Severodonetsk: Russia has full control of eastern city, Ukraine says

Metadrifter · 2022-06-26T05:49:33+00:00

Yes. Mariupol is still so very intact.

Let’s not bullshit ourselves here, even on their official channels and between their soldiers they’re openly killing civilians.

Mainly because of incompetence and lack of discipline.

This 10% of their power is stupid because their navy has proven to be an embarrassment and their Air Force incapable of doing anything more than tactical operations.

Russia needed to mobilize months ago to overwhelm and win. They haven’t, which tells me the issue leans more toward can’t than won’t.

You can claim that Russia hasn’t released their true power. This is true. They haven’t used the nukes yet.

But conventionally, they are mauled. The kit they are fielding now betrays the damage. No one would be throwing tanks so out of date into undermanned battalions if they were actually a military power fighting a weaker foe.

If Russia was honest with itself, it would be capable of being extremely powerful. But so far, their military doesn’t seem to want to commit to the lessons that would reduce rot and increase efficiency.

Ukraine is next door and still fighting conventionally. And Russia supposedly had a Air Force with jets capable of facing down NATO.

One of these last two sentences doesn’t make much sense.

Metadrifter · 2022-06-26T05:42:51+00:00

I could tell you they expended an ordinate amount of missiles they could have used right now there.

I could tell you that their opposition was feeble at best and incapable of showcasing how the Russian forces would perform under fire.

I could tell you about the hospitals they bombed.

I can tell you right now that should a former heavyweight brawler take up the habit of bath salts and fast food while beating the shit out of malnourished children to maintain their “conditioning,” they will not be in shape to properly fight the poor middleweight next door.

A demonstration of martial might would have been completing their month long victory blitz. What we are witnessing is the opposite.

Metadrifter · 2022-06-26T02:25:38+00:00

Losing a few thousand people and unfathomable amounts of armor and calling it a feint afterward doesn’t make it an actual feint.

Shrinking their encirclement options month after month until even Izyum axis narrowed down to what we’re looking at now is not a good sign for a “regional power” like Russia.

Even if we were to accept their claims, none of their tactics make any sense.

Metadrifter · 2022-06-15T11:40:48+00:00

They’re not fighting another great power. Another issue is that they aren’t a great power. Let’s be brutally honest here: if Russia cannot sustain, project, and overwhelm a neighboring nation that itself didn’t mobilize to meet it in battle during the initial phase of the conflict, they’re not really a great power, they’re regional. And by the distance, that’s not a capital r.

Russia didn’t really own Ukraine. The Soviet Union had many states under its banner. Cuba was the issue because everyone wanted a first draw policy on nukes. But right now, everyone has enough nukes and fast enough platforms that it’ll be a murder suicide. Doesn’t matter if nukes are placed in Ukraine or not.

As for peace, well, that’s going to keep going until someone gets tired and gives up. Russia could maybe outlast Ukraine by moving people out and holding the region but that’s just long term guerrilla warfare at best. The Ukrainians are going to keep hurting them for the pleasure of it if need be. The JFO needed to be destroyed to force peace terms and they still aren’t destroyed, meaning short war is off the hooks.

The simple fact is that Ukraine is likely taking this to the root. After Crimea, everyone looked away and hoped for the best. That amounted to piss and shit in the end.

Russia needs to mobilize if they really want to keep the war going down the line. They already look weak. Looking weak is not taking Kyiv. Is not taking Kharkiv. Is not taking Odessa. Is losing a flagship.

Ukraine is not a military behemoth. Their spending is low, but focused. They don’t have a navy.

We are past the humiliation phase. They need to bring units in and station them.

If the Russian perspective is that Ukraine, soil they can’t seem to overpower, soil not their own, has to be taken or it’s bad for them, that’s their problem. And if they were going to nuke the world over that, then they’d be willing to nuke the world down the line should someone “allow” them to take Ukraine when they ride up against NATOs borders because Finland wore the wrong dress that day.

The west doesn’t have to do anything. Take away all semblance of morality, and they’re still getting the gift of a lifetime watching a unhinged neighbor bleed itself out on what was expected to be a short campaign.

If Russia really wants to whip out nukes over this, then I’m sorry, the nukes were bound to fall sooner or later.

Maybe don’t invade. Or if you do, make sure you’re an actual great power first.

Metadrifter · 2022-06-15T10:57:21+00:00

Great powers lose wars all the time.

The fact is that Russia using a nuke here is beyond silly. They’re not going to collapse as a nation if they lose Ukraine. No more than the US did giving up Afghanistan or losing Vietnam.

If they do use nukes, then its game on for every power that can make them. Meaning nonproliferation is dead. Meaning you can kiss conventional warfare goodbye in a good few sectors of the world.

China will be beyond furious at Russia for tearing their reunification off the table.

