Saberwander

For anyone interested, Aiden has a instagram account/twitter account Cossackgundi and he was pretty active poster. When the war started and Russians reached Mariupol he went "dark" and left his account to his friend who was relaying Aiden's messages and in general retweeting interesting stories.

I don't think Ukraine would accept such a peace. It makes no sense for them. They have the western attention and help, they are doing well and Russia is under massive sanctions that will only make things worse for Putin at home. Accepting some kind of rotten peace would make their situation worse. The west would forget about them, with time sanctions would ease and Russia would be more ready next time around. I think the offer Ukraine made was not one that Russia could accept. It required full pullout of all Russian troops from Ukraine (including DNR/LNR) and then in time a referendum whether they want to stay independent. That offer was obviously unacceptable to Russia and probably is to this day. This is a good idea. I can throw in another city they could offer, Kherson. The city hasn't been destroyed, it's on the "opposite" side of a major river so giving it up in fact makes their "future" border easier to defend. However as always, I don't think Ukraine would accept this type of a deal. At least how it looks from my vantage point. It's always possible that Ukrainian military is extremely depleted and that they have to accept these kind of terms.

They claimed to have destroyed it a few days ago. I guess this is a new claim? Quite likely it's just propaganda. Smart thing to do for Ukraine is to keep the system hidden away as the pure existence of a S-300 system makes Russian air operations riskier and less likely. Shooting down couple of planes but losing S-300 is not worth it. That would be my first move but there are always the dams. Destroying dams is probably not on the table. I would still go for all the other bridges and especially other railways infrastructure further west. Btw Russia seems to be backpedaling on demands. Their initial demands were maximalist, denazification and demilitarization with annexation of eastern Ukraine, then they moved to "we just want to liberate DNR and LNR". The latest claim is that they only want to destroy nationalist battalions and that they are close to the end of the operation. To me it sounds like they will claim victory after they conquer Mariupol and "destroy" Azov battalion there. Looks to be a weak position.

“We know she suffered an explosion,” Pentagon spox John Kirby said of the Moskva on MSNBC. “It looks like — from the images that we have been able to look at — it looks like it was a pretty sizable explosion, too. We don’t know what caused that explosion.” So apparently US has images. Hopefully we get to see them.

Ukraine did not release videos of their raid into Belgorod with Mi-24. There are many reasons why they wouldn't immediately release videos. It could be used to identify the location or the number of launchers (is it a prototype or a serial version, ...). Also it was done at night, maybe the video is not that interesting. But I wouldn't be surprised to see the video released in a few weeks time. Especially if they have footage of Moskva on fire.

I've read that a lot of these estimates are not taking into account that most of wheat is not exported, so the loss of Ukrainian or Russian exports is not that large in the grand scheme of things. Apparently India already produced more than will be lost by Ukraine being unable to supply food. India also has multiple harvests per year and can cover the gap.

I think those reports of Turkish ship taking on survivors are rumours. Turkey officially said it did not happen. I feel we would have received more information about it if it was true. I don't think they need to refuel at sea when in a small sea like Black Sea.

All good points however in this war we have seen Russians make breakthroughs, they drove from Belarus to western Kyiv and from Belgorod to eastern Kyiv. However it did them no good, they were unable to destroy troops that the "broke through" and in the end were forced to retreat. These types of breakthroughs need immense numbers and an enemy whos morale has been shattered. Ukrainians defending their country against war criminals will have high morale regardless (especially today when they see they can fight with Russia on equal terms). This is why I do not think that tactical nuke would severely change the outcome of the battle in the east. Even if Russians resort to it, they can make a breakthrough and then due to vast distances and hostile population end up in a new Kyiv situation, being over extended with no prospects. Tactical nuke could however be used to force a surrender. I really do not know what would Zelensky do if Russia went full nuts and started dropping nukes and threatening more. It would make Russia a pariah state but would Ukraine surrender?

Honestly that's just my layman theory. I have no knowledge how many launchers were available at the start of the war and whether they have been destroyed. I've seen mentions that they were not ready. But, the fact that Russian navy never really got close to the shore at Odesa does point to Russian Navy at least being cautious about potential of them being operational.

