Indeed, it could not be any better for RU troops in Donbass. The fights are already in vicinity of Ukrainsk (since Lesovka is already Russian) and Selidovo is partially captured. A couple of weeks like that and I will start to believe that the Kursk onslaught was deliberately done to weaken UA negotiations ground.
Ukraine has started to re-inforce Pokrovks and things will slow down but move în the same direction.
The quality of Ukrainian army has started to decline and the Ukrainian government does only stupid half-measures.
The elites don't send their kids to the army to motivate new volunteers. The new soldiers have little training because the experienced soldiers are kept on the frontline. And units on the frontline are allowed to get encircled or reduced to 30% just to hold ome village.
Russia exhausts its Soviet vehicles, and it was almost out of volunteers a month ago. It also does not seem to increase its missile production while Ukraine does make more long-range drones.
C'mone Denys. You always seem to post decent things. Iskander's production increased several times, these missiles (RU ATACAMs) are being fired each day at any worthy target. They say that since the start of Kursk adventure 9 Himars amd M270s were destroyed by Iskanders. The figure could be inflated, but still.
I admit that UA long-range drone is an issue, however only RU red tape inefficiency could explain UA drones' successes.
Yes, the question is if they can increase the missile production even more, and they are still too short-range for some targets. Thus the Ukrainian drones may outeffect Iskanders in a year, if Ukrainian production continues to increase. After all, the drones are not a "rocket science".
Any firm facts or simply Konashenkov reports? I dont understand “smaller-bigger-deeper”: lets talk in km, pieces, numbers.
Look at independent stats: oryx, perpetua etc. ru is gonna loose its mech potential in 2025 latest, stocks are exhausted and production from 0 to ready-to-use product doesn’t cover even 1/3 of its needs. Pu wants to avoid 2nd mobilization, but recruitment for money doesn’t work good now: they have increased funding by x3/5/7 (10 in Moscow and Petersbourgh), but it doesn’t work any more! Check stats
Take a ruler, check distances between all these towns. Scale on UA map, take a calculator and multiply 1 ru 200/badly 300 for each 2,5-3m advance (there are simple stats, checkable). Estimate advance losses Ru, compare with its population. How many lives would it take Ru to achieve, lets say, Dnipro river?
This is the impression one gets when studying Ukrainian social networks. But I don't trust them entirely, they have a big imbalance in favor of criticism.
Kyiv should send drafted soldiers to front line units rather than form new ones. It’s the most dangerous, but better training for new guys. Moscow does it this way, sometimes 3x or more for some over used units.
This is a sure way to kill the conscripts. They have no skills. The commanders know that they have no skills and employ them în simple tactics with high mortality.
I agree with you; the long distance drone battle seems to be favouring Ukr side : more and more Ukr drone attacks with more effects. Kursk seems quite good
Donbass ?
energy grid ??
Western commitment ???
I thank Tom for this long and detailed post. (y)
(this post is totally free of sarcasm, contrary to the usual habit in this area but it's fine with me)
I read the first paragraph and suddently want let you know that I really appreciate you long update. It's never been long enough actually. So, I can read as much as you have time to write for us.
Now I'm back to continue reading the rest of this update.
Thank you for the long update, Tom, always good for the long update because it means the reader is interested in the topic and have long attention spans to REALLY understand what you want to convey. Very nice and thanks Tom.
Thanks Tom, appreciated as usual. Just curious, hoping it's not a stupid question. If I understand correctly, FABs have been the common bombs of the Soviets and then the Russians for 70 years or more. Shouldn't Ukraine also have a large stockpile inherited with Sukhois from USSR in the '90s? If not, why? If yes, then I wonder why the Ukrainians don't try to make their own UMPKs without constantly depending on western allies?
Tactic of bomb dropping of PSU is from small heights(up to 50 m). The kit has to be durable to sustain additional negative vertical overloads during such tactics, whereas UMPKs are famous for quite high rate of failures and not good production quality and control. Secondly, Fabs itself are not as aerodynamic as American bombs, that is more important for PSU tactic than for Russians. Creation of such kits takes money,people and production from other more important projects such as missiles, drones. Russians needed more than year to start adoption of kit(one more to mass produce), even if it largely based on prewar projects . Ukranians would need to produce even more sophisticated kit under constant risk of missile strike. Even buying American license for JDam and buying their bombs would be smarter idea
Have addressed this, a few weeks ago. Essentially: yes, of course, Ukraine has huge stocks of FABs, too.
And yes, it could 'reverse engineer' UMPK kits... but...
For UMPKs to work - to fly over 60-70km to their target - they must be released from altitudes of 9,000-12,000 metres, and high subsonic speed. I.e. the launching aircraft is flying high, in full sight of enemy radars (and other methods of detection).
The Russians can do that because the PSU lacks SAMs that can counter over the distances in question. Say: 60-70km to the frontline on the Russian side, plus some 70+ km to the frontline on the Ukrainian side. Longer-ranged Ukrainian SAMs can't be deployed any closer to the frontline without promptly being detected by Russian UAVs and then targeted by Iskanders...
With other words: the PSU has no SAMs to counter Su-24s, Su-34s and UMPKs from a range where they could remain safe from UAVs and Iskander-Ms.
....and it also has not enough SAMs to shot down the UMPKs (just imagine the attrition of Ukrainian SAMs if the PSU would start shooting down 90-150 UMPKs a day....)
Net result: the Russians can continue bombing Ukrainians with UMPKs as they like.
In turn, if Ukrainians would try to do the same.... the Russians are simply in possession of aerial superiority over the frontline. Means: their long-range SAMs, and interceptors armed with such long-range AAMs like R-37M - see: MiG-31s and Su-35s - would (easily) shot down any Ukrainian jets attempting to approach the frontline at an altitude of 9,000+ metres. Indeed, as can be seen, at least once a month they're shooting down even MiG-29s and/or Su-27s approaching at extremely low altitudes in order to launch JDAMs and HAMMERS.
That's why 'just reverse-engineering UMPKs' is never going to work.
Ideally, the PSU would equip its F-16s or Su-27s with air-launched ballistic missiles with the range of about 200km. And then with hundreds of them. Alas, due to incompetence of the admin in Kyiv, the defence sector that could churn out such weapons is not doing that. Indeed, although companies like the Artyom-Luch conglomerate could've launched produciton of longer-ranged SAMs, active-homing AAMs and plenty of other goodies, they're iddling around, literally assembling 15-20 Neptunes a year... And the Zelensky admin is explaining them that they're not going to get any kind of funding if they do not become profitable. But, how are they supposed to become profitable if they're not funded so they can pay for research and development, and then launch production so they can start earning money....?
(A clue in this regards: that's why anywhere else, when some government orders the R+D and/or production of a specific weapons system, contracts usually stipulate a 50% up-front payment...)
Or to act asymetric: UAVs, missiles, mysterious Palianytsya uav/missile, partizans etc. If you go through ru news you will find every day 5-6 big accidents on infrastructure, military plants etc
"then Churchill [...] convincing France to surrender its North to the Nazi-German invasion"
Asking because I am under the opposite impression, namely that Churchill made significant efforts to convince the French government to continue resisting.
