More on providing fighters and tanks for Ukraine.

UK
QUESTIONS

Ulysses90 said:

---

Quote:

---

M1 has a whole different crew layout
Turbine engine

---

The Ukes seem to be able to use the Russian T80s they have captured. Why is a US made turbine necessarily more difficult to maintain and operate?

The Ukrainians have adapted to rather complex foreign made equipment better than I would have ever imagined. It's not just instructions in a Foreign language, it's a different alphabet. The arrival of NATO artillery compelled them to learn to use a 6400 mil circle interchangeably with the Soviet 6000 mil circle and they are doing it amazingly well.

I really don't understand the rationale behind the argument that western tanks and fighter aircraft will exceed the limits of Ukrainian adaptivity and ingenuity. Their logistics system reaches across many borders and there is no reason to believe that they cannot adapt to make this technology useful. If it's not useful, then they will discard it.

---

well, i am asking these questions myself.

i am a good mechanic but dont know **** about turbines. i've heard that they are finicky, very different, and huge fuel guzzlers, and that m1's are largley modular, pulling the whole drivetrain out at once with specialized large equipment. dont know first hand. dont know much about the other systems being sent either. but this ritter guy is far from the first person i have seen raise these concerns, so i look forward to more input from people who have first hand experience.

as far as trusting our leadership not to **** up the delivery, well, our senior leadership diddles kids and tells plenty of lies too, so i would say there is room for concern there.

UK Government sanctioned Russia's ZALA AERO, the manufacturer of Lancet, KUB and Zala drones. https://t.co/zsOrj8lpg8 pic.twitter.com/KLKclufVoj

— Samuel Bendett (@SamBendett) February 8, 2023

It's not quite as painful as it seems…but not a simple job.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/m1-abrams-was-once-tested-with-a-diesel-engine-that-replaces-its-thirsty-turbine

cbr said:

---

Ulysses90 said:

---

Quote:

---

M1 has a whole different crew layout
Turbine engine

---

The Ukes seem to be able to use the Russian T80s they have captured. Why is a US made turbine necessarily more difficult to maintain and operate?

The Ukrainians have adapted to rather complex foreign made equipment better than I would have ever imagined. It's not just instructions in a Foreign language, it's a different alphabet. The arrival of NATO artillery compelled them to learn to use a 6400 mil circle interchangeably with the Soviet 6000 mil circle and they are doing it amazingly well.

I really don't understand the rationale behind the argument that western tanks and fighter aircraft will exceed the limits of Ukrainian adaptivity and ingenuity. Their logistics system reaches across many borders and there is no reason to believe that they cannot adapt to make this technology useful. If it's not useful, then they will discard it.

---

well, i am asking these questions myself.

i am a good mechanic but dont know **** about turbines. i've heard that they are finicky, very different, and huge fuel guzzlers, and that m1's are largley modular, pulling the whole drivetrain out at once with specialized large equipment. dont know first hand. dont know much about the other systems being sent either. but this ritter guy is far from the first person i have seen raise these concerns, so i look forward to more input from people who have first hand experience.

as far as trusting our leadership not to **** up the delivery, well, our senior leadership diddles kids and tells plenty of lies too, so i would say there is room for concern there.

---

We will ensure Ukrainian M1 crews and maintainers are well trained and will likely set up an intermediate maintenance facility just over the border as has already been done to support Ukrainian T-72s and other armor.

See the "Challenges" section in the second half of this article for more on what it takes to support the Abrams.

M1

cbr said:

---

Ulysses90 said:

---

Quote:

---

M1 has a whole different crew layout
Turbine engine

---

The Ukes seem to be able to use the Russian T80s they have captured. Why is a US made turbine necessarily more difficult to maintain and operate?

The Ukrainians have adapted to rather complex foreign made equipment better than I would have ever imagined. It's not just instructions in a Foreign language, it's a different alphabet. The arrival of NATO artillery compelled them to learn to use a 6400 mil circle interchangeably with the Soviet 6000 mil circle and they are doing it amazingly well.

