Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[Tamas]

Evacuations around Pokrovsk in eastern Ukraine have become increasingly urgent in recent weeks, the Associated Press reports.

Today's call by military authorities urging civilians to speed up their evacuation of Pokrovsk – an important logistical hub for Ukrainian forces – comes as Ukrainian troops continue their incursion into Russia's Kursk region.

The Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, warned yesterday that Pokrovsk and other nearby towns in the Donetsk region were "facing the most intense Russian assaults."

Feels like this might tie in to what the guy in my video was saying near the end - the lack of (perceived) legitimate options to him, the political apathy might combine to a situation where Putin can afford to have a portion of Russia under prolonged Ukrainian occupation.

Maybe that factors in on Russian calculations in trying (and failing) to contain Ukrainians with whatever teenagers they have left at the bottom of the barrel, rather than give up their WW1-style meatgrinder in Ukraine.

I guess on some level it makes sense to think that past a certain point the Ukrainian advance will either need to stop, drain troops from Donetsk, or leave dangerous gaps to be exploited by conscripts on Chinese ATVs. And if the Russians remain in apathy, what's it to Putin that thousands of them become homeless for years?

But now also with the Ukrainians having allegedly captured the town with the gas connector thing... I wonder if they have been told at the start by the Europeans that they absolutely will not tolerate it being cut off. Because it's hard for me to imagine that their transit fees worth more to them than to Russia their ability to supply and thus keep their markets.

[Grey Fox]

The gas connector looks to be destroyed from satellite imagery I've seen.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

The gas connector looks to be destroyed from satellite imagery I've seen.

Russians have already bombed it,just like they will bomb every building in kursk

[Zoupa]

In the last 2 days, russians destroyed at least 1 HIMARS, a MiG-29 and damaged/destroyed Patriot launchers. Not great.

[Grey Fox]

Not buying the Patriots launchers. Probably decoys.

[Valmy]

Not buying the Patriots launchers. Probably decoys.

Seems like we gave some to Ukraine back in 2022, but maybe I am misremembering.

[Grey Fox]

Not saying that Ukraine doesn't have any. Only that's not what Russia destroyed.

[Josquius]

I'm not so sure. Ukraine has really thrown a lot into this attack. They've lost a lot. I've certainly read they've really pushed up anti air cover.

[Tonitrus]

It's ok...the Russia will soon be countering with their own Western equipment:



https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-kadyrov-equips-tesla-truck-with-machinegun-war-2024-08-17/

[Josquius]

MILITARY & STRATEGIC:
CHOICES FOR BOTH SIDES WILL BE CRUCIAL NOW

We are now witnessing that inflection point, a nexus, where everything focuses on a key point in time - sometimes it's not even visible at the point it happens. But choices get made and from that point on everything changes.
Russia has been pushing hard on the Pokrovsk front. Its choice has been not to use meat waves but to use four or five man assault groups to take small amounts of ground over extended periods. It's still a high loss tactic but it works. It's a war of relentless attrition.
Ukraine aims to make them pay for every meter they win. Yet they are short on men and suffer around 1:5 in losses. It's a painful reality.
In Kursk everything is very different. My estimate is that the equivalent of a full division is operating in the area and probably more. The speed of advances are mind bending for the Ukrainians. It's a shocking difference compared with the central front.
Russia is now faced with the choice of dealing with Kursk or pushing on in the centre. It's not going to be able to do both effectively. So either it splits its resources and does nothing well, or it focuses them on the centre or on Kursk. What matters most to it?
Ukraine has a similar problem. In fact they're near identical. Choose both and do neither well or pick one over the other.
Russia has not it is believed, been meeting its 30,000 a month recruitment target. Despite the pay on offer, men don't want to die.  Yet the daily losses are 1,000+ so they have to recruit that many or start to face force quality deterioration when it's not that good in the first place.
Ukraine has managed to get its numbers up considerably - a fact the Russians know and they fear the arrival of 150,000 fresh Ukrainian troops arriving in the coming months after four months of training. Indeed it's why they have pressed Pokrovsk so hard while they have the advantage.
Yet politically Putin has the Kursk problem. As land it's of little real value to the Russian war effort. But the reality of having a tranche of Russian land occupied by the very people they claim don't even exist as such, is hard to swallow. It sews doubt in his capacity to protect or defend Russian people and interests. All the time it's occupied it's a painful reality that won't go away.
What if Ukraine decided that it was going to expand the operation further, while Russia persisted with its central front ambitions? What if the area doubled? That would be nearly intolerable. There are other dangers with a Ukrainian advance too - their drones can get even deeper and their aircraft might range further.
Yet the reverse could also happen.
If Russia concentrates on Kursk as Ukraine forces send reinforcements to the centre and Russia can no longer move there, could Russia push against Kursk and quickly move the Ukrainian lines backwards?
Whichever way round either of these happen could be decisive. Because neither can do both at the same time.
Then there's option three. What if they both choose Kursk? What happens if both sides determine this is their stand? If they both chose the centre nothing much would change. But Kursk stands to be more mobile.
Putin cannot loose wide swathes of territory without seeming incredibly weak and incompetent. Right now it's a pin prick on the scale of a full Russian map. It would be far harder to face down if it was two or three times the size. What if the Ukrainian side manages to surround and isolate the Kursk nuclear plant? Russia can ill afford having that cut off from its national grid. Ukraine won't attack it, but isolate it?
The nexus point is coming. Somewhere in the next few weeks some decision will be made by someone on either side that sets it in motion.
Once it is, whoever sees it and uses it first, exploits the advantages it gives, will win the next stage of this war.
Russia continues to pick off Ukrainian electricity grid points. Rather than mass attacks they pick one place every few days with fewer missiles and drones. Ukraine continues to harass oil industry sites, support bases and airfields. CONTINUES