Yes it is. But Tom says it keeps him sane, maybe except that little inching toe. So we readers just have to learn to live with. If you can do it is quite entertaining actually.
I mean I'd really appreciate a piece by yourself on why the West should not be treating Russia with gloves on . How do they go about managing Russia effectively without causing bad things to happen ( like WW3 ) .
You can not defeat a sovereign country without boots on the ground.
Italian or German politicians change their words after elections but not Russian ones.
And nobody wants to pay for those boots. Not even to polish them în the peacetime în a barrack. The army is no longer a social escalator and war doesn't bring a bonus to all citizens.
Well, this was done with the Talebans, Vietnam, North Korea. All have been utterly defeated. Or maybe heavy sanctions like în Cuba, Iran. They learned their lesson.
Then you have no idea how is everything settled in Ru. People were taken all freedoms and honor in exchange for safety. Take away safety and enjoy next “bunt” (riot) very soon: weeks/months
No WW3 is going to happen if Russia withdraws from Ukraine. Contrary, WW3 may happen if Ukraine capitulate. That would bolster Russian (and Chinese) appetite to occupy more land (Moldavia, Taiwan, ...).
Some Western politicians just worry, that fall of Putin would let to fast Russia dissolution with civil wars and chaos and with nuclear and chemical weapons ending in the hands of local warlords and crime bosses. Which could further resell them, e.g. to North Korea, Taliban or ISIS.
Note: proper way is to stop caring about Putin and prepare for his fall, because he will fall once anyway, no one can live forever.
I am not seeing any signs of adequate protections in your approaches against the West being obliterated in a first strike because some fruit cake in the Kremlin decided the game was up and it was time to end it all . That's what in the end we are concerned about - and likely what the ones in charge of the West are worrying about .
No one in Kremlin wants to obliterate the West, even not Putin himself. And if they use nukes against Ukraine then China would turn back to Russia and they will be finished, because without China they even cannot produce winter clothing for their great army.
What they can do is to step up filthy covered terrorist acts like they do already. Or give more weapons to USA and West enemies in the Near East etc. (But not nukes, see above.)
I trust the US Government Security Agencies to have a complete grasp of the exact intricacies of the security situation on the ground and in Russia and they are the ones advising the President and his staff . So .... if the US/West proceeds in a the non-escalatory manner then it's probably for very good reasons
First, they didn't want to send howitzers, then they send many. First, they didn't want to send HIMARs, then send few and later sent many. Etc. with Patriots. THIS is what prolong the war because it give Russia time to adapt. If they would sent all what they sent immediately, then the war is over already.
We don't know what they are worrying about, but I am sure nuclear war is only a small, and possibly negligible part of it. I believe this is really about power balances between US and China behind the scenes
Exactly. Global West vs. Global South. And I am not sure this goes well for the West at the moment. I just read that Turkey sent an application to join BRICS. If true, this was really a blow for us.
We've passed that point. See all the hybrid methods Russia is employing against the West. Conventional and nuclear warfare against the West is suicide so Russia adjusts its methods. There is a risk to defeating Russia, yes, but do you not see the risk in not defeating Russia?
I think that all the talk about peace negotiations is to satisfy the ever growing number of peacenik-politicians in the West, which will prefer to spend the money on some domestic business rather to support Ukraine. The crowd that wants “a plan to end the war” but actually prefers some kind of capitulation.
Anyway, I wonder why Ukraine attacked Russian power plants. Seems to me a bit of waste of drones. For all the attacks on the refining industry, I think there is little to show of actual fuel shortages (ok, exports are gone but no domestic shortages) Now power plants - Russia has even more excess capacity in power-generation than in refining. Unless Ukraine is preparing for a very very long campaign against the Russian electricity infrastructure, I don’t see the point…
" Russia has even more excess capacity in power-generation " I believe most of their nuclear power stations are old and the plans to update them never materialised but you are correct it is a long campaign assuming Russia has the infrastructure to deliver electricity efficiently everywhere.
The two main parts: a boiler and some kind of furnace are certainly available. You don’t need even a chimney as Greenpeace certainly is not going to stage any protests.
Ru is huge, its european part is overload with infrastructure. It is almost impossible to switch electricity from eastern part to western. So the main idea is to crash the balance in energy sector, like in Rostov oblast back in July: just one huge tranformer was hit, which immediately turned into energy collapse of the whole south ( Rostov atomic PP was operational).
It takes monthes or years to replace transformers or to reair such sensitive equipment like GRES
Detecting them is not the biggest problem, detonating an air defence missile near them may destroy a fighter plane but does nothing to stop such a huge chunk of steel and explosive.
Probablemente la ZSU si los detecta pero no tienen suficientes misiles para derribarlos, también es arriesgado desplegar SAMs tan cerca de los FPVs rusos.
Sorry, but it looks like you read 31 August PSU report wrong.
В результаті протиповітряного бою збито 24 ударних БпЛА «Shahed-131/136», 25 – локаційно втрачені (упали самостійно). Два безпілотники полетіли в напрямку росії, ще один – у республіку білорусь.
In Ukrainian, it said: 24 Shaheds were shot down, and 25 Shaheds were radar lost (fell on their own) (not shoted), and 3 Shaheds comes back to russia and belarus - 52 Shaheds total.
It was the very strange report and got a lot of rumors in Ukraine.
One of versions that 25 Shaheds was down by electronic warfare and this is a new type of report from KrYvonozhko (not the Krovonozhko - actually Krovonozhko mean *bloody legs*, correct is Kryvonozhko mean *curves legs*)
Yes, I was as confused. Indeed, have caught a version where 24 were shot down - out of 52. Where I suspect that 52 is a typo for 25... Guess, the writer was still in tears over Oleschky being fired...
original text - В результаті протиповітряного бою збито 24 ударних БпЛА «Shahed-131/136», 25 – локаційно втрачені (упали самостійно). Два безпілотники полетіли в напрямку росії, ще один – у республіку білорусь.
On the 3A attacks coming in their sector, not elsewhere - know what would make the orcs reaching the Oskil in one place worse? Two. Hard choices...
Also, the devil who starts telling you to speculate about nuclear scenarios? Yeah, I know that one well :)
The answer is that no US president will ever go nuclear for Europe or Asia. Probably not even California. If Putin does use a nuke, don't expect the US to intervene. There are no red lines, except not shipping Israel more bombs to continue a war that's killed way more hostages than it saved.
Also thousands of Palestinian children, though I know, in the western world Muslim lives don't matter. That's that "The West" means: Christian countries get special treatment. Including russia.
Certainly agree that the US will never go nuclear because they don’t have to. They have overwhelming conventional forces. For Putin going nuclear is a no win scenario. Xi made clear how he feels about it. Using tactical nukes will lose Putin China and pull in NATO. Using strategic nukes is suicide. Hence no nukes.
