Ukraine advances 100-125km+ into Russia.

[BlueOak]

Here are a few other perspectives, with a pro-Russian one at the bottom. 

 

Should leave Ukraine with some territory for trade, or at least a lot of damage to the Russian war infrastructure in the area.

[Karmadhi]

I dont get what Ukraine is trying to do here.

In the long run the territory will be lost anyway.

I saw that the unit that pushed in Russia is one of their best and was fully equipped, basically Ukraine s best.

Why did they not use this unit to simply defend the East which is being slowly over run by Russia?

2 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

Should leave Ukraine with some territory for trade

This would be the best idea in my opinion but I doubt they can hold it for long. I saw it is a unit of 1000 people or something. They will eventually be overrun. 

Very embarrassing for Russia though, in the very least this is a PR victory for Ukraine.

Edited August 9 by Karmadhi

[BlueOak]

40 minutes ago, Karmadhi said:

I dont get what Ukraine is trying to do here.

In the long run the territory will be lost anyway.

I saw that the unit that pushed in Russia is one of their best and was fully equipped, basically Ukraine s best.

Why did they not use this unit to simply defend the East which is being slowly over run by Russia?

This would be the best idea in my opinion but I doubt they can hold it for long. I saw it is a unit of 1000 people or something. They will eventually be overrun. 

Very embarrassing for Russia though, in the very least this is a PR victory for Ukraine.

If its a raid. Raiding Russia is smart. Its a huge country, with lots of room to move around and nowhere near enough men to defend inside the country itself.
If its holding territory, they can take a couple of cities and when the peace happens, Russia either trades or loses them.

For raiding they've taken a lot of prisoners for trade, and hit the Russians unprepared. Which means stockpiles, rail connections, vehicles, supplies etc. They can hit the logistics of Russia quite hard here now they are this far inside of it. Long term Russia will have to put troops on the border, just like Ukraine do with Belarus, which helps stretch Russia thinner.

There are some key sites, like the main hub to ship gas to Europe there, for example, and a powerplant, but beyond that hitting the backlines of a country at war is very beneficial. Also the nearby airfields were getting hit hard. from the info I've got, which is useful for all parties involved except Russia.

Edited August 9 by BlueOak

[Raze]

Former US Colonel gives his opinion

 

[Hatfort]

Ukraine found a weaker point in the Northeast border and decided to attack it, even if it's Russian territory they are not really interested in, let's say they want it for trade. It's war, Ukraine should try its possibilities. Invading is hard, but maintaining what you invade is even harder though, I don't think Ukraine will be able to hold it for long. They keep losing in the East, which Russia intends to invade and annex. Ukraine took a win where they could. Will they celebrate for long? I don't think so.

[Karmadhi]

8 hours ago, BlueOak said:

f its holding territory, they can take a couple of cities and when the peace happens, Russia either trades or loses them.

There were like 1000 people in total for the attack. That is a relatively small number on the grand scheme of things. What will Ukraine do once they are eventually killed? Keep in mind Ukraine sent a top unit for it, not your average soldier.

8 hours ago, BlueOak said:

For raiding they've taken a lot of prisoners for trade, and hit the Russians unprepared. Which means stockpiles, rail connections, vehicles, supplies etc. They can hit the logistics of Russia quite hard here now they are this far inside of it. Long term Russia will have to put troops on the border, just like Ukraine do with Belarus, which helps stretch Russia thinner.

True, only issue is Russia has like 5x the number of soldiers and can easily recruit more. If Ukraine had equal manpower things would be more interesting. But I do not see Ukraine doing any big pushes or holding territory because their troops cannot be replaced.

They are desperate for manpower.

They should have done this on their counter offensive last year when they had more soldiers.

This attack, although effective, is too little too late.

It reminds me of the German offensive during the Battle of the Bulge in 1944 (if you are a WW2 nerd like me haha).

Still, kudos to Ukraine.

They have embarrassed Russia and given themselves tons of prisoners to do future prisoner exchanges.

But I do not see this changing the course of the war by any meaningful margin.

[Karmadhi]

https://theconversation.com/one-third-of-ukrainians-would-give-up-land-for-peace-but-its-not-as-simple-as-that-235491

What do you guys think of this?

It says it was around 10% last year and now it is 32%.

I can imagine this will only increase.

Perhaps this is how the war will end.

[BlueOak]

9 hours ago, Karmadhi said:

There were like 1000 people in total for the attack. That is a relatively small number on the grand scheme of things. What will Ukraine do once they are eventually killed? Keep in mind Ukraine sent a top unit for it, not your average soldier.

True, only issue is Russia has like 5x the number of soldiers and can easily recruit more. If Ukraine had equal manpower things would be more interesting. But I do not see Ukraine doing any big pushes or holding territory because their troops cannot be replaced.