I really don't understand the rationale behind the argument that western tanks and fighter aircraft will exceed the limits of Ukrainian adaptivity and ingenuity. Their logistics system reaches across many borders and there is no reason to believe that they cannot adapt to make this technology useful. If it's not useful, then they will discard it.

---

well, i am asking these questions myself.

i am a good mechanic but dont know **** about turbines. i've heard that they are finicky, very different, and huge fuel guzzlers, and that m1's are largley modular, pulling the whole drivetrain out at once with specialized large equipment. dont know first hand. dont know much about the other systems being sent either. but this ritter guy is far from the first person i have seen raise these concerns, so i look forward to more input from people who have first hand experience.

as far as trusting our leadership not to **** up the delivery, well, our senior leadership diddles kids and tells plenty of lies too, so i would say there is room for concern there.

---

I'm well versed in the T700 GE Turbo Shaft engine for Blackhawks, which is the same engine an M1 uses. There are 3 bolts holding the engine in place, while the shaft is connected to flex couplings. The exhaust is easy to connect, along with fuel air delivery. Take away the exhaust connections, and it's even more simple.

UPDATES

First, I was very actively following daily updates of this war and this thread for a long time. I haven't had time to pay attention to the nuances in the last few months and have only been catching random news or updates.

That being said, the situation has markedly deteriorated for Ukraine, has it not? I mentioned before Russian was going to go the human wall approach and that certainly appears to be happening.

Can Ukraine overcome this strategy vs an enemy so willing to sacrifice their troops for relatively small gains? Is there anyway this war ends without a years long stalemate?

The bigger weaposn the west have recently agreed to send seem to be more token than anything else. They aren't going to be sent in the numbers need to dramatically shift the battlefield, imo.

Am I way off base here?

Agthatbuilds said:

---

First, I was very actively following daily updates of this war and this thread for a long time. I haven't had time to pay attention to the nuances in the last few months and have only been catching random news or updates.

That being said, the situation has markedly deteriorated for Ukraine, has it not? I mentioned before Russian was going to go the human wall approach and that certainly appears to be happening.

Can Ukraine overcome this strategy vs an enemy so willing to sacrifice their troops for relatively small gains? Is there anyway this war ends without a years long stalemate?

The bigger weaposn the west have recently agreed to send seem to be more token than anything else. They aren't going to be sent in the numbers need to dramatically shift the battlefield, imo.

Am I way off base here?

---

"markedly deteriorated"?

Uh, no.

is "the last few months" after the Ukrainians launched a counter-attack around Kharkiv and liberated 13,000 square miles?

the Ukes are being pushed back along the Donbas front- a distance of kilometers. at the same time they are going to be getting top line Western military equipment in the next few months.

as long as they don't collapse before the late spring- they will be fine.

Agthatbuilds said:

---

First, I was very actively following daily updates of this war and this thread for a long time. I haven't had time to pay attention to the nuances in the last few months and have only been catching random news or updates.

That being said, the situation has markedly deteriorated for Ukraine, has it not? I mentioned before Russian was going to go the human wall approach and that certainly appears to be happening.

Can Ukraine overcome this strategy vs an enemy so willing to sacrifice their troops for relatively small gains? Is there anyway this war ends without a years long stalemate?

The bigger weaposn the west have recently agreed to send seem to be more token than anything else. They aren't going to be sent in the numbers need to dramatically shift the battlefield, imo.

Am I way off base here?

---

Ukraine spent a lot of last year advancing, but hasn't done much of that since taking Kherson.

The Russians have been steadily working on advances in the East in recent weeks, but haven't gained a lot of ground for all their efforts.

Right now, a more accurate description would probably be stalemate. Everyone is anticipating a strong Russian push in the East in the coming weeks. That should be a better indicator of where things stand.

JFABNRGR said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Arthur Morgan doesn't even sound Russian to me? There are strict rules about name-calling in my fan club, fyi, though I freely admit to being capable of petulance.

Both sides are and have committed horrible acts/war crimes, imho. There's way, way too much evidence to believe anything else. There is also zero reason to believe a fresh shipment of western tanks will make an ounce of difference in the outcome/duration of this conflict, or an impact strategically/tactically.

