Ukraine official: forces may pull out of key eastern city

a reply to: JinMI

Yessir

And dont get me wrong. I have enough knowledge and defence against propaganda (roll a d4) that I don't have any pony in this race. whatsoever. Unless it's for the poor citizens of both countries and not the government.

a reply to: Thrumbo

The only point in 'keeping' that city is to show that they are fighting for it against the Russians in a last ditch desparate attempt, IE cannon fodder/propaganda to try and draw the US into the war. and we better as hell not do it. I don't think we will.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: putnam6

Winning a battle and taking a town don't win you the war through putnam6.

I'm not exactly seeing the comparison between Japan's war in the Pacific and Russia's war in Europe against Ukraine, apples and oranges really.

If anything the situation is somewhat reminiscent of Operation Barbarossa in reverse, as opposed to Operation Watchtower or any of the subsequent US island hops on the way to victory.

I think Ukraine's performance thus far against what was supposed to be one of the top armed forces on Earth aka the Russian Federation is rather admirable to be honest.

And it's not like they are about to give up anytime soon.

Even if Russia were to take the Ukraine all they would have served to achieve is to double their borders with the rest of the NATO nations by way of driving Finland and Sweden into the arms of NATO.

Russia is now the European pariah for the foreseeable future no matter which way the conflict goes.

Where did I say, suggest or infer that it won Russia anything?

This is about how Ukraine can win not how Russia can win.

Russia can win with just patience and wear down the Ukrainians, this isn't Afghanistan, where you can continuously run guerilla warfare effectively and simply go hide in the mountains. FWIW if it were the Russian separatists would have had better success doing the same thing in eastern Ukraine and they were no doubt always being supplied by Russia.

Russia just pounded Bahkmut into the mud, we will never know the cost of who died or how much supplies and aid were given to defense, well because it's Ukraine and they don't know or won't tell if they did.

This is definitely 2023, are we gonna give Ukraine a participation ribbon too? This is about winning this war not being surprised they have done so well this far.

So again what's the plan for winning and evicting Putin from not only those eastern provinces they have basically held for a year and Crimea as well?

The current war map isn't difficult to read, look at what is under Russian control now and what was under Russian control before the invasion. Russia easily controls 3 times as much territory as it did before the invasion. Currently, Russia has 4 times the active soldiers as Ukraine. At the current active soldier burn rate, Russia can last 8 years at minimum Ukraine will only last 4. Let's not forget Russia didn't really commit the top echelon of troops till much later, it's highly likely year 2 Russian burn rate will be significantly less

Respectfully Ukraine isn't getting big fat American checks to fund infinite guerilla warfare against Russia after they lose.

Let's hear the winning military strategy for the current Ukrainian military forces, with the current levels of NATO support
to take back and hold all the territory Zelenskky says is non-negotiable. Here's what the experts think Id read the whole article and then read it again, but as the quoted paragraph below says and tell me how is Ukraine gonna be different

www.csis.org...

The United States did talk about going from “winning” at the tactical level to some broader success in both Iraq and Afghan wars through what came to be known as a “win, hold, and build” strategy. However, the United States never properly implemented a program to build up Afghan and Iraqi forces that could really be effective on their own or create an effective government that could unify the Afghan or Iraqi people. The United States also failed to realistically assess how, or if, it could win a form of victory that could create a lasting peace without leading to future wars, the return of the “defeated” enemy, or the creation of a failed state.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: chris_stibrany
a reply to: DerBeobachter

Now that Ukraine is successfully broken down, and all traces of illegal activity blown up or killed, we can have the glorious Building Up, brought to you by Monsanto, Bayer, Pfizer, et al, as they turn the glorious farmland into GMO hell along with forced medical experimentation on the once mostly pure Ukraine population. Oh, and probably some new US military bases too!

And the US tax payer only had to pay thousands of dollars per person, to get nothing back.

Blackrock and Vanguard as well.

Brought to bear by Raytheon, Lockheed, and Boeing.

Come on JinMi those companies had it really hard during the pandemic, it's hard to sell weapon systems when everybody is being quarantined. Perhaps TPTB didn't make enough or gain enough control during the COVID "pandemic" so they revert to the old tried and true ways

youtube.com...

a reply to: putnam6

Where did I say, suggest or infer that it won Russia anything?

Well if/when the Ukrainians strategically retreat from Bakhmut, Russia will somewhat win that place for a while, i thought that went without saying.

Depends on what you call win all the same, that being a hole in the ground, but it does still have strategic value.

There will be no true winners out of this war whether or not Russia holds on to the territory they have, or manages to take even more.

They have caused a new cold war, and are the European pariah for a least the rest of the century.

They don't bode too well under such a climate if memory serves. And they don't even have the majority of the former Soviet bloc nations to prop up their game, quite a few of such now happen to have joined NATO.

