Comments by "Arty" (@arty5876) on "TLDR News EU"
channel.
-
7
-
@jackroutledge352 Russia had very few wars with Japan. Russo-Japanese war of 1904-5 was started by Japan. Japanese ships, without a declaration of war, had attacked Russian ships near port-Arthur. Second Russo-Japanese war also was started by Japan - Japanese forces had invaded Mongolian territory in 1939, while Mongolia was a puppet state, controlled by USSR. The third war with Japan had started after Allied proposal of help. USA and UK were fighting against Japan on the sea and in the air for a long time, and Western Allies asked Stalin for a help in the land war. Soviet troops de facto ended long and bloody war in China, and Soviet invasion of Northern China played little less role in the surrender of Japan, than nuclear bombings.
Russia had very few wars with Finland - Soviet-Finnish war of 1918 was started by Finland - in 1918 communists were losing the civil war in Russia, and Finland literally invaded Russia. The second Soviet-Finnish war was started by USSR in 1939 and ended in 1940. Third Soviet-Finnish war was a Finnish attempt to revenge. After 1945 Russia and Finland had built good economical and neutral geopolitical relations.
Last time when Russia had invaded Bulgaria - it was the time of Kievan Rus. Kiev had allied with Bythantine Empire to fight againt Bulgarians.
Russia never invaded Albania.
Russia never invaded Romania - in 1918 Romania, using the situation of civil war in Russia, simply occupied Russian territories, and in 1940 Stalin returned them back, forming the Moldovan Soviet republic. Western countries respected Soviet demands on Romanian territories. Later Romania, together with Germany, had invaded USSR, and after war Soviets established puppet government.
Last time Russia had invaded the Ottoman Empire - late 19th century. In 19th century everyone was invading everyone. It was normal to invade other countries in 19th century.
6
-
5
-
You know nothing about relations between Russia and Ukraine. Also, Budapest Memorandum never was an agreement, its terms were in recomendational character. In 2014 an illegal armed coup happened in Ukraine backed by CIA and Western special forces. Most of Ukraine have chosen West, but Russian people in Crimea and Donbass regions were disagree with this coup in Kiev and they have chosen Russia. If people in Kiev had right of self determination, then Russian people in Crimea and Donbass also had the same right of self determination, and Ukraine violated their rights by using military to supress anti-coup protesters. It is Ukraine started this war against Russian people in 2014. And it is Ukraine who violated the Budapest Memorandum in 2014, because according to Budapest Memorandum Ukraine must have been neutral state between NATO and Russia and Ukraine violated it, so about what respect to territorial integrity and sovereignity of Ukraine you are talking? Especially considering the fact that Ukrainian indepdendence and sovereignity was violated by USA, when CIA backed coup in Kiev, and at now Ukrainian economy is sold out to the West, to the Black Rock corporation. It is America and West who colonized Ukraine, Russia is just defending its people and conducting a peacekeeping opeation.
5
-
Apparently Putin overestimated his army, underestimated the enemy, and judging by his words from the appeals of February 24, Putin called on Ukrainian soldiers to "surrender or take power into their own hands," apparently Putin thought that the Ukrainian population was dissatisfied with their government, and that Russian soldiers would be greeted with flowers. And apparently we haven't actually prepared for the war. At the beginning of the war, there were cases when unarmed police units of the Russian Guard attacked first and were defeated by Ukrainian troops. Already at the beginning of March, the Russian army had troubles with supplies. The size of the invasion force is too low for the tasks set. And apparently Putin's calculation was that there would be no war, Ukrainian soldiers would surrender without a fight, and all of Ukraine would be taken in 3 days like Crimea, without a fight. All sorts of propagandists and pro-Kremlin analysts said about it. And Putin apparently thought that a quick, lightning-fast seizure of Ukraine would not provoke Finland and Sweden to join NATO, besides, they would be afraid of the fate of Ukraine, and such serious sanctions against Russia would not be imposed. Apparently Putin's plan is just the stupidest geopolitical adventure, probably the most adventurous adventure in history, he just put absolutely everything on the line. Even the gold and foreign exchange reserves were not withdrawn from foreign accounts and they were frozen. Putin just put everything on the line and lost it. That's the kind of strategist he makes.
Putin thought that if he could quickly seize Ukraine, Finland and Sweden would not join NATO, and serious sanctions would not be imposed against Russia. But the reality is that Ukraine has become a trap and the Russian army is bogged down, and Russia will now lose half of the economy, and the very goals of the operation - the non-expansion of NATO, are crossed out by Finland and Sweden.
In short, Putin is a misunderstood genius, no one could predict his actions, because he always acts to his own detriment and creates absurdity
4
-
Russians had invaded Ukraine without numerical superiority, while Ukraine is the largest land millitary in Europe after Russia. Ukraine have far more tanks, than Germany, Poland, Britain or France. If the quality of troops is equal, according to the law of millitary science attacking side is suffering more casualities.
The major 3 reasons, why Russian invasion had failed in first few weeks:
1) Joung Russian conscript soldiers aren't motivated to fight against brother Slavic people, a lot of Russians have relatives in Ukraine, probably some Russian soldiers have relarives in Ukraine (Millitary crimes probably were commited by soldiers of Asian and Islamic nationalities or by Russian police forces, not by Russian troops of Slavic nationality, I heard that Bucha massacre was commited by Chechen troops) . Russian soldiers are mentally and morally supressed, most of Russians don't want to fight this war, some Russians don't want to fight against brother Slavic people. Opposite - Ukrainians have moral boom, they are fighting for their homeland, and Ukrainians aren't seeing Russians as brothers anymore.
2) Russian command probably believed in its own propaganda, and commanders in Kremlin were thinking, that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days without resistance, and Russian troops would be met with flowers. And Russian command simply didn't prepared for a war - Russians didn't planned, that they would face the resistance, they thought that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days, like they took Crimea in 2014, and this is why Russians had poor logistics and preparation in first weeks of the war. Russians were invading Ukraine by moving in columns, very dangerous for ambushes.
But at now, after 3 months since the start of war, Russians probably have normal logistics and normal amount of material, at now, in the May of 2022, there is no evidences that Russians have problems with logistics, so at now this problem is irrelevant, but in the start of the war Russians really had problems with logistics and this played the role.