According to Russian nuclear doctrine the use of nuclear weapons require there to be "large scale aggression" which is "critical for the national security of the Russian Federation". But Russia hasn't even mobilized or officially declared war yet. It's absurd to think they'd use nukes at this point. Besides, the game is rigged by the US to prevent things from escalating to that point anyway.
'Winning' is guaranteeing a secure future for an independent, democratic Ukraine. Th pro-Ukraine experts I've read (O'Brien, Hodges, etc.) still offer us no plausible theory for victory. Someone please help.
As long as Putin's regime has men, machines, and money to continue aggression, it looks like he will continue it no matter what. Maybe he'll do brief pauses to regroup and attempt to divide Ukraine's allies.
I'm in favor of better armaments to Ukraine to help save lives of Ukraine's soldiers and civillians. But battlefield victories over Russia, in Ukraine or in Russia or anywhere else, seem like they won't end the war decisively for Ukraine. Putin can just keep it going. Even if Ukraine liberates Crimea. Haven't they realized that? It looks like the war can only end in a win for Ukraine when Putin's Russia has completely exhausted itself economically, militarily, and socially/ideologically. Then it either collapses or the risk of collapse will make it have to prioritize internal threats to survival over continued aggression. At least for a generation.
But Russia's exhaustion still seems years away. Plus I don't think the main powers in the West want it: either for a false goal of 'stability' or out a flawed strategy to keep Russia as a major pwer to use as a counterweight to China.
Let's put it different way. It is well known fact (at least, inside Russia) that a Russian leader could be a dictator, a cruel petson and an inefficient manager. The citizens will forgive that. However, the leader can't lose a war, otherwise he is doomed. Compare kind-hearted and mild Nicolas the Second with the impressive economic growth and merciless Stalin. The former lost two wars and was killed, while the latter still a legend for millions. That's the strange twist of logic. Do you seriously believe that Putin will stop the war at unfavourable conditions?
Let me play devil's advocate? Tell me any serious single reasons why Old Europe (not counting UK) and US should wish Russia to be defeated?
P.S. "Even if Ukraine liberates Crimea." "Liberation" of Crimea implies liberation of peninsular from 80% of pro-Russia population. Let me guess, you were supporting Miloshivech back in 1999.))))
Too many soviet books red. Civil wars with EN warships in Crimea and at Petrograd, CZ troops in Syberia, Eesty troops at Petersbourgh… and Polands will be happy to get known their wars 1919-21 were internal affair of … btw, which country?))
See no contradiction. Any big empire consists of many nations. When the empire is weak, they are influenced by external powers to independence. Russia after WW1 was a total mess. And many vultures came for feast.
This political thinking is 100-200 years obsolete. You deny the principles that the modern world is built on, self determination, international law, etc. The obsolete thinking was discarded for a reason. It failed.
And the main point: Pu now can “sell” anything to zombie population. Denazification, deindustrialisation and many other “de”…
Main prob is: ru society is so overheated by hate and aggression, many 100000s mobs and prisoners will return home. No chance to keep situation under control, the only way is keep pushing the war. Dead end for Ru actually, but who cares.
West sees all this situation and has no clue how to deal with this sh..t. So, they try to make this war as long as possible not letting both sides to win/loose and hoping for a miracle
We want Russia defeated because we recognize the Russia is effectively already at war with us. Russian imperialism seeks to overturn the world order that our security and prosperity are built on by violent means. Russia imperialism will send the world to a very dark place if it is not stopped in Ukraine.
Regarding your 'Liberation of Crimea' comment, I will only say that Crimea is Ukraine by international law. Your claim of a pro-Russian population is based on Putin's rigged referendum conducted at gunpoint. I will not engage with invalid arguments on a primitive ethinic-nationist basis rather than a legal and human-right based one . No offense.
Crimea does have 80% of ethnic Russians. However, they settled there after Stalin has deported Crimean Tatars in 1940s (half of whom died on the way). Thus, the place is likely to have the same kind of ethnic issues that Israel has.
Yes and No. Actually, the deportations started back in Tsars times (there were 5 waves). The Stalin's was temporarily as most of them already back home. This is probably the only case when I consider deportation well deserved. Crimea Tartars Khanate's "speciality" for several centuries was raids for slaves to neighboring Slavic countries. Millions of Ukranians and Russians (Poles to lesser extent) were sold at slaves markets. That deserves a separated research.
"We"? Do you represent majority of populatiom of the mentioned countries? I strongly doubt.
Only propaganda prone people could seriously believe that Russia wants a war with a West. In fact, Putin and his cronies are very pro-Western and were holding their funds, relatives, and etc in Europe and US. China, N.Kirea, Iran are forced allies.
This is the incompetence and inefficiency of our political system. If it were unique to Ukraine aid, you would have a point. But lack of action on Ukraine aid is non-informative. Current US political incompetence doesn't allow effective action on anything.
Quick, somebody call the world police, international law has been broken! What are you, five years old? Why are there so many naïve and credulous adults who view the world this way? Power comes from the barrel of a gun and always has. Geopoliticking is utterly ruthless. There are no rules or laws, really, only who is strongest; who can project power and who will be projected upon. This is not an endorsement, btw, I wish reality was ordered differently, but it's childish to pretend the world doesn't operate this way. It's the entire history of humanity and all nations until the present. Nothing has changed, the machine is the same, it just got a new coat of paint.
The world order of Western security and prosperity is also built on violence. Violence is constantly projected outward, nations are invaded and destroyed, while those living in the West are told comforting stories about spreading democracy and protecting human rights. The stories may change but the goals and results are always the same. Look at Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Israel right now to get the full picture: The US does not give a flying fuck about human rights or international law. These things are either used as cudgels to enforce their will and manipulate others or they are simply ignored where expedient.
No offense. This silly oversimplification. The possibilities and limitations on how power works in 2024 are different from 1939, which were different from those of 1913, which were different from those 1814, etc..
Yes, there is monkey-brain hardware under the hood but values, institutions and political constructs matter a lot.
You're essentially saying democracy, human rights, etc. are all a lie and aren't worth trying for or fighting for. Thankfully the patriots at Valley Forge thought differently.
I'm not saying some things aren't worth fighting for, what I'm saying is we do not actually fight for those things and it's childish to pretend we ever have. Try telling the Vietnamese, Iraqis, Libyans, or any of the peoples on the receiving end of the 200ish US military "interventions" since 1950 that it was all done in the name of human rights and democracy. The idea that the US sends its military abroad to protect democracy and human rights is laughable.
You have it completely backwards: Wars are not fought over ideas, they are fought over interests and they always have been, the US revolutionary war being no exception. The ideas and stories are always ad-or-post hoc justifications and rationalizations, they're not the primary motivation. It really is amazing that Americans can witness what happened in Iraq and now what's happening in Gaza and still cling to the idea that America is protecting democracy and human rights.
America is betraying both it's principles and it's long term interests in the ME. But I believe you oversimplify and set false dichotomies by saying it has to be one or the other. Several things are true at the same time. Interests, values, and political structures all matter. Yes there are huge contradictions and hypocrisies and you are right to point them out. And corruption and ego and stupidity. But there are deep connections between interests and values and political structures that can't be dismissed so easily.
