A more precise way of saying it is that Ukraine aspires to be in Nato, Russia is strongly opposed to this and for a variety of reasons, including Ukraine's aspirations to join Nato, Russia invaded. over the last couple of decades Ukraine moved to a Pro-European, Pro-Western footing, and is regarded, loosely, as a Western ally, but not a Nato member. if it was a Nato member, when Russia invaded we would be in WW3 territory, i.e. the West would have responded militarily with all its conventional forces against Russia, which may have then escalated further. (or rather, if Ukraine was in Nato, and Russia accepted this, there would have been no invasion).

Russia does not currently have the ability to "take Ukraine" by force. it would need an army of 5-10million men, which it has not conscripted. Which is my rationale for my assumption that Russia is happy enough with the land it has currently claimed (eastern ukraine and crimea) From what we can tell in the west, Putin's position and approval rating has gone up, noting it was mainly ethnic russians that ukraine had been bombing in the period 2014-2021. Crimea is also 75% ethnic russian.

Finally, from one perspective you can say that Russia is projecting its power, but it would be more accurate to state that the US saw Russia as weak when Russia was weak, the US then toppled the Ukrainian Government and installed a Pro-Western Government (that would sell its resources to the West). Eastern Ukraine did not recognize the new government of Ukraine, Russia supported Eastern Ukraine and is strongly opposed to Ukraine being a part of Nato.

As Nato is insisting on the matra, ukraine will be in Nato, and as Russia is insisting it wont, we have a deadlock, which is likely only to be resolved on the battlefield, which ultimately is likely to result in the war escalating even further then it currently is. i.e. I can well envisage Russia removing the Ukrainian government in the search of ukrainians that will negotiate a peace (2025 at the earliest, but more likely either 2026 or 2027).

There are very strongly opposing views around the world as to the reason why Russia invaded and what its goals are.

This post was edited by ferdia on Jan 24 2024 01:52pm

I follow the military "conquests" of both sides. Real time updates have been hilariously skewed on both sides, so even live update maps of who controls what should be taken with a grain of salt.

Russia currently has a build up of forces around Avdiivka and this is the main focal point between the two. Russias ground forces/armor is spread somewhat evenly/defensively along the east but the biggest reason why Russia hasn't made significant land gains in over a year is because:

It's aa sucks
It hasn't established air superiority because Ukrainian aa outranges alot of Russian bombs, so Russia has lost a TON of jets trying to knock off hlmrs and patriot batteries

Drones have become the new wunderwaffen and western supplied ones to Ukraine beat out Iranian ones currently

Alot of Ukrainians artillery and tanks have preformed markedly better than the Russian counterparts, this makes taking urban environments a slog.

The war footage coming out from this conflict really shows how new doctrine is being developed in real time, drones are the future

Thank you! Helps me put things into perspective. I feel like this conflict or the one in the Middle East is going to get worse very soon. Just seems like during a US election cycle shit hits the fan and a lot of "dirt" starts getting tossed around and people get thrown under the bus. Biden going to stick to Putin is a dictator who needs to be stopped and Trump likely going to bring up how when he was President him and Putin avoided war. I know the average American cares more about immigration and fentanyl because anytime I've ever brought up Israel/Gaza or Russia/Ukraine it's like no American citizen want's to or cares to be involved with what's happening abroad. Stop sending money/troops. I don't know how Biden is going to convince the average American who votes with their pocketbook how expanding conflicts abroad is something America should "continue to be involved with" for the best interest of average Americans.

Everything bald is false, garbage takes. Garbage post.



It seems to me Russians are simply going to keep the conflict going at mid-level until the ukranians are willing to negotiate, or run dry. I don´t see any serious escalation currently. The timeline you describe seems reasonable

This post was edited by ownyaah on Jan 24 2024 02:47pm

Drones landing in St Petersburg clearly backup that Russian AA is underperforming.
When hit Leopard 2 have much higher survivability than any Russian counterpart.

These are facts.

There are only two real superpowers in the world right now. America and China. Russia is not able to challenge either, and is in a lower tier than the ascendant India. This war magically erased any hope the US could align with Russia against China, and even drove a huge wedge between us and India, who sided with Russia. The biggest casualty has been the hegemony of the US petrodollar and security of it as a world reserve currency. We sent a shockwave through world markets when we weaponized the banks to seize Russian assets. Who can feel safe banking in dollars if we can just steal them? Until now, all oil was traded for in dollars, the backbone that anchored all world finance under the sway of the US financial system. Now they are trading in markets beyond our reach and trading in rupees, trading in chinese RMB. The greatest impact of this war is undermining our grip on the world. Nothing has done more in the past 80 years to give China more of a foothold as the worlds greatest superpower.

Should have done what Kissinger did. Align China against the Russians and vice versa now when it is needed. But , Neo Libs with Neo Cons and friends decided they can solo everyone.

Explain to me slowly your own take as to why Russia has been taking so long to advance in Ukraine.

Everything you bolded can be backed up with videos from the front holmes

Video from the front can be curated and often is, with selected coverage to frame one side as winning. There's really no conclusive evidence to conclude below with certainty.



The slow advancement is not really indicative of Ukraine's weapon superiority in any way tbh. It's just general knowledge that defenders have an advantage given entrenchment and that's the real reason neither side is really moving. Ukrainians continue to be firing a fraction of what Russia fires. There's no magic weapons to make up for the 5:1 or 7:1 arty advantage.

Such amazing and well written posts!