Russia have a population of 146 million people, while Ukraine have the population of 40 million. The life standarts, economy and corruption in Russia and Ukraine are in the same level, but Ukraine was fighting a Donbass war, and Ukrainians probably worked on corruption in their army, and also Ukrainian army was trained by Western specialists. Also, Ukrainians have modern Western anti-tank weapons and drones, but Russians also have such thing as air superiority and air-land and ballistic rockets. But aircrafts and rockets need aim. Also, Russia have superiority in amount of artillery. Russians have unteached radio crews and bad communication, but a lot of Ukrainian coscript regiments also have such problems. Conscripts, both Russian and Ukrainian, are unable to cipher frequency on their radio and they have awful quality of sound.
3) Also, the 3rd major reason of Russian failure is conscript system. Russia have very low salaries in army compared to life standarts in Russia, so Russian contract army is very unpopular in Russia, and no one wants to serve in it, except some poor provincial people, who didn't achieved anything in their life. So, Russia have the conscript army, where the 18-year old guys, that ended school yesterday, are serving for one year - in Russia one year military service means that you would be "trained" for 6 months, and later you would "serve" in military base for 6 months. You can't make the good soldier from 18 year old boy in 1 year. During Soviet times people were serving in army for 2 years, and Soviet government was working on health of boys in school period. Ukraine also have conscripts, but Ukrainian army is more contract, contract army means that adult 30-year old man are serving in the army volunturely. Who is better soldier - an 18 year old boy, that was serving for 1 year, or adult 30 years old man, that was serving in army for few years? Of course Russian untrained and joung conscripts completely useless against adult 30-years old Ukrainian contract soldiers, who were serving the army for years, while Russian contract soldiers are simply poor provincial people, who serve in army for low salary, and government isn't paying attention to them as to professional soldiers, but as to cheap cannon fodder. De facto the reason why salaries in the Russian army are so low is because Russian government use poor provincials as cheap cannon fodder. Russia don't have professional army, and Russian defense ministry knows about this. Some parts of Ukrainian army are also conscript and uncapable to fight. I chated with some Ukrainians, and saw video, that was made by Ukrainian soldiers - Ukrainian conscripts are also untrained and uncapable. But Ukraine have part of its army as contract soldiers, while Russia don't have normal contract troops.
After 3 weeks Russians had stopped their invasion, they retreated from Kyiv, Chernigiv and Sumy, and replaced their troops with target of reinforcing and forming the frontline in the Donbass region, they made a pause. Russians are dasapointed of their first plan, and they refused it. This means that Russians aren't targeting occupation of all Ukraine no more, Russians refused their goal to occupie all of Ukraine, and at now fighting would go only in the East and South of Ukraine. From the middle of April Russians were trying to capture East of Ukraine. Also, because war wasn't declared, and Putin didn't even call this a war, there is no mobilization in Russia. After 3 months from the start of war Russia still didn't started the mobilization. Probably Ukrainian side already have serious numerical superiority over the Russian side, and Russians are unable to capture more Ukrainian land without serious and bloody fighting. This is the reason why Russians had removed their forces from Kyiv. Russian assault on Donbass is going on with very low speed, and it is failed, because you can provide operation of encerclement of enemy troops only if this operation in going very fast. Russians lost their top 2 naval cruiser, fighting a country without a fleet.
I don't think that Ukraine would agree to peace. Putin made a mistake invading Ukraine, Russians don't have opportunity to achieve something withput mobilization and declaration of real war. In Russia at now people are afraid that Putin would announce massive mobilization, because this is the only way by which Russia could won, because Russian troops at now outnumbered in Ukraine. But this decision would also face problems - Ukraine started mobilization earlier, Ukrainian forces at now gaining experience of fighting, Ukrainians already have some experience of fighting. And if Putin would declare mobilization in Russia, very fast mobilized and untrained Russian conscripts would face Ukrainians soldiers, that already have combat experience. And this is problem. But Putin don't have choise, Ukraine wouldn't agree to a peace threaty. Also, because Russia didn't started mobilization and Russian troops are outnumbered, Russian army is suffering enormous casualities in tanks and vehicles, because tanks and vehicles are dependent on infantry suppourt and covering fire, and Ukrainians, having numerical superiority, ambush tactics and modern Western anti-tank weapons, are able to cause huge casualities to Russian vehicles. Russia have artillery and air superiority, so Russia is capable to cause casualities and damage to Ukrainian forces and infrastructure. So, without mobilization Putin is teaching Ukrainian army and disarming Russian forces, but in Russia even Putin suppourters wouldn't suppourt the mobilization. Putin really don't have normal exits from this situation, Ukraine became complete trap.
I think that casuality ratio between Russia and Ukraine is ~1.5 to 1 in favour of Ukraine.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@MrMartinSchou Yeah, tell that to Kennedy, who was ready to start a nuclear war because of Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba. The situation with Ukraine is no different from the Caribbean crisis. And what makes you think that the expansion of NATO to the borders of Russia was necessary to protect against Russia, if Russia in the 90s, under Yeltsin, was a democratic state that pursued a pro-Western policy and did not attack anyone. In addition, the Americans and Germans promised that they would not allow NATO to expand further than Germany. But at the same time, they allowed, and moreover, placed nuclear weapons in Romania and Poland. The closer enemy missiles are to your borders, the worse your nuclear response and air defense systems react. It is crystal clear that Russia, due to economic and technological backwardness, could in fact lose its nuclear arsenal by 2030 as a guarantor of immunity, already in 2013 Dmitry Rogozin, the head of the Russian space industry, said that "we are 10-15 years behind the Americans in technology and doctrine. And the Americans have a nuclear war strategy such that they have developed satellite guidance and reconnaissance technology, and with the help of conventional missiles destroy the infrastructure of nuclear forces, thereby they can destroy most of the Russian nuclear forces in a matter of minutes, and then the Americans will launch their own missiles. Or they won't launch it. But in any case, Russia will no longer have a nuclear arsenal. Rogozin said that Russia has nothing like this, Russia has no missile defense either." And now judge for yourself - Putin comes from the special services. This man's worldview was shaped by the Cold War, he served in East Germany at that time. Yeltsin appointed Putin prime minister, in fact his successor, because the threat of separatism and Islamist terrorism (Chechnya) persisted in Russia. It is clear that this man, who also strengthened his personal power by filling the Russian parliament with people from the special services like him, is very concerned about the expansion of NATO. He may be exaggerating, but the fact is that Russia's relations with the West have been deteriorating since the late 90s, which was caused by the war in Yugoslavia. And now imagine what Russia feels - "we admitted our mistakes and abandoned the communist regime, we dissolved the USSR and gave everyone independence, we wanted to make peace and negotiate with the West, and the West bombed Yugoslavia, invaded Iraq, now we have bad relations again, and then the West completely broke its promises not to expand to our borders, and the Americans have placed their nuclear weapons near our borders, when we are gradually lagging behind them technologically and will soon lose our nuclear arsenal." What should Russia have done in such a situation?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@MrNicoJac Russian government simply banned dollar trade to its population, so Russian government is simply painting Rouble currensy like it wants, but population can't get this dollars, and no one in the World would believe in this currensy price. This is like the old Soviet times. Soviet government was also painting Rouble price like it wanted. But this price wasn't established by the market and people. And no one in the World believed in Soviet fairy tales about the price of Rouble. So, Soviet Union was bying imports by prices, much higher than Global average. While Soviet exports were very cheap, much cheaper, than Global average prices.
