Ukraine war mega thread

[Shutree]

I don't see any confirmation of a strike on Taganrog air base. I did see a report taken down by Ukraine and another showing that the photo in the top right of your report being the explosions at Novofedorovka. I would also be surprised if HIMARS was used since Ukraine has agreed not to use the system against Russian territory and they don't want to risk a loss of arms supply from the west.

I'm not saying it didn't happen, only that you should wait for official confirmation or you'll be doing an OhOh.

The original report appeared credible, although a stretch because Taganrog is about 40 to 50km inside Russia, so far from Ukranian positions. There was a YouTube video that is no longer available and a couple of the early reports have vanished. Probably Taganrog was not hit.
That said, the attack on the air base in Crimea wasn't fully explained and the news went quiet there. The Ukranians have been doing a fairly good job of managing the flow of information into the general media.

[bsnub]

Probably Taganrog was not hit.

Maybe not, but how do you account for the explosions that were reported there?

Residents of several towns in Rostov region report powerful explosion

https://meduza.io/en/news/2022/09/12...rful-explosion

Something happened there.

[bsnub]

KHERSON/1215 UTC 18 SEP/ The reported crossing of the Inhulets near Mala Seidemynukha would be an important advance. If expanded, this bridgehead would exert extreme tactical pressure on the RU positions at Snihurivka. UKR Air Defense, CAS and SEAD missions take toll on Russia.

[misskit]

Russia Accused of Abandoning Injured Troops as Putin Heads Toward Total ‘Failure’

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has been a mammoth failure that has only bolstered the country’s adversaries, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, professional head of the British armed forces, said in an interview with the BBC on Sunday.


“Putin is failing on all of his military strategic objectives. He wanted to subjugate Ukraine. That’s not going to happen…He wanted to break the international resolve. Well, actually, that’s strengthened over this period,” he said.

Radakin further declared that pressure on the Russian president is intensifying. “His problems are mounting,” he said. “He hasn’t got sufficient manpower. His forces are thin on the ground.”


The statements come during a brutal month for the Russian military, after Ukrainian forces recaptured more than 3,000 square miles of land in the country’s northeast.


Low morale continues to plague Russia’s troops, and Ukraine claims that multiple Russian units have been “trying to negotiate with the Ukrainians on surrender and transfer under the auspices of international law.“


Ukrainian intelligence further claimed on Sunday that some Russian military hospitals have refused to treat so-called “volunteers” who have been fighting on Russia’s behalf, since they do not have regular armed forces classification. Other volunteer fighters were “left behind... without any support or help,” as Russian forces retreated from occupied territories, according to Ukrainian intelligence.

The war continues to exact a heavy toll. As The Guardian reported Sunday, the governor of the Kharkiv region, Oleh Syniehubov, said that four medics were killed by Russian shelling during the evacuation of a psychiatric hospital; two patients were also reportedly wounded.


Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s office said on Friday that it is continuing to collect evidence of alleged war crimes committed by Russian forces, including “torture chambers where civilians of occupied cities and towns were abused.”


The administration noted that officials are continuing to exhume bodies at a “mass burial site” near Izium, where over 400 graves have already been discovered.


The Kremlin and Russian state media have continued to stand by the war effort, though cracks have started to show, as even loyal propagandists have begun publicly conveying their frustrations.


A number of Putin’s allies, meanwhile, have recently died under bizarre circumstances, including a newspaper editor who abruptly died of “suffocation” and another who allegedly fell from a boat.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/russia...raine?ref=home

[Joe 90]

The winter will kill off the Russians.

Echoes of Stalingrad, only the Ruskies are the fascists this time and Putin is Hitler.

[misskit]

Russian pop star's war criticism stirs vigorous debate

A Russian mega-pop star’s criticism of President Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine has set off intense reactions on social media, posing a critical question: Will the iconic singer’s disapproving Instagram post mark a turning point in Russian public opinion?


