-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Russia invades Ukraine
- Thread starter kristiang85
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Annetts key
Established Member
brad465
Veteran Member
NATO Salesman of the yearPutin - I remain a master strategist…
edwin_m
Veteran Member
He's been re-nominated for 2023. Rather like the Russian presidency, being a past winner isn't a disqualification.Oi! I stole that joke first!
brad465
Veteran Member
"Darth Putin" (parody Twitter account) was my sourceOi! I stole that joke first!
Annetts key
Established Member
“Darth Putin" - also seen in the comments on various YouTube videos about the"Darth Putin" (parody Twitter account) was my source
File also under, how to get more of your own military hardware destroyed and captured than your opponent…
Strathclyder
Established Member
Nice one, Putin. Mission accomplished, eh?
More like it's a requirement. Gotta be consistent with your flagrant BS in order to even get a nomination.
Pete_uk
On Moderation
Putin didn't get the round of applause he was expecting after a recent speech.
Hope he wasn't upset.
Hope he wasn't upset.
brad465
Veteran Member
Sending condolences for the audience members who all fall out of windows tomorrow...
DustyBin
Established Member
He’ll have been stood too far away from the audience to hear them clapping anyway!
brad465
Veteran Member
So Ukraine are now able to export electricity again despite a long onslaught by Russian air strikes. This will be a good financial and morale boost for Ukraine and further show Putin is wasting resources again:
www.bbc.co.uk
Ukraine to export electricity again after months of Russian attacks
Russia's assault on Ukraine's energy infrastructure led to blackouts throughout winter.
www.bbc.co.uk
So Ukraine are now able to export electricity again despite a long onslaught by Russian air strikes. This will be a good financial and morale boost for Ukraine and further show Putin is wasting resources again:
Ukraine to export electricity again after months of Russian attacks
Russia's assault on Ukraine's energy infrastructure led to blackouts throughout winter.
This is certainly excellent news.
Cloud Strife
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2014
- Messages
- 2,964
Another day, and my reading of the situation is that Russia has simply decided to go full World War on Ukraine: throw as many people as they can at the front lines and hope for a breakthrough that isn't coming. They are gaining inch by inch in Bakhmut, but the city is absolutely worthless from the Russian point of view. If they take it (and they should), it will have come at a ridiculously heavy cost. I'd expect that Ukraine has prepared the terrain behind Bakhmut as well, so even if they capture what remains of the city, they'll simply get eaten up if they try and move forwards from there.
It seems that the consensus among people who know things is that Melitopol is the only sensible direction of the Ukrainian counterattack, but I really wonder if they will go for such an obvious target. I suspect that the actual attack will depend entirely on what NATO has seen on the ground, and that there will be multiple plans in effect until the last few hours.
There's a fascinating interview here: https://www.foxnews.com/world/ukrai...e-largest-mobilization-since-war-russia-began - which discusses what Ukraine needs to land a decisive blow. The Institute for the Study of War suggest that taking the triangle formed by the cities of Tokmak, Melitopol, and Vasilyevka would be needed. From my amateur measurements, taking this area would let them gain control of at least some access to the Sea of Azov. If they can somehow secure safe access to the sea, then the Kerch Bridge is in play.
My gut feeling is that they're not going to go towards Melitopol unless the Russian forces collapse again. Rather, they're going to focus on taking the plains to the south of Enerhodar, which would allow them to surround the Zaporizhzhia NPP and effectively end the threat from there. There is a substantial chunk of sparely populated territory to the south and south-west of Enerhodar, and control of this puts Ukraine closer to Crimea without getting into a bloodbath. I also think that it's unlikely that Russia has placed that many troops or facilities in that area, unlike Melitopol.
It seems that the consensus among people who know things is that Melitopol is the only sensible direction of the Ukrainian counterattack, but I really wonder if they will go for such an obvious target. I suspect that the actual attack will depend entirely on what NATO has seen on the ground, and that there will be multiple plans in effect until the last few hours.
There's a fascinating interview here: https://www.foxnews.com/world/ukrai...e-largest-mobilization-since-war-russia-began - which discusses what Ukraine needs to land a decisive blow. The Institute for the Study of War suggest that taking the triangle formed by the cities of Tokmak, Melitopol, and Vasilyevka would be needed. From my amateur measurements, taking this area would let them gain control of at least some access to the Sea of Azov. If they can somehow secure safe access to the sea, then the Kerch Bridge is in play.
My gut feeling is that they're not going to go towards Melitopol unless the Russian forces collapse again. Rather, they're going to focus on taking the plains to the south of Enerhodar, which would allow them to surround the Zaporizhzhia NPP and effectively end the threat from there. There is a substantial chunk of sparely populated territory to the south and south-west of Enerhodar, and control of this puts Ukraine closer to Crimea without getting into a bloodbath. I also think that it's unlikely that Russia has placed that many troops or facilities in that area, unlike Melitopol.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
This video suggests that the reason Ukraine has stayed in Bakhmut is that they were worried that if they pulled back, Russia would take the opportunity to pause and re-group instead of continuing to suffer disproportionate losses.
I'm not going to honour the odious Fox News with my patronage, but I do agree Melitopol is an obvious target and it might be easier to strike elsewhere on the supply lines to south-western Kherson oblast and Crimea. I guess the disadvantage is that further west, they have to go further to cut the main road and railway and reach the sea.
Cloud Strife
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2014
- Messages
- 2,964
It's a fair assessment. It might also be a simple numbers game: if there's any truth to the Ukrainian claim that they're killing 7 Russians for every Ukrainian lost, then they might well be happy to simply take the losses. Meanwhile, they're securing the Belarusian and Russian borders, which is also vital.
The article is surprisingly fine for Fox! I was also annoyed at the ISW's choice there, but perhaps they did it intentionally.
I suppose the other side of going for Melitopol is that they might be able to simply overwhelm the Russian defences. I've seen quite a few comments suggesting that the Russians simply don't have the numbers to secure the area, and Western-trained troops will make mincemeat out of Russian forces trying to defend the approaches to Melitopol. We saw that the Russians gave up in Kherson after constant pressure, so perhaps the plan is the same here?
2 bridges, both which could be eliminated rapidly, and puts Ukraine in the reverse position Russia was last year in Kherson… the further they advance east, the more stretched the supply lines, and dependant on the two bridges they become.
This is a risk, to end up in middle of nowhere, with no supplies and no way back.
It could make a good feint, a strategic quick win, but it may not change the war. Unfortunately quick wins are being exhausted, and the war won’t be won on quick wins alone. Other quick wins are also available but offer little but hope.
To win they've got to break the logistics supply chain, encircle, eliminate or get a mass surrender of armies, not just take ground.
Melitopol cuts the direct supply route to Crimea, Nova Khakova cuts the water, Enerhodar cuts the power… an all out air attack on Kerch bridge ends the war.. at that point Russias got nothing left to fight for.
however…
Bakhmut, a nowhere town of no importance has been an on going grind for 6 months.
what is fighting for a city, that both sides know is strategic, both sides can arm to the teeth, and that both sides want, and both sides will need to die for, going to take ?
Unfortunately a bloodbath I think is unavoidable, and both sides know it and are preparing for it… we are seeing all the logistics being lined up for it, all winter both sides have been bringing in the weapons to be ready, though it doesnt feel imminent, it will be a large clash.
I wonder if we will see a “doolittle” raid ? - A controversial flight taking off shrangri la, going west, refueling, then heading south and east to kick this all off
Seeing some Republicans claiming the Ukrainian war isn't real, or that it's a scam to get money from the USA, or that other countries should not worry about a conflict they're not part of, I was wondering how many people are still being funded from Russia to say this.
With the sanctions, is Russia still able to 'lobby' people to push their narrative? For the most part isn't working, but some politicians are still trying damn hard to argue that we should all butt out and let Russia do what it needs to do.
Of course they might actually believe that to be true, and many Americans in particular (seems less so in the UK) are quite envious of Putin and his ability to control the people, clamp down on things like homosexuality, and make the place a pretty bad place to live if you're not white, but I do think many are just saying what they're paid to say.
With the sanctions, is Russia still able to 'lobby' people to push their narrative? For the most part isn't working, but some politicians are still trying damn hard to argue that we should all butt out and let Russia do what it needs to do.
Of course they might actually believe that to be true, and many Americans in particular (seems less so in the UK) are quite envious of Putin and his ability to control the people, clamp down on things like homosexuality, and make the place a pretty bad place to live if you're not white, but I do think many are just saying what they're paid to say.
Cloud Strife
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2014
- Messages
- 2,964
There's a good PhD in there as to why so many Republicans are sympathising with Russia, but I think the ultimate reason is exactly what you've said: they're envious of what Putin is doing. It's inexplicable and illogical, but so many things about white rural America are exactly that.
And I suspect that the payments are still flowing. It doesn't cost much to buy someone off, especially as Congress salaries are quite low for what it actually costs to do the job. I remember AOC talking about this: because she has to maintain two apartments (they don't receive any allowances for accommodation) and they can't write off the cost of accommodation, it turns out that it's actually very difficult for them to do it if they live in expensive urban areas.
Putin in particular seems to appeal to a particular brand of loser.
And I suspect that the payments are still flowing. It doesn't cost much to buy someone off, especially as Congress salaries are quite low for what it actually costs to do the job. I remember AOC talking about this: because she has to maintain two apartments (they don't receive any allowances for accommodation) and they can't write off the cost of accommodation, it turns out that it's actually very difficult for them to do it if they live in expensive urban areas.
Putin in particular seems to appeal to a particular brand of loser.
RailWonderer
Established Member
China as a neutral partner is in a great position to broker peace between Russia and Ukraine just like they have done with Saudi Arabia and Iran, and at the moment, Yemen. The US and Biden have isolated themselves and have fewer allies already. Even Hungary and Turkey accepted Chinese loans and are closening ties with China. I think Russia will have more friends because of this Chinese uniting of nations and brokering peace. Importantly it will remind Europe and the US that you need friends, even if they are brutal authoritarians, - you have no choice.
brad465
Veteran Member
China is primarily interested in neocolonialism, that is having other countries over a barrel to do what it wants. The belt and road initiative is a strong example: on the surface the work it's done in developing African countries is great, but those countries are in literal debt to China, and when they struggle to pay, China can demand things from them easily. There is widespread belief China is looking forward to having Russia as a vassal state for similar reasons.
Chinese loans often come with rather substantial strings...
You really do need to spend less time peddling the lies of Fox News and their ilk.
China isn't a neutral partner in this matter. It's one thing to broker a deal between Saudi and Iran, but neither of those have invading armies in eachothers' territory.
DustyBin
Established Member
And it is when they struggle to pay not if, unfortunately for them.
brad465
Veteran Member
I wouldn't be surprised if China made loan repayment conditions that it knew would be hard to meet so that it could offer "alternative arrangements".
Elsewhere Mike Martin is reporting a potential imminent Ukraine offensive, and Russia cancelling May 9th celebrations in 2 key cities near the Ukraine border:
The fact they haven't instructed Putin to pull out of Ukraine demonstrates they are not "neutral". They have made public show out of backing the troll farm masquerading as the Russian government.
As both countries slide deeper into brutal authoritarianism themselves.
In order to be "helped" by China one has to either be temporarily useful, or a purveyor of brutality.
Ukraine is neither.
Yes, actually we do have a choice. In fact, regarding the increasingly authoritarian Hungary and Turkey, what it has shown Europe and NATO is that life is much simpler, and it's much easier to stand up for what is right, when you don't compromise your fundamental beliefs via friendships of convenience.
The miserable slavery driven world that Russia, China and Iran "authorities" would have us all live in, they can keep for themselves.
Quite the reverse — China is now finding all the bad loans it has offered are really negatively impacting its own credit rating. It's in their best interest to get developing countries into a position to repay their debts, rather than simply blackmail them indefinitely.
Cloud Strife
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2014
- Messages
- 2,964
Hungary is hardly a shining example of a successful state. It's in a deep economic crisis that is only getting worse, and by selling themselves to China, it will only be even more difficult to escape from. The Chinese are very clever: they offer you infrastructure and loans, but the infrastructure is really only useful for the...Chinese. Isn't the Belgrade-Budapest line being upgraded with Chinese money and Chinese construction?
I forget the details, but there's a port in Sri Lanka that worked out exactly like this: first, the Chinese lent the government the money for the port, which was to be constructed by a Chinese company. Then, the second part of the port was constructed, with a deal allowing for Chinese operation for (I think) 30 years. Then the port ran up huge losses, and Sri Lanka couldn't afford to make the debt payments. And now China has a 99 year lease and a special economic zone attached, and now China successfully operates the port.
I wouldn't worry too much, they'll just demand (and get) control of raw materials.
I suspect they might well be afraid that Ukraine will use that day to launch an attack, knowing that it's exactly the kind of symbolism that Russians love. But it's too obvious and too straightforward for Ukraine: they know that they've got one shot at this, and they're not going to waste it on a symbolic date. They need a decisive victory that changes the course of the war, not just a symbolic strike.
While I don't really want to ask this question, it needs to be asked: are we asking ourselves what happens if the Ukrainian offensive fails?
It's a delicate balancing act though - access to cheap raw materials only helps if there are ready markets for the finished goods. All the iron ore in the world isn't of any use if nobody wants my steel.