Russian economy is dependent on imports. Also, Russian economy have huge governmental participation, and Putin announced, that companies-importers would have access to currensy trade by this price, that was painted by Russian government. Also, Putin need to hold Rouble currensy, because Russia announced about gas trade for Roubles, so Russia would sell gas, and this Roubles would be converted into dollars by that price of dollar, which Russian government would paint.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
In general, the most incomprehensible thing in this war is Putin's goals. Considering what price Russia is paying for the war in Ukraine, sanctions, etc., it becomes unclear - is it worth it? Putin is not crazy, is he? It seems to me that if we want to understand Russia's goals, we should still listen to what Putin said on February 24. Of course, he lied and exaggerated, but still the declaration of war speech contains the reasons for the war, albeit exaggerated in order to justify it. What if Putin is really right about something, or did he have no choice?
Putin said that Ukraine wanted to join NATO. So, what if Ukraine, having joined NATO, and having received guarantees of independence from Western countries that have nuclear weapons, could use these guarantees to return Donbass, and possibly Crimea to its composition? And Putin, knowing this, decided to strike a screwing blow, to forestall the enemy.
Judge for yourself - if Russia is hungry for expansion, then why was Georgia not completely captured in 2008? Why was peace concluded with Georgia after 5 days of fighting, although the defeat of the Russian army was not inflicted, but on the contrary - the Georgian army was defeated in Ossetia, and Russian troops on the fifth day of the war approached the outskirts of Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia, after which peace was concluded on the Georgian initiative. This means that expansion is not the goal of Russia. And if Putin wanted to seize Ukraine, he should have attacked in 2014 or 2015, when Ukraine simply did not have an army. And so it turns out that Putin gave Ukraine 8 years to prepare for war. This means that the decision to invade Ukraine was made spontaneously, and before that, in 2021, 2020, 2019 and other years, Putin did not plan an invasion of Ukraine. What could make Putin make a quick decision? Well, only my point of view is logical here, that Ukraine, using NATO's protection guarantees, wanted to seize Donbass, and that Putin simply had no choice whether to invade Ukraine or not, because if he had not invaded, Donbass would have been taken by Ukrainian troops, and Russia, risking a clash with NATO, would have been sitting on the sidelines. In general, it is worthwhile to understand in principle what has been happening for the last 8 years.
1
-
Кризис 2008 года был Мировым, Путин тут вообще ни при чем. В 2014-15 было еще и падение цены на нефть а также дефицит резервной валюты - доллара, что было вызвано ухудшением отношений с США. В целом, экономическая внутренняя политика Путина заключается в том, что в России была построена довольно обычная модель капитализма, такая же, как на Западе. Философия Путинского государства заключается в отрицании советского опыта, типа "государство вам ничего не должно, в то же время и вы можете получать черную зарплату в конверте и не платить налоги". Экономическая внутренняя политика Путина на самом деле нормальная, основанная на нашем историческом опыте, хотя ее эффективность низка из-за качества государственных институтов, а вот внешняя политика Путина это уже важный и спорный вопрос.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@XMysticHerox Moreover, Ukraine cannot carry out such a mobilization, because the entire Soviet military industry has been destroyed. Ukraine doesn't really even have ammunition and equipment production facilities. They are burning through Soviet reserves. And go into battle with old Soviet junk... This is so-so. In 2021, Ukraine had 2,500 tanks, of which 1,500 are insanely outdated T-64 tanks (1964), which are gathering dust in warehouses without proper care. And a thousand tanks in active service with crews. In Russia, the principle is the same, but Russia is doing better with the military industry. In 2021, Russia had 3,600 more or less modern tanks with crews - this is the technological level of the US Army from the late 90s and early 00s. And 11,000 tanks in storage. T-72 of all modifications from the 80s. It's very simple. If Russia or Ukraine declares mobilization, it will be just two Soviet armies.
1
-
1
-
When the US bombed Iraq and Libya, no one imposed sanctions against the US. But when Russia started bombing Ukraine, the West showed double standards and hypocritically imposed sanctions against Russia, although Western countries have no moral right to impose sanctions against anyone. Russia is the world's largest exporter of grain, Russia sells about 30 million tons of grain to the world markets, controlling 14% of the world grain market. Ukraine sells about 20 million tons of grain and ranks fifth in the world market. Hypocritical and unfair Western sanctions have cut off Russia from the World payment systems, because of which the World market has lost 14% of all grain imported from Russia. The West is to blame for World hunger. Russia entered into a grain deal in June 2022 to allow Ukraine to trade in grain in return for Russia getting the opportunity. One of the conditions of Russia was that part of the grain would go to the starving countries, but the West did not fulfill this condition, which is why Russia withdrew from the grain deal. Russia had every right to break the deal if its conditions were not met. Would you abide by the terms of a contract when the party you agreed with doesn't abide by the contract? The West violated the agreements, Russia withdrew from the deal, everything is fair.
1
-
World hunger existed long before 2022, and the reason for this is simple - the colonial legacy and the lack of statehood of the poor countries that were former colonies. In the 19th century, India was the first economy in the world, China was the second economy. India in the middle of the 19th century was captured by the British, and China, in fact, also turned into a colony. As a result, by the middle of the 20th century, the Indian economy was 1% of the world economy. This is the legacy of Western imperialism and colonialism. Also, do not forget that this is still going on - Western business still dominates the domestic markets of countries that seem to have formally gained independence in the 50s and 60s of the 20th century. Colonialism hasn't really gone away, mercenaries from the French Foreign Legion are still in Africa, and the French keep all resources and business under their control. Also, do not forget about the dollar - this is the main world trade and reserve currency. All trades between countries take place in dollars. This means that America can stupidly print money, and just like a vacuum cleaner suck goods from the world markets. This is what the US is doing - look at their national debt, look at their budget deficit. The US budget revenues are $5 trillion and expenditures are $9 trillion. A deficit of 80% of the budget. They stupidly print money and suck goods from world markets, dooming poor countries to poverty.