At the risk of being branded a traitor, Alla Pugacheva used her famous voice over the weekend to question the seven-month war, becoming the most prominent Russian celebrity to do so. Pugacheva’s post described the homeland that gave her its highest civilian honors as “a pariah” and said Russian soldiers were dying for “illusory goals.”


It was a watershed moment, one that knocked a hole in the Kremlin’s vigorously defended narrative about the reasons and goals of its Feb. 24 invasion of neighboring Ukraine, threatening to undo months of carefully crafted war propaganda.

The singer, who has been arguably Russia’s most popular performer for decades, shared her thoughts as Putin faces mounting pressure both militarily - Ukrainian forces are recapturing strategic areas from Russian troops - and diplomatically, with even key allies voicing concerns over the global fallout from the war.


At age 73, Pugacheva is as widely admired as when she burst onto Russia’s pop scene nearly a half-century ago. Older Russians who grew up listening to her music form Putin’s core base, remaining largely silent about the war.


The turning point for the singer apparently was the Russian Justice Ministry’s designation of Pugacheva’s husband, comedian and TV presenter Maxim Galkin, as a foreign agent Saturday for allegedly conducting political activities on behalf of Ukraine and receiving Ukrainian funding. Galkin had previously criticized the war.


In an Instagram post Sunday, Pugacheva told her 3.5 million followers and others who saw her comments elsewhere that she also wanted to be added to Russia’s foreign agents’ register, in solidarity with her husband, whom she called a “true and incorruptible patriot” who wants “the end of the deaths of our boys for illusory goals that make our country a pariah and weigh heavily on the lives of its citizens.”


While Russian public figures such as politicians, singers, actors and writers have spoken out against Russia's invasion of Ukraine despite the Kremlin’s attempt to stifle dissent, Pugacheva is the biggest name so far to do so.


Her Instagram post was a major snub of a Kremlin and its predecessors that named Pugacheva as a People’s Artist of the USSR, awarded her the State Prize of the Russian Federation and decorated her as a Chevalier of the Order “for merit to the fatherland.” She was regularly featured and feted on state-run TV, for several generations of audiences, especially for nostalgic fans.


The Kremlin's chief spokesman declined to comment Monday but Meduza, a Latvia-based Russian-language news site that Russia also has declared a foreign agent, published a roundup of reactions that included at least one official voice.


The deputy chairman of Russia’s State Duma, Pyotr Tolstoy, said Pugacheva “has lost touch with reality so much and is in solidarity with those who today wish Russia’s defeat.”


“She will no longer find support among decent Russian people,” predicted Tolstoy, a close Putin ally. He added, “We will win without her songs.”


Valery Fadeyev, the head of the Russian president’s Human Rights Council, accused Pugacheva of insincerely citing humanitarian concerns to justify her criticism of the nearly 7-month-old conflict. He predicted that popular artists like her would enjoy less public influence after the war.


“New faces - soldiers, doctors, military correspondents, volunteers - will be our elite,” Fadeyev wrote.


Veteran Russian opposition activist Lev Shlosberg said the scale of the responses shows that Pugacheva’s comments touched a nerve in Russian society.


“The reaction of sympathy and direct support shows in which direction public opinion will move,” Meduza quoted him as saying.


Veronika Belotserkovskaya, a Russian-language cookbook author and popular blogger who lives in France and has also questioned the war, thinks the singer’s criticism wasn’t meant for the masses but instead was “written for power.”


“This is a public slap in the face. ... Everyone heard her. She speaks their language, destroying their narrative,” she said.


Political analyst Stanislav Belkovsky, director of Moscow-based think tank National Strategy Institute, went so far as to proclaim Pugacheva “the de facto leader of the antiwar part of Russian society.”


It’s not clear what legal repercussions Pugacheva might face. Putin on March 4 signed legislation allowing for jail terms of up to 15 years for posting allegedly false information about the military.


If the Russian government grants her wish to declare her a foreign agent, the singer would have to include the label prominently on her social media content and be subject to other financial and bureaucratic requirements.

Russian pop star's war criticism stirs vigorous debate | Taiwan News | 2022-09-20 06:48:37

[pickel]

Even the propagandists are changing their narrative.