Once the energy demands that they met regarding other nations are replaced, Russia won't have much that Europe wants considering 60% of the place sits on permafrost.

The only real prize i suppose is the Crimean Peninsula, but the already occupied that area before Putin's land grab aka special military operation.

Putin has made his nation's bed but it's their people who will have to lie there.

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: putnam6

Winning a battle and taking a town don't win you the war through putnam6.

I'm not exactly seeing the comparison between Japan's war in the Pacific and Russia's war in Europe against Ukraine, apples and oranges really.

If anything the situation is somewhat reminiscent of Operation Barbarossa in reverse, as opposed to Operation Watchtower or any of the subsequent US island hops on the way to victory.

I think Ukraine's performance thus far against what was supposed to be one of the top armed forces on Earth aka the Russian Federation is rather admirable to be honest.

And it's not like they are about to give up anytime soon.

Even if Russia were to take the Ukraine all they would have served to achieve is to double their borders with the rest of the NATO nations by way of driving Finland and Sweden into the arms of NATO.

Russia is now the European pariah for the foreseeable future no matter which way the conflict goes.

So again what's the plan for winning and evicting Putin from not only those eastern provinces they have basically held for a year and Crimea as well?

The ONLY way Ukraine can evict Putin is for a FF to occur, which directly causes the full force of NATO to get boots on the ground in Ukraine.

I would say a Russian missile launching into Poland and blowing up a farmer on his tractor might do it...but Zelenskyy and his generals already got caught trying to fake and lie about that.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: putnam6
The fact remains Putin ordered Russian forces to invade a non-threatening sovereign nation, a nation his country whose borders and independence Russia had pledged to respect and to never invade.

You're ignoring the fact the Ukraine government has killed thousands of Russian supporting Ukranians over the last 10 years.

Anyone with an impartial view can see Russian was provoked into this conflict by the west. It's not Russian propaganda or pro-Putin to acknowledge these things. Russian and Russians aren't our enemy. The enemy is a lot closer to home...

a reply to: putnam6

Its important area.

a reply to: musicismagic

The war in Ukraine that the people in DC pushed agaisnt Russia isn't about Putin,
its about Russia as a whole.


Those people in DC, from both sides had being clear what they wanted and Russia has noticed this.

They have a agenda which is called decolonization of Russia and are even calling it as a Moral and Strategic Imperative.



They wanted this war agaisnt Russia years ago.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: putnam6

Where did I say, suggest or infer that it won Russia anything?

Well if/when the Ukrainians strategically retreat from Bakhmut, Russia will somewhat win that place for a while, i thought that went without saying.

Depends on what you call win all the same, that being a hole in the ground, but it does still have strategic value.

There will be no true winners out of this war whether or not Russia holds on to the territory they have, or manages to take even more.

They have caused a new cold war, and are the European pariah for a least the rest of the century.

They don't bode too well under such a climate if memory serves. And they don't even have the majority of the former Soviet bloc nations to prop up their game, quite a few of such now happen to have joined NATO.

Once the energy demands that they met regarding other nations are replaced, Russia won't have much that Europe wants considering 60% of the place sits on permafrost.

The only real prize i suppose is the Crimean Peninsula, but the already occupied that area before Putin's land grab aka special military operation.

Putin has made his nation's bed but it's their people who will have to lie there.

BTW thanks for the discussion no ill intent intended at all.

According to this chart from CNN Russia has basically swapped Europe for China and India, and while we don't know the extra cost of the shipping and who pays that. They have effectively kept the same amount of barrels of oil being shipped, so much so that the sanctions are no doubt having less of an effect.



edition.cnn.com...

As Europe has weaned itself off Russian energy, buyers in Asia have cut deals. China boosted imports of Russian oil to 1.9 million barrels per day on average in 2022, up 19% from 2021, according to the International Energy Agency. India ramped up purchases even more sharply, logging an 800% increase to an average of 900,000 barrels per day.

Russia’s oil exports to China and India both hit record highs in January after Europe’s ban on seaborne Russian oil took effect, according to Kpler, a data and analytics company. Exports to Turkey, another top customer, also continued apace. (The ban on refined oil products did not kick in until February.)

While Western countries have banned most Russian oil imports, there aren’t any rules preventing Western ships from delivering to buyers such as China and India, or from providing services such as insurance — so long as the G7 price caps are respected. Ships with European owners accounted for 36% of Russian crude trade in January, according to Kpler.

But the legal and reputational risks of failing to comply with the price caps loom large. At the same time, Russia is eager to stop working with Western shippers. That has led to the development of a new cohort, whose makeup is murkier — and history more checkered.

“The dark fleet that has been around carrying Venezuelan and Iranian oil globally is something we all expected to grow, and it has,” said Janiv Shah, senior analyst at Rystad Energy, a consultancy.