1
-
If Russia wants expansion so much, then why wasn't Georgia completely invaded in 2008? Why did Russian troops capture two small separatist regions in August 2008, but did not capture the whole of Georgia? If Putin is so eager for expansion and wants to capture neighboring countries, then why didn't he completely capture a small weak Georgia, which the Russian army would simply crush?
If Putin's goal is expansion, then why did the invasion of Ukraine take place in 2022, and not in 2014 or 2015? In 2014 and 2015, Ukraine simply did not have an army. If Russia had attacked Ukraine in 2014, it would have been an easy and quick victory. But instead, for some reason, Putin gave Ukraine 8 years to prepare for war, although all of Ukraine could have been captured in 2014, when Ukraine was very weak. And so it turns out that Putin gave Ukraine 8 years to prepare for war, although he could have captured it without a fight in 2014.
1
-
@megasin1 in 2014 Putin had more reasons to attack Ukraine than now. Firstly, the revolution in Ukraine, which took place in December 2013 - February 2014, was really carried out by right-wing radical Nazi groups. And when the government was overthrown in Kiev and there was a change of power, there really were right-wing radicals in the new government of Ukraine. But by 2016, the democratic institutions of Ukraine had spat them out from the top of power. In 2014, Putin had every reason to invade Ukraine just as the United States invaded Grenada in 1983 - "an unconstitutional overthrow of the legitimate government, and the seizure of power by right-wing radicals, the threat of destabilization of the region." And I will explain why Putin did not attack in 2014 - it was possible to negotiate with Ukrainian President Poroshenko, he was bribed. President Poroshenko has a lot of business in Russia. And Poroshenko guaranteed Putin non-entry into NATO and the EU, although Ukraine's policy was pro-Western.
But in any case, the question is about NATO and the EU. Ukraine is a post-Soviet Slavic country, culturally and ethnically close to Russia. The post-Soviet space is a zone of life for Russia, from a cultural, economic and historical point of view, the post-Soviet space is a zone of influence of Russia. And the expansion of the Western World, both cultural and economic (EU) and military (NATO), is perceived by Russia as an existential threat. Again, America during the Cold War similarly did not allow communists to take power in the countries of South and Central America. The United States supported dictators in Latin America to prevent the Soviets from coming to power there. And when the USSR placed its nuclear missiles in Cuba, the United States raised a howl to the whole world and were ready to start a nuclear war. Russia also sees a threat in NATO and American nuclear missiles in Ukraine.
On the other hand, it is impossible not to admit that Russia has lost fair economic competition to the West, since there was a revolution in Ukraine, where the revolutionaries' goal was to overthrow pro-Russian President Yanukovych and join the European Union
1
-
1
-
The author is talking nonsense. First, GDP statistics show how many goods and services were sold in the country during the year. And the cost of goods sold is expressed in US dollars at the exchange rate in this particular country. In Russia, as in other countries of the world, there is a value added tax, the income from which goes to the budget, there are customs taxes, there are duties. And according to taxes, GDP is calculated in rubles, and then converted into dollars at the exchange rate. The exchange rate, in turn, depends on the ratio of exports to imports. At the moment, taking into account inflation, the dollar in Russia costs 80 rubles, 4% cheaper than before the war, and in the summer of 2022 there was a record low dollar exchange rate of 60 rubles per dollar.
1
-
1
-
1
-
In general, the most incomprehensible thing in this war is Putin's goals. Considering what price Russia is paying for the war in Ukraine, sanctions, etc., it becomes unclear - is it worth it? Putin is not crazy, is he? It seems to me that if we want to understand Russia's goals, we should still listen to what Putin said on February 24. Of course, he lied and exaggerated, but still the declaration of war speech contains the reasons for the war, albeit exaggerated in order to justify it. What if Putin is really right about something, or did he have no choice?
Putin said that Ukraine wanted to join NATO. So, what if Ukraine, having joined NATO, and having received guarantees of independence from Western countries that have nuclear weapons, could use these guarantees to return Donbass, and possibly Crimea to its composition? And Putin, knowing this, decided to strike a screwing blow, to forestall the enemy.
Judge for yourself - if Russia is hungry for expansion, then why was Georgia not completely captured in 2008? Why was peace concluded with Georgia after 5 days of fighting, although the defeat of the Russian army was not inflicted, but on the contrary - the Georgian army was defeated in Ossetia, and Russian troops on the fifth day of the war approached the outskirts of Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia, after which peace was concluded on the Georgian initiative. This means that expansion is not the goal of Russia. And if Putin wanted to seize Ukraine, he should have attacked in 2014 or 2015, when Ukraine simply did not have an army. And so it turns out that Putin gave Ukraine 8 years to prepare for war. This means that the decision to invade Ukraine was made spontaneously, and before that, in 2021, 2020, 2019 and other years, Putin did not plan an invasion of Ukraine. What could make Putin make a quick decision? Well, only my point of view is logical here, that Ukraine, using NATO's protection guarantees, wanted to seize Donbass, and that Putin simply had no choice whether to invade Ukraine or not, because if he had not invaded, Donbass would have been taken by Ukrainian troops, and Russia, risking a clash with NATO, would have been sitting on the sidelines. In general, it is worthwhile to understand in principle what has been happening for the last 8 years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Russians had invaded Ukraine without numerical superiority, while Ukraine is the largest land millitary in Europe after Russia. Ukraine have far more tanks, than Germany, Poland, Britain or France. If the quality of troops is equal, according to the law of millitary science attacking side is suffering more casualities.
The major 3 reasons, why Russian invasion had failed in first few weeks:
1) Joung Russian conscript soldiers aren't motivated to fight against brother Slavic people, a lot of Russians have relatives in Ukraine, probably some Russian soldiers have relarives in Ukraine (Millitary crimes probably were commited by soldiers of Asian and Islamic nationalities or by Russian police forces, not by Russian troops of Slavic nationality, I heard that Bucha massacre was commited by Chechen troops) . Russian soldiers are mentally and morally supressed, most of Russians don't want to fight this war, some Russians don't want to fight against brother Slavic people. Opposite - Ukrainians have moral boom, they are fighting for their homeland, and Ukrainians aren't seeing Russians as brothers anymore.
