43 ms·

> They have not. > Russia captured some 22% of Ukraine > Ukrainian counteroffensives in 2022 reduced this to 17-18% Percentage of territory in terms of a war

by voidr 2y ago

> They have not. > Russia captured some 22% of Ukraine > Ukrainian counteroffensives in 2022 reduced this to 17-18% Percentage of territory in terms of a war is not a good indicator of progress, especially taking into account the objective and the context here, if the Russians would capture Kharkiv that wouldn't be a big territorial gain, but it would be game over for Ukraine. The Russians have captured Avdiivka(which was probably the most important victory), Vuhledar, Chasiv Yar, Toretsk, Niu-York, Kurakhove and many others, they have also rolled back all of the small gains made by the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive. Just remember that before it took like around 11 months to capture just Bakhmut and now I can't even count how many comparable victories they are having. > militarily super-duper-important landfills, as you put it I did mean actual waste heap, it might be funny to us, but for military purposes a waste heap can be important because it gives elevation same way as worthless fields on hills. > For a country with an aging society and already one of the lowest birth rates in the world, this is pure suicide. The Russians probably think that allowing Ukraine to become a NATO military power is even worse, if you look at it from that perspective it makes a bit more sense. > They will literally run out of young men before reaching Kyiv. Progress and casualties is not linear. > The most cynical people in Washington must be real pleased with the way the war is going. They were, until it started affecting them as well and when they realised what it's like to fight an opponent that has a military industry and all the natural resources it can ever need. It was also an embarrassment for NATO. > Russia is losing people and permanently crippling itself, while the US population has grown by almost 100 million in the last 30 years. The US can grow 200 million this year if it wants to, that's not a good indicator of progress. Russia has also gained people from the territories it has annexed so far. ------- For easy consumption I highly recommend the Military Summary Channel[1], they make daily videos and cite all their sources, you don't have to agree with their interpretation, you can check their sources instead. History Legends[2] is also good if you don't want the level of detail you can get from the Military Summary Channel. For a different interpretation of what is the Russian perspective I highly recommend looking at John Mearsheimer, you can check out talks he gave before the war even started and see how well it holds up today[3]. Reason I believe my sources are better than the mainstream media, is because they managed to stay consistent all these years, whereas the mainstream media fumbled and flip-flopped on things that were easily verifiable. [1] https://www.youtube.com/@militarysummary https://www.youtube.com/@militarysummary [2] https://www.youtube.com/@historylegends https://www.youtube.com/@historylegends [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4

spwa4 2y ago
All of these channels are blatant Russian propaganda. They're also full of blatant lies. All 3 of them. And as for the second channel ... sorry man WTF. An attack on Chernobyl's protection is NOT A FUCKING SUCCESS. That is a dumb failure on 10 different levels. It's not a military target, it was probably a stupid mistake, it's a waste of what looks like an expensive drone, it could cause yet another Russian nuclear disaster, ... the list goes on. If this is how they prove how well the Russian army is doing, I'm going to have to start saying that even Trump is smarter than the Russians.
mopsi 2y ago
I don't see how the captured settlements indicate any better progress. Avdiivka, the "greatest success" of 2024, was a small town with pre-invasion population of 32 000, less than 5 miles of the frontline on day 1 of the invasion in 2022. Avdiivka was literally visible from the windows of high-rise apartment buildings in Russian-occupied Donetsk. It took three years to get there. All other listed are even smaller: Vuhledar 14 000, Kurakhove 5000. By now they are heaps of rubble where no-one lives. Compared to the capture of Crimea, which did not cost any lives and left Crimea intact, how is losing 400 000+ a year for such places not a total disaster?
voidr 2y ago
> All of these channels are blatant Russian propaganda. They're also full of blatant lies. All 3 of them. Can you point out examples of lies or do you just label every source that does not align with your beliefs as propaganda? The Military Summary Channel sources Deep State (pro-Ukraine) and videos made by Ukrainians, are you telling me that these are also lies? There was that video of a bradley(IFV) managing to defeat a Russian tank on History Legends, why would the Russians make such propaganda? > Avdiivka was literally visible from the windows of high-rise apartment buildings in Russian-occupied Donetsk. That's why it was so critical to capture it because the Ukrainians were able to comfortably shell the separatists from there, that's why it was important. > Avdiivka, the "greatest success" of 2024, was a small town with pre-invasion population of 32 000 It was one of the most and best defended strongholds of Ukraine that was in range of the separatist capital, getting rid of that was huge. Being important economically is not the same as being important militarily, a village of 1000 people can be more important than a town of 10 000 if it's in the right place. > All other listed are even smaller: Vuhledar 14 000 It had high rise buildings and it was surrounded by flat terrain, incredibly difficult to approach, was blocking the Russian army for a long time. > It took three years to get there. Because it had an insanely high concentration of Ukrainian forces and some of the best defences. > losing 400 000+ a year War started in 2021, we are now in 2025, that's 4 years, estimated size of Russian army is ~1 500 000, which means they should have a minus 100 000 soldiers, that does not add up. You could argue that maybe the Russians are just that good at recruiting people at this horrible survival rate, however you would need to account for contracts not being renewed, which makes it very hard to make the numbers add up.