One reason is: Sending Russian oil on longer trips to China or India is less efficient than shipping it to nearby countries such as Finland. Russia now needs four times as much shipping capacity for its crude as it did before the invasion, according to EA Gibson.

Wonder if all the American tech giants will curtail outsourcing customer service to India since India supports Russia.

Isn't ironic that the public has to suck it up and not buy Russian goods, but corporations have no such restraints. It's almost like they are running everything.

a reply to: putnam6

I enjoy the discussion putnam6.

No ill will intended on my part nether.

I think i heard that the majority of maritime insurance companies are unwilling to insure Russian ships or renew their policies. Which may make trade with China and India somewhat of an untenable prospect, especially where going into ports is concerned.

China may well decide to pick up the spare energy which is no longer in demand or available to the European nations.

But that nation has its own concerns to deal with same as Russia, which equates to an aging population amongst a multitude of other dilemmas to contend with.

See the thing is NATO/the West, and Russia, being at one another throats is good for China.

But if they choose to become part of the problem, or align/ally themselves with Russia, that advantage goes right out the window never mind the fact that China requires the European/US markets to grow.

Aye, its the public that pays the price in the end, nothing new on that score. its not like Putin is ever going to be sitting there going i canny pay my gas and leckie bill or put food on the table.

Ukraines been going back and forth along the front for a year now, the fact Bakhmut has been held this long and caused so much trouble for the vaunted wa(k)gner group, Ukraines done great there... but sometimes you have to weigh your loses and pull out. Ukraine's regularly held a location then retreated from it only to blow the # out of the ruZZians once they've moved in, I mean it seems to be a winning strategy for them and ruZZia continues to fall for it over and over... id say they've only held that place for so long because for some reasons the ruZZians have a geographic boner for the place, why not keep your enemy at one location they seem adamant in taking and wear them down.

The ruZZian supporters all seem to think that a single potential retreat from a single location thats been a nightmarish meat grinder for ruZZian forces for months is somehow the be all and end all of it... i guess when you've been doing as badly as they have in this 3 day military operation anything needs to be taken as a win, regardless of how actually insignificant it is.

Guess they ignore the fact wag(k)ners been pleading for ammunition lately from ruZZia DoD, and ruZZias so desperate for troops they are recruiting them from Lebanese refugee camps now and their lack of electronics means they have to back hand China to get some.

Look forward to the coming months when the first of the new trained tank crews get onto the field for Ukraine, while ruZZian tanks in the fight are getting older and older in model... then we'll see how much of a 'win' this possible retreat from Bakhmut is.

a reply to: JAY1980

You're ignoring the fact the Ukraine government has killed thousands of Russian supporting Ukranians over the last 10 years.

You're ignoring the fact that Kremlin funded and armed Ultra-Nationalist Russian Militia's had been operating throughout Luhansk and Donetsk since at least 2011. They had been conducting a constant campaign of agitation, intimidation and terrorising Ukrainian people and interests.
Like in most countries in similar circumstances, including the Russian government, the Ukrainian government took action against these Militia's.

Were the counter-measures at times brutal and repressive?
Possibly, maybe even probably, but one has to wonder that without the support the Militia's received from the Putin administration none of that would have been necessary.

And none of that alters the fact that Ukraine itself posed no direct threat to Russia.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

The fact Zalensky has an open cheque of American taxpayer money is suspicious in itself. It means that they will want something bigger in return. Far bigger than Ukraine can provide. They are obviously after Russia's vast resources mostly untapped. They were getting it until Putin stepped in and took over after the fall of the Soviet Union. The Minsk agreement was ok as long as the Coke and Big Mac franchises were allowed free range. The quiet takeover of the Corporations has failed in Russia whereas it has been successful in the West. Bhakmud is in a cauldron now, so be prepared as this can only escalate. pushing Russia back will require far more troops than Ukraine has left, and if NATO officially goes in to back them up then Putin will do what he said he will do. Putin is the soft option.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: putnam6

The fact remains Putin ordered Russian forces to invade a non-threatening sovereign nation, a nation his country whose borders and independence Russia had pledged to respect and to never invade.
If that invasion had been completely successful Putin would be in control of the whole of Ukraine and eyeing up his next adventure.

Ukraine has been a "threatening nation" for almost a decade, due to US meddling. Putin already invaded and took what he wanted in 2014 when US meddling resulted in a civil war on his borders and the threat of Crimea falling to US control via client state. This could have easily been avoided if the neocon sociopaths in Washington wanted to avoid it.

You realise that "all things democratic and nice" Zelensky thought nothing of attacking his own people with US funding?