2) Russian command probably believed in its own propaganda, and commanders in Kremlin were thinking, that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days without resistance, and Russian troops would be met with flowers. And Russian command simply didn't prepared for a war - Russians didn't planned, that they would face the resistance, they thought that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days, like they took Crimea in 2014, and this is why Russians had poor logistics and preparation in first weeks of the war. Russians were invading Ukraine by moving in columns, very dangerous for ambushes.
But at now, after 3 months since the start of war, Russians probably have normal logistics and normal amount of material, at now, in the May of 2022, there is no evidences that Russians have problems with logistics, so at now this problem is irrelevant, but in the start of the war Russians really had problems with logistics and this played the role.
Russia have a population of 146 million people, while Ukraine have the population of 40 million. The life standarts, economy and corruption in Russia and Ukraine are in the same level, but Ukraine was fighting a Donbass war, and Ukrainians probably worked on corruption in their army, and also Ukrainian army was trained by Western specialists. Also, Ukrainians have modern Western anti-tank weapons and drones, but Russians also have such thing as air superiority and air-land and ballistic rockets. But aircrafts and rockets need aim. Also, Russia have superiority in amount of artillery. Russians have unteached radio crews and bad communication, but a lot of Ukrainian coscript regiments also have such problems. Conscripts, both Russian and Ukrainian, are unable to cipher frequency on their radio and they have awful quality of sound.
3) Also, the 3rd major reason of Russian failure is conscript system. Russia have very low salaries in army compared to life standarts in Russia, so Russian contract army is very unpopular in Russia, and no one wants to serve in it, except some poor provincial people, who didn't achieved anything in their life. So, Russia have the conscript army, where the 18-year old guys, that ended school yesterday, are serving for one year - in Russia one year military service means that you would be "trained" for 6 months, and later you would "serve" in military base for 6 months. You can't make the good soldier from 18 year old boy in 1 year. During Soviet times people were serving in army for 2 years, and Soviet government was working on health of boys in school period. Ukraine also have conscripts, but Ukrainian army is more contract, contract army means that adult 30-year old man are serving in the army volunturely. Who is better soldier - an 18 year old boy, that was serving for 1 year, or adult 30 years old man, that was serving in army for few years? Of course Russian untrained and joung conscripts completely useless against adult 30-years old Ukrainian contract soldiers, who were serving the army for years, while Russian contract soldiers are simply poor provincial people, who serve in army for low salary, and government isn't paying attention to them as to professional soldiers, but as to cheap cannon fodder. De facto the reason why salaries in the Russian army are so low is because Russian government use poor provincials as cheap cannon fodder. Russia don't have professional army, and Russian defense ministry knows about this. Some parts of Ukrainian army are also conscript and uncapable to fight. I chated with some Ukrainians, and saw video, that was made by Ukrainian soldiers - Ukrainian conscripts are also untrained and uncapable. But Ukraine have part of its army as contract soldiers, while Russia don't have normal contract troops.
After 3 weeks Russians had stopped their invasion, they retreated from Kyiv, Chernigiv and Sumy, and replaced their troops with target of reinforcing and forming the frontline in the Donbass region, they made a pause. Russians are dasapointed of their first plan, and they refused it. This means that Russians aren't targeting occupation of all Ukraine no more, Russians refused their goal to occupie all of Ukraine, and at now fighting would go only in the East and South of Ukraine. From the middle of April Russians were trying to capture East of Ukraine. Also, because war wasn't declared, and Putin didn't even call this a war, there is no mobilization in Russia. After 3 months from the start of war Russia still didn't started the mobilization. Probably Ukrainian side already have serious numerical superiority over the Russian side, and Russians are unable to capture more Ukrainian land without serious and bloody fighting. This is the reason why Russians had removed their forces from Kyiv. Russian assault on Donbass is going on with very low speed, and it is failed, because you can provide operation of encerclement of enemy troops only if this operation in going very fast. Russians lost their top 2 naval cruiser, fighting a country without a fleet.
I don't think that Ukraine would agree to peace. Putin made a mistake invading Ukraine, Russians don't have opportunity to achieve something withput mobilization and declaration of real war. In Russia at now people are afraid that Putin would announce massive mobilization, because this is the only way by which Russia could won, because Russian troops at now outnumbered in Ukraine. But this decision would also face problems - Ukraine started mobilization earlier, Ukrainian forces at now gaining experience of fighting, Ukrainians already have some experience of fighting. And if Putin would declare mobilization in Russia, very fast mobilized and untrained Russian conscripts would face Ukrainians soldiers, that already have combat experience. And this is problem. But Putin don't have choise, Ukraine wouldn't agree to a peace threaty. Also, because Russia didn't started mobilization and Russian troops are outnumbered, Russian army is suffering enormous casualities in tanks and vehicles, because tanks and vehicles are dependent on infantry suppourt and covering fire, and Ukrainians, having numerical superiority, ambush tactics and modern Western anti-tank weapons, are able to cause huge casualities to Russian vehicles. Russia have artillery and air superiority, so Russia is capable to cause casualities and damage to Ukrainian forces and infrastructure. So, without mobilization Putin is teaching Ukrainian army and disarming Russian forces, but in Russia even Putin suppourters wouldn't suppourt the mobilization. Putin really don't have normal exits from this situation, Ukraine became complete trap.
I think that casuality ratio between Russia and Ukraine is ~1.5 to 1 in favour of Ukraine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In general, the most incomprehensible thing in this war is Putin's goals. Considering what price Russia is paying for the war in Ukraine, sanctions, etc., it becomes unclear - is it worth it? Putin is not crazy, is he? It seems to me that if we want to understand Russia's goals, we should still listen to what Putin said on February 24. Of course, he lied and exaggerated, but still the declaration of war speech contains the reasons for the war, albeit exaggerated in order to justify it. What if Putin is really right about something, or did he have no choice?
Putin said that Ukraine wanted to join NATO. So, what if Ukraine, having joined NATO, and having received guarantees of independence from Western countries that have nuclear weapons, could use these guarantees to return Donbass, and possibly Crimea to its composition? And Putin, knowing this, decided to strike a screwing blow, to forestall the enemy.
