Current Affairs Ukraine

Status
Not open for further replies.
IMF today's news there is going to be a global recession due partly to Putin's war not Brexit .'......
Brexit is a part of Putins hybrid war on the west that has been waged since at least the Russo-Georgian War of 2008, Joey.

This is worth a read



A bit more detailed if you want to download the CSIS report and findings is in the link below but the summary should give a flavour.
For the past 15 years, Russia has sought to weaken the United Kingdom internally and diminish its position in the world by exploiting minority grievances, encouraging separatist movements, amplifying anti-EU sentiments, and trying to inflict reputational damage upon the United Kingdom’s role in NATO and the value of its relationship with the United States. Rachel Ellehuus examines what democratic traits have made the UK vulnerable and resilient to these malign influence activities, which Russian efforts have and have not worked, and what the UK policy response has been.
 
Brexit is a part of Putins hybrid war on the west that has been waged since at least the Russo-Georgian War of 2008, Joey.

This is worth a read



A bit more detailed if you want to download the CSIS report and findings is in the link below but the summary should give a flavour.

Nothing is worse than the damage, Murder, he has inflicted on the Ukraine......end of .....
 
Nope I think Russias had a lot of losses mate, the bulk of which have been suffered by the DPR and Wagner forces.

But I think Urkraines have been many times higher due to the nature of how it's been fought by both sides.

I'll tag in @PhilM as my knowledge is purely from being a military history buff so genuinely interested to get the take if someone with actual military experience.

Phil as I've seen it, there's been up to now 4/5 stages of the war.

1. Fast Russian advance, heavily sold feint towards Kiev at the expense of quite heavy losses, especially equipment and vehicles in order to isolate the Donbass for phase 2.
2. The pinning - sometimes encirclement of the Ukrainian forces in key objectives - and the deployment of a grinding down offense on them.
3. The artillery war phase proper, little movement compared to 1&2 but effectively an artillery meat grinder phase for 3 months. Phase 2&3 saw the Ukranians almost employing a not one inch backwards strategy
4. Ukraine counter offensive very much in the new NATO style, much like phase 1 they sold a feint the Russians bought in Kerson by committing a lot to it - but not the better quality stuff, breakthroughs in the North and Russians initially routing then gaining some order to retreats but without any large encirckement happening.
5. Ukraine advancing taking ground Russians holding for a period then pulling back to avoid any encirclement, seemingly without the chaos that Russia seemed they had happening in phase 4.
6. Phase 6 - where we are at now, ukranians probing right across the line Russians holding, artillery seemingly back supporting and air/drones being utilised. Ukraine seemingly trying to build a large enough force in one area to make another major breakthrough, Russians trying to disrupt any force gathering.

Unless I'm missing something significant here then on the nature if how it's been fought, I don't see how on earth Ukraine hasn't suffered extremely high casualties, and I mean in an order of magnitude higher than what Russia 'so far' has
Apologies for the late reply. In terms of loses, the Ukrainian casualties have been put at 15,000 dead and wounded (6,000 dead and 9,000 wounded).

If I'm honest, when you consider the scale and longevity of the fighting, coupled with approximate Russian loses, I do feel they're potentially embellished.

I'd have expected them to be higher, but I'd understand why they'd say otherwise. However, surely Russia would contest them? So maybe they're reliable.

In terms of your summary, I think there's a lot correct with it. I would, from the outset, contest the 'feint' towards Kyiv aspect as I think it was genuine.

They committed a lot of troops and equipment towards the capital, but due to a number of reasons they ended up being mauled; this changed everything.

Sticking to the roads, poor logistics and horrendous (and I mean horrendous!) tactics caused their downfall. The lack of infantry screening was criminal!

To the final parts, five and six, I'm genuinely interested how the offensive will manifest itself. Russia are trying to throw men into the front to solidify their line.

There's a stark difference between a well-organised retreat, combining a falling back to prepared defences with planned counter-attacks, and a line breaking.

I think there were a fair few examples of the latter, which comes with a fluid front. The more troops they put in, they'll hope they will be able to do the former.

Ukraine and Russia have both caused surprise up to now, with their competencies and incompetencies, but Ukrainian advances seem to be slowing.

They will not want this to fall into a slog and will want to get as much territory under control before the weather sits in. It's going to be torrid for Russian conscripts.

But equally, it's going to be difficult for any soldiers, and it's not going to lend itself to fluid attacks where troops can take lots of land very, very quickly.

Think back to WWII with the horrid weathers of the monsoon seasons in Italy, Russia etc. Ukraine may get more equipment, yet Russia will solidify the line.

I have an inkling there'll be one major offensive before the cold really sets in, where Ukraine will try to secure a strong line to sit in for when the rains come.

Although their staff officers may not be thinking the same.
 
Apologies for the late reply. In terms of loses, the Ukrainian casualties have been put at 15,000 dead and wounded (6,000 dead and 9,000 wounded).

If I'm honest, when you consider the scale and longevity of the fighting, coupled with approximate Russian loses, I do feel they're potentially embellished.

I'd have expected them to be higher, but I'd understand why they'd say otherwise. However, surely Russia would contest them? So maybe they're reliable.

In terms of your summary, I think there's a lot correct with it. I would, from the outset, contest the 'feint' towards Kyiv aspect as I think it was genuine.

They committed a lot of troops and equipment towards the capital, but due to a number of reasons they ended up being mauled; this changed everything.

Sticking to the roads, poor logistics and horrendous (and I mean horrendous!) tactics caused their downfall. The lack of infantry screening was criminal!

To the final parts, five and six, I'm genuinely interested how the offensive will manifest itself. Russia are trying to throw men into the front to solidify their line.

There's a stark difference between a well-organised retreat, combining a falling back to prepared defences with planned counter-attacks, and a line breaking.

I think there were a fair few examples of the latter, which comes with a fluid front. The more troops they put in, they'll hope they will be able to do the former.

Ukraine and Russia have both caused surprise up to now, with their competencies and incompetencies, but Ukrainian advances seem to be slowing.

They will not want this to fall into a slog and will want to get as much territory under control before the weather sits in. It's going to be torrid for Russian conscripts.

But equally, it's going to be difficult for any soldiers, and it's not going to lend itself to fluid attacks where troops can take lots of land very, very quickly.

Think back to WWII with the horrid weathers of the monsoon seasons in Italy, Russia etc. Ukraine may get more equipment, yet Russia will solidify the line.

I have an inkling there'll be one major offensive before the cold really sets in, where Ukraine will try to secure a strong line to sit in for when the rains come.

Although their staff officers may not be thinking the same.
Reckon they only have about 3 weeks before the miserable weather sets it.
 
Brexit is a part of Putins hybrid war on the west that has been waged since at least the Russo-Georgian War of 2008, Joey.

This is worth a read



A bit more detailed if you want to download the CSIS report and findings is in the link below but the summary should give a flavour.


Is there anything wrong in accepting all of that retrospectively, and being confidant enough to know that you weren't influenced, had your own opinion on why choosing Brexit was your rightful choice and even with hindsight, vote the same way.

People who voted for Brexit can't be labelled as enablers for things like Ukraine being invaded.

Some leap that.
 
Is there anything wrong in accepting all of that retrospectively, and being confidant enough to know that you weren't influenced, had your own opinion on why choosing Brexit was your rightful choice and even with hindsight, vote the same way.

People who voted for Brexit can't be labelled as enablers for things like Ukraine being invaded.

Some leap that.
It's a leap, but not a huge one.

As has been mentioned earlier. Lots of smaller political shifts throughout 'the West' over that past decade have been errrr, encouraged by Moscow.

Brexit was a democratic vote, but elections are a just putting physiological theory into practice: if you push enough of the right buttons and you get the result you want.

Pushing buttons cost money. A lot of that money came via Moscow.

Sorry.... Edit. I meant to say all these things that have been supported by Moscow over the years were with the aim of having a fractured Euro block. Brexit voters didn't encourage Putin to invade the Ukraine, but they were a reasnoble expense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top