comment: >
  
  It just has to be more difficult and painful for Russia
context: that's an amazing video and channel, thanks >
  
  The deluge of footage of Russian troops on the back foot, plus constant posts of Russian forces surrendering seems to paint a dangerously misleading picture on Reddit. Based on these posts alone, you’d think the Ukrainians are on the verge of annihilating the Russians.
  Yet a year later, both sides are bogged in a brutal war. I’d take Zeleksnsky’s warnings over an overly rosy picture being painted by well-intentioned but terribly selective Reddit posts. >
  
  Both sides are in a race to re-arm and recruit over the winter for the spring offensives. >
  
  They're also in a propaganda battle. As important as winning is convincing the opposition that you winning is inevitable. >
  
  There Zelenskyy has a tricky line to walk as well. 
  He has to convince his people that they will win of course. He also has to convince the international community that they will win if they get sufficient support, while telling Russia that they are getting more than enough right now but also letting donor nations know that they really do need more. >
  
  Which is why the west should just go all in. Russian can't hope to match their spending and production capability, the quicker they're removed from Ukraine, the better. >
  
  That is when the nukes come out, the West (America really) are totally fine with bleeding Russia out in a protracted inconclusive conflict, it's been an American fantasy since Vietnam to trick their enemies into the same mistakes. >
  
  We already got that when the Soviets entered Afghanistan. Though, that uh, kind of backfired on us >
  
  And it could again while it appears much less likely given the relative performances on the battlefield, in cyberspace, in info war, etc. >
  
  A heavily militarized/traumatized nation with a history of corruption and nationalism sharing a border with a crumbling former nuclear power will not lead to a very peaceful future. >
  
  Not if the traumatized nation properly rebuilds with support from like minded nations.
  No reason to obfuscate; the problem is russia and its nukes. >
  
  It’s starting to feel like April - august again which was the hardest time for Ukraine in this war so far. The artillery storm then has just been replaced by human wave tactics. It’s just that Russia has so much damn equipment. And it feels like they’re starting to learn a bit from their mistakes too. No more easy convoy and ammo dump hits. >
  
  It never got better, the war, for Ukrainians, it's not at that point yet. We just stopped hearing as many updates because they stopped causing outrage and instead became just sad. And depression doesn't get more clicks like outrage does. Right now Zelensky's visit got media excited to report from that again.
  Right now Ukraine has a surprisingly good fighting chance, no one expected Russia to screw up so badly early on, and Ukraine has, up to now, but missed a beat. But Russia still has massive weapons cache and a large amount of reserves to keep their pressure on. The wave tactics I don't know what you're talking about. This was the strategy from the start. And the Russians haven't changed to core of it. What's happened it's that Ukrainians are now pushing against highly entrenched Russian positions, and it's a slower push. Also we're in winter now, and climate is making a push very limited. It's not the push itself, but holding it afterwards, the weather makes it very hard to quickly set up a good enough base, which needs to be able to handle the cold. >
  
  This comment section is a great case study for dunning-kruger syndrome from people who don't actually follow the war and get their opinions from headlines >
  
  Yeah for sure >
  
  This must be so hard to endure, I can't imagine having to fight just to have your freedom, and I can't believe there is still war in 2023... I guess as long as dickheads live, these things will keep happening... >
  
  We don't need to wait until those dickheads die.  We can defund Russia's war by boycotting India, China and any other nation that continues to feed Russia's war machine with cash and parts. >
  
  Have you heard of The Tuttle Twin Books? The next Putin is in 2nd grade and being groomed. >
  
  Find him and eat him >
  
  You are what you eat >
  
  Ukraine needs long range missles to decimate Russian military infrastructure. They used drones to hit Engels airport and destroyed some planes, a command center. Missles could destroy the entire runway and the planes there. Russia can't get those back quickly. Those are some of the planes hitting Ukrainian infrastructure. This won't cause Russia to use nukes, wake up and stop playing into Putin's narrative. >
  
  Destroyed planes and a command centre? Umm evidence? 
  All I heard was that it was shot down last minute and crashed killing 3 soldiers.
  Also what makes you think Russia would not just escalate to nukes? Why do you think Russia would just accept losing? >
  
  Why do you think it will use Nukes? They don't want to lose the little support they have from India and China. Nukes are just for threatening which they are already doing. Sude rhey won't accept losing but in worst case rhey will declare victory wirh whatever they occupy currently. >
  
  Ukraine won’t accept “what Russia currently has” and Russia won’t accept losing Crimea + Donbas. That means nukes. 
  Russian nuclear policy is “if the territorial integrity of Russia is threatened”, aka, losing Crimea. Russia will sacrifice china’s favour for that. >
  
  It doesn't matter how well you fight, war never changes. There's no wins, just losses, and those few acres will never be worth the lives lost.
  Of course it's nice to see a lot of Russian soldiers share our beliefs in that fighting for the russian frontlines is not worth the effort, but that on it's own doesn't end the war. >
  
  Sometimes those few acres do matter to the survivors. >
  
  Surviving defenders, but not surviving invaders.
  The discontent of Russian war vets regarding this pointless war should be felt for decades and there will be many. >
  
  
  "The occupiers are deploying all resources available to them -- and these are considerable resources -- to make some sort of advance."
  