American Revolution was fought over interests but values motivated plenty of people and they may have been the decisive factor.
US rebuilding post war axis powers as democracies was combination of interests, values,, and political structure's role. If Soviet Russia had controlled all of Europe and set up satellites in Western Europe like Eastern Europe, the consequences would have been even worse.
Tupolev, Hey Crimea voted 54% to Join independent Ukraine in 1991 . get it right , even the Russians there voted for Ukraine becasue life is better in the west
It's always a matter of brainwashing and propaganda. At referendum in March 1991 90% of UA population voted for preservation of USSR, but by the end of 1991 90% voted for independent Ukraine. People are easy to manipulate. Still, I tottaly agree that whole USSR was ready to join the West. However, the reality of independence was somewhat different from expectation.
There is yet another direction to think in: do you know anybody to replace Putin if he dies? He has created a power vacuum around himself, thus his death or disability is very likely to cause a chaos.
A very good question, actually there's indeed a vacuum. But...a vaccum of information and publicity. As Uncle Joe was saying "there are no irreplaceble people", here it goes the same way. There'll always be a wonnabe who will take it over.
Except if there are multiple wannabes, each with his own support base. The Russian society has already fragmented, with pro-war milbloggers and anti-migrant siloviki in one segment, the pro-migrant economic block in another, anti-war liberals in the third one. Probably more, for I don't see Prigozhin supporters in the list. And there are, currently suppressed, national movements in the South and East. And there is also that China on the border, waiting for a chance to recover its historical lands.
How did Ukraine and Belarus become independent? Was it not because Gorbachev was that easy to replace with another person?
And it will be sooo bloody: Kadyrov-Patrushev-MoD party-oligarchs-Bortnikov-Mishustin-Sobianin-Miller-Sechin etc… they have all private armies, well trained and equipped, they have ambitions and strong will to get rid of concurence
I think the West is very interested it the fate of the Russian nukes. That is the most important issue that has to be secured. Beside that, chaos in Russia could be exploited by many (not only from the West).
I've seen an article with predictions for the duration of the war. One of scenarios was "punishment", meaning long-range missile and drone strikes, and it lasted till 2050.
It seems that Ukraine began to gain ground in this kind of war as well - so that the Russian economy and people may not like this mode in a year or two. Even now they don't know what they fight for. They will understand even less if their industry starts to suffer.
Does it? Russia has already exhausted itself as a modern military power - the kind that can run mechanized offensives, at least. Right now, they are slowly chewing their way toward a so-called strategic victory that might yield them a lot of territory around Pokrovsk, but won't bring them even close to capturing the Donetsk oblast, their minimum of minimal objectives. They have a noticeable advantage in meat and bombs, making them roughly evenly matched against Ukraine. Think about this - Russia, greatest empire of history (as they say), evenly matched against Ukraine, non-state of a non-nation.
That's kind of a defeat already.
I think an outcome along these lines is perfectly plausible: Russia fully loses its offensive capability, its cash reserves, also most of its oil industry, commercial contacts and soft power. The country will remain, it has enough police to hold it together, its economy will be propped up by China, it will be ruled by an absolute dictatorship if someone manages a smooth power grab after Putin, but it won't be there to make much money out of it and unable to do much more than launching missiles every once in a while. Maybe it will also have a few terrorist groups on the meager payroll it can provide. Essentially something between Iran and North Korea, somewhat threatening, somewhat unpleasant, but not a top priority issue.
Exhaustion to the point they have to discontinue their aggression. Not there yet, and won't be for years. Unfortunately they still have plenty of soldiers willing to die for pay or for the cause of imperialism, they have plenty of Soviet equipment stocks, and still plenty of money to artificially inflate their economic numbers.
Soldiers without vehicles and supplies aren't worth much. Soviet stocks are burning fast, so is oil and refining capacity. There you have a nice, reasonable chokepoint.
Regarding the effect of the Kursk most people are simply not getting, that it takes time to have an effect on the front. As the Ukrainians are now keeping those units busy that were ment to refit in the rear, they want get refitted and are therefore not usable in the future of 1-2 month or even more.
Thanks for the review. So, it's not that bad?
If one is a general in the US Armed Forces: yes. It couldn't be any better.
Indeed, it could not be any better for RU troops in Donbass. The fights are already in vicinity of Ukrainsk (since Lesovka is already Russian) and Selidovo is partially captured. A couple of weeks like that and I will start to believe that the Kursk onslaught was deliberately done to weaken UA negotiations ground.
I am gonna screen this, to remind you about it somewhere in 2025.
It could be fun to run meanwhile a people’s referendum there and to include Kursk oblast to UA.
No problem, but don't forget to send me a bottle of gorilka (the one from Lemberg if possible ) in case I am right.
Lol, see You first crossing the Dnipro on the Moscow submarine. Or maybe the Kursk submarine, you russian love sacred things, do you?
Oh, pay no attention to the Russian Army's past performance...😉
But when Putin's army has been reduced to basically a WW1-style force, looks like it will take until 2026 to reach Kyiv, if they ever do.
Meanwhile the last of Russia's refineries will have gone up in smoke.
But there's always...
Potato...
Its pretty bad but not catastrofic.
Ukraine has started to re-inforce Pokrovks and things will slow down but move în the same direction.
The quality of Ukrainian army has started to decline and the Ukrainian government does only stupid half-measures.
The elites don't send their kids to the army to motivate new volunteers. The new soldiers have little training because the experienced soldiers are kept on the frontline. And units on the frontline are allowed to get encircled or reduced to 30% just to hold ome village.
Both sides are near-to-exhaust. Troops quality gets lower, vehicles numbers are decreasing. Classics of stalemate
I don't see stalemate.
Ukraine offensive potential has decresd constantly from 2022. Each summer offensive is smaller and smaller. Fewer brigades and shorter time.
Russian offensive potential is increasing from autumn 2022. More positions captured each year, deeper penetrations, less losses în the rear.
The trends are slow but discernible.
Ukraine needs more efforts from the civilian side of the government.
Russia exhausts its Soviet vehicles, and it was almost out of volunteers a month ago. It also does not seem to increase its missile production while Ukraine does make more long-range drones.
C'mone Denys. You always seem to post decent things. Iskander's production increased several times, these missiles (RU ATACAMs) are being fired each day at any worthy target. They say that since the start of Kursk adventure 9 Himars amd M270s were destroyed by Iskanders. The figure could be inflated, but still.
I admit that UA long-range drone is an issue, however only RU red tape inefficiency could explain UA drones' successes.
Yes, the question is if they can increase the missile production even more, and they are still too short-range for some targets. Thus the Ukrainian drones may outeffect Iskanders in a year, if Ukrainian production continues to increase. After all, the drones are not a "rocket science".
Did they destroy a lot of M270s in Kharkov with Iskander's?
Any firm facts or simply Konashenkov reports? I dont understand “smaller-bigger-deeper”: lets talk in km, pieces, numbers.