No matter what happens next in Ukraine I very much doubt Putin will be contemplating invading anywhere else in Western Europe.
And that is because of the resistance shown by Ukraine.....and that resistance wouldn't have been possible without NATO aligned countries aid.

It's unlikely Putin wanted to invade anywhere. What is more likely to happen is that NATO will fragment and countries in Europe (Germany in particular) will seriously look to find ways to get out from under US hegemony. The balance of power is shifting, this is one of the last gasps of a fading US empire.

a reply to: putnam6
Surely this is a myth, propaganda, Russia ran out of equipment last year and has been getting a whomping ever since (or so the story goes).

Hopefully European countries will soon be fed up and tell the US neocons it's time for peace negotiations. A year so too late but anyway. Seems unlikely that German politicians will suddenly grow a backbone (after nordstream they might as well just give the place to Washington and stop pretending) but the people might eventually rise up and cause change.

Perhaps China might be able to broker a deal (despite this place generally exhibiting Sinophobia)?

The fear now is that after western lies re Minsk, the blowing up of Nordstream and with the war proceeding in his favour, Putin might now go all the way. Ukraine no longer exists anyway in any real sense. It's a plaything for US neocons that has turned into a disaster zone. Russia might take other regions and leave what is left of "Ukraine" a much smaller and land locked pile of rubble.

Another problem is that this could escalate with NATO dropping pretences and openly sending in troops. Which could cause other countries (that are obviously supporting Putin economically) to drop the pretence of neutrality. Escalation in other words...

What exactly does "Ukraine winning" look like?

What on earth would cause Putin to withdraw after all of this, and not go directly to the Polish border? I can't think of anything. Clearly the sanctions backfired (though I would argue they were meant to backfire and whip up a pro war sentiment in the western population).

All I can come up with as to Ukraine "winning" is global thermonuclear war. And that's far from winning.

...and what exactly is the war over again? Anyone have the slightest clue why these people are dying en mass?

I don't support either side, as I don't support war in any sense.

Both sides are full of lunatics, but it seems the west/ Ukraine side is also full of incompetence and extreme corruption (not that Russia is pure either). Which makes me think they'll do everything they can to achieve...well, nothing. I mean, they want to take back Crimea...yeah, good luck with that. Russia will never let the Black Sea fleet home port go anywhere. They even had NBC go to Crimea this past week and report that everyone they talked to spoke Russian and viewed themselves as Russian. And now that NBC journalist is on a Ukrainian kill list, published online.

So...what exactly is "winning" looking like here?

Seems to me, everyone is losing....except the benefactors of war, of course.

a reply to: putnam6

Bakhmut is now surrounded.

www.newsweek.com...

Why is one city...this city such a big deal. The MSM is talking about it, as if Russia is winning. A reason to send another $$$ billion dollars ASAP?

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: putnam6

Bakhmut is now surrounded.

www.newsweek.com...

Why is one city...this city such a big deal. The MSM is talking about it, as if Russia is winning. A reason to send another $$$ billion dollars ASAP?

From what I can tell there is little to no strategic value there. We are simply witnessing a war of attrition at this rate. I've heard it be referred to as Verdun 2.0 (a very bloody WWI battle between Germany and France). It's a meat grinder. On both sides.

The outcome of Russia taking this city is, in my opinion, that their troops morale will increase and the Ukrainians will very likely decrease. As well, Russia obviously gains more territory.

That said I've seen more than one video of guys with grey hair, not in shape and VERY young (early to mid teens) kids fighting...for Ukraine. As well, it seems many foreign mercenaries are illegally fighting as well. It is a war crime to fight as a mercenary while wearing another nations flag (I see many US, UK, CDN, Georgian, Japanese, etc flags on uniforms) So, I'm not so sure many "Ukrainian" troops are left to have their morale boosted in Ukraine. That is also just one of many war crimes being committed there. That alone, based on NATO "rules" (from my understanding), basically negates Ukraines wish to join NATO. Nevermind the fact that NATO explicitly states a nation cannot join when engaged in war...for the obvious fact it will likely cause a nuclear war. Who cares about rules though, right? To hell with civility and sanity. (sarc)

About a year ago Russia wanted to negotiate. Why didn't Ukraine (or more precisely their western puppeteers) want to negotiate peace?

Again, aside from primitive idiotic tribalism that was reignited by western neocons in the decades leading to this, I don't see any point in this conflict.

Same as it ever was, I guess.

Mo money, Mo problems.

originally posted by: Sparkymedic
That said I've seen more than one video of guys with grey hair, not in shape and VERY young (early to mid teens) kids fighting...for Ukraine. As well, it seems many foreign mercenaries are illegally fighting as well.

Not a good sign. Both the Confederacy at the end of the Civil War, and Germany in 1945 were doing this. They had run out of fighting-age men, and were drafting old men & boys to fill out their ranks.