---

you mean evidence like this?

https://funker530.com/video/nsfw-ukrainian-soldier-rescues-wounded-russian/

Or like this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucha_massacre

FWIW I have been following this war like a hawk, passionate about good versus evil, the nature of evil, military tactics. Would be there direct but my first mission is to care for my wife and young children. I follow multiple channels/outlets even russian at times. Every war is filled with the horrors but I have seen NO evidence of Ukrainian war crimes against russian. Has an individual lost it and committed some cruel act....guaranteed but evil on a systemic level resides only with the orcs. The Funker530 video above IMO describes in perfect way who the Ukrainians are. Read "The Gulag Archipelago" and look at what the russians do to their own people to more fully understand the innate evil within them.

---

I'm sure this video has been posted, but this does a good job illustrating the Bucha massacre. It's long, but detailed and shows the proof.

Ukraine's situation has not measurably deteriorated as the war is currently in stalemate with Russia losing huge numbers of casualties during its offensive ops in the east in return for operationally insignificant gains often measured in yards.

Ukraine is generally standing on the strategic defense while it gathers resources for a spring offensive. It is currently assimilating another 150 upgraded T-72s and awaiting the initial 109 Bradleys and additional 100 M113s already enroute. The roughly 300 Leo I/II tanks promised so far, along with the handful of Challengers and Abrams, will start arriving in about three months. Ukraine has managed to repair much of the damage done to its power infrastructure.

Russia has an advantage in raw manpower but is having great difficulty training and equipping new units. It has lost at least 1000 of its best tanks and can only replace them with inferior models. In contrast, Ukraine is benefiting from steady resupply of war materiel from NATO and, for example, actually has more tanks now than it did when the war started.

It remains to be seen which side will be first to assemble sufficient resources to sustain a new offensive and potentially break the stalemate. There are increasing rumbles that it may be the Russians.

Does Ivan change the oil???
Looks like a blown engine to me on the last part of vid on MBT...maybe overreving from spinning in the mud? any tankers on here!

More video from #Vuhledar #Donetsk region pic.twitter.com/6HzJhzEktG

— Cloooud (@GloOouD) February 8, 2023

LMCane said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

First, I was very actively following daily updates of this war and this thread for a long time. I haven't had time to pay attention to the nuances in the last few months and have only been catching random news or updates.

That being said, the situation has markedly deteriorated for Ukraine, has it not? I mentioned before Russian was going to go the human wall approach and that certainly appears to be happening.

Can Ukraine overcome this strategy vs an enemy so willing to sacrifice their troops for relatively small gains? Is there anyway this war ends without a years long stalemate?

The bigger weaposn the west have recently agreed to send seem to be more token than anything else. They aren't going to be sent in the numbers need to dramatically shift the battlefield, imo.

Am I way off base here?

---

"markedly deteriorated"?

Uh, no.

is "the last few months" after the Ukrainians launched a counter-attack around Kharkiv and liberated 13,000 square miles?

the Ukes are being pushed back along the Donbas front- a distance of kilometers. at the same time they are going to be getting top line Western military equipment in the next few months.

as long as they don't collapse before the late spring- they will be fine.

---

More precise language from me would have been chances of a militarily sufficient victory have markedly deteriorated while the chances of a stalemate have increased significantly.

The west can supply their weapons but it won't overcome the Russian willingness to sacrifice soldiers.

Even Russia has limited resources, and limited political willpower. Putin absolutely cannot risk an internal coup or revolution and if his war causes too much pain, that danger increases. The danger of eastern states breaking away also increases. Time is not necessarily on the side of the current Russian regime.

True. It's quite a conundrum for putin.

He probably can't afford for this war to be too protracted for 3 reasons- his health, Russian financing, and threat of coup.

But, Russia doesn't have a weaponry advantage almost anywhere and loses ground every time the west decides to send something new.

So, he's left, imo, with sending bodies in an attempt to overwhelm and breakout at the risk of an internal coup. I dont think this would happen so long as Russia were successful in a breakout.