Look at independent stats: oryx, perpetua etc. ru is gonna loose its mech potential in 2025 latest, stocks are exhausted and production from 0 to ready-to-use product doesn’t cover even 1/3 of its needs. Pu wants to avoid 2nd mobilization, but recruitment for money doesn’t work good now: they have increased funding by x3/5/7 (10 in Moscow and Petersbourgh), but it doesn’t work any more! Check stats
Ukrain sent 50-60k troops on offensive last year. This year only 10k.
Russia captured Bakhmut last year. This year they took Marinka, Avdeevka, Niu York, Konstantinivka, a large salient towards Pokrovsk.
You can talk about equipment and recruitment but Ukraine is worse on both accounts.
Ukraine hunts civilians on the streets and tries to keep some tanks working.
Take a ruler, check distances between all these towns. Scale on UA map, take a calculator and multiply 1 ru 200/badly 300 for each 2,5-3m advance (there are simple stats, checkable). Estimate advance losses Ru, compare with its population. How many lives would it take Ru to achieve, lets say, Dnipro river?
This is the impression one gets when studying Ukrainian social networks. But I don't trust them entirely, they have a big imbalance in favor of criticism.
Kyiv should send drafted soldiers to front line units rather than form new ones. It’s the most dangerous, but better training for new guys. Moscow does it this way, sometimes 3x or more for some over used units.
This is a sure way to kill the conscripts. They have no skills. The commanders know that they have no skills and employ them în simple tactics with high mortality.
I agree with you; the long distance drone battle seems to be favouring Ukr side : more and more Ukr drone attacks with more effects. Kursk seems quite good
Donbass ?
energy grid ??
Western commitment ???
I thank Tom for this long and detailed post. (y)
(this post is totally free of sarcasm, contrary to the usual habit in this area but it's fine with me)
Your Kharkiv part looks more like Kursk :)
A typo!
Sorry for being more worried about safety of people in Kharkiv - than with Kursk.
I'll kneel in the corner and pray 10x Paternoster as punishment....
I read the first paragraph and suddently want let you know that I really appreciate you long update. It's never been long enough actually. So, I can read as much as you have time to write for us.
Now I'm back to continue reading the rest of this update.
Second that
Thank you for the long update, Tom, always good for the long update because it means the reader is interested in the topic and have long attention spans to REALLY understand what you want to convey. Very nice and thanks Tom.
Thanks Tom, appreciated as usual. Just curious, hoping it's not a stupid question. If I understand correctly, FABs have been the common bombs of the Soviets and then the Russians for 70 years or more. Shouldn't Ukraine also have a large stockpile inherited with Sukhois from USSR in the '90s? If not, why? If yes, then I wonder why the Ukrainians don't try to make their own UMPKs without constantly depending on western allies?
I believe the airplanes would be vulnerable to Russian AD (S300 and S400).
If Ukraine places its AD close to the front line, it is destroyed by Iskander ballistic missiles.
Tactic of bomb dropping of PSU is from small heights(up to 50 m). The kit has to be durable to sustain additional negative vertical overloads during such tactics, whereas UMPKs are famous for quite high rate of failures and not good production quality and control. Secondly, Fabs itself are not as aerodynamic as American bombs, that is more important for PSU tactic than for Russians. Creation of such kits takes money,people and production from other more important projects such as missiles, drones. Russians needed more than year to start adoption of kit(one more to mass produce), even if it largely based on prewar projects . Ukranians would need to produce even more sophisticated kit under constant risk of missile strike. Even buying American license for JDam and buying their bombs would be smarter idea
Have addressed this, a few weeks ago. Essentially: yes, of course, Ukraine has huge stocks of FABs, too.
And yes, it could 'reverse engineer' UMPK kits... but...
For UMPKs to work - to fly over 60-70km to their target - they must be released from altitudes of 9,000-12,000 metres, and high subsonic speed. I.e. the launching aircraft is flying high, in full sight of enemy radars (and other methods of detection).
The Russians can do that because the PSU lacks SAMs that can counter over the distances in question. Say: 60-70km to the frontline on the Russian side, plus some 70+ km to the frontline on the Ukrainian side. Longer-ranged Ukrainian SAMs can't be deployed any closer to the frontline without promptly being detected by Russian UAVs and then targeted by Iskanders...
With other words: the PSU has no SAMs to counter Su-24s, Su-34s and UMPKs from a range where they could remain safe from UAVs and Iskander-Ms.
....and it also has not enough SAMs to shot down the UMPKs (just imagine the attrition of Ukrainian SAMs if the PSU would start shooting down 90-150 UMPKs a day....)
Net result: the Russians can continue bombing Ukrainians with UMPKs as they like.
In turn, if Ukrainians would try to do the same.... the Russians are simply in possession of aerial superiority over the frontline. Means: their long-range SAMs, and interceptors armed with such long-range AAMs like R-37M - see: MiG-31s and Su-35s - would (easily) shot down any Ukrainian jets attempting to approach the frontline at an altitude of 9,000+ metres. Indeed, as can be seen, at least once a month they're shooting down even MiG-29s and/or Su-27s approaching at extremely low altitudes in order to launch JDAMs and HAMMERS.
That's why 'just reverse-engineering UMPKs' is never going to work.
Ideally, the PSU would equip its F-16s or Su-27s with air-launched ballistic missiles with the range of about 200km. And then with hundreds of them. Alas, due to incompetence of the admin in Kyiv, the defence sector that could churn out such weapons is not doing that. Indeed, although companies like the Artyom-Luch conglomerate could've launched produciton of longer-ranged SAMs, active-homing AAMs and plenty of other goodies, they're iddling around, literally assembling 15-20 Neptunes a year... And the Zelensky admin is explaining them that they're not going to get any kind of funding if they do not become profitable. But, how are they supposed to become profitable if they're not funded so they can pay for research and development, and then launch production so they can start earning money....?
(A clue in this regards: that's why anywhere else, when some government orders the R+D and/or production of a specific weapons system, contracts usually stipulate a 50% up-front payment...)
Or to act asymetric: UAVs, missiles, mysterious Palianytsya uav/missile, partizans etc. If you go through ru news you will find every day 5-6 big accidents on infrastructure, military plants etc
Ty you for the updates up Tom. Was that sarcasm on how Kursk is a useless foray and waste if Ukrainian resources that could’ve been used elsewhere 😏
Great article!
(Just an aside hi, hi doesn’t work in English. It reads as greeting as in “Hi, how are you?” Hehehe is what you want.)
Not even a very evil 'hi, hi, hi'?
Pity...
Have to agree with Henning here, you should either specify its Egil hi hi or Go for he he he. Or of course the good old moooh ha ha…
Mwahaha would do nicely. Add some caps and !! For extra evil.
Works for a warm welcome to hell ;-)
Tom, could you please elaborate on this:
"then Churchill [...] convincing France to surrender its North to the Nazi-German invasion"
Asking because I am under the opposite impression, namely that Churchill made significant efforts to convince the French government to continue resisting.
