeditionary force, Ukraine has conscripted every man of fighting age they could find and has forbidden men from leaving the country.
- oneoff786 4y ago
  Ukraine has huge reserves of applicants for war that need training time. They’re hardly at max strength. It’s just a gradual build up. Russia doesn’t have strong strategic bombardment capabilities, nor even air superiority. They’re also running out of military hardware needed to make use of. Their shitty 80 year old tanks are scraping the bottom of the barrel here. Again, yes, Russia could go all out. They could launch nukes. But it’s something that would be very difficult. Putin may not survive if he tries to mobilize Moscow.
541N7 4y ago
thriftwy 4y ago
> Morale is at rock bottom. This claim is doing its rounds starting from the day one. This being the 100th day... ...maybe you're talking about the morale of all those dudes sheltering in Georgia and Turkey?
- oneoff786 4y ago
  Russia’s own military bloggers confirm this. These are the last people to do anything but parrot the government line. The fact that morale has been low since the start is not evidence that it’s higher now. Russia’s performance has been consistently poor
  - thriftwy 4y ago
    Well: Melitopol and Berdyansk and Kherson taken without a fight. Mariupol fell, Izyum fell, Liman fell and now Severodonetsk is falling. 90% of LNR is now controlled by Russia and allies. That's a lot of consistently poor performance for you. I don't think you are qualified to read Russia's military bloggers. They usually write things such as "in this and that division, there are such and such problems". How does that translate to your claim that morale (of whom? of everybody?) being at rock bottom (for how long?)
    - oneoff786 4y ago
      You’re welcome to believe otherwise. I feel optimistic. Donbas may fall. I think Ukraine will be able to hold off the rest and retake significant territory in the south.
yucky 4y ago
>They’ve abandoned 2 major objectives Which two objectives? They got their land bridge for Crimea and are almost fully in control of the Donbas. They also have ensured Ukraine can't join NATO now, unless they want to officially cede all of that land to Russia in exchange for peace, since a requirement to join NATO is that a country be in control of their borders. From a logical standpoint, why would they want Kyiv and western Ukraine? 90% of the natural resources are in the east in addition to the reasons stated above for wanting control of those areas.
- oneoff786 4y ago
  Kyiv and Kharkiv
  - yucky 4y ago
    I actually don't think they've abandoned Kharkiv, and I don't think Kyiv ever really was an objective. Kharkiv makes sense for several reasons (sizable Russian population, proximity to border and located near vast amounts of natural resources) while Kyiv is nothing but problems with no return. Ukraine being able to (at least temporarily) push the Russians from Kharkiv was huge for them, while the attack on Kyiv always seemed like just a list of targets that Russia just wanted to take out early on. Of course, I have no idea what is going on behind the scenes so who really knows.
- TMWNN 4y ago
  >They also have ensured Ukraine can't join NATO now, unless they want to officially cede all of that land to Russia in exchange for peace, since a requirement to join NATO is that a country be in control of their borders. This was true before the start of the current war in February, and had been true since 2014. Said war has made NATO making some sort of exception for rump Ukraine as member significantly more likely to happen.
- SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
  > From a logical standpoint, why would they want Kyiv You tell me. Russia certainly tried to seize Kyiv in the opening days of the invasion. I think that bloody action carries more weight as a statement of intent, than your question does. Also, I think you were aware of it.

attentive 4y ago

> Ukraine has already mobilized everyone they will likely ever be able to mobilize false