They are desperate for manpower.

They should have done this on their counter offensive last year when they had more soldiers.

This attack, although effective, is too little too late.

It reminds me of the German offensive during the Battle of the Bulge in 1944 (if you are a WW2 nerd like me haha).

Still, kudos to Ukraine.

They have embarrassed Russia and given themselves tons of prisoners to do future prisoner exchanges.

But I do not see this changing the course of the war by any meaningful margin.

The initial reports were inaccurate. There are more like 6000 plus support. There are three brigades and several smaller mechanized units in support as well. They outnumber the Russian response currently, which is why they are pushing forward, especially as the Russians are reporting on where their own troops are along the roads, so their convoys are being hit. Some dumb reporters are over there.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/08/08/one-of-ukraines-toughest-and-fastest-brigades-has-joined-the-invasion-of-russia/

Ukraine needed manpower because they recruited 500,000 more men this summer. The age is still 25 for recruitment. Desperate is an exaggeration, it would be like saying Russia is desperate for manpower because they left the border undefended, but it's not. Both sides don't want to do another mobilization. Certainly, I would say the volunteers for both sides are all in the army now, so there's purely conscription, and that's why some people try to avoid it or resist it.

If they take two cities, it'll be significant; Kursk would be the second biggest city taken in the war, Mariupol being the biggest. Either way, they've taken a chunk of territory, including the main connection point for Russia sending gas into Europe, which is a big deal in any negotiation and if they get the power plant that's another prize. I do agree I would have liked the west to take the chains off Ukraine earlier on, so they could threaten Russia more effectively, but the fear of Russia's response made them restrain Ukraine from invading Russia, giving a strategic edge to the Russians because they had fixed fronts, while Ukraine had to defend almost every border.
 

9 hours ago, Karmadhi said:

https://theconversation.com/one-third-of-ukrainians-would-give-up-land-for-peace-but-its-not-as-simple-as-that-235491

What do you guys think of this?

It says it was around 10% last year and now it is 32%.

I can imagine this will only increase.

Perhaps this is how the war will end.

At the very start of this war I said Ukraine will give up some territory, but here they may trade some back.
I also said if they don't get into NATO we will do all this all over again. It will be supremely stupid if we don't put them in NATO.

I stand by both statements.

 

8 hours ago, Jade123 said:

@BlueOak

   This reminds me of when I played a game series called civilizations4, 5, and it's fan made versions, yes the military units, typically mounted due to high mobility, can pillage roads or tile improvements in that enemy city, and in exchange you get gold coins and even a bit of health points for that unit. I see Ukraine doing a similar tactic of pillaging some Russian territory, like you said for capturing some prisoners or stock piles for the longer war effort. It's a good short term move, maybe not so long term.

Yes, it's a very wide open country, vulnerable to partisans, mobile units, and protecting its borders. Shortening its borders is one of the many reasons for this war. Because of Russia's population crisis, they don't have the manpower to secure every land connection, but shrinking it down into central Europe was a core strategy they were attempting.

I think this being a raid shouldn't be dismissed yet, because all of Ukraine's units are mechanized and fast, it may depend on how successful they are. They are reinforcing some of the towns they've taken but that could still be for a short-term stay. They are able to take out Russia convoys as they are coming into reinforcement with drones and artillery while the convoys are bottlenecked and disorganized, which is another bonus long term.

Edited August 10 by BlueOak

[Schizophonia]

What an humiliation.

[Schizophonia]

9 hours ago, Jade123 said:

 

 civilizations4, 5,

Best game of the world with Eu4.

[Something Funny]

10 hours ago, Karmadhi said:

There were like 1000 people in total for the attack. That is a relatively small number on the grand scheme of things. What will Ukraine do once they are eventually killed? Keep in mind Ukraine sent a top unit for it, not your average soldier.

They are able tonsend wounded soldiers back and send new ones in. It's not like they are encircled.

I even saw a video of them retrieving damaged machinery.

[Something Funny]

1 hour ago, BlueOak said:

They outnumber the Russian response currently, which is why they are pushing forward, especially as the Russians are reporting on where their own troops are along the roads, so their convoys are being hit. Some dumb reporters are over there.

What does it matter if they have satelites that can show you where russian troops are?

[PurpleTree]

would be nice if someone opens another front on russia somewhere else

for example on the east around vladyvostok, let’s goooo japan

[Bobby_2021]

When Russia was making steady advances every other day, no western media outlets reported on that. They would report meaningless attacks on somewhere in Russia that is inconsequential to the larger war. Now they have enough content for a couple of weeks it seems. Everyone will forget this as soon as Russia would take control of the situation.

Make no mistake, this caught Russia off-guard. This is one of the few times when Ukrainian commanders outsmarted the Russians. The Ukrainian commanders were making blunders after blunders, sacrificing their elite forces for reckless PR stunts like they did in Krynky.