Or, he could simply send so many troops to the areas which he holds and make it very uninviting for Ukraine to attempt to gain back those areas and, in doing so, create leverage for political pressure for terms to end the war with whatever minor gains have been made.

Agthatbuilds said:

---

LMCane said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

First, I was very actively following daily updates of this war and this thread for a long time. I haven't had time to pay attention to the nuances in the last few months and have only been catching random news or updates.

That being said, the situation has markedly deteriorated for Ukraine, has it not? I mentioned before Russian was going to go the human wall approach and that certainly appears to be happening.

Can Ukraine overcome this strategy vs an enemy so willing to sacrifice their troops for relatively small gains? Is there anyway this war ends without a years long stalemate?

The bigger weaposn the west have recently agreed to send seem to be more token than anything else. They aren't going to be sent in the numbers need to dramatically shift the battlefield, imo.

Am I way off base here?

---

"markedly deteriorated"?

Uh, no.

is "the last few months" after the Ukrainians launched a counter-attack around Kharkiv and liberated 13,000 square miles?

the Ukes are being pushed back along the Donbas front- a distance of kilometers. at the same time they are going to be getting top line Western military equipment in the next few months.

as long as they don't collapse before the late spring- they will be fine.

---

More precise language from me would have been chances of a militarily sufficient victory have markedly deteriorated while the chances of a stalemate have increased significantly.

The west can supply their weapons but it won't overcome the Russian willingness to sacrifice soldiers.

---

That's called war.

The invasion of Iraq was the last time there was a conventional war with actual battle lines and fronts. Russia tried that and got stopped cold just like in Red Dawn.

Even during the world wars it was mostly static with front line skirmishes in between offenses.

I find it interesting how random posters only show up when it's perceived negative for Ukraine. Seems just like the last time there was a lull and we were told how Ukraine was done and would never be able to take back land. It's like someone posted a note on the tinfoil-R-us fan page about this thread.

Agthatbuilds said:

---

First, I was very actively following daily updates of this war and this thread for a long time. I haven't had time to pay attention to the nuances in the last few months and have only been catching random news or updates.

That being said, the situation has markedly deteriorated for Ukraine, has it not? I mentioned before Russian was going to go the human wall approach and that certainly appears to be happening.

Can Ukraine overcome this strategy vs an enemy so willing to sacrifice their troops for relatively small gains? Is there anyway this war ends without a years long stalemate?

The bigger weaposn the west have recently agreed to send seem to be more token than anything else. They aren't going to be sent in the numbers need to dramatically shift the battlefield, imo.

Am I way off base here?

---

No, your eyes don't deceive you.

Last year was all about manpower. Why did Russia retreat from NE Ukraine? A god awful strategy that needed way more manpower than Russian committed against a determined Ukrainian defense.

Why was Ukraine able to rapidly liberate the Kharkiv Oblast so quickly? Because in the summer months Russia was employing their strategy in which you see now where they hurl tons of men and artillery to make small gains against Ukraine in the east. That strategy was not backed up with men in reserves. Ukraine was able to exploit this by rapidly seizing the area Russia had pulled men out of and had never replaced (Kharkiv Oblast).

How was Ukraine able to take Kherson? Again Russia didn't have the manpower to exploit the Ukrainian defense across the Dnipro river. Thus they stayed put despite a Ukrainian offensive, (people forget Ukraine had a full blown offensive in this region going for months with no results), until Ukraine was finally able to take advantage of the unfavorable position the Russians were in from a logistical standpoint being on the wrong bank of the Dnipro.

Russia has spent the last 5 months trying to solve their manpower issue with a partial mobilization and is about on equal footing with Ukraine. Yes, believe it or not Ukraine had a manpower advantage for most of 2022. The one issue Russia MAY still have is artillery ammunition. However, with the amount of men Russia now has and will continue to add in 2023 I would not count on this war ending for years if you want a Ukrainian victory.

Agthatbuilds said:

---

True. It's quite a conundrum for putin.

He probably can't afford for this war to be too protracted for 3 reasons- his health, Russian financing, and threat of coup.