[mackayae]

Liberate! They're still living in a delusional world.

[misskit]

Russia Moves “Old” St. Petersburg Missiles to Ukraine Front

Satellite images show that Russia’s military moved old anti-aircraft missiles to Ukraine as it faced a shortage of advanced weapons this summer, inflicting heavy damage on civilians as a result, Finland’s Yle broadcaster reported Sunday.


At least four out of 14 anti-aircraft missile bases surrounding St. Petersburg were “emptied of equipment” in August and September, Finnish military expert Marko Eklund was quoted as saying.


"It is most likely that the equipment that has been removed is primarily from the old S-300 system," Eklund, who has monitored the Russian armed forces for over 20 years, added.


The remaining missiles that protect the airspace over Russia’s second-largest city near the Finnish border appear to be S-400 systems, which have twice the range of their Soviet-era predecessors, the S-300.


Russia has likely moved some of its oldest equipment toward the Ukrainian battlefield and thus has not significantly weakened St. Petersburg’s air defenses, Eklund said.

Yle estimates the 14 batteries placed in a circle around St. Petersburg include more than 100 mobile firing platforms equipped with at least 450 missiles.


The latest transfer follows similar movements closer to Ukraine in southern Russia’s Voronezh region, where Yle reports half of its missile fleet had “vanished” by May, three months after Moscow launched an unprovoked invasion of its neighbor.


Russia has so far fired more than 500 S-300 missiles on Ukrainian targets and has three years’ worth of missiles remaining, or 7,000 items in total, Ukraine’s defense ministry intelligence chief said earlier this month.


S-300s are not originally intended for ground targets and their use is likely explained by the Russian military’s shortage of conventional ballistic missiles, according to Yle.


“These old missiles are used for ground targets in such a way that the greatest damage seems to be done to civilians,” it quoted Eklund as saying.

The Unbearable Lightness of Western Pundits - The Moscow Times

[misskit]

^ Don’t know why that link showed up there. It is an interesting item also, SABANG.


There is no worse mistake for pundits than making the wrong predictions during a war.

Russia’s barbaric war has evoked global condemnation, and now Ukraine is getting the help it needs. But at first, some leading Western pundits described Ukraine as a failed state and a sort of tactical nuisance that was meddling in the business of the real players.


Failed state and not Russia?


For some reason, the war in Ukraine merged the Right and the Left of the Western political spectrum in weird combinations. On the Right, people such as Niall Ferguson believe that post-Soviet Russia is a successful country that uses its natural resources and military strength to bring law and order to a dangerous world. Some of these people think that contemporary Russia, a source of economic chaos and nuclear threats, restrains the Antichrist from bringing the world to an end.


On the Left, people such as Noam Chomsky believe that the Soviet Union was good in everything that matters, for example in its anti-Americanism. More surprisingly, some of these people still think that contemporary Russia, which tops the worldwide tables of inequality, is the embodiment of their lost paradise.


On the day of invasion, Christian Lindner, the powerful German finance minister, told the Ukrainian ambassador that Kyiv would fall the next day. The ambassador, Andrij Melnyk, tried to argue and then wept. Two months later, Lindner swore that Germany would never stop supporting Ukraine. On the other side of the Atlantic, Katrina vanden Huevel, the influential publisher of the Nation magazine, wrote a week before the invasion: “Ukraine is the closest thing Europe has to a failed state.” She (wrongly) named three American presidents who all refused to provide military support to Ukraine because the country “was not worth being defended.” Finally, she suggested “a deal that guarantees Ukraine’s sovereignty and independence in exchange for guaranteeing its neutrality.” But of course, Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons and acquired its sovereignty and independence thirty years earlier — all guaranteed by the U.S., Russia, and other countries.