Both sides are facing tougher and worsening winter conditions than either have experienced in modern times.
Ukraine also has another audience it has to play too. Its western donors especially the United States, need to see and feel the success operations like Kursk brings. It's just a matter of months before another aid package will need authorising and the election will change everything if it goes badly and the Trumplican Cult win.
Kursk could be seen as Zelensky accepting there will be a possible end of the line for that aid. If it is holding Russian land while being forced by circumstances into a ceasefire, it could prove vital. If Ukraine can hold it long enough.
The winds of war blow without direction. The Democrats win, the Russians accept they have had enough by the start of year four and they talk. Or they decide to carryover the conflict for another year.
Kursk might well decide how this ends.
What the commanders and politicians decide in the next few weeks will determine how much Kursk will matter. At this moment it has no boundary, no decisions need be made by either party. But that time is fast approaching.
Every day will count. Every Russian loss will matter more now than for months past.
By September's end the rains will likely come and the ground will change. Everyone knows that makes a difference. Whatever is going to be achieved needs to be done by October 1st. From then on the weather will largely determine what happens.
Policy will have been set. The winter battles will see the beginning of the end for one side or the other. Because it cannot go on as it is now.
I think they both know it. That's why Kursk happened in the first place.

[Tamas]

I think it can go on for years. If the world wars could, this comparatively small scale affair certainly can.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

I think it can go on for years. If the world wars could, this comparatively small scale affair certainly can.

Look at Syria: even smaller and has been going on for 13 years.
Congo: a total backwater, but resource-rich, and has been going on for a quarter-century (with millions of dead by now).

The west needs to push harder against Russia, and there's still much leeway to do so without putting any soldiers on the ground yet.

[Josquius]

I think it can go on for years. If the world wars could, this comparatively small scale affair certainly can.

Look at Syria: even smaller and has been going on for 13 years.
Congo: a total backwater, but resource-rich, and has been going on for a quarter-century (with millions of dead by now).

The west needs to push harder against Russia, and there's still much leeway to do so without putting any soldiers on the ground yet.

In Syria however there is no viable end other than one side eliminates the others.
If all the fighting stops (hasn't it more or less done so now?) you've just got a frozen conflict. It's a civil war with nobody having any idea of setting up formal lasting new countries - just look at the Taiwan situation where things remain very tense despite them clearly having gone off to form their own nation, only not officially.

Congo... It's a gigantic jungle with shit infrastructure and very low tech forces.
It's less a war and more fighting between gangs in remote resource rich areas.

I don't think either compares to Ukraine where you have a very old school state on state war.
In Ukraine a theoretical viable end is clear - a peace treaty. The question is what land changes hands..
You've also got a population in Ukraine with much higher expectations for living standard, a climate more likely to kill them, and a far more centralised power setup where household generators are not the norm.
I can get why war weariness is rising.

Definitely arguable that any peace with Russia would just be temporary whilst they rebuild - though I think this is over stated a threat, they'd certainly try but then Ukraine wouldn't sit idly either, I do think given years of peace if the west is smart Ukraine could get into a much better relative position - but an end is pretty clear to see

[Zoupa]

You can't have a peace treaty that boils down to "what land changes hands" without shredding the last 80 years of the rules-based order. This would just cause more wars. Next in line: Taiwan.

[Josquius]

 

You can't have a peace treaty that boils down to "what land changes hands" without shredding the last 80 years of the rules-based order. This would just cause more wars. Next in line: Taiwan.

I'm not sure I understand your post.
Youre against the Kursk operation?

Of course there'll be more in any treaty than just marking the borders.
But why would this affect Taiwan? - it makes war in Taiwan less likely as there'd no longer be this big distraction in Europe.