But, Russia doesn't have a weaponry advantage almost anywhere and loses ground every time the west decides to send something new.

So, he's left, imo, with sending bodies in an attempt to overwhelm and breakout at the risk of an internal coup. I dont think this would happen so long as Russia were successful in a breakout.

Or, he could simply send so many troops to the areas which he holds and make it very uninviting for Ukraine to attempt to gain back those areas and, in doing so, create leverage for political pressure for terms to end the war with whatever minor gains have been made.

---

Sooner or later, those bodies are going to say "no" in even larger numbers. No amount of Wagner Commisars will overcome a collective will to survive

AgLA06 said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

LMCane said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

First, I was very actively following daily updates of this war and this thread for a long time. I haven't had time to pay attention to the nuances in the last few months and have only been catching random news or updates.

That being said, the situation has markedly deteriorated for Ukraine, has it not? I mentioned before Russian was going to go the human wall approach and that certainly appears to be happening.

Can Ukraine overcome this strategy vs an enemy so willing to sacrifice their troops for relatively small gains? Is there anyway this war ends without a years long stalemate?

The bigger weaposn the west have recently agreed to send seem to be more token than anything else. They aren't going to be sent in the numbers need to dramatically shift the battlefield, imo.

Am I way off base here?

---

"markedly deteriorated"?

Uh, no.

is "the last few months" after the Ukrainians launched a counter-attack around Kharkiv and liberated 13,000 square miles?

the Ukes are being pushed back along the Donbas front- a distance of kilometers. at the same time they are going to be getting top line Western military equipment in the next few months.

as long as they don't collapse before the late spring- they will be fine.

---

More precise language from me would have been chances of a militarily sufficient victory have markedly deteriorated while the chances of a stalemate have increased significantly.

The west can supply their weapons but it won't overcome the Russian willingness to sacrifice soldiers.

---

That's called war.

The invasion of Iraq was the last time there was a conventional war with actual battle lines and fronts. Russia tried that and got stopped cold just like in Red Dawn.

Even during the world wars it was mostly static with front line skirmishes in between offenses.

I find it interesting how random posters only show up when it's perceived negative for Ukraine. Seems just like the last time there was a lull and we were told how Ukraine was done and would never be able to take back land. It's like someone posted a note on the tinfoil-R-us fan page about this thread.

---

I've literally been here since the beginning, and entirely pro Ukrainian.

My contention is that Russias only real advantage in this conflict are bodies and these lulls allow them to, more or less, properly build them up in an effort to overwhelm. And they have no problem sacrificing vast quantities of their troops for comparatively little gain.

Stalemate benefits Russia, not Ukraine.

Also true. See: Russian end of ww1.

Is there a Lenin we could put on a train and secretly deposit back in Russia? (Not that Lenin is in anyway preferable to putin, just accounting for part of the reasons Russia was forced to exit from ww1)

Agree to disagree.

Consensus was Ukraine baited Russia to pull battle groups from Kharkiv to kherson under the guise the main assault would be there. You can't have it both ways like you're making up. They didn't have enough men is a joke.

They lost those regions because Ukrainian military leadership was better and backed by western game planning simulation, played Russia like a fool, and then hit them with combined arms in weak points. Russia then folded like a cheap tent because in the end not a damn one of them wants to be bleeding and dying in Ukraine. No matter how many of them keep getting sent.

The only success Russia has seen in 6 months is a couple meaningless square miles that cost Wagner thousands of men. The supposed elite VDV was pretty much gutted between the first weeks of the invasion and then Kharkiv. The supposed elite Russian Marines are also a shell of themselves. The elite tank guards were destroyed twice.

Russia is doing everything they can to put men in uniforms because they're out of options. Human waves is all that is left and it better work. If Ukraine breaks out again it may be all she wrote because there may not be a unit left willing to stand and fight while everyone else around them does their best French army impression.

Agthatbuilds said:

---

AgLA06 said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

LMCane said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

First, I was very actively following daily updates of this war and this thread for a long time. I haven't had time to pay attention to the nuances in the last few months and have only been catching random news or updates.