In his well-informed 2021 book, “Klimat: Russia in the Age of Climate Change,” Georgetown University professor Thane Gustafson concluded that the impact of energy transition on Russia would happen in two phases. In the 2020s, global energy demand would remain strong and so would be Russian exports. In the early 2030s, revenues from oil, gas and coal would decline sharply. By 2050, Russia’s total export would be down by half. This would be a bleak picture, wrote Gustafson, “a major turning point for Russia.” What Gustafson predicted for 2050, occurred in 2022, although in a different version. The causality was also very different than what he predicted. Wars and revolutions accelerate the flow of history.


The road to Poltava


Predictions differ from explanations and prophets from scholars. But war is fast, and predictions come true – or not – quickly enough for people to remember them and judge their authors. In January 2022, historian Niall Ferguson compared Putin to Peter the Great, the founder of the Russian Empire. Like Peter, Putin would win his own battle of Poltava, Ferguson wrote. Russia’s imperial history, he speculated, “inspires today’s Tsar Vladimir, much more than the dark chapters of Stalin’s reign of terror.” Indeed, a couple of months later, in the midst of his war, Putin publicly compared himself to Peter the Great.


Ferguson understood Putin but failed to understand his war. Denying Russia’s economic and demographic problems and believing in an easy victory, Ferguson stated that Ukraine would “receive no significant military support from the West.” Putin would win his war, and Ferguson would win his punchline: “Do not be surprised if [Putin’s] victory parade takes place in Poltava,” he wrote just before the war started.


But Ferguson’s mood changed quickly. “What makes history so hard to predict,” he wrote in early March, “is that most disasters come out of left field.” Left or right, this is the question; but the historian reaffirms his license to predict: “The language people speak in the corridors of power… is not economics or politics. It is history.” Thus, Ferguson predicted that Mariupol would fall in a few days; Biden’s administration would not support Ukraine; and since most Russian leaders died of natural causes, so would Putin. We know that at least some of his predictions did not come true.


The rule of nemesis


In June 2022, John Mearsheimer stated that the reason for Putin’s war was the threat of NATO: if Ukraine joined, Russia would suffer “existentially,” and this justified Russia’s aggression. These claims of the apologist of political realism have been refuted by real politics in a month. Finland and Sweden have joined NATO because of Putin’s war. With their accession, NATO is much closer to Russia’s vital centers than it would have been if Ukraine ever succeeded with its application to join NATO. This chain of events is a great example of political nemesis: Putin was so afraid of NATO that he brought it right to the gates of his hometown of St. Petersburg. Moreover, exhausted by his war in Ukraine, Putin accepted NATO expansion with no fuss.


The same tale of nemesis unfolded with the gas pipelines. Putin wanted his gas to bypass Ukraine so much that he built two hugely expensive pipelines under the Baltic Sea. One of them was completed but did not start working because of the war, and another is barely functioning. In the meantime, Russian gas keeps flowing through Ukraine.


Whatever these false prophets told us, Ukrainians have been valiant on the battlefield and artful in diplomacy. Blending his political and theatrical skills, President Zelensky has produced a daily show in his capital, where he was able to grant popularity to some Western leaders or refuse hospitality to others. From a nonplace that required the article "the" as if it had no proper name, Ukraine has turned into the political center of the world.


The future is like Rorschach inkblots: people respond to uncertainty by projecting their desires. Neither pundits nor prophets know the future; but those who predict it, reveal themselves. There is no worse mistake for pundits than making the wrong predictions during a war. We learn their desires, and they are laughable.

Russia Moves ‘Old’ St. Petersburg Missiles to Ukraine Front – Reports - The Moscow Times

[bsnub]

IZIUM /2345 UTC 19 SEP/ RU contact reports corroborate earlier info that UKR has established & exploited crossings of the Donets & Oskil Rivers. Geolocated photographs confirm that UKR has liberated the important junction town of Yarova; this gain exposes RU positions in Lyman.

[Hugh Cow]

Looks like the Oskil river has now been crossed and th UAF control both banks. A nice T90 tank added to the Ukraine army. I hope they thanked the Russian Army for the donation. Looks like many ethnic Russians are fleeing to Russia.

[bsnub]

Looks like the Oskil river has now been crossed and th UAF control both banks.