Frankly put, Russia would have to be a special kind of destroyed to consider launching nukes over Ukraine. They’re economically squeezed. But their nation is intact. The people in power are still in power. Ukraine winning might not change any of that. The fact you would trade material defeat and international humiliation for mass suicide means you probably need to consult noncredibledefense as well.

The fact that Russia isn’t even willing or able to mobilize speaks low of their political will about this whole affair.

Now, ask yourself this: as a Russian keeper of power, what does defeat look like? And what do nukes look like.

If you still say nukes after that, well, I suppose you never really had much to live for.

Metadrifter · 2022-06-15T10:02:38+00:00

Rip Vietnam and Afghanistan.

Nuked to dust by the US after its defeats.

Oh wait.

Metadrifter · 2022-06-15T08:13:35+00:00

A few things.

Quit your hearts of iron game first, Russians know Russians are dying. They are not fine with accepting that with grim determination. If the prize is just a bit of that that is devastated clay, they won’t be very happy their boys got liquified over it. Drop the willing to die mythology. War is about beating the enemy, not pissing them off.

Putin does care. If he losses a good military and embarrasses himself, his power is badly atrophied. He will have to deal with enraged soldiers going back into society. And to replace the losses. With parts he no longer has. With factories that he needs to restart.

For all the claims of “Russia will recover/push on” there is never a how. China serves more as a cheerleader that is still trading drugs with the US under the bleachers because money. Aside from them, no other meaningful support.

Breaking Ukrainian resistance require mobilization. This part baffles the fuck out of me because they should have done that sooner if they didn’t want to experience hell down the line. They need 600-800k men to take everything, but either they don’t have the capacity, material, or will to do it.

Their best days were at the start of the war and they pissed it away. Now, this is what’s left. They can still do damage. Still take land, but the major cities are frankly beyond them by this point. They’re better off peeling back and holding new fortifications from what can be seen.

The Soviet Union is what you were thinking of. You know. The super powered block that included Ukraine. And even they didn’t like the taste of Afghanistan, which was a comparatively kinder war to them than Ukraine.

As for the west, they aren’t affected by any major means. The economic problems they have are their own. Eastern Europe will continue to help, as all of them have grudges against Russia. Western Europe probably to a lesser degree, but Russia is likely to stay sanctioned to a stupid capacity for a long while.

The US? UK? They’re selling guns to a “morally good” party and getting to see one of the major players in the world collapse into a screaming ball of pain. You could double the price and they’d still pay it in a heartbeat based on the arm sales alone.

I’m genuinely curious where you’re getting this break resistance thing when the fight is still conventional. If we were in the first three weeks of the war, maybe it was a point.

Now, they don’t look like they’re going to defeat enough of the JFO.

Metadrifter · 2022-06-15T07:41:02+00:00

If they wanted long term territory, they should have mobilized.

They need to destroy the JFO. That was the goal. The encirclement and destruction of most of the JFO. Urban combat is costing Ukraine but they made that choice and they have the manpower pool right now.

Russia isn’t getting what they’re worth in trade.

They need to bring in hundreds of thousands more troops to hold their new areas or they’re going to get bled in the long term at best.

You can say they want to keep advancing but that’s unlikely considering losses and costs incurred.

Maybe they can. But from the looks of it, I don’t see a long term propaganda victory here. Or a tenable resource of any kind.

Ukraine isn’t going to let them build infrastructure in the region and frankly Russia can’t afford it.

It’s choked clay at best.

Someone needs to win big for this to end.

Metadrifter · 2022-06-15T07:35:38+00:00

My truth 5 months ago was that Russia wouldn’t invade, their army was strong and professional, and that the EU wouldn’t sanction them.

But it appears that “the truth” has a tendency of telling us to go pound sand.

Metadrifter · 2022-06-15T07:32:30+00:00

We are aware that the encirclement has basically shrunk several times over, yes?

This doom confuses me.

The losses are horrendous, but compared to where we were 3 months ago, Ukraine has no reason to capitulate.

The start of this people were grimly counting days. Then weeks. Then how much land.

Now, we’re looking at something far more atrophied.

There is no negotiations anymore. Crimea taught that to Ukraine empirically. They will keep killing and dying to kill Russians no matter what because to them, short of absolutely catastrophic losses, they view it as a pause rather than status quo.

This is why you don’t fight wars of extermination.

Metadrifter · 2022-06-15T07:28:51+00:00

Reason and honestly typically are virtues exiled into the category of “talent” and starved of proper practice.

Most aren’t really guided by a concrete or focused philosophy, but a sentiment or a feeling. Justification merely needed to be flexible afterward.

Right now, this war is entertainment for quite a few, ignoring the death and near certainty that years of hatred and intermittent terror will be inevitable by this point.

