FancyCat

I recall the notion that DNR and LPR were just full of pro-Russians at this point, while certainly political resistance would continue if it continue following Ukraine's liberation of the territory, i have a feeling there won't be any military or violent resistance. So how much of a traitor is someone who collaborated with Russia, do you suppose? Has the option for leaving Russian controlled territory for Ukraine controlled territory been in the past, doable for civilians to undertake? Or was the border locked down such that wasn't gonna happen and if you were in the DNR/LPR, that was it, no hope of leaving for Kiev? Or could you have simply gone to Russia and then crossed again into Ukraine?

Tbh i kinda assumed Ukraine would be able to cross the river, as their forces are substantially more "light infantry" than Russian forces. (I know nothing about the river or fordability) Also, with how the DNR and LPR forces are near worthless, unless Russia pulled in actual Russian units, I'm sure they can ford it fine. Now if they got mechanized or armor units across, or maybe they still have a intact bridge, sure, Russia failed spectacularly.

If Russia is saying it, worthless paper.

satellite availability is such a boon for OSINT.

There were reports of Ukrainian politicians and military officers fleeing their posts at the beginning of the war, and Zelensky called out two of them for being traitors and stripping them of their rank. Most likely they sabotaged and handed information over to Russia to facilitate the advance in the South. One of them was head of the SBU in Kherson. Not sure how important the other one was, but I'm assuming the head of SBU in Kherson is a nice asset to turn. I'm amazed they didn't have more traitors, or that Zelensky didn't get killed in Kiev at the beginning of the war. https://www.npr.org/2022/04/01/1090253301/zelenskyy-generals-traitors-ukraine

Assuming the takes given in this thread are correct, if a pile of wargamers can see the writing on the wall, surely Russian strategists can see that losing Crimea and Donbas is worse than general mobilization? The longer they take to pull mobilization trigger, the more time Ukraine has to assemble and begin a offensive Russia can’t stop. surely general mobilization won’t cause Russia to collapse immediately. That they seem allergic to war is just mind numbing.

Part of longer thread, but it’s astounding that their fear of general mobilization is forcing them down a even worse path. Their propaganda media justifications must be brittle if after all this time, and they can’t find it cheaper to declare general mobilization and have a chance at freezing the conflict vs this undercover mobilization producing useless conscripts that be grinder into dust by Ukraine. They are burning their reservists and willing personnel piecemeal.

Whatever softness about the West on Crimea, had more to do with appeasing Putin and the assumption Putin and co weren't insane enough to seize all of Ukraine, and that their rhetoric was, simply rhetoric. Since that **** is proven false, I think the West's opinion on Crimea and Donbas will harden, we already have statements from the G7 stating that recognition of the seizures of Ukrainian territory in either area will not occur. Whatever Russians think of Crimea, it really comes down to the fact it was only taken 8 years ago. Political apathy also abounds in Russia, the loss of Crimea and the included realization Russia has been militarily defeated will not result in Russians seeking to nuke the world to death, but to rearm and avenge the loss, and punish those who failed. The internal clashing in Russia will certainly mean crazy orders won't be followed.

The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research was notably one of the only IC agencies to dissent that Iraq had WMDs.

Crimea was taken in 2014, in less than 10 years (8 to be exact), they make out like a bandit by being able to claim a region as worth risking nuclear war and getting it legitimated? Hell no. Might as well just declare the same for Donbas. Hell, why not heartened them to hold Kherson while your at it? Same principle applies, just ethnic cleanse the hell outta it and claim ignorance 3 months down the line.

Was this posted yet? I can't recall if it's the same footage. Posting it anyway, whyyy are they doing this. The morale of those units must be nothing, no wonder the Kharkov front broke.

A reminder that Turkey also has powerful incentives to not support Ukraine and not stick with NATO and EU line on Russia, Turkey relies as heavily as some European countries for Russian energy, Russian tourism is big money, so Turkey choosing to not sanction or stop Russia should be seen in that context. It is quite nice Turkey keeps sending those TB2s to Ukraine. Well worth letting Russia supply energy to Turkey and not joining broader sanctions. Tho this supports their own armaments industry, I'm sure the order lineup for TB2s is out the door. But just circles back to my earlier posts, a lot of money earmarked for defense for Ukraine basically sorta comes back to the giving country in some form. $40 billion for Ukraine becomes in reality a lot less. A bit of a tangent, one of the reasons money isn't a big deal in this war has to do with how you use it. Money to Russia for energy imports is sorta.....worthless since most Russian weapon and equipment production requires foreign parts, the sanctions preventing export to Russia are a way bigger factor in preventing Russia rearming than the money given for gas. Germany had responded to prior criticism about lack of aid for Ukraine by touting it's monetary package but what use is $500 million if Germany says you can't buy any heavy equipment with the money. It's near worthless. Same **** applies to Turkey. Yes, Russian money still flows to Turkey and Russia gets money from Turkey but the TB2s sinking the Black Sea Fleet are worth more than cutting off Turkish money to Russia.

Mind you, this is just angling for concessions. Money, sanctions relief, etc. For example, there are multiple military-industrial sanctions on Turkey, that they may want repealed. I don't really see the issue in Turkey, a NATO ally, asking her fellow NATO partners who have placed restrictions on it, to repeal them so she can better produce weapons and equipment for Ukraine, oh and some compensation for the market loss previously would be nice. But to answer your question, the Black Sea being locked down to further reinforcement of the Russian Black Sea Fleet basically answers why Turkey was, is and will be in NATO forever.

Mind you, EU is putting up some hefty money for Ukraine as well. But breaking it down, only 8 billion actually goes to Ukraine to be "laundered". Money for weapons and equipment, uh...who's Ukraine gonna buy it from? China? No it's us silly. 9 billion is simply to buy more weapons to replenish our depleted stocks. $5 billion to ensure the supply shortages worldwide due to Ukrainian grain being stolen by Russia don't **** up more countries into instability. (Mind you american grain does exist, so who's gonna benefit from higher grain prices?) Quoted from: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/rand-paul-blocks-quick-passage-40-billion-ukraine-aid-package-rcna28648

its not being sent, most of it just gets used to purchase American weapons and equipment to be used by Ukraine. job creation.

Maybe, but I was under impression Russia would try and divide the west into a pro-quick Peace and a pro-hardball with Russia, giving Ukraine a out seemingly while allowing Russia to claim anti-NATO spread success was something that may have garnered some Western support. Instead by cutting off the door to even EU accession, they give up talking points for pro-peace figures to rally around.

So much for compromise.....while I expected Ukraine to harden, looks like Russia has decided to harden as well, for some stupid reason.

73 vehicles, Jesus.

Entirely possible the pin is simply to show the river the Russians are attempting to cross to viewers, and the exactly spot hasn't been disclosed.

I'm quite curious as to how important the loss of the rail line is, and if it's replaceable. Linked is a website detailing Russian rail networks, tho seems dated to 2014 so may be inaccurate. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~yopopov/rrt/railroadmaps/ There is a rail line to Kupiansk from Valuyki on the Russian side. Lot of distance to get anything from Belgrod to Valuyki. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~yopopov/rrt/railroadmaps/07-06_belgorod.gif Also has a neat map of Ukraine 2014: look at the rail network in Eastern Ukraine, how developed it is vs the rest of Ukraine then. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~yopopov/rrt/railroadmaps/ukraine_crimea_moldova_en.html

Was referring to this floating rumor that Russia assembled 19 BTGs to counterattack, which if true would require Ukraine to keep significant forces facing Belograd, but if Ukraine knows that 19 is fake or just skeletons like the 2nd Guards Tank Division, that could barely defend Belograd, certainly they can pull their forces facing Belograd for the east. I definitely think Ukraine shouldn't push into Russia proper.

Take Vovchansk if possible. Ukrainian territory, it forces Russia to relocate tons of units really far to get a frontline. Only issue is the Donets river crossings are probably blown.

This posted yet? Estonian analyst. Belgorod may have nothing, and rear of Russian lines may be very weak. It was really smart of the Ukrainians to push on relieving Kharkov, admittedly I was worried the JFO was gonna break but certainly if they were close but looks like it succeeded.

I reckon it would be easier to reconquer a smaller town along the way to Belograd than Belograd itself. Plus, it causes a bigger Frontline than merely pushing on Belograd.