They have and it is confirmed via multiple sources. The fight is now for Kremmena and if the UA take that then the Russians will be cut off in Lyman.

[baldrick]

the 14 batteries placed in a circle around St. Petersburg include more than 100 mobile firing platforms equipped with at least 450 missiles.

what other countries have rings of anti aircraft batteries around their cities ?

[bsnub]

[bsnub]

Until a few weeks ago, it looked as though the conflict in Ukraine would head into the bitter winter months frozen in place -- with neither side making appreciable progress. That prognosis has changed with the sudden and successful Ukrainian offensive through most of occupied Kharkiv, which has galvanized Ukraine's Western backers as much as it has led to recriminations in Moscow.

The Russian military must now ask itself what sort of force, and where exactly they are deployed, can regain the initiative after Ukraine captured more territory in one week than Russian forces had in five months.

There are important political dynamics involved too. The Kremlin faces tough choices: whether to declare a general mobilization to reinvigorate its increasingly ragged units in Ukraine and how to manage a budget deficit -- even though it's sitting on historically high foreign reserves.

Far beyond the theater of war, Russia must choose how far to weaponize its influence over Europe's gas supply, as governments prepare to spend big to mitigate the effects of exceptionally tight supply.

Another potential dilemma: the first signs that Chinese support for the Russian invasion, never whole-hearted, may be waning.

A changing battlefield

Ukraine's stunning counter-offensive across Kharkiv, combined with more attritional advances in the south, have presented the Kremlin and Russia's much criticized Defense Ministry with a range of bad options.

As winter approaches, they must choose which front to prioritize, and whether to double down on efforts to fulfill Putin's stated objective: the seizure of Donetsk and Luhansk regions. The Russians currently hold about 13% of Ukrainian land, including Crimea and parts of the south.

Taking Donetsk is a taller order now for the Russians. Seven months of war have shown the shortcomings in Russian logistics, which will get no easier in wetter, colder weather.

In a matter of days, Russia lost one of three axes of attack in Donetsk; no progress has been made on the other two since the end of June.

At the same time, Russian defenses in Kherson are under growing pressure despite being reinforced, thanks to Ukraine's success in cutting off resupply across the River Dnipro and in targeting command posts and ammunition depots.

The Russian military does not have a wealth of fresh units to inject into the conflict. The recently stood-up 3rd Army Corps largely comprises volunteer battalions recruited across the Russian regions. Other battalion tactical groups have been reconstituted after suffering heavy losses. There are persistent reports of discipline fraying among Russian units. The disorderly retreat in Kharkiv, with vast amounts of military hardware abandoned, is testament to that -- and to chronic command problems that will not be remedied overnight.

Obviously, Ukraine has also lost thousands of soldiers, including many from its best units in Donbas. And a NATO military official told CNN that while the sweep across Ukraine had been a major boost for morale, "I can't imagine the same thing happening twice."

And Russia's artillery and rocket forces still vastly outnumber those of Ukraine. But it's been unable to leverage this superiority into gains on the ground. Some 40% of Donetsk remains under Ukrainian control.

President Vladimir Putin acknowledged this on Friday -- saying that the offensive operation in the Donbas "goes at a slow pace, but it keeps going. Gradually, gradually, the Russian army occupies new territories."

And despite calls in Moscow for a general mobilization, this still seems unlikely. Putin said: "We are fighting with only part of the Russian army, the part that's on contract ...Therefore, we are not in a hurry on this part."

A Ukrainian victory?

Some observers have begun to ask whether a Ukrainian victory is conceivable. That depends on how victory is defined. It is President Zelensky's stated intention to recover all occupied territories as well as Crimea.

General David Petraeus, former CIA Director and commander of US military forces in Iraq, said he expected Ukraine to retake territory seized by the Russians since February, and "it's even conceivable they could retake Crimea and the Donbas," aided by growing resistance in occupied areas.

But that would take time and involve tough fighting, Petraeus told CNN. If that were Ukraine's goal, its supply lines would be stretched and its better units spread thin. In turn, Ukrainian forces would be vulnerable to counter-attacks.