22 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Should leave Ukraine with some territory for trade

They would not be able to hold on to it. They are not able to hold positions deep in Ukraine, and you think Ukraine forces could hold ground in Russia. Not going to happen.  They are going to be exterminated, and we will all move to the next news cycle leaving this in the dust. 

Your dilemma as a Ukrainian commander is this: You have to lead an army that you know will fail and lose. You have to do it anyway since the joker president told you so. So, they keep sacrificing precious Ukrainian (and Russian) lives instead of sitting for talks that could actually end the war. 

[Something Funny]

30 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

So, they keep sacrificing precious Ukrainian (and Russian) lives instead of sitting for talks that could actually end the war. 

What talks can there be with Russia if they keep violating peace and territorial agreements?

What is the point of freezing the conflict for a few years, giving russia more teritories, just to allow them to regroup and attack you even harder soon after?

[Something Funny]

First of all, all of this is your perspective, as a westerner. None of the points you listed benefit Ukraine.

3 minutes ago, Jade123 said:

1. They have nuclear power and nukes, both strategic and tactical nukes. Because we want avoid a MAD, negotiating is worth it, yet how the west made negotiation attempts was mostly posturing and signaling threats to them..

Realistically speaking, it's very unlikely that they will start using those.

4 minutes ago, Jade123 said:

2. There's also China, and this conflict and how the U.S responded made the 2 even more allied than before. This is bad from U.S's interests geopolitically.

They would still be allied anyway. And, since you mentioned China, I don't think they want escalation or Russia using nukes either.

5 minutes ago, Jade123 said:

3. Russia has BRISC whilst EU has NATO. If this conflict escalates, EU might be dragged into war, which negatively effects trade and economy.

Nobody is going to chime in for Russia, and I doubt Russia will ever dare to attack NATO.

...

Finally, none of this answers my original questions. What's the point of temporary peace, just for the conflict to re-start in a few years? You will be faced with all the same issues and dilemmas of conflict escalation, only Russia will be stronger by then.

So unless you have an idea on how to make sure that Russia never attacks Ukraine again, you might as well propose Ukraine to give all of its territories to Russia right now.

 

[Hatfort]

13 minutes ago, Something Funny said:

Finally, none of this answers my original questions. What's the point of temporary peace, just for the conflict to re-start in a few years? You will be faced with all the same issues and dilemmas of conflict escalation, only Russia will be stronger by then.

So unless you have an idea on how to make sure that Russia never attacks Ukraine again, you might as well propose Ukraine to give all of its territories to Russia right now.

Good faith negotiations are to achieve permanent peace, as far as possible. If both sides respect the terms, there's no reason Russia would attack again. Previous accords weren't respected, probably because nobody thought Russia would ever attack, and not only they did, but they are winning.

There have been chances to sit and negotiate. Before the war, right after the first incursion, before the counteroffensive, and the last offer was two months ago, each time it got worse for Ukraine. Putin said next time terms will be worse for Ukraine. Even if Russia is winning, war has costs, human lives for start, so it's in their interest to negotiate too, but it's much more in the interest of Ukraine right now, and Russia knows this, so if Zelensky and NATO refuse to sit, then be it, that seems Russia's position.

How do you make sure anyone doesn't do anything you don't want? You can try to finish them, if you can, or you can sit and agree to some terms acknowledging mutual harm is bad for both sides. A hint, the first option is not working in this conflict.

[Something Funny]

3 minutes ago, Hatfort said:

Good faith negotiations are to achieve permanent peace, as far as possible. If both sides respect the terms, there's no reason Russia would attack again. Previous accords weren't respected, probably because nobody thought Russia would ever attack, and not only they did, but they are winning.

 Not sure what you are talking about. After the collapse of the soviet union, Russia, Ukraine and 13 Other countries signed agreement, acknowledging each others territories and independence. In good faith. Russia broke them.

Ukraine gave away its nuclear weapons and signed peace guarantees with Russia, in good faith, Russia broke them.

The same happened with Georgia.

Russia took over crimea and tried to pretend like it was just a totally natural, fair and square referendum. While when Chechnya wanted to become independent, Russia crushed them.

Then they pretended like Donbass and Lugansk are just completely natural rebellions for freedom, once again. And that Russia has no part in it.

I don't think that Russia, under Putin's leadership, can be negotiated with in good faith ever again.

[Hatfort]

1 minute ago, Something Funny said:

 Not sure what you are talking about. After the collapse of the soviet union, Russia, Ukraine and 13 Other countries signed agreement, acknowledging each others territories and independence. In good faith. Russia broke them.

Ukraine gave away its nuclear weapons and signed peace guarantees with Russia, in good faith, Russia broke them.