That being said, the situation has markedly deteriorated for Ukraine, has it not? I mentioned before Russian was going to go the human wall approach and that certainly appears to be happening.

Can Ukraine overcome this strategy vs an enemy so willing to sacrifice their troops for relatively small gains? Is there anyway this war ends without a years long stalemate?

The bigger weaposn the west have recently agreed to send seem to be more token than anything else. They aren't going to be sent in the numbers need to dramatically shift the battlefield, imo.

Am I way off base here?

---

"markedly deteriorated"?

Uh, no.

is "the last few months" after the Ukrainians launched a counter-attack around Kharkiv and liberated 13,000 square miles?

the Ukes are being pushed back along the Donbas front- a distance of kilometers. at the same time they are going to be getting top line Western military equipment in the next few months.

as long as they don't collapse before the late spring- they will be fine.

---

More precise language from me would have been chances of a militarily sufficient victory have markedly deteriorated while the chances of a stalemate have increased significantly.

The west can supply their weapons but it won't overcome the Russian willingness to sacrifice soldiers.

---

That's called war.

The invasion of Iraq was the last time there was a conventional war with actual battle lines and fronts. Russia tried that and got stopped cold just like in Red Dawn.

Even during the world wars it was mostly static with front line skirmishes in between offenses.

I find it interesting how random posters only show up when it's perceived negative for Ukraine. Seems just like the last time there was a lull and we were told how Ukraine was done and would never be able to take back land. It's like someone posted a note on the tinfoil-R-us fan page about this thread.

---

I've literally been here since the beginning, and entirely pro Ukrainian.

My contention is that Russias only real advantage in this conflict are bodies and these lulls allow them to, more or less, properly build them up in an effort to overwhelm. And they have no problem sacrificing vast quantities of their troops for comparatively little gain.

Stalemate benefits Russia, not Ukraine.

---

Maybe this time you'll actually be correct. Last time the very same was said only for Ukraine to go on the offensive and take back large amounts of land.

Agthatbuilds said:

---

AgLA06 said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

LMCane said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

First, I was very actively following daily updates of this war and this thread for a long time. I haven't had time to pay attention to the nuances in the last few months and have only been catching random news or updates.

That being said, the situation has markedly deteriorated for Ukraine, has it not? I mentioned before Russian was going to go the human wall approach and that certainly appears to be happening.

Can Ukraine overcome this strategy vs an enemy so willing to sacrifice their troops for relatively small gains? Is there anyway this war ends without a years long stalemate?

The bigger weaposn the west have recently agreed to send seem to be more token than anything else. They aren't going to be sent in the numbers need to dramatically shift the battlefield, imo.

Am I way off base here?

---

"markedly deteriorated"?

Uh, no.

is "the last few months" after the Ukrainians launched a counter-attack around Kharkiv and liberated 13,000 square miles?

the Ukes are being pushed back along the Donbas front- a distance of kilometers. at the same time they are going to be getting top line Western military equipment in the next few months.

as long as they don't collapse before the late spring- they will be fine.

---

More precise language from me would have been chances of a militarily sufficient victory have markedly deteriorated while the chances of a stalemate have increased significantly.

The west can supply their weapons but it won't overcome the Russian willingness to sacrifice soldiers.

---

That's called war.

The invasion of Iraq was the last time there was a conventional war with actual battle lines and fronts. Russia tried that and got stopped cold just like in Red Dawn.

Even during the world wars it was mostly static with front line skirmishes in between offenses.

I find it interesting how random posters only show up when it's perceived negative for Ukraine. Seems just like the last time there was a lull and we were told how Ukraine was done and would never be able to take back land. It's like someone posted a note on the tinfoil-R-us fan page about this thread.

---

I've literally been here since the beginning, and entirely pro Ukrainian.

---

If this is the case, why was that the only comment that seemed to get your attention?

I responded to another post dude.

Just trying to have a convo about the current status and potential future status of the conflict based on how it stands today.