Judge for yourself - if Russia is hungry for expansion, then why was Georgia not completely captured in 2008? Why was peace concluded with Georgia after 5 days of fighting, although the defeat of the Russian army was not inflicted, but on the contrary - the Georgian army was defeated in Ossetia, and Russian troops on the fifth day of the war approached the outskirts of Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia, after which peace was concluded on the Georgian initiative. This means that expansion is not the goal of Russia. And if Putin wanted to seize Ukraine, he should have attacked in 2014 or 2015, when Ukraine simply did not have an army. And so it turns out that Putin gave Ukraine 8 years to prepare for war. This means that the decision to invade Ukraine was made spontaneously, and before that, in 2021, 2020, 2019 and other years, Putin did not plan an invasion of Ukraine. What could make Putin make a quick decision? Well, only my point of view is logical here, that Ukraine, using NATO's protection guarantees, wanted to seize Donbass, and that Putin simply had no choice whether to invade Ukraine or not, because if he had not invaded, Donbass would have been taken by Ukrainian troops, and Russia, risking a clash with NATO, would have been sitting on the sidelines. In general, it is worthwhile to understand in principle what has been happening for the last 8 years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bertnl530 Well, first of all, you are mistaken if you think that at least some army is deliberately shooting at civilians. The problem is that enemy troops occupy positions in residential buildings, and civilians cannot always be evacuated. Enemy troops have no choice - their task is to defend the city in defensive positions. They cannot but occupy positions in residential development. During the five months of the special operation, more civilians were killed by Russian artillery fire than in the previous 8 years by Ukrainian artillery fire. Secondly, Ukraine is also firing at settlements that are occupied by Russians. For example, in Izyum, 70% of the destruction was inflicted by Ukrainian troops, including with the use of cluster munitions. Russia has not used cluster munitions against civilians. The only case was at Azovstal in Mariupol, where the Azov regiment was sitting with hostages at the factory. I don't know what kind of intellect these people possessed, who thought that it would be safer for civilians together with the military.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ArkBlanc Crimea historically never belonged to Ukraine - after the Russo-Turkish war in the 18th century, it was Russian, and the Crimea was mostly populated by Russians, there were much fewer Ukrainians. Since 1917, Crimea was in the Russian Soviet Republic, but in 1954 it was transferred to the Ukrainian Soviet Republic. In Soviet times, no one could even think that this country would ever cease to exist. After the collapse of the USSR in the Crimea, in which about 70% of the population are Russians, there was separatism and protests. In 2014, an illegal coup took place in Ukraine, as a result of which the pro-Russian president was overthrown, and anti-Russian and pro-Western forces came to power. Then Russia took the Crimea, which makes the majority of residents happy
1
-
1
-
1
-
@prod_krisztian Russia interfered in Ukraine's own's matters since early 2000s? Really? What weed are you smoking? In 2014 Victoria Nuland, head of USA State Department came to Kiev to give cookies to the protesters. American special services and CIA interfered in Ukrainian own matters, supporting ILLEGAL, ANTI CONSTITUTIONAL COUP in Kiev. You are talking about Russian interference into Ukraine's matters, while in reality it was USA who organized coup and change of power in the entire Ukraine. Russia interfered into own matters of Ukraine only after America alteady did this, and Russia in fact interfered in NOT Ukrainian territories of Ukraine - in Crimea, Donbass, Zaporojie and Kherson. This is not Ukrainian lands, this is Russian lands with Russian people living on it, that were given to Ukraine by Russophopic Jewich Soviet government as a result of i justice and mistake. This territories never belonged to Ukraine, majority of population of this territories are Russians, not Ukrainians, and they were given to Ukraine in 1918 and 1954, and in 2014 Russian people protested and wanted to separate from Ukraine. They had all rights to do it because if Ukrainian people in Kiev had a right of self determination, then Russian people in the Crimea and Donbass also had the same right of self determination. If Ukrainian people in Kiev protested and organized an illegal anti constitutional coup with help of CIA, then why the Russian people in Crimea and Donbass didn't had the same right of self determination? This is hypocrisy and double standards. Ukrainians in Kiev organised a COUP and ILLEGAL change of power in the entire country, while not all people were agree with this coup and Russians from Crimea and South East Ukraine wanted to be with Russia, not West. Russians in Crimea and Donbass had the same right of self determination as Ukrainians in Kiev, but what Ukrainians did? Ukrainian army and nazi batallions came to kill Russian people in the Donbass. It is not Russian interference into Ukraine, it is American and NATO interference organizing coup in Ukraine, and later Ukrainian and NATO interference into Russian lands of Crimea, Donbass, Kherson and Zaporojie which are Russian lands that should never belong to Ukraine.
1
-
1
-
Apparently Putin overestimated his army, underestimated the enemy, and judging by his words from the appeals of February 24, Putin called on Ukrainian soldiers to "surrender or take power into their own hands," apparently Putin thought that the Ukrainian population was dissatisfied with their government, and that Russian soldiers would be greeted with flowers. And apparently we haven't actually prepared for the war. At the beginning of the war, there were cases when unarmed police units of the Russian Guard attacked first and were defeated by Ukrainian troops. Already at the beginning of March, the Russian army had troubles with supplies. The size of the invasion force is too low for the tasks set. And apparently Putin's calculation was that there would be no war, Ukrainian soldiers would surrender without a fight, and all of Ukraine would be taken in 3 days like Crimea, without a fight. All sorts of propagandists and pro-Kremlin analysts said about it. And Putin apparently thought that a quick, lightning-fast seizure of Ukraine would not provoke Finland and Sweden to join NATO, besides, they would be afraid of the fate of Ukraine, and such serious sanctions against Russia would not be imposed. Apparently Putin's plan is just the stupidest geopolitical adventure, probably the most adventurous adventure in history, he just put absolutely everything on the line. Even the gold and foreign exchange reserves were not withdrawn from foreign accounts and they were frozen. Putin just put everything on the line and lost it. That's the kind of strategist he makes.
Putin thought that if he could quickly seize Ukraine, Finland and Sweden would not join NATO, and serious sanctions would not be imposed against Russia. But the reality is that Ukraine has become a trap and the Russian army is bogged down, and Russia will now lose half of the economy, and the very goals of the operation - the non-expansion of NATO, are crossed out by Finland and Sweden.
In short, Putin is a misunderstood genius, no one could predict his actions, because he always acts to his own detriment and creates absurdity
1
-
1
-
1
-
First of all, America is also guilty of genocides and murders. In America, there was the extermination of Indians and slavery. Babies are still being born in Vietnam with congenital mutations due to American chemical weapons. Secondly, Russia itself rejected the communist regime and admitted its mistakes. Khrushchev exposed Stalin and released political prisoners, in the 70s and 80s, democratization took place in Soviet society. And in 1991, the USSR was dissolved. Russia in the 90s was in very friendly relations with the West, Yeltsin was a pro-Western and democratic leader. Thanks to NATO's expansion to Russia's borders, Russia is forced to attack its neighbors in order to protect itself, which leads to a closed cycle. After all, everything was fine before NATO expansion. And Russia actually has good relations with Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan. And if Russia is striving for expansion, then why was Georgia not completely captured by the Russians in 2008? This means that expansion is not Russia's goal.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Russians had invaded Ukraine without numerical superiority, while Ukraine is the largest land millitary in Europe after Russia. Ukraine have far more tanks, than Germany, Poland, Britain or France. If the quality of troops is equal, according to the law of millitary science attacking side is suffering more casualities.