by voidr 2y ago

spwa4 2y ago

All of these channels are blatant Russian propaganda. They're also full of blatant lies. All 3 of them. And as for the second channel ... sorry man WTF. An attack on Chernobyl's protection is NOT A FUCKING SUCCESS. That is a dumb failure on 10 different levels. It's not a military target, it was probably a stupid mistake, it's a waste of what looks like an expensive drone, it could cause yet another Russian nuclear disaster, ... the list goes on. If this is how they prove how well the Russian army is doing, I'm going to have to start saying that even Trump is smarter than the Russians.

mopsi 2y ago

I don't see how the captured settlements indicate any better progress. Avdiivka, the "greatest success" of 2024, was a small town with pre-invasion population of 32 000, less than 5 miles of the frontline on day 1 of the invasion in 2022. Avdiivka was literally visible from the windows of high-rise apartment buildings in Russian-occupied Donetsk. It took three years to get there. All other listed are even smaller: Vuhledar 14 000, Kurakhove 5000. By now they are heaps of rubble where no-one lives. Compared to the capture of Crimea, which did not cost any lives and left Crimea intact, how is losing 400 000+ a year for such places not a total disaster?

voidr 2y ago

> All of these channels are blatant Russian propaganda. They're also full of blatant lies. All 3 of them. Can you point out examples of lies or do you just label every source that does not align with your beliefs as propaganda? The Military Summary Channel sources Deep State (pro-Ukraine) and videos made by Ukrainians, are you telling me that these are also lies? There was that video of a bradley(IFV) managing to defeat a Russian tank on History Legends, why would the Russians make such propaganda? > Avdiivka was literally visible from the windows of high-rise apartment buildings in Russian-occupied Donetsk. That's why it was so critical to capture it because the Ukrainians were able to comfortably shell the separatists from there, that's why it was important. > Avdiivka, the "greatest success" of 2024, was a small town with pre-invasion population of 32 000 It was one of the most and best defended strongholds of Ukraine that was in range of the separatist capital, getting rid of that was huge. Being important economically is not the same as being important militarily, a village of 1000 people can be more important than a town of 10 000 if it's in the right place. > All other listed are even smaller: Vuhledar 14 000 It had high rise buildings and it was surrounded by flat terrain, incredibly difficult to approach, was blocking the Russian army for a long time. > It took three years to get there. Because it had an insanely high concentration of Ukrainian forces and some of the best defences. > losing 400 000+ a year War started in 2021, we are now in 2025, that's 4 years, estimated size of Russian army is ~1 500 000, which means they should have a minus 100 000 soldiers, that does not add up. You could argue that maybe the Russians are just that good at recruiting people at this horrible survival rate, however you would need to account for contracts not being renewed, which makes it very hard to make the numbers add up.