Ukraine invasion



 
As mentioned right at the start of this war.
Home advantage all things being equal 6:1

So Russia's invasion clearly set off on an unequal footing which is how they made initial gains. But as Ukraine's partners have stepped up and leveled up the playing field, Ukraine has been in the ascendancy ever since.

Ukraine holds home turf advantage which is why Russian troops make zero progress and can be fixed in position consuming ever decreasing resources.

Meanwhile, Ukrainian forces can pick and choose where and when to intensify their campaign, as we see in the Southern region of Kherson where Russian losses are currently 1:6.5
If this ratio reaches 1:8 then capitulation occurs.

This is the reality that Russia faces and has no answer too.
The Russians will be driven out of Ukraine.

 

- Russian forces are closing in on Bakhmut city - with even the Western media noting the inevitability of Russia’s victory there;
- Ukrainian offensives are grinding to a halt - whatever additional gains they make will be temporary and inevitably reversed as Russia prepares what appears to be a major offensive of its own;
- Western media is depending heavily on propaganda to paper over severe weapon and ammunition shortages in Ukraine and the implications it has on Kiev’s fighting capacity;
- The US is lashing out with an increasingly desperate tone as nations around the globe refuse to subordinate themselves and their nation’s interests to US foreign policy objectives - India being among them;



 
Last edited:
- Russian forces are closing in on Bakhmut city - with even the Western media noting the inevitability of Russia’s victory there;
Sounds great, but will it really help Russia's overall position?
Yes, in theory Bakhmut’s fall would open a corridor down the M03 highway to attack the strategically and symbolically important cities of Slovyansk and Kramatorsk 20 miles to the northwest. However, Russia’s ability to exploit that seems doubtful as other Russian forces previously threatening Slovyansk from the north (from Izium) and east (from Lyman) were driven out in September.
Perhaps Russia’s military is desperate to claim any sort of offensive victory at a time it’s mostly compelled to be on the defensive. Online, pro-Russian bloggers and propagandists excitedly seize on reports of progress towards Bakhmut, emphasizing the rosy news (from their perspective) amidst grim reports coming from all other fronts.
 
. . . Putin suffering major losses in southern regions says ukrainian official rate is about 1 to 6.5.
Anyone desperate enough to believe what a Ukrainian official says about Russian losses - or anything else about this war for that matter - is at serious risk of being extremely disappointed and will, almost certainly, end up losing 10oz of fine 999 silver!
;)
 
Last edited:
According to deepstatemap Russians advanced ~ 3 km in one month towards Bakhmut.
In the meantime Ukranians advanced ~ 30 km from Izium towards Kreminna.
Put that into a trading context, CV.
You know and understand full well that when someone posts a thread with a title such as '99% Success Rate' that that is misleading because they could be winning just £1 on the 99 winning trades and losing £100 (or more) on the one losing trade. Translate that to the war: advances are relatively easy if there's little or no resistance and much, much harder if there's a lot of resistance. The Russians - rightly or wrongly - have decided that small gains resulting in the likely taking of Bakmut are what matters to them the most, at the expense of relatively larger losses of mostly open farmland with little or no strategic importance.

R_L's speculation about how much these gains help the Russians is just that: speculation. One thing everyone must surely agree on about the Russians is that they are patient, plan meticulously and don't do anything without sound military reasons. Note the emphasis on military, because you might argue the same could be said of the Ukrainians. (They were a first rate army, no question about it.) The difference is that their motivations first and foremost are not militarily ones, they are to dance to the tune of their puppet masters and to play to the western MSM gallery. These two plates have to be kept spinning constantly and sound military reasons can go hang. Ultimately, for a host of reasons, this will be their downfall. Correction, it already is!
Tim.
 
Bakmut are what matters to them the most, at the expense of relatively larger losses of mostly open farmland with little or no strategic importance.
I agree about the scarce importance of open farmland but Izium and Kupiansk are not open farmland, they are important nodes.
The point is that Bakhmut is sieged by Wagner battalions that are paid for their acheivements, they don't care if the remaining 90% o Russian forces are routing/regrouping.
 
Total chaos, but Tim and Brian think these guys will make a difference. :ROFLMAO:
c_v,
I recommend that you reflect on the btl comment in the latest New Atlas video that Histo' linked to in post #2,704, above.
'Harry the Horse' writes:
"The unique thing about Brian's analysis is that he only uses pro-Western sources to make his points about how Russia is succeeding in its operations in Ukraine. Very clever, as it eliminates potential accusations of "Russian propaganda.""
 
These cartoons sum up the conflict pretty well . . .

Bear.jpg


Billions.jpg
 



 
One thing everyone must surely agree on about the Russians is that they are patient, plan meticulously and don't do anything without sound military reasons.
Yeah, and a lot of the planners have been rewarded with different forms of early retirement (some less pleasant than others).:rolleyes:
After a long string of failures and few significant victories, the knives now seem to be out for Russian generals, amid criticism from prominent Russian military correspondents, state television propagandists and even members of the normally obedient parliament.

Some of their families did get to hear the sound of success though.
 
The video, if true, shows how unlikely the new 300K conscripts will help Russia's effort and makes me feel sorry for them.
They are not conscripts, they are resservists.
Maybe there is no difference in your country, but there is a big difference in mine.

And they didn't call up the maximum of 300k from the decree, 222k were enough.

 
The video, if true, shows how unlikely the new 300K conscripts will help Russia's effort and makes me feel sorry for them.
R_L,
Do you not feel equally sorry for their Ukrainian counterparts? As I said in my reply to c_v, if Russian reservists (not new recruits) are not going to help Russia, then Ukraine's new recruits (not reservists) certainly aren't going to help Ukraine. It cuts both ways. That's just simple, plain, obvious common sense.
Tim.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, and a lot of the planners have been rewarded with different forms of early retirement (some less pleasant than others).:rolleyes:
Well R_L, that's your interpretation. Again, you're just speculating, as you can't have any idea why the generals were relieved of their posts - if indeed they were. Perhaps they were simply due for retirement and the WP article is mere western propaganda. Who knows. And even if the generals weren't quite up to the job - for whatever reason - then they're replaced by someone who is. Are you suggesting that Zelensky hasn't done the same? You'll have seen - and will see again in the coming weeks - this very same process taking place within the British Conservative party!
:D
 
Last edited:
Top