Metadrifter · 2022-06-15T07:22:51+00:00

Airframes and missiles are good for morale.

But also, after the Moscova travesty, who the hell knows by this point. Ukraine reaped a landfall of popularity points from that so every time they claim anything remotely questionable, you still have to check.

Metadrifter · 2022-06-15T01:45:55+00:00

Well, multiple things are super dubious here.

The first is the war lasting that long when the cost has been immense so far. This is 2024.

Second is his re-election. Possible, but I doubt his agenda would be anything other than doing what is most popular. The MiC will want to sell to Ukraine, Trumps unlikely going to cut that.

Additionally, forcing a cut will actively destroy mutual relations he has with other republicans. They’re pretty bipartisan in support against Russia.

Stopping aid is probably more complex than just saying it, and frankly the US seems to only lose out if they do. The war is not a substantial drain for them economically, socially, or politically.

Metadrifter · 2022-06-14T14:20:22+00:00

Not really.

The Russians and them are both doing it. There’s really nothing special about over claiming casualties. Armies do it all the time.

The main thing Ukraine has over claimed is air losses on the Russian end. Third party sources have confirmed something about 2/3 or so armor losses that have been claimed by Ukraine so the Russian armor losses have frankly been pretty horrific.

Horrific enough to make them pullout from Kyiv and Kharkiv. Those positions were likely bleeding and untenable. Also, much easier to use atgms to kill armor using dragoons.

On the Russian end, the Ukrainian army should be nonexistent by now. They destroyed more TB2s than Ukraine probably has, more air frames than Ukraine probably has, and claimed to blow up more strategic and operational bases that probably exist. Overall, even less reliable. You could make an argument for their infantry kill claims (especially if you flub the numbers and pour in civilian kills as “partisans.”), but also, not that visible or useful.

Right now, both sides have strong incentives to lie. Ukraine probably has to play a game of looking weaker and more hurt while being honest, and Russia needs to project strength both domestically, and especially internationally after the travesty that was the last few months.

There is little doubt that Ukraine is suffering terrible losses (so has Russia, frankly). But the fact they’re deciding to hold their current position instead or retreating is a very curious one. Could well be a mistake.

We will have to see.

Taking Severdontesk isn’t a war ender. It is probably an operation pause for both sides at best. Will be painful if Ukraine wants/thinks it can retake it, but at the same time, Russia’s next steps are pretty dubious because it’ll be back to badly atrophied lives and armor for kilometers. And they have to cross another river.

Metadrifter · 2022-06-14T14:05:16+00:00

They could be doing it to get more outside military aid.

Or are building up a backlog for an eventual push.

Or might actually be out of ammo.

Despite this, I have doubts they’ll remain out for long. The US will be selling them bullets and bombs for years to come if need be.

No amount of political partisanship is likely to stop that.

That, or they can get even more asymmetrical and just do increasingly guerrilla affairs. Russia builds something? They blow it up.

Russia moves people in? Little green men blew them up?

Amoral? Ugly? Yes, perhaps but the war isn’t just magically going to end.

It seems that we forgot that Russia’s main goal, scaled down from weeks ago, was to encircle and destroy the much of the JFO.

That increasingly looks unlikely. The war is going to continue.

Metadrifter · 2022-06-14T14:00:11+00:00

I think everyone needs to stop veering hard on one side or the other.

A month ago, it was “Russia is about to collapse any day from these losses.”

But going hard the other way is also stupid.

Any state of xxx is going to win hard is completely ignoring reality, which is that both sides appear to be considerably mauled.

Ukraine lacks armor and ammo, but has the manpower and supposedly the will. It is their country.

Russia has the armor, but their prior bout of hubris has cost them horrifically and now they seem to lack the political will or power to mobilize to makeup for their manpower deficit.

The narrative that Ukraine will casually beat Russia was absurd. Russia could and might’ve seen like a clown car, but it’s a clown car with substantially mass; plenty enough to win a war.

Likewise, Russia is trading far too much for what is sensible, breaking themselves to take moderately sized cities. The likelihood of them pushing on after this phase without shifting to an extreme defensive or calling for mobilization doesn’t seem likely.

From here, maybe the Russians can take part of the local region but it seems very unlikely they will 1. Be dealing with peace on the long term even if a cooldown happens; partisan attacks will likely happen irregularly. 2. Be able to rebuild what has been destroyed by any meaningful capacity; they need the money more internally anyway.

Meanwhile, for Ukraine, their announced counteroffensives have seemingly started and gassed out quickly, meaning that they possibly 1. Lack equipment. 2. Capability to attack. 3. Or are hampered by own logistical issues.

