Yet

british minister of defence claims 97% of RU troops have been deployed in UA https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-64634760 RU lost 50% of its MBTs according to iiss https://www.newsweek.com/russia-has-lost-more-half-its-tanks-ukraine-report-1781800 if both of these are true... pfff though they keep playing games, trying to take/safe what can be taken. https://www.politico.eu/article/moldova-president-maia-sandu-russia-attack/ the first thing that dies in a war is the truth, but this doesnt sound too far fetched. esp when RU ministry of foreign affairs states: "we do not interfere in the internal affairs of Moldova and other countries of the world," the ministry said.

ofc. that wasn't the point

I cant wait for a war-economy to turn things upside down a bit. Maybe we will finally find out that we dont need 17 different electronic toothbrush factories, and that we do need drones and shells for UA. When the bear is kicked out.. lets produce stuff that really improves life on this big blue egg.

most probable is that everywhere on RU there are typewriter notes to shoot the guns at exactly 22:00. due to different timezones, locations and speed of the aircraft, drones and missiles, they will neatly arrive 1 by 1 in time for UA AD to down most of them... now wouldn't that be a joke? even realistic though;)

The number one Russian high cultural gift to this world is Kalasjnikov. Seems not a bad idea to 'cancel' or 'ban'

yes i argue here that after 2014 Crimea wasn't Russian yet. yes it is under RU control, but it is still contested by UA and the international community.

that makes sense. though this triggers: 'if you have a strong neighbour, make sure the inhabitants near the border hate them or you'll end up losing that part to annexation' I assumed we are (partial, at least for the crowds) helping UA because we dont like big bears playing with internationally recognised borders of a democratic country in our backyard (Europe). -and not just to poke around. You assume the war started in 2022. Imo the war started 2014 and this is just the 2nd battle. since 2014 there was no peace declaration, no mutually (or internationally) agreed new borders and no leadership (system) change during the ceasefire with drastic different intentions. if after this battle (or any following battle) there are new recognised borders (incl Crimea with RU) and the war ends; you might argue that RU won the first battle (2014) lost the 2nd battle (2022/23) and walked away with a bone, (international recognised strategic territory expansion). this doesn't give an incentive not to do this again, just to play it different next time (with lower losses, if RU cares about that at all).

Germany is stronger than than it was in 1939. I still consider they lost WW2 pretty soundly. not comparable. - Every inch of Germany was conquered - WW2 Germany didnt get away with gaining land. - Germany's leadership (system) didnt stay in place - Germany was rebuild (in different ways) by its conquerors to build a new culture/ way of thinking to prevent falling in the pit again. Crimea was in 2014 insitutionalised by RU, but not by the international community. If RU gets away now with Crimea, it was an expensive few acres, but still it can be an incentive to Ru (or any other country) to try it again to invade, forced migrate inhabitants, wait, get agressive, negotiate, institutionalise.

If the RU army is destroyed, donbas liberated etc. but RU walks away with Crimea, they 'lost'. Is this a RU defeat in your terms? When in 2060 we are looking back the RU army and industry are restored, we trade again and looking back, they institutionalised Crimea being part of RU. on the long term; isnt this still a Russian win considering pre-2014? 1 battle to take (2014), 1 battle to institutionalise(now). ---- I believe Xi (and in lesser amount Putin) think in long timespans (something we partially de-learned possibly because our 4-year view democracies?). Because of this difference views on shortterm wins and longterm wins, negotiations might be possible?

150km GLSDB. smart. Double the range, and keep the other doubling up behind in case a 3th main offensive is needed. 24feb RU will start offence (in the mud?) and 2 months later you have trained tankees, destroyed ru logistics and are good to go.

Could this be an issue? if we send 50 patriots, 100 HIMARS long distance, 1000 bradleys and 300 Leo2's , then Ukr gets an army that is even scary for the EU. They can start their own industry to supply. No stopping them if they march to Moskow, Belarus, Moldavia or any other direction. by keeping it scattered, Ukraine is and will stay dependant on NATO logistics, repairs, shells etc. Actually i wonder if all this militairy aid is -give- or if it is partially -borrow as long as nessesairy-

no packs? no gear? no rifles? or are my eyes lacking?