The major 3 reasons, why Russian invasion had failed in first few weeks:
1) Joung Russian conscript soldiers aren't motivated to fight against brother Slavic people, a lot of Russians have relatives in Ukraine, probably some Russian soldiers have relarives in Ukraine (Millitary crimes probably were commited by soldiers of Asian and Islamic nationalities or by Russian police forces, not by Russian troops of Slavic nationality, I heard that Bucha massacre was commited by Chechen troops) . Russian soldiers are mentally and morally supressed, most of Russians don't want to fight this war, some Russians don't want to fight against brother Slavic people. Opposite - Ukrainians have moral boom, they are fighting for their homeland, and Ukrainians aren't seeing Russians as brothers anymore.
2) Russian command probably believed in its own propaganda, and commanders in Kremlin were thinking, that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days without resistance, and Russian troops would be met with flowers. And Russian command simply didn't prepared for a war - Russians didn't planned, that they would face the resistance, they thought that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days, like they took Crimea in 2014, and this is why Russians had poor logistics and preparation in first weeks of the war. Russians were invading Ukraine by moving in columns, very dangerous for ambushes.
But at now, after 3 months since the start of war, Russians probably have normal logistics and normal amount of material, at now, in the May of 2022, there is no evidences that Russians have problems with logistics, so at now this problem is irrelevant, but in the start of the war Russians really had problems with logistics and this played the role.
Russia have a population of 146 million people, while Ukraine have the population of 40 million. The life standarts, economy and corruption in Russia and Ukraine are in the same level, but Ukraine was fighting a Donbass war, and Ukrainians probably worked on corruption in their army, and also Ukrainian army was trained by Western specialists. Also, Ukrainians have modern Western anti-tank weapons and drones, but Russians also have such thing as air superiority and air-land and ballistic rockets. But aircrafts and rockets need aim. Also, Russia have superiority in amount of artillery. Russians have unteached radio crews and bad communication, but a lot of Ukrainian coscript regiments also have such problems. Conscripts, both Russian and Ukrainian, are unable to cipher frequency on their radio and they have awful quality of sound.
3) Also, the 3rd major reason of Russian failure is conscript system. Russia have very low salaries in army compared to life standarts in Russia, so Russian contract army is very unpopular in Russia, and no one wants to serve in it, except some poor provincial people, who didn't achieved anything in their life. So, Russia have the conscript army, where the 18-year old guys, that ended school yesterday, are serving for one year - in Russia one year military service means that you would be "trained" for 6 months, and later you would "serve" in military base for 6 months. You can't make the good soldier from 18 year old boy in 1 year. During Soviet times people were serving in army for 2 years, and Soviet government was working on health of boys in school period. Ukraine also have conscripts, but Ukrainian army is more contract, contract army means that adult 30-year old man are serving in the army volunturely. Who is better soldier - an 18 year old boy, that was serving for 1 year, or adult 30 years old man, that was serving in army for few years? Of course Russian untrained and joung conscripts completely useless against adult 30-years old Ukrainian contract soldiers, who were serving the army for years, while Russian contract soldiers are simply poor provincial people, who serve in army for low salary, and government isn't paying attention to them as to professional soldiers, but as to cheap cannon fodder. De facto the reason why salaries in the Russian army are so low is because Russian government use poor provincials as cheap cannon fodder. Russia don't have professional army, and Russian defense ministry knows about this. Some parts of Ukrainian army are also conscript and uncapable to fight. I chated with some Ukrainians, and saw video, that was made by Ukrainian soldiers - Ukrainian conscripts are also untrained and uncapable. But Ukraine have part of its army as contract soldiers, while Russia don't have normal contract troops.
After 3 weeks Russians had stopped their invasion, they retreated from Kyiv, Chernigiv and Sumy, and replaced their troops with target of reinforcing and forming the frontline in the Donbass region, they made a pause. Russians are dasapointed of their first plan, and they refused it. This means that Russians aren't targeting occupation of all Ukraine no more, Russians refused their goal to occupie all of Ukraine, and at now fighting would go only in the East and South of Ukraine. From the middle of April Russians were trying to capture East of Ukraine. Also, because war wasn't declared, and Putin didn't even call this a war, there is no mobilization in Russia. After 3 months from the start of war Russia still didn't started the mobilization. Probably Ukrainian side already have serious numerical superiority over the Russian side, and Russians are unable to capture more Ukrainian land without serious and bloody fighting. This is the reason why Russians had removed their forces from Kyiv. Russian assault on Donbass is going on with very low speed, and it is failed, because you can provide operation of encerclement of enemy troops only if this operation in going very fast. Russians lost their top 2 naval cruiser, fighting a country without a fleet.
I don't think that Ukraine would agree to peace. Putin made a mistake invading Ukraine, Russians don't have opportunity to achieve something withput mobilization and declaration of real war. In Russia at now people are afraid that Putin would announce massive mobilization, because this is the only way by which Russia could won, because Russian troops at now outnumbered in Ukraine. But this decision would also face problems - Ukraine started mobilization earlier, Ukrainian forces at now gaining experience of fighting, Ukrainians already have some experience of fighting. And if Putin would declare mobilization in Russia, very fast mobilized and untrained Russian conscripts would face Ukrainians soldiers, that already have combat experience. And this is problem. But Putin don't have choise, Ukraine wouldn't agree to a peace threaty. Also, because Russia didn't started mobilization and Russian troops are outnumbered, Russian army is suffering enormous casualities in tanks and vehicles, because tanks and vehicles are dependent on infantry suppourt and covering fire, and Ukrainians, having numerical superiority, ambush tactics and modern Western anti-tank weapons, are able to cause huge casualities to Russian vehicles. Someone would say, that Russia have artillery and air superiority, so Russia is capable to cause casualities and damage to Ukrainian forces and infrastructure. But reality shows to us that Russian missiles and artillery are simply blind and uncapable to reach the target. So, without mobilization Putin is teaching Ukrainian army and disarming Russian forces, but in Russia even Putin suppourters wouldn't suppourt the mobilization. Putin really don't have normal exits from this situation, Ukraine became complete trap.