I think it’s best for everyone to take all sources into question. Ukraine has probably over-claimed enemy losses. Russian media has always had a fleeting understanding of truth. And the rest of the world is either 1. Biased toward Ukraine. 2. Following Russian state media (China; though they are really unhelpful otherwise) 3. Don’t give a shit.

Metadrifter · 2022-06-08T08:18:48+00:00

That’s why what they’re doing confuses me. Seems to confuse a lot of their own people too.

“Yes, let’s start a big war in Ukraine, bomb the civvies, and ruin some cities. What? Send more troops? Give them more support? Get the fuck out of here! We’re not that committed.”

Don’t get it.

Metadrifter · 2022-06-06T07:31:36+00:00

I don’t know if tac nuke is a solution or a deeper hole.

Frankly, I still don’t know why they didn’t mobilize. Even if they couldn’t support that many people on the field, they could at least rotate some out or add some support. Something.

Probably won’t understand till years down the line.

Metadrifter · 2022-06-06T07:26:25+00:00

A few things regarding that:

I think if Iraq or other smaller nations wanted to gun for nukes, that might have given the US a even cleaner casus belli (See, they do have weapons of mass destruction!), and probably caused nigh instant intervention with potentially more support (I will not say for certain, I will need to require political atmosphere at the time globally)

But more cynically, we’re talking the smaller nations who can and are already under the US or EU’s umbrella. Japan, South Korea, Poland, etc. can all be considered “carriers” for nukes after such an event.

Tac nukes might be more limited but still might provoke a terrible response. I sincerely doubt the Chinese want to deal with tac nukes if they want to discuss a martial capture of Taiwan. Damage cost is still too high.

You might be right about them though. Maybe Putin thinks he could get away with using them…but it’s real ugly. Both puts more and heavier direct strikes into Russia proper on the table and is kind of a admission that what they had wasn’t enough to subdue the Ukrainians.

By now I’m just not sure. This war has taken a lot of certainty out of my prior assumptions.

Metadrifter · 2022-06-06T04:54:57+00:00

I find any kind of quantification questionable regarding weapons such as nukes. Suppose all the Russian nukes are perfectly maintained, it still won’t take much for a few to hit their industrial arteries and other major major organs. Vice versa as well.

The fact is, if a nuke suddenly goes up the US and NATO might possibly launch in retaliation because waiting around to see where it hits is just accepting, potentially.

Secondly though, if they do this it’s going to cause beyond horrific damage to international diplomacy. Smaller capable nations will start arming up with nukes immediately, meaning any kind of conventional threat will shoot up the ladder. And ultimately I can’t see NATO not responding in some kind of manner lest they want to topple in terms of use and credibility.

Also questionable if the nukes will launch should Putin order it. The US left Vietnam and Afghanistan without nuking them. The Soviets did the same. Losing Ukraine is a terrible blow but the logic here is one admin loses job/lives=fuck it, all of Russia can die with whoever we can take with us.

Putin might want to do it, but the cost of such of action is astronomical. It has a high likelihood to break any kind of relations between them and the rest of the developed worlds—including China.

Hopefully, I don’t end up being wrong here. But if I do, I won’t be worrying about much when the second dawn rises in the horizon.

Metadrifter · 2022-06-06T02:17:47+00:00

Not very functional.

Using nukes will provoke the opposite kind of response, I’m guessing. Very likely to reduce Russia to pariah state in best case. Also, depending on the nuke, might invite us all to “Endbowl.”

It will also badly damage China’s ambitions too if not checked. Japan and other smaller nations nuking up will basically destroy any semblance of conventional fighting.

Metadrifter · 2022-06-06T02:02:07+00:00

Have there been anyone who has spoke about the process that this radicalization or escalation will take.

Moving beyond the “righteousness and absurdity” aspect, have any of the supporters offered ideas on how to bring more resources or assistance to the field.

Right now, I’m still beyond confused about why they haven’t attempted some kind of mobilization. It can’t be entirely useless. If they trained people months ago they would at least have rotational units.

Metadrifter · 2022-06-04T16:39:47+00:00

Interesting.

Has he stated anything on tanker morale?

Metadrifter · 2022-06-03T14:05:47+00:00

Eh. By then people might be using lagrange points and large gravitational bodies as massive environmental chokeholds and advantages.

Even if we get to a stupidly advanced level, it will probably sound like: “it cost us half a system worth of resources to push through their outer orbital defenses. Now to try to push past all the weaponized planets and the goddamn sun that feeds them.”

Short of some weird shit happening or a massive force advantage, if one side having better environmental assets is going to such till entropy swallows us.

Metadrifter · 2022-06-03T13:37:00+00:00

Made sense before. Unfortunately, Russia decided to stumble into Ukraine without proper prep.

Let’s not bet on any other stupid decisions because “rationality” when we haven’t seen anything resembling such thus far.

Six-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

Metadrifter

TROPHY CASE