Ultimately, Ukraine's battlefield success will depend on a continuing and expanded supply of Western hardware. Meetings in the next few weeks will determine what's in that pipeline, but inventories in several countries are dwindling.

US officials are also wary that Ukraine might overplay its hand. The US is still exceptionally cautious about sending Ukraine weapons that have a range of more than 80 kilometers (nearly 50 miles) and could therefore strike deep inside Russia. It has so far resisted Ukrainian requests for long-range Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) that have a range of up to 300 kilometers.

Some Western officials fear humiliation for the Kremlin might provoke an unpredictable reaction, even including tactical nuclear weapons.

A former NATO deputy secretary-general, Rose Gottemoeller, told the BBC this week: "I do worry about that kind of scenario at the moment... The goal would be to try to get the Ukrainians in their terror to capitulate."

Back in February, on the eve of the invasion, Putin warned that any country standing in Russia's way would face "consequences such as they have never seen in their history."
But Olga Olika, director of the Europe and Central Asia Program at the International Crisis Group, believes the Kremlin would not countenance such an escalation because "detonating weapons of mass destruction would provoke international retaliation, including, quite possibly, direct military involvement from NATO."

US President Joe Biden appeared to confirm this in a "60 Minutes" interview -- a clip of which aired on CBS Evening News on Friday. He warned Putin against escalating the fighting further in Ukraine, saying that there will be consequences if the Kremlin used chemical or nuclear weapons in the fighting.

"Don't. Don't. Don't. It would change the face of war unlike anything since World War II," Biden said. Asked by Scott Pelley what the US response would be if Russia used a chemical or nuclear weapon, Biden said it would be "consequential."

Other analysts point out that the use of tactical nuclear weapons would hav​e limited military benefits, and that the military might even defy an order from Putin for their use.

"It is hard to imagine that even nuclear strikes would allow Russia to break Ukraine's will to resist," said General Valerii Zaluzhnyi, Ukraine's Armed Forces commander in chief.

Russia still has an intimidating arsenal of ballistic and other missiles that could be used not to gain territory but to inflict catastrophic damage on Ukraine's infrastructure: power, water and communications.

On Russian state television, pundits have argued for Ukraine's power and water infrastructure to be destroyed. And there have been signs of Russian missile forces doing just that -- with attacks on power supplies in Kharkiv and hydraulic gates on a reservoir in Kryviy Rih in recent days.

Nevertheless, the trajectory of the war looks different heading into the final months of a year that began with few hopes Ukraine could resist the Russian behemoth. That in itself may stiffen the backbone of European support -- and spur the continuing pipeline of military aid -- despite an expensive winter of discontent over heating and fuel prices.

The gas gambit

It's long been evident that part of the Kremlin's strategy is to knee-cap European resolve in supporting Ukraine by plunging it into an energy crisis, literally turning off the gas taps.

At a forum in Vladivostok earlier this month, Putin said: "We will not supply anything at all if it is contrary to our interests. No gas, no oil, no coal, no fuel oil, nothing."

Amid setbacks on the battlefield, Ivo Daalder and James Lindsay write in Foreign Affairs that "Putin's best hope — perhaps his only hope — is that Western support for Ukraine will crumble as the costs of war, including energy shortages and rising prices, begin to hit home in Europe."

Natural gas prices in Europe are 10 times higher than a year ago, earning Russia about $1 billion a day in the first three months of the conflict from energy exports. And the sanctions regime against Russia will only have significant impact in the longer-term, because the Russian economy is so self-contained.

But the coming winter will be the acid test of Moscow's energy squeeze. Rather than looking for compromise, European governments have concluded that concessions would only embolden the Kremlin. They are set on heavy spending to protect consumers and a longer-term strategy to reduce dependence on Russian energy. After scouring the world for alternative suppliers, they have built up reserves (in France's case to more than 90% of capacity).

Even though wholesale gas prices are still numbingly high, they have fallen by about one-third in the last three weeks. Some analysts think they will further do so, reducing the cost of subsidies being introduced by European governments already strapped for cash.