I think that casuality ratio between Russia and Ukraine is ~1.5-2 to 1 in favour of Ukraine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Russians had invaded Ukraine without numerical superiority, while Ukraine is the largest land millitary in Europe after Russia. Ukraine have far more tanks, than Germany, Poland, Britain or France. If the quality of troops is equal, according to the law of millitary science attacking side is suffering more casualities.
The major 3 reasons, why Russian invasion had failed in first few weeks:
1) Joung Russian conscript soldiers aren't motivated to fight against brother Slavic people, a lot of Russians have relatives in Ukraine, probably some Russian soldiers have relarives in Ukraine (Millitary crimes probably were commited by soldiers of Asian and Islamic nationalities or by Russian police forces, not by Russian troops of Slavic nationality, I heard that Bucha massacre was commited by Chechen troops) . Russian soldiers are mentally and morally supressed, most of Russians don't want to fight this war, some Russians don't want to fight against brother Slavic people. Opposite - Ukrainians have moral boom, they are fighting for their homeland, and Ukrainians aren't seeing Russians as brothers anymore.
2) Russian command probably believed in its own propaganda, and commanders in Kremlin were thinking, that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days without resistance, and Russian troops would be met with flowers. And Russian command simply didn't prepared for a war - Russians didn't planned, that they would face the resistance, they thought that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days, like they took Crimea in 2014, and this is why Russians had poor logistics and preparation in first weeks of the war. Russians were invading Ukraine by moving in columns, very dangerous for ambushes.
But at now, after 3 months since the start of war, Russians probably have normal logistics and normal amount of material, at now, in the May of 2022, there is no evidences that Russians have problems with logistics, so at now this problem is irrelevant, but in the start of the war Russians really had problems with logistics and this played the role.
Russia have a population of 146 million people, while Ukraine have the population of 40 million. The life standarts, economy and corruption in Russia and Ukraine are in the same level, but Ukraine was fighting a Donbass war, and Ukrainians probably worked on corruption in their army, and also Ukrainian army was trained by Western specialists. Also, Ukrainians have modern Western anti-tank weapons and drones, but Russians also have such thing as air superiority and air-land and ballistic rockets. But aircrafts and rockets need aim. Also, Russia have superiority in amount of artillery. Russians have unteached radio crews and bad communication, but a lot of Ukrainian coscript regiments also have such problems. Conscripts, both Russian and Ukrainian, are unable to cipher frequency on their radio and they have awful quality of sound.
3) Also, the 3rd major reason of Russian failure is conscript system. Russia have very low salaries in army compared to life standarts in Russia, so Russian contract army is very unpopular in Russia, and no one wants to serve in it, except some poor provincial people, who didn't achieved anything in their life. So, Russia have the conscript army, where the 18-year old guys, that ended school yesterday, are serving for one year - in Russia one year military service means that you would be "trained" for 6 months, and later you would "serve" in military base for 6 months. You can't make the good soldier from 18 year old boy in 1 year. During Soviet times people were serving in army for 2 years, and Soviet government was working on health of boys in school period. Ukraine also have conscripts, but Ukrainian army is more contract, contract army means that adult 30-year old man are serving in the army volunturely. Who is better soldier - an 18 year old boy, that was serving for 1 year, or adult 30 years old man, that was serving in army for few years? Of course Russian untrained and joung conscripts completely useless against adult 30-years old Ukrainian contract soldiers, who were serving the army for years, while Russian contract soldiers are simply poor provincial people, who serve in army for low salary, and government isn't paying attention to them as to professional soldiers, but as to cheap cannon fodder. De facto the reason why salaries in the Russian army are so low is because Russian government use poor provincials as cheap cannon fodder. Russia don't have professional army, and Russian defense ministry knows about this. Some parts of Ukrainian army are also conscript and uncapable to fight. I chated with some Ukrainians, and saw video, that was made by Ukrainian soldiers - Ukrainian conscripts are also untrained and uncapable. But Ukraine have part of its army as contract soldiers, while Russia don't have normal contract troops.
After 3 weeks Russians had stopped their invasion, they retreated from Kyiv, Chernigiv and Sumy, and replaced their troops with target of reinforcing and forming the frontline in the Donbass region, they made a pause. Russians are dasapointed of their first plan, and they refused it. This means that Russians aren't targeting occupation of all Ukraine no more, Russians refused their goal to occupie all of Ukraine, and at now fighting would go only in the East and South of Ukraine. From the middle of April Russians were trying to capture East of Ukraine. Also, because war wasn't declared, and Putin didn't even call this a war, there is no mobilization in Russia. After 3 months from the start of war Russia still didn't started the mobilization. Probably Ukrainian side already have serious numerical superiority over the Russian side, and Russians are unable to capture more Ukrainian land without serious and bloody fighting. This is the reason why Russians had removed their forces from Kyiv. Russian assault on Donbass is going on with very low speed, and it is failed, because you can provide operation of encerclement of enemy troops only if this operation in going very fast. Russians lost their top 2 naval cruiser, fighting a country without a fleet.
I don't think that Ukraine would agree to peace. Putin made a mistake invading Ukraine, Russians don't have opportunity to achieve something withput mobilization and declaration of real war. In Russia at now people are afraid that Putin would announce massive mobilization, because this is the only way by which Russia could won, because Russian troops at now outnumbered in Ukraine. But this decision would also face problems - Ukraine started mobilization earlier, Ukrainian forces at now gaining experience of fighting, Ukrainians already have some experience of fighting. And if Putin would declare mobilization in Russia, very fast mobilized and untrained Russian conscripts would face Ukrainians soldiers, that already have combat experience. And this is problem. But Putin don't have choise, Ukraine wouldn't agree to a peace threaty. Also, because Russia didn't started mobilization and Russian troops are outnumbered, Russian army is suffering enormous casualities in tanks and vehicles, because tanks and vehicles are dependent on infantry suppourt and covering fire, and Ukrainians, having numerical superiority, ambush tactics and modern Western anti-tank weapons, are able to cause huge casualities to Russian vehicles. Russia have artillery and air superiority, so Russia is capable to cause casualities and damage to Ukrainian forces and infrastructure. So, without mobilization Putin is teaching Ukrainian army and disarming Russian forces, but in Russia even Putin suppourters wouldn't suppourt the mobilization. Putin really don't have normal exits from this situation, Ukraine became complete trap.
I think that casuality ratio between Russia and Ukraine is ~1.5 to 1 in favour of Ukraine.
1
-
1
-
1