  (emphasis added)
  It is important to remember this.  There is a lot of Russia left.  If Putin had brought everything to bear from the very beginning, this whole invasion would be very different right now.  One of Ukraine's great saving graces from the start of the war was poor Russian use of available military power.
  Why that happened is no doubt a subject that will interest students of military history for a long time to come.  But whatever the reason, it's a big part of why Ukraine has been able to achieve such successes against Russia.  Yet there is still more left.  As the one guy said... there's a lot of sausage to eat. >
  
  
  It is important to remember this. There is a lot of Russia left. If Putin had brought everything to bear from the very beginning, this whole invasion would be very different right now. One of Ukraine's great saving graces from the start of the war was poor Russian use of available military power.
  
  That is not accurate, unless you believe the Russian stance on them having 1 million active personel, which other data doesn't really back up. Yes they didnt deploy everything, but it's fairly clear that they dedicated most of what they could afford deploying for an invasion(most of the rest needed to guard other borders). For example, out of around 170 total BTGs, 110 were used in the initial invasion. And if they had a million men, they wouldn't have needed to mobilize after the losses they had till then.
  The considerable resources Russia has is that it has a shit ton of equipment in storage and manpower to spare throwing away thoughlessly(and political ability to do so). The failure at the beginning of the war was Russian logistics, not that they didn't dedicate enough troops to it. >
  
  
  most of what they could afford
  
  Well this is where we disagree.  Russia could easily have afforded more.  They just chose not to.  (For whatever reason ... it seems like there are some complicated dynamics that have been going on this whole time in the Kremlin, that are pretty opaque at least to non-experts like me.  But whatever the reasons, it's clear what the net effect is.)
  For example... I agree completely about the million men.  That is actually my point.  Russia could have spent 2021 mobilizing those reserves and having them ready to participate in the invasion.  A few hundred thousand was just not enough.
  That's in addition to the logistical issues, of course.  Even the too-small number of troops weren't given enough food or fuel to reach their objectives.  But again, Russia started preparing for this operation a year in advance.  Obviously that's not enough time to cure the fundamental systemic ills of the Russian military procurement system but it's enough time to at least find a way to meet the needs of an upcoming operation.
  Would that have been expensive?  Food, fuel, uniforms, equipment, and weapons for 1 million troops?  Sure.  But as poor as Russia is, it's not so poor that it couldn't have afforded all that.
  It was Russia's choice not to. >
  
  I don't think mobilizing before the war even started was ever a possibility.
  And the logistics issues was due to the entire invasion being poorly planned. They had the supplies for their invasion plan, but said plan was shit. >
  
  Every time Ukraine talks about difficulties, losers crawl out of the woodwork to justify their anxiety or other mental issues and defeatist propaganda.
  The reality is that the majority of people are more than aware of the difficulties and tragedies facing Ukraine but maintain a strong outlook and unwavering support of Ukraine. >
  
  No, most people are not “fully aware” of their hardships.  You can tell by how things are reported.  Especially if the ones doing so NEVER learned anything outside of school about how shitty WAR actually is.
  And as for “support” changing your FB photo to Yellow and Blue is a token and useless act.  Going to your local political rep is meaningful. >
  
  
  And as for “support” changing your FB photo to Yellow and Blue is a token and useless act.  Going to your local political rep is meaningful.
  
  Or at least donating some money. Imagine if half of all Americans donated even a dollar. Drones are needed badly right now, they cost about 800 bucks. >
  
  Dude, the us government is actively dumping BILLIONS into this thing >
  
  Of course, and it is greatly appreciated. That being said, if people want to help, there's nothing wrong with donating, and there is no such thing as too much aid during this difficult war. A buddy of mine works with the military and said they desperately need drones and generators ASAP, and people are donating. Again, this is only for people who do want to help and it certainly helps more than putting yellow and blue colors up. >
  
  That's not the government's money though. People will have to pay that money back in taxes. >
  
  If it weren't for the Ukrainian's fighting back the first days of the war and showed how tough they are then everything would have been at a lost; 2022 would have looked different! Support them until the end of the war I will >
  
  Wars tend to be that way, life on the front never a good one >
  
  A reminder that this is all made possible by India and China (and other minor powers) who keep feeding Russia's economy and industries.  These countries are prolonging the conflict by helping Russia.  India and China need to be boycotted.  It's time for the US to declare Russia a state sponsor of terror so it can apply more sanctions and force other countries to comply. >
  
  The only countries in the world participating in the sanctions on Russia are the US, EU, Japan, S. Korea, and Canada. All of Africa, all of Latin America, and almost all of Asia are still engaging with Russia economically and diplomatically. Obviously that includes China and India, as well as other large and important countries (Brazil, Turkey, Indonesia, Mexico, etc) >
  
  Yes, and they all deserve to be boycotted for doing business with Russia.  There needs to be serious consequences for supporting nations that invade other nations. >
  
  easy to talk. Are you willing to have pay cuts or get laid off your job and have to pay 2-3 times more for your food/everyday stuff? If so, carry on. >
  
  That's not gonna happen.  It's pure fearmongering.
  To the guy below who blocked me:  I don't have to cite a source because the person I'm responding to didn't cite a source either.  His source-less statement can be dismissed with another source-less statement. >
  
  Source >
  
  It's now into the phase of stalemate where both forces are equal. Not equal in the same way of course, with the Russians as always using their people as cannon fodder and attacking with numbers, and the Ukrainians using Western equipment and tactics to counter. >
  
  So Russian losses are much higher. >
  
  Yes, but loses of badly equiped soldiers from god forsaken places doesn't hurt them at all... >
  
  Would the war end if Putin died? >
  
  I don't know but the world would be a better place that's for sure! >
  
  I think people on reddit may finally be starting to believe Zelenskyy when he's saying this isn