There are also signs that Russia's windfall from sky-high oil and gas prices may have peaked. The International Energy Agency forecasts that Russian oil production will be 17% lower by next February compared to pre-war output, once the full force of EU sanctions are felt.

Daalder and Lindsay believe Ukraine's allies have set their course. "Many skeptics in the West believe democracies will buckle in the face of hardship," they wrote. "But such voices underestimate the West's staying power."

No doves of peace

The signals from both sides indicate they are digging in for a long winter, rather than exploring prospects for a settlement.

"Russia will do everything to end the conflict in Ukraine as quickly as possible, but Kyiv refuses to negotiate," Putin said at a meeting with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Friday. In the meantime, Russia's goal was still "the liberation of Donbas" and there was "no hurry."

But the Russian leader also acknowledged the "concerns" that both India and China have about the conflict.

Chinese leader Xi Jinping, in his first meeting with Putin since before the invasion, notably did not refer to Ukraine by name, according to a read-out from Beijing. Some observers believe Beijing is subtly adopting an arm's length approach to the Russian quagmire in Ukraine. How that may play into Putin's calculations is as yet unknown.

For their part, the Ukrainians have been consistent about not negotiating with Moscow unless and until all occupied territory is recovered. Zelensky has angrily rejected suggestions from French President Emmanuel Macron, former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and others that Ukraine should negotiate so as not to humiliate Russia (Kissinger later withdrew his recommendation).

Given the current state of the battlefield, there is little incentive for Ukraine to seek a truce, while the Kremlin would be hard pressed to spin the results of its "special military operation" if one-third of the Donbas is still in Ukrainian hands.

Former CIA Director and retired US Army general David Petraeus believes Russia faces a "disastrous situation" militarily. He told CNN Russia was "literally running out of soldiers, ammunition, tanks, fighting vehicles and so forth."

A NATO military official told CNN that he expected Putin would have to rethink his position by next spring "if NATO stays united over the winter's energy problems and if Ukraine keeps up the fight. But he won't negotiate earlier, as a cold winter is his best weapon."

After that, the full effect of embargoes on Russian energy by Western governments and Japan, and on the export of high-tech equipment to Russia will begin to bite. The latter is already beginning to take a toll on weapons production, forcing the military to dust off arms that had been in storage.

The Ukrainian conflict has thrown up plenty of surprises -- and predictions may be a fool's errand. The current shape of the battlefield suggests that the initial roles of Ukraine and Russia -- defense and attack -- may be reversed in coming months, while Russian forces double down on remorseless bombardment of civilian and military targets.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/18/europ...cmd/index.html

[harrybarracuda]

Remember when hoohoo told us all this Russia AA shit was the bollocks?

And it turns out it's just bollocks.

[misskit]

RUSSIAN OFFENSIVE CAMPAIGN ASSESSMENT, SEPTEMBER 19

Urgent discussion on September 19 among Russia’s proxies of the need for Russia to immediately annex Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts (much of the latter of which is not under Russian control) suggests that Ukraine’s ongoing northern counter-offensive is panicking proxy forces and some Kremlin decision-makers. The legislatures of Russia’s proxies in occupied Ukraine, the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics (DNR and LNR), each called on their leadership to “immediately” hold a referendum on recognizing the DNR and LNR as Russian subjects.[1] Russian propagandist and RT Editor-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan spoke glowingly of the call, referring to it as the “Crimean scenario.” She wrote that by recognizing occupied Ukrainian land as Russian territory, Russia could more easily threaten NATO with retaliatory strikes for Ukrainian counterattacks, “untying Russia’s hands in all respects.”[2]


This approach is incoherent. Russian forces do not control all of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. Annexing the claimed territories of the DNR and LNR would, therefore, have Russia annex oblasts that would be by Kremlin definition partially ”occupied” by legitimate Ukrainian authorities and advancing Ukrainian forces. Ukrainian strikes into Russian-annexed Crimea clearly demonstrate that Ukrainian attacks on Russia’s illegally annexed territory do not automatically trigger Russian retaliation against NATO, as Simonyan would have her readers believe. Partial annexation at this stage would also place the Kremlin in the strange position of demanding that Ukrainian forces unoccupy “Russian” territory, and the humiliating position of being unable to enforce that demand. It remains very unclear that Russian President Vladimir Putin would be willing to place himself in such a bind for the dubious benefit of making it easier to threaten NATO or Ukraine with escalation he remains highly unlikely to conduct at this stage.


