I haven't once advocated Ukraine could push Russia out of Eastern Oblasts.
Even if Russia did already retreat from Kiev, Kharkiv, Kherson and failed to mount an attack on Odessa.

Advancement is 100% the Russian goal. At minimum Putin needs to secure the Donbas or I don't foresee him surviving domestically through any resolution of the war.

haven't they already basically done that in Donbas? im not aware of much change from this May 2024 map in that regard.

there is some area west of Avdiivka that could be secured but i dont see why that's 100% crucial. mainly because if zero movement happened from this point the amount Putin could shave off of Ukraine in a peace agreement would be seen as a win domestically and on a global perspective. any leader who agrees to end a war, even one they started, gets a big boost domestically. getting perpetual black sea access and "liberating ethnic russians" is a cherry on top.

No they don't control all of the Donbass region. Never have.
It's possible that they will, but at this rate it will take several years and several hundred thousand casualties.

I'd argue that is conjecture. Militarily the war has been disastrous for Russia. They have likely taken more casualties than the amount of troops in the entire Russian army pre 2022 invasion.
They are funneling poorly trained meat into the grinder. Alas it works to capture a few kilometers here or there.
Optically purchasers of Russian military exports have had a stark realisation that what they paid for is not what they expected.

Again it's optics and personal judgement on how you view the success of the war.
Half a million casualties and counting, Finland and Sweden in NATO, NATO budgets increasing, huge loss of equipment, ruble essentially worthless, utterly dependant on China, domestic economy overheating, inflation among the highest in the world, biggest customer for natural gas (europe) lost likely for generations.

But potentially they will capture another 10-15% of Ukraines territory that is largely obliterated, heavily mined, still within range of Ukrainian strikes and subject to a massive insurgency that will last decades.

I'd chalk it up as a big fat L personally.

This post was edited by Prox1m1ty on Aug 2 2024 11:11am

im curious where you get your deathtoll numbers from, and if you could estimate the life loss you think for both Ukraine and Russia.

ive read some experts estimate about 50k dead russians, and others 500k. ive read some people say 100k ukrainian soldiers dead, some 500k+.

i personally think 50k is far too low, and 500k is far too high. maybe 150-200k dead russians. and i think the 500k ukrainians or more is likely accurate, but can't say for sure.

not dug in on this one, just curious.

Casulaties means deaths and injured unable to return to the front.

yeah i know that. when you said "half a million casualties and counting" who were you referring to? and just generally where do you get deathcounts from, or is it various sources?

Now you know why the west sends 1970s era tech to Ukraine.

Ukraine MOD

Ukraine, like Russia and most of Eastern Europe, is sparsely populated. The settlement structure of the country is such that you have vast stretches of wasteland between the major cities. Hence, measuring territorial gains by kilometers is misleading, we need to look at the population centers.

Mariupol, based on its location, was always destined to fall. Russia then captured Lysychansk in July 2022, which was their last major gain during the initial phase of this war. In the 24 months since then, Russia was only able to capture two additional major cities: Bakhmut and Avdiivka. Russia took some towns and villages, but in terms of major breakthroughs, that's all they've accomplished these past two years.

At the moment, this is clearly a war of attrition, with Russia clearly having the upper hand. Yes, Ukraine is currently showing increasing cracks, but so far, they haven't collapsed and Russia hasn't been able to accomplish any proper breakthrough just yet.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Aug 2 2024 12:06pm

I keep point this out over and over throughout this war. The small amount of territory that's taken doesn't actually indicate very much, nor when Ukraine took large swaths of land as Russia pulled back from overstretched positions indicated much. The fact of the matter is these smaller cities like Avdiivka, Bakchmut, etc. actually served as big battle grounds with lots of resources on both sides dedicated, which doesn't translate well when you just look at km^2. If Ukraine or Russia lost 50k troops each in Bakhmut to simply say oh well it was a small loss because Bakhmut was a small insignificant city misses how much sunk cost was actually spent there.

Ukraine can't afford to put up these type of battles, every step of the way, for every 73k size city (which Bakhmut was pre-war). Russia can simply because they have a population of 140+million, while Ukraine at best 28-30 million.

Russia could if this was an existential, all-out war like WW2. But it clearly isn't from their pov. They won't be willing to dedicate limitless amounts of lives into making further gains, not when the current status quo - which they can hold with relatively minor effort - already sees them controlling all the places which were truly "must-win" for them.

Likewise, neither the tired, worn-down Ukraine nor its war-weary Western partners will have any appetite to dedicate the amount of troops and funding which would be necessary for Ukraine to take back the territory Russia currently holds.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Aug 2 2024 12:19pm