AgLA06 said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

AgLA06 said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

LMCane said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

First, I was very actively following daily updates of this war and this thread for a long time. I haven't had time to pay attention to the nuances in the last few months and have only been catching random news or updates.

That being said, the situation has markedly deteriorated for Ukraine, has it not? I mentioned before Russian was going to go the human wall approach and that certainly appears to be happening.

Can Ukraine overcome this strategy vs an enemy so willing to sacrifice their troops for relatively small gains? Is there anyway this war ends without a years long stalemate?

The bigger weaposn the west have recently agreed to send seem to be more token than anything else. They aren't going to be sent in the numbers need to dramatically shift the battlefield, imo.

Am I way off base here?

---

"markedly deteriorated"?

Uh, no.

is "the last few months" after the Ukrainians launched a counter-attack around Kharkiv and liberated 13,000 square miles?

the Ukes are being pushed back along the Donbas front- a distance of kilometers. at the same time they are going to be getting top line Western military equipment in the next few months.

as long as they don't collapse before the late spring- they will be fine.

---

More precise language from me would have been chances of a militarily sufficient victory have markedly deteriorated while the chances of a stalemate have increased significantly.

The west can supply their weapons but it won't overcome the Russian willingness to sacrifice soldiers.

---

That's called war.

The invasion of Iraq was the last time there was a conventional war with actual battle lines and fronts. Russia tried that and got stopped cold just like in Red Dawn.

Even during the world wars it was mostly static with front line skirmishes in between offenses.

I find it interesting how random posters only show up when it's perceived negative for Ukraine. Seems just like the last time there was a lull and we were told how Ukraine was done and would never be able to take back land. It's like someone posted a note on the tinfoil-R-us fan page about this thread.

---

I've literally been here since the beginning, and entirely pro Ukrainian.

My contention is that Russias only real advantage in this conflict are bodies and these lulls allow them to, more or less, properly build them up in an effort to overwhelm. And they have no problem sacrificing vast quantities of their troops for comparatively little gain.

Stalemate benefits Russia, not Ukraine.

---

Maybe this time you'll actually be correct. Last time the very same was said only for Ukraine to go on the offensive and take back large amounts of land.

---

Let's hope that's what happens and the ukes take back their eastern border lands and Crimea.

Per usual, every mile closer the the enemy homeland will be tougher as their supply lines shorten and it become easier to resupply.

Any idea what's going on here?

Hundreds of videos showing torture of civilians in Ukraine by Zelenskys thugs circulate on the internet. All censored by Western media and govts to promote and enable their NATO puppet #ZelenskyWarCriminal pic.twitter.com/4B3Xzlm6Vj

— EmpireofLies (@NomorWhitey) February 8, 2023

UKR forces in Bakhmut may be in some real trouble.

[ Bakhmut Front ] Ukraine line collapsed entirely N of Bakhmut / W of Soledar; road to Slovyansk cut#War #Military #UkraineWar #Russia #Ukraine #UkraineRussiaWar #RussianInvasion #UkraineRussianWar #RussianUkrainianWarhttps://t.co/4w4y4RvmFR

— Defense Politics Asia (@DefensePolitics) February 8, 2023

Weren't they doing this at the beginning of war to Russian sympathizers?

Edit: also the name of the Twitter just makes me know this person sux a$$

Here's the latest tally of confirmed Russian vehicle losses. Stunning.

ORYX

[url=https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html][/url]

Thank you for your reply. After reading the tweet initially, I WAS thinking they were torturing those guys. Although I was a little taken aback at the lack of fear/terror on the guys faces who were being wrapped to the pole(s).

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Even Russia has limited resources, and limited political willpower. Putin absolutely cannot risk an internal coup or revolution and if his war causes too much pain, that danger increases. The danger of eastern states breaking away also increases. Time is not necessarily on the side of the current Russian regime.

---

True. I am starting the think that for Russians, they need time to fatigue more than short term massive casualties. There is a chance that Putin losses power with a drawn out conflict.

During the Russian Afghan War, it took almost 10 years for fatigue to set in. The Russians have been at this stage of the conflict for 1 year.