Russian leadership may be running out of ways to try to stop Ukrainian forces as they advance across the Oskil River and closer to Luhansk Oblast. The Kremlin may believe that partial annexation could drive recruitment of additional forces, both from within Russia and from within newly annexed Ukrainian territory. Russian forces are desperately attempting to mobilize additional forces from all potential sources to backfill their heavily degraded and demoralized units but have proven unable to generate significant combat power, as ISW has repeatedly written.[3]


This latest annexation discussion also omits other parts of Russian-occupied southern Ukraine in which the Kremlin was previously planning sham annexation referenda. A willingness to abandon the promise to bring all the occupied areas into Russia at the same time would be a significant retreat for Putin to make in the eyes of the hardline pro-war groups he appears to be courting. It remains to be seen if he is willing to compromise himself internally in such a fashion. The Kremlin’s proxies in Donbas regularly outpace Kremlin messaging, on the other hand, and may have done so again as they scramble to retain their occupied territory in the face of Ukraine’s successful and ongoing counter-offensive.

MUCH MORE HERE Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, September 19 | Institute for the Study of War

[bsnub]

[misskit]

How hateful. Did you see the post on the news thread about thermite being dropped on a Ukraine village? There must be not a shred of humanity left in those who do such things.

[bsnub]

Did you see the post on the news thread about thermite being dropped on a Ukraine village?

Yes, and it is horrifying to even imagine.

There must be not a shred of humanity left in those who do such things.

Russian society is very sick and unwell. They are basically just animals at this point.

[harrybarracuda]

Russian society is very sick and unwell. They are basically just animals at this point.

In fairness to the Russian people, Putin's vice like grip on all forms of media means they don't really understand what war crimes are being perpetrated at this point.

In a free and open society they would be marching in the streets to protest the meaningless, vicious war that the scum that is Putin started.

[bsnub]

[OhOh]

21 Sep, 2022 06:48 HomeRussia & FSU

Russia reveals military losses in Ukraine

A total of 5,937 Russian troops have died during the military operation, Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu says

"The Russian military has lost almost 6,000 troops during the fighting in Ukraine, Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said on Tuesday. Fatalities on the Ukrainian side are ten times higher, with 61,207 Kiev troops killed, according to the minister.

It’s the first time that Russia announced its losses during the military operation since late March when the number of killed servicemen stood at 1,351, according to the defense ministry.

“Our losses to date are 5,937 dead,” Shoigu revealed.

He also praised the work of military medics, saying that 90% of the Russian troops who had been wounded during fighting were able to return to action after treatment.
“Initially, the Armed Forces of Ukraine amounted to between 201,000 and 202,000 people, and since then they have suffered losses of around 100,000, with 61,207 killed and 49,368 others wounded," he said.

Shoigu added that Kiev has since mobilized hundreds of thousands more men into its forces.

The Russian forces and the militias of the People’s Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk have also eliminated more than 2,000 mercenaries fighting for Kiev, the minister said. Just over 1,000 foreigners currently remain in the ranks of the Ukrainian military, he added."

Russia reveals military losses in Ukraine — RT Russia & Former Soviet Union

20 Sep, 2022 14:07
HomeRussia & FSU

Ukraine vows to solve 'Russian question' by force

Ukraine has dismissed upcoming referendums on the Donbass republics joining Russia as “manipulation” and “fear of defeat”

https://www.rt.com/russia/563175-kie...endums-russia/

[bsnub]

A total of 5,937 Russian troops have died during the military operation, Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu says