Europeans should work together instead of fightning eachother

Actually, the Wehrmacht was never able to stabilize the Eastern Front again after the huge losses during the Battle of Kursk. This battle essentially kicked off the race to Berlin.

Stalingrad represented the final collapse of all strategic avenues toward victory for the Axis. In December 1941, the blitzkrieg strategy failed once and for all when the decapitation strike on Moscow was repelled and the largest economic and military power in the world officially entered the war on the side of the Allies. Before the Battle of Stalingrad had even begun, the chances for a German victory in WW2 were already down to below 5%. Their only remaining path toward victory or a draw was winning in Stalingrad, thus gaining a pathway to the oil fields of the Caucasus and using these resources to weather the lend-and-lease-induced Soviet surge which was about to come in 1943 and 44, then stabilizing their control over the conquered territory in Eastern Europe and nip any US appetite for a ground invasion in Western Europe in the bud. Losing in Stalingrad cut all of these scenarios off and left zero viable strategic ways forward.

-------------------------------------------

I would argue that Ukraine's strategic situation today is far less dire. Their foe is far less of an economic powerhouse than the US were during the 1940s, and their allies are far stronger. Nazi Germany, by contrast, only had weak allies which were close to useless or, in the case of Japan, too far away to be of any help in the European theater of war.



Pokrovsk was on the verge of falling half a year ago, and is still standing. Yes, it will fall eventually, but the fact that it has taken Russia this long to crack it isn't indicative of their strength or momentum. At the same time, the economic cracks in Russia are beginning to show more and more. Plus, the Ukrainian attacks on Russia's logistics and economic fundation have proven effective. All in all, this means that the scenario of Russia running out of steam is still very much in play. From the twitter thread you quoted:


Once Russia takes these two cities, they would control all of the Donbas. At that point, they would have accomplished their foremost official goal, have completely depleted troops and an economy on fire. Putin could declare victory and his people would presumably buy it. How likely is it that he doesn't take this obvious off-ramp and instead continues the war? And if he proposes a ceasefire at the (then) current lines, how likely is it that an even more depleted and war-weary Ukraine refuses against the objections of its equally war-weary allies?



Also note that the agglomeration around Sloviansk and Kramatorsk is at least 5 times larger than Pokrovsk. If it has taken Russia this long to take the much smaller target, how many months and how many casualties would it take them to conquer Slov/Kram? Imho, this is the exact reason why Russia is currently trying to convince Trump of urging Ukraine to retreat voluntarily from these place.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Oct 24 2025 01:02am

Nice one for writing this. I agree with everything you've said.

Another point to add if I may... Capturing land viewed purely in a vacuum is pointless. If Russia take Pokrovsk but incur another 100k KIA/WIA, then what impact would that have on the future preparedness of the Russian army? We saw Ukraine retake 12000 square kilometers in the 2022 Kharkiv offensive with virtually zero casualties.

The primary downside to losing Pokrovsk would be the loss of deep fortifications, so the future rate of Russian advances after taking the city will likely be higher, and gained at a lower relative cost in manpower and materiel.

Ukraine's strategy is built around attriting Russian forces and the Russian war machine as much as possible, while limiting their advances on the battlefield. After imposing such a high cost to Russia for continuing the war, they can be brought to the negotiating table. The chances of either Russia or Ukraine collapsing and suffering a catastrophic defeat are really slim at this point.

You're missing the key point which is manpower. Ukraine is running out of guys they're suffering huge casualties and replacements are literally being grabbed from the streets and sent to the front lines.

While it looks like the Ukrainian army is still able to hold the lines the reality on the ground is that the frontline is sparsely manned due to casualties and a huge number of desertions.

Probably because there weren't actual battles you get that right? And that's kind of the point i'm making. A lot of people ignorant on the war will point to lack of Russian territory as some indication that there's a stalemate but that's not reality. If Russia keeps knocking down the fortified strongholds which are packed with soldiers and Ukraine is filling trenches with 45 year olds, at some point there will be a break.

Either the country of 140MM runs out of soldiers or the country that's sub 30MM runs out of defenders. Math's kind of simple. Maybe Russia blinks under the energy infrastructure hits or sanctions or fill in the blank or maybe they just continue to slowly push forward until the other side is so depleted that the jogs become sprints.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Oct 24 2025 02:33pm

The same was already true a year ago, when you and likeminded posters here in this thread were already predicting that the point when Ukraine runs out of manpower was imminent. Still hasn't happened, and the pace of the Russian advances had even slowed down over the summer. (It seems to be picking up pace again in recent days...) In any case, it's obvious that the more drone warfare replaces human warfare, the less acute staffing shortages become.

Additionally, Russian recruiting is also getting increasingly difficult. For the past year or two, they were able to compensate by offering volunteers increasingly excessive bonuses, but with their funding drying up and the economy showing more and more cracks, this approach is reaching its limits. If the war continues, I expect Russia to also see a growing number of "press gangs".







I really don't see an outright collapse of the Russian side as realistic anytime soon, but I wouldn't entirely rule it out on the Ukrainian side. As much as I push back against the notion that Ukraine collapsing/running out of soldiers is inevitable, or even the most likely outcome at this point, I consider it in play. If I had to pull a number out of my ass, I'd give this scenario a probability of maybe 10-15%.

Cynical post, Zelensky lowered the draft age and the US has suggested that the draft age should be lowered to 18 if Zelensky wants to keep receiving US weapons.

Russia isn't using press gangs they rely on volunteers and they still show up because the guys are motivated and the pay is good.

Ukraine tried a similar model to attract volunteers and we all know how that went don't you? --> https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/cash-bonus-year-fighting-russia-inside-ukraines-youth-recruitment-drive-2025-04-25/




Better look at the facts BX instead of all that hopium. You've been predicting Russia's collapse since 2022 when they were cut off from SWIFT and you've been suggesting post after post that the Russians were screwed because they lost "their most valuable customers, the EU". Oh and they're out of ammo too.

We all know how that went

Who is winning on the battlefield, Ukraine or Russia?

if one side is winning and the other side is losing, what is the reason. Is man power a factor, yes or no. if man power is a factor then the point that one side does not have sufficient man power has to be conceded.

the crazy thing is that the narrative makes no sense, we are being told that Ukraine is winning and then we are being told that europe has to rearm itself because after ukraine is defeated we are next.

This post was edited by ferdia on Oct 25 2025 01:55am

Absolutely room temperature level of discussions here in this thread from our usual NAFO warmongers.

Meanwhile, sanctions imposed on Rosneft/Lukoil are quite effective and will cause quite a bit of a shock for Europe & India. 3 Lukoil EU refineries will most probably have to be nationalized next month to ensure security of fuel supply for Europe next month (Think SEFE / Schwedt etc).
https://tvpworld.com/89647764/germany-wants-us-sanctions-exemption-for-rosneft-refineries-

Same goes for NIS where OFAC license was not extended. Serbia is between a rock and hard place, as Gazprom owns both the refinery and the gas supply to Serbia. I reckon Serbians will have to think hard a way out of this one.

Surprisingly little news about sabotage at both MOL refineries few weeks ago, sweeping under the rug I guess?

Indians seems to have thrown in the towel - Reliance announced they will comply, Chinese are still thinking.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/10/24/russias-top-indian-oil-buyer-to-comply-with-western-sanctions

This post was edited by Malopox on Oct 25 2025 02:30am

Can you expand on this. if they dont understand the notion of mass, they wont understand your post.