In my view Thomas cannot be a tank. His barrel is aligned vertical, which would make him Artillery or AD at best.

Im sure the Capt can do this better but heh. I'll give my view. there were many sources saying that the local pro Ukranian Crimeans: - fled Crimea - were sent to live their lives somewhere deep in Russia - were sent to the front -is minority and severely supressed These activities dont need 21st century adaptation, so judging by the history I trust RU still posesses the qualities not to **** this up. Therefore i dont expect Ukr can count on much support from a broad, strong pro Ukr population in Crimea. Next to that Ukr will need a combined attack to be successful taking Crimea. Perekop is the most logical target, but very easy defendable and expected. Other ways to get troops in are by riverboats/hoovercrofts in the north, by maritime assault in the west, or by paratroopers. For that to be succesfull you need to OR accept very heavy losses, or need to have corroded the RU navy to nonexisting or to have aircontrol. Therefore its not impossible to take Crimea, but the question is how long it takes to wind the situation in such a state that the losses are acceptable to make it feasable.

icegrowth (no wind, no snow) is 0.3 mm per degree minus per hour. 5 cm is needed for a person to stand/skate/walk run without any trouble count 25 cm for large groups or small vehikels. so example -6 deg x 10 hours = 60x0.3 mm is 1.8cm . that counts 3cm after sunday, 11 after monday, 20 after tuesday. ... ofc soil freezes easier soil than a pool. but i wouldnt expect a major offensive before thursday with this forecast

a lot of answers have been given. but add one more to the list: an actual 24% drop in EU gas demand. https://www.ft.com/content/0ab21afc-d034-4279-8ce1-4469d0ce8489 everywhere i come i see thermostates at 19 degrees, sofas shoved away from the radiatior, radiator foil, vents under the radiatior. Also industry takes its share, esp in gass-rich sectors like flower-farming, vegetable greenhouses, and heavy industry.

sorry, cross-posted. the latest messages didnt load.

New drone attack on Engels airbase.

this running out of shells for defence + long mud season doesnt sound in RU favor at all. It is that much harder to get supplies in, to rotate personal or to make any tactical changes to the 'operational design'. There is corrosion till you can break it and corrosion till it falls apart by itself.

I admire everyone for his/her honest opinion. But imho its too easy to just cast away people with an audience that spread (dangerous) nonsense. These echo-rooms are what got us here in the first place. Its what got Russians believing in Putin, It is what got Putin believing in he could take Ukraine, its what got USA its severe political split, and i hope just hope that most other powerfull people and leaders (esp those with red buttons) have a wide view on reality and dont get caught in such an echo-environment.

Might putin find a way out without losing face by annexing Belarus saying 'that was the plan all along' ?

Id assume RA would go for Charkov-Dnipro. Short lines from RU, cutting off UA supply lines, encircle UA, and shortest route to Dnjepr river.

So your idea is to take all capable tank drivers and maintainance and support crew out of the war for 9 months to get Leopard training? best case you dont need them because the war is over. I'm afraid you might need the crew then to liberate Poltava. Worst case is always worse.

This suggests that just out of Himars range are a lot! of targets which (when destroyed) very drastically increases the situation on the battlefield. Ofcourse there are nice targets out there, but I dont see how it drastically changes the type of warfare. otherwise, enlighten us what these targets are that is not just an incremental change. there must be other realistic (out of the box) options to get out of the trench-warfare.

corrosion warfare yay! trench warfare booo! anyone ideas how ukraine can turn the current trenchwarfare (like bakhmut) into a more favourable type of warfare/defence for Ukraine? maybe UA kills more in the current trench warfare, but it still is not favourable because RU can refill the ranks easy. In WW1 we had musterd gas and claykickers. We discussed winter and logistics being unfavourable to RU, but that out of the question: How could UA re-invent trench warfare (or current stalemate defence) to turn it incredibly more into their favour?