Spoiler: Sarcastosaurus used sarcasm.
Oh my dear, have missed a "would" in a previous sentence... My bad.
Must say it's sometimes challenging to struggle through all the layers of sarcasm. Never mind.
Don't worry, easy done, i almost asked same 😬. By chance i re-read the sentence.
Yes it is. But Tom says it keeps him sane, maybe except that little inching toe. So we readers just have to learn to live with. If you can do it is quite entertaining actually.
Sarcastosaurus used Sarcasm. It's super effective!
And you had to give him away!
I mean I'd really appreciate a piece by yourself on why the West should not be treating Russia with gloves on . How do they go about managing Russia effectively without causing bad things to happen ( like WW3 ) .
They shouldn't fuck around with 'managing Russia' but defeat it. Period.
You can not defeat a sovereign country without boots on the ground.
Italian or German politicians change their words after elections but not Russian ones.
And nobody wants to pay for those boots. Not even to polish them în the peacetime în a barrack. The army is no longer a social escalator and war doesn't bring a bonus to all citizens.
Ah, you can't?
Well, strike the Russian oil/gas industry and powerplants. Hit them until there's nothing left and there's not one light bulb alight at night.
Then see if they cannot be defeated without boots on the ground.
Well, this was done with the Talebans, Vietnam, North Korea. All have been utterly defeated. Or maybe heavy sanctions like în Cuba, Iran. They learned their lesson.
Then you have no idea how is everything settled in Ru. People were taken all freedoms and honor in exchange for safety. Take away safety and enjoy next “bunt” (riot) very soon: weeks/months
Of course you can. But you got to make some effort.
No WW3 is going to happen if Russia withdraws from Ukraine. Contrary, WW3 may happen if Ukraine capitulate. That would bolster Russian (and Chinese) appetite to occupy more land (Moldavia, Taiwan, ...).
Some Western politicians just worry, that fall of Putin would let to fast Russia dissolution with civil wars and chaos and with nuclear and chemical weapons ending in the hands of local warlords and crime bosses. Which could further resell them, e.g. to North Korea, Taliban or ISIS.
Note: proper way is to stop caring about Putin and prepare for his fall, because he will fall once anyway, no one can live forever.
I am not seeing any signs of adequate protections in your approaches against the West being obliterated in a first strike because some fruit cake in the Kremlin decided the game was up and it was time to end it all . That's what in the end we are concerned about - and likely what the ones in charge of the West are worrying about .
No one in Kremlin wants to obliterate the West, even not Putin himself. And if they use nukes against Ukraine then China would turn back to Russia and they will be finished, because without China they even cannot produce winter clothing for their great army.
What they can do is to step up filthy covered terrorist acts like they do already. Or give more weapons to USA and West enemies in the Near East etc. (But not nukes, see above.)
I trust the US Government Security Agencies to have a complete grasp of the exact intricacies of the security situation on the ground and in Russia and they are the ones advising the President and his staff . So .... if the US/West proceeds in a the non-escalatory manner then it's probably for very good reasons
First, they didn't want to send howitzers, then they send many. First, they didn't want to send HIMARs, then send few and later sent many. Etc. with Patriots. THIS is what prolong the war because it give Russia time to adapt. If they would sent all what they sent immediately, then the war is over already.
Or an alternative view - the recommendations were to raise the heat gradually to avoid triggering an excessive overreaction by the Russians .
We don't know what they are worrying about, but I am sure nuclear war is only a small, and possibly negligible part of it. I believe this is really about power balances between US and China behind the scenes
Exactly. Global West vs. Global South. And I am not sure this goes well for the West at the moment. I just read that Turkey sent an application to join BRICS. If true, this was really a blow for us.
We've passed that point. See all the hybrid methods Russia is employing against the West. Conventional and nuclear warfare against the West is suicide so Russia adjusts its methods. There is a risk to defeating Russia, yes, but do you not see the risk in not defeating Russia?
Thanks Tom!
I think that all the talk about peace negotiations is to satisfy the ever growing number of peacenik-politicians in the West, which will prefer to spend the money on some domestic business rather to support Ukraine. The crowd that wants “a plan to end the war” but actually prefers some kind of capitulation.
Anyway, I wonder why Ukraine attacked Russian power plants. Seems to me a bit of waste of drones. For all the attacks on the refining industry, I think there is little to show of actual fuel shortages (ok, exports are gone but no domestic shortages) Now power plants - Russia has even more excess capacity in power-generation than in refining. Unless Ukraine is preparing for a very very long campaign against the Russian electricity infrastructure, I don’t see the point…
" Russia has even more excess capacity in power-generation " I believe most of their nuclear power stations are old and the plans to update them never materialised but you are correct it is a long campaign assuming Russia has the infrastructure to deliver electricity efficiently everywhere.
Even without counting the nuclear plants, I think Russia has hundreds of mothballed decades-old thermal units that can be turned on if needed.
LOL!, you don't think any valuable parts of the mothballed thermal stations were stolen and sold long ago.
The two main parts: a boiler and some kind of furnace are certainly available. You don’t need even a chimney as Greenpeace certainly is not going to stage any protests.
Ru is huge, its european part is overload with infrastructure. It is almost impossible to switch electricity from eastern part to western. So the main idea is to crash the balance in energy sector, like in Rostov oblast back in July: just one huge tranformer was hit, which immediately turned into energy collapse of the whole south ( Rostov atomic PP was operational).
It takes monthes or years to replace transformers or to reair such sensitive equipment like GRES
Probably they expect to change the popular opinion - the same idea that is behind the Russian attacks on the Ukrainian power grid.
I'm shocked, shocked I tell ya, that Amazon prime has not been available to Metropolitan Russians. War is hell.
Absolutely. Poor Russians...
These glidebombs have 10x the explosive effect of an artillery shell, I am told. How can they not be detected given their size and lumbering flight?
Detecting them is not the biggest problem, detonating an air defence missile near them may destroy a fighter plane but does nothing to stop such a huge chunk of steel and explosive.
Probablemente la ZSU si los detecta pero no tienen suficientes misiles para derribarlos, también es arriesgado desplegar SAMs tan cerca de los FPVs rusos.
The problem is not detecting them.
The problem is having enough SAMs that shot them down. The PSU simply has not enough to do that. Thus, in most of cases it's not even trying.
Hello Tom,
Sorry, but it looks like you read 31 August PSU report wrong.
В результаті протиповітряного бою збито 24 ударних БпЛА «Shahed-131/136», 25 – локаційно втрачені (упали самостійно). Два безпілотники полетіли в напрямку росії, ще один – у республіку білорусь.
In Ukrainian, it said: 24 Shaheds were shot down, and 25 Shaheds were radar lost (fell on their own) (not shoted), and 3 Shaheds comes back to russia and belarus - 52 Shaheds total.
It was the very strange report and got a lot of rumors in Ukraine.