The same happened with Georgia.

Russia took over crimea and tried to pretend like it was just a totally natural, fair and square referendum. While when Chechnya wanted to become independent, Russia crushed them.

Then they pretended like Donbass and Lugansk are just completely natural rebellions for freedom, once again. And that Russia has no part in it.

I don't think that Russia, under Putin's leadership, can be negotiated with in good faith ever again.

Good faith negotiations between Russia and Ukraine are possible. You paint Ukraine like Mother Theresa of Calcutta, but after the coup of 2014, they've been at war with the Russian-speaking population in the Donbas and other regions, and they opened a the facto red carpet to NATO, and NATO armed the most radical Ukrainians they could find as they always do, the Nazi Azov guys in this case.

Crimea was annexed via referendum, it was over 90% Russian people in there. I know sometimes big countries get to ask more than small ones, if it was Moldova asking to anex a part with 90% of Moldovans from Ukraine, it wouldn't have happened. Is this fair? Not for Moldova, but in this specific case, for Crimeans, absolutely yes, because they don't want to be Ukrainian, they want to be Russian. Is it fair for Chechnya? Probably not, but after a bloody war, they finally sat, and agreed on some terms both sides could accept. In any case, Russia took the path of annexing Crimea when Ukraine took its Antirussian route.

A war was prevented in 2015 with the Minsk Accords, to calm the conflict in the Donbas, with both Zelensky and Putin signing. Russia could have attacked then, but opted to sign an accord. But that's why I say negotiations have to be in good faith, in this case, they were not on the part of NATO and Zelensky, because the hostility or war against the Russian-speaking minority continued. The NATO-founded militarization continued in the whole country, specially in the East, and after having to accept Poland and the Baltic countries joining NATO before, even if that was agreed that wouldn't happen in the 90's, Russia saw where this was going. If Ukraine is so stupid to join the EU, that's their decision, but if they want to break their neutrality status with NATO, that's Russia's business too.

So what have we got now? Russia got Crimea before, and most of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson now, and they are not going to leave them, that's a no-return situation, because in the eyes of Russia, Ukraine had the chance to negotiate before that didn't take, and that had a cost for Russia too. Zelensky and NATO refused these terms, they want the whole of these five regions back. Trump said he would concede Crimea, but ask for the rest back, laughable at this point, and he has his own race to win first, if he can. It may go slowly, but Russia seems to be able to get the full of these regions by force, and maybe some more. Ukraine's capabilities to sustain the war get worse with time, not even mercenaries want to be butchered when they have a much safer job in Gaza killing unarmed civilians, instead of facing a well-trained and equipped army in Donetsk, for the same pay. The USA is not going to send its troops to Ukraine, and neither is France, not that France would make a difference, but since Macron said it, I acknowledge it.

[Something Funny]

17 minutes ago, Hatfort said:

You paint Ukraine like Mother Theresa of Calcutta, but after the coup of 2014, they've been at war with the Russian-speaking population in the Donbas and other regions

This is such an utter bullshit.

Nobody was at war with "Russian speaking population". Dnipro, Kharkiv, Kherson, and even Kyiv at that time were mostly Russian speaking.

Ukraine was fighting a hybrid war against Russia for territories that rightfully belong to it.

I will never believe that people of Donbass and Lugansk would go to war on their own. Those were some of the most prosperous and well developed regions of Ukraine that weren't mistreated in any way.

17 minutes ago, Hatfort said:

Crimea was annexed via referendum, it was over 90% Russian people in there

Sure. The results of that referendum were as true as results of Russia's domestic elections, lol.

17 minutes ago, Hatfort said:

Is it fair for Chechnya? Probably not, but after a bloody war, they finally sat, and agreed on some terms both sides could accept.

Right, after they killed of all resistance, they've put their own people in power and sigbed aan agreement with them. I guess you could say that both "sides" accepted the terms, lol.

17 minutes ago, Hatfort said:

because the hostility or war against the Russian-speaking minority continued

Once again, this is a totally dihinest way to put it. I was still at school in Ukraine at this time, living in a bordering region. And we had RUSSIAN LANGUAGE lessons. Most people spoke Russian and nobody was being oppressed.

...

 

Also, if NATO is such a threat to Russia, and is truly the reason for this war, then how come Finland was allowed to become a NATO member with no issues and no retaliation whatsoever, despite its border being 400km from St. Petersburg?

Hypocrite much?

That's totally fine and no issue at all, right? While Ukraine shluld not be allowed to make any independent decisions whatsoever.

Wests behaviour during this war clearly showed that they don't want an escalation and conflict with Russia. NATO is a defensive alliance and would never attack Russia on its own. And Russia nows that.

So all this bullshit about war being caused because Ukraine wanted to potentially join NATO or EU in 20 something years, is just that - bullshit.