I think it was a Buratino. Regardless, I think that most soldiers understand that the weapons they get are not infinite in numbers and that they'd rather have a NLAW on them when a Russian tank is driving toward them than to use it to film a video for TikTok. Stugna-P video also shows that Ukraine seems to have dedicated ATGM crews that have the best equipment and that those soldiers are quite professional in choosing their target. Hopefully Moskva news is true. I'd love to see a big loss like that. If the strike happened it means that Ukraine is starting to feel confident about their defense of Odesa. My theory was that Ukraine held back the Neptunes (kept them hidden) in order to make amphibious landing incredibly risky. Could be the reason why Russia navy did not do their "thunder run to Kyiv" by landing in Odesa early in the war. Will be fascinating to hear more about this when info becomes available.

Thank you for the article. Hertling is quite interesting to read on Twitter as well. This made me realize that Russia did not go after the infrastructure. I could understand not bombing the bridges when they expected to roll onto Maidan and hold a victory parade on Day 3 but why are they not destroying all the bridges over Dnieper? Why are Ukrainian railways mostly functional across Ukraine? They retreated from the north, there is no real need for them to keep those bridges functional (and other bridges over Dnieper to the south). Surely it can't be that they are "saving" the infrastructure as they expect to occupy it? Is it just being unable to target it without losing many aircraft? By focusing on destroying bridges across Dnieper and/or adjacent areas they could make Ukrainian supply that much harder. The fact that Russians seem unable or unwilling to do that shows another issue in their war plan. They are just not fighting this in a way that can achieve victory.

Ok. Let's see. Putin gives full authority to one guy. 1. Order a massive false flag attack against Russia proper - let's say a chemical plant in middle of a city with a poisonous gas. Seems simplest way to ensure massive civilian casualties. I am sure there are other options. This can be done either with painted Mi-24 into Ukrainian colors or with Tochkas moved to Kharkov area. Maybe even multiple attacks, every few days. Also some kind of false flag excursion into Russian territory is not a bad idea as well although harder to fake (maybe fake Azov "nazis" are unleashed on Russian villages at the border, leave a couple of survivors to be used for propaganda later). 2. Claim that you are forced to go to war against Ukraine. 3. Order a large scale mobilization - hundreds of thousands of soldiers (conscripts from previous years, reservists, ...). Bring out equipment (even third rate) that they can use. 4. Prepare a large scale offensive (maybe starting early summer) - I won't outline details of which directions to go exactly - doesn't really matter. What is important is that it would require total commitment from the Russian Air Force - meaning large losses of airplanes and helicopters. There needs to be continuous air support regardless of losses. 5. Hope it breaks Ukrainian defenses and resolve and causes a collapse. This being said, I don't think it is doable. Even if they successfully execute 1-4, I don't think that they can defeat Ukraine because Ukrainian morale is so high after successfully defeating Russia in combat - something not many expected. Even if Russia breaks through the lines and takes some land, Ukraine will not surrender and then Russia is in a long term conflict while under sanctions and with Ukraine receiving foreign military and economic aid.

Regarding the war - honestly I think Russia lost the war after a week. When their initial plan failed they were in a losing situation given constraints they are fighting with. These constraints are obvious problem with issuing large scale mobilization and extremely low morale of the troops which do not understand why are they fighting. I was expecting to see massive mobilization on Ukrainian side. Given the amount of weapons coming in I expected to see 500 000 or more soldiers in the field. I understand that in this age you need much more than just a grunt with a gun but if you outnumber the enemy 3:1 or 5:1 you can do a lot of damage, even as a infantry unit with anti tank weapons. I am not sure if Ukraine is mobilizing as much as I expected. I expect a slow slugging match for a while and then steady gains for Ukraine until Putin declares victory and leaves for prewar borders of LDR/DNR. Question is would Ukraine accept that and would DNR/LNR collapse if they lose active Russian support. BTW is there an update on Kherson front?

Each debunk takes time. People who the claim is aimed at will not be swayed by the debunk. Sheer amount of disinformation is enough to influence people. In the end, people start to think the truth is in the middle. Best way to combat disinformation is to not publish it. Each big agency that carries Russian disinformation helps them achieve their goals. They need to have a filter, if it is debunked then it is not carried.

Problem with your theory is that real world countries have requirements and needs that are out of scope of this game. For example you will not be spending vast amounts of money on field hospitals, kitchens or engineering equipment in the game while in real life, that is a necessity. Similar applies to various other assets. This is why price is not a good choice for "points" systems in a tactical level game.