One of versions that 25 Shaheds was down by electronic warfare and this is a new type of report from KrYvonozhko (not the Krovonozhko - actually Krovonozhko mean *bloody legs*, correct is Kryvonozhko mean *curves legs*)
Thank you
Yes, I was as confused. Indeed, have caught a version where 24 were shot down - out of 52. Where I suspect that 52 is a typo for 25... Guess, the writer was still in tears over Oleschky being fired...
I updated my comment a bit while you were writing yours))
original text - В результаті протиповітряного бою збито 24 ударних БпЛА «Shahed-131/136», 25 – локаційно втрачені (упали самостійно). Два безпілотники полетіли в напрямку росії, ще один – у республіку білорусь.
On the 3A attacks coming in their sector, not elsewhere - know what would make the orcs reaching the Oskil in one place worse? Two. Hard choices...
Also, the devil who starts telling you to speculate about nuclear scenarios? Yeah, I know that one well :)
The answer is that no US president will ever go nuclear for Europe or Asia. Probably not even California. If Putin does use a nuke, don't expect the US to intervene. There are no red lines, except not shipping Israel more bombs to continue a war that's killed way more hostages than it saved.
Also thousands of Palestinian children, though I know, in the western world Muslim lives don't matter. That's that "The West" means: Christian countries get special treatment. Including russia.
Certainly agree that the US will never go nuclear because they don’t have to. They have overwhelming conventional forces. For Putin going nuclear is a no win scenario. Xi made clear how he feels about it. Using tactical nukes will lose Putin China and pull in NATO. Using strategic nukes is suicide. Hence no nukes.
According to Russian nuclear doctrine the use of nuclear weapons require there to be "large scale aggression" which is "critical for the national security of the Russian Federation". But Russia hasn't even mobilized or officially declared war yet. It's absurd to think they'd use nukes at this point. Besides, the game is rigged by the US to prevent things from escalating to that point anyway.
Hello All,
'Winning' is guaranteeing a secure future for an independent, democratic Ukraine. Th pro-Ukraine experts I've read (O'Brien, Hodges, etc.) still offer us no plausible theory for victory. Someone please help.
As long as Putin's regime has men, machines, and money to continue aggression, it looks like he will continue it no matter what. Maybe he'll do brief pauses to regroup and attempt to divide Ukraine's allies.
I'm in favor of better armaments to Ukraine to help save lives of Ukraine's soldiers and civillians. But battlefield victories over Russia, in Ukraine or in Russia or anywhere else, seem like they won't end the war decisively for Ukraine. Putin can just keep it going. Even if Ukraine liberates Crimea. Haven't they realized that? It looks like the war can only end in a win for Ukraine when Putin's Russia has completely exhausted itself economically, militarily, and socially/ideologically. Then it either collapses or the risk of collapse will make it have to prioritize internal threats to survival over continued aggression. At least for a generation.
But Russia's exhaustion still seems years away. Plus I don't think the main powers in the West want it: either for a false goal of 'stability' or out a flawed strategy to keep Russia as a major pwer to use as a counterweight to China.
Someone please explain
Best,
John
Let's put it different way. It is well known fact (at least, inside Russia) that a Russian leader could be a dictator, a cruel petson and an inefficient manager. The citizens will forgive that. However, the leader can't lose a war, otherwise he is doomed. Compare kind-hearted and mild Nicolas the Second with the impressive economic growth and merciless Stalin. The former lost two wars and was killed, while the latter still a legend for millions. That's the strange twist of logic. Do you seriously believe that Putin will stop the war at unfavourable conditions?
Let me play devil's advocate? Tell me any serious single reasons why Old Europe (not counting UK) and US should wish Russia to be defeated?
P.S. "Even if Ukraine liberates Crimea." "Liberation" of Crimea implies liberation of peninsular from 80% of pro-Russia population. Let me guess, you were supporting Miloshivech back in 1999.))))
Lenin lost multiple wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Russia#Russian_SFSR_(1917%E2%80%931922)
Wrong comparison. Those were the civil wars (including the war with Poland).
Those were wars for independence, just like the current war.
Too many soviet books red. Civil wars with EN warships in Crimea and at Petrograd, CZ troops in Syberia, Eesty troops at Petersbourgh… and Polands will be happy to get known their wars 1919-21 were internal affair of … btw, which country?))
See no contradiction. Any big empire consists of many nations. When the empire is weak, they are influenced by external powers to independence. Russia after WW1 was a total mess. And many vultures came for feast.
But it makes not RSFSR-PL wars civil. Or, for example, do you call Rome-Byzantium wars also civil? Or Ruses vs Mongols? Or Japan vs China?
This political thinking is 100-200 years obsolete. You deny the principles that the modern world is built on, self determination, international law, etc. The obsolete thinking was discarded for a reason. It failed.
And the main point: Pu now can “sell” anything to zombie population. Denazification, deindustrialisation and many other “de”…
Main prob is: ru society is so overheated by hate and aggression, many 100000s mobs and prisoners will return home. No chance to keep situation under control, the only way is keep pushing the war. Dead end for Ru actually, but who cares.
West sees all this situation and has no clue how to deal with this sh..t. So, they try to make this war as long as possible not letting both sides to win/loose and hoping for a miracle
We want Russia defeated because we recognize the Russia is effectively already at war with us. Russian imperialism seeks to overturn the world order that our security and prosperity are built on by violent means. Russia imperialism will send the world to a very dark place if it is not stopped in Ukraine.
Regarding your 'Liberation of Crimea' comment, I will only say that Crimea is Ukraine by international law. Your claim of a pro-Russian population is based on Putin's rigged referendum conducted at gunpoint. I will not engage with invalid arguments on a primitive ethinic-nationist basis rather than a legal and human-right based one . No offense.
Crimea does have 80% of ethnic Russians. However, they settled there after Stalin has deported Crimean Tatars in 1940s (half of whom died on the way). Thus, the place is likely to have the same kind of ethnic issues that Israel has.
Yes and No. Actually, the deportations started back in Tsars times (there were 5 waves). The Stalin's was temporarily as most of them already back home. This is probably the only case when I consider deportation well deserved. Crimea Tartars Khanate's "speciality" for several centuries was raids for slaves to neighboring Slavic countries. Millions of Ukranians and Russians (Poles to lesser extent) were sold at slaves markets. That deserves a separated research.
"We"? Do you represent majority of populatiom of the mentioned countries? I strongly doubt.
Only propaganda prone people could seriously believe that Russia wants a war with a West. In fact, Putin and his cronies are very pro-Western and were holding their funds, relatives, and etc in Europe and US. China, N.Kirea, Iran are forced allies.
Yes, US support for military Aid to Ukraine is well above 50%, even among Republicans.
Yes, that's why not a single fighter jet anf attack copter was supplied by US since the start of the conflict. Don't "buy"words, follow the deeds.
This is the incompetence and inefficiency of our political system. If it were unique to Ukraine aid, you would have a point. But lack of action on Ukraine aid is non-informative. Current US political incompetence doesn't allow effective action on anything.
Quick, somebody call the world police, international law has been broken! What are you, five years old? Why are there so many naïve and credulous adults who view the world this way? Power comes from the barrel of a gun and always has. Geopoliticking is utterly ruthless. There are no rules or laws, really, only who is strongest; who can project power and who will be projected upon. This is not an endorsement, btw, I wish reality was ordered differently, but it's childish to pretend the world doesn't operate this way. It's the entire history of humanity and all nations until the present. Nothing has changed, the machine is the same, it just got a new coat of paint.
The world order of Western security and prosperity is also built on violence. Violence is constantly projected outward, nations are invaded and destroyed, while those living in the West are told comforting stories about spreading democracy and protecting human rights. The stories may change but the goals and results are always the same. Look at Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Israel right now to get the full picture: The US does not give a flying fuck about human rights or international law. These things are either used as cudgels to enforce their will and manipulate others or they are simply ignored where expedient.
No offense. This silly oversimplification. The possibilities and limitations on how power works in 2024 are different from 1939, which were different from those of 1913, which were different from those 1814, etc..
Yes, there is monkey-brain hardware under the hood but values, institutions and political constructs matter a lot.
You're essentially saying democracy, human rights, etc. are all a lie and aren't worth trying for or fighting for. Thankfully the patriots at Valley Forge thought differently.
I'm not saying some things aren't worth fighting for, what I'm saying is we do not actually fight for those things and it's childish to pretend we ever have. Try telling the Vietnamese, Iraqis, Libyans, or any of the peoples on the receiving end of the 200ish US military "interventions" since 1950 that it was all done in the name of human rights and democracy. The idea that the US sends its military abroad to protect democracy and human rights is laughable.
You have it completely backwards: Wars are not fought over ideas, they are fought over interests and they always have been, the US revolutionary war being no exception. The ideas and stories are always ad-or-post hoc justifications and rationalizations, they're not the primary motivation. It really is amazing that Americans can witness what happened in Iraq and now what's happening in Gaza and still cling to the idea that America is protecting democracy and human rights.
America is betraying both it's principles and it's long term interests in the ME. But I believe you oversimplify and set false dichotomies by saying it has to be one or the other. Several things are true at the same time. Interests, values, and political structures all matter. Yes there are huge contradictions and hypocrisies and you are right to point them out. And corruption and ego and stupidity. But there are deep connections between interests and values and political structures that can't be dismissed so easily.
American Revolution was fought over interests but values motivated plenty of people and they may have been the decisive factor.
US rebuilding post war axis powers as democracies was combination of interests, values,, and political structure's role. If Soviet Russia had controlled all of Europe and set up satellites in Western Europe like Eastern Europe, the consequences would have been even worse.
"80% of pro-Russia population"
A lot of them volunteered for the special operation so are either dead or wounded or captured.
How many of the remainder are still pro-russian?
3-5 k people from Crimea (rough estimation) killed/wounded out of 2 million.
Okay, Tupolev, if you are so clever you tell us: How does this end? With your glorious Red Army fighting through to Lisbon?
Tupolev, Hey Crimea voted 54% to Join independent Ukraine in 1991 . get it right , even the Russians there voted for Ukraine becasue life is better in the west
It's always a matter of brainwashing and propaganda. At referendum in March 1991 90% of UA population voted for preservation of USSR, but by the end of 1991 90% voted for independent Ukraine. People are easy to manipulate. Still, I tottaly agree that whole USSR was ready to join the West. However, the reality of independence was somewhat different from expectation.
There is yet another direction to think in: do you know anybody to replace Putin if he dies? He has created a power vacuum around himself, thus his death or disability is very likely to cause a chaos.
A very good question, actually there's indeed a vacuum. But...a vaccum of information and publicity. As Uncle Joe was saying "there are no irreplaceble people", here it goes the same way. There'll always be a wonnabe who will take it over.
Except if there are multiple wannabes, each with his own support base. The Russian society has already fragmented, with pro-war milbloggers and anti-migrant siloviki in one segment, the pro-migrant economic block in another, anti-war liberals in the third one. Probably more, for I don't see Prigozhin supporters in the list. And there are, currently suppressed, national movements in the South and East. And there is also that China on the border, waiting for a chance to recover its historical lands.
How did Ukraine and Belarus become independent? Was it not because Gorbachev was that easy to replace with another person?
Oh yeah, dead fckin sure it will
And it will be sooo bloody: Kadyrov-Patrushev-MoD party-oligarchs-Bortnikov-Mishustin-Sobianin-Miller-Sechin etc… they have all private armies, well trained and equipped, they have ambitions and strong will to get rid of concurence
I think the West is very interested it the fate of the Russian nukes. That is the most important issue that has to be secured. Beside that, chaos in Russia could be exploited by many (not only from the West).
I've seen an article with predictions for the duration of the war. One of scenarios was "punishment", meaning long-range missile and drone strikes, and it lasted till 2050.
It seems that Ukraine began to gain ground in this kind of war as well - so that the Russian economy and people may not like this mode in a year or two. Even now they don't know what they fight for. They will understand even less if their industry starts to suffer.
I do not think the Russian people will get to decide.
Putin is still afraid to declare the general mobilization. Thus, he cannot strongly counter the people.
I doubt he cannot. He chooses not to, for now.
So why do you believe that he (or whoever is to rule after him) will choose to in a couple of years?
runs out of 'volunteers' for meat assaults
"Russia's exhaustion still seems years away"
Does it? Russia has already exhausted itself as a modern military power - the kind that can run mechanized offensives, at least. Right now, they are slowly chewing their way toward a so-called strategic victory that might yield them a lot of territory around Pokrovsk, but won't bring them even close to capturing the Donetsk oblast, their minimum of minimal objectives. They have a noticeable advantage in meat and bombs, making them roughly evenly matched against Ukraine. Think about this - Russia, greatest empire of history (as they say), evenly matched against Ukraine, non-state of a non-nation.
That's kind of a defeat already.
I think an outcome along these lines is perfectly plausible: Russia fully loses its offensive capability, its cash reserves, also most of its oil industry, commercial contacts and soft power. The country will remain, it has enough police to hold it together, its economy will be propped up by China, it will be ruled by an absolute dictatorship if someone manages a smooth power grab after Putin, but it won't be there to make much money out of it and unable to do much more than launching missiles every once in a while. Maybe it will also have a few terrorist groups on the meager payroll it can provide. Essentially something between Iran and North Korea, somewhat threatening, somewhat unpleasant, but not a top priority issue.
Exhaustion to the point they have to discontinue their aggression. Not there yet, and won't be for years. Unfortunately they still have plenty of soldiers willing to die for pay or for the cause of imperialism, they have plenty of Soviet equipment stocks, and still plenty of money to artificially inflate their economic numbers.
Soldiers without vehicles and supplies aren't worth much. Soviet stocks are burning fast, so is oil and refining capacity. There you have a nice, reasonable chokepoint.
Regarding the effect of the Kursk most people are simply not getting, that it takes time to have an effect on the front. As the Ukrainians are now keeping those units busy that were ment to refit in the rear, they want get refitted and are therefore not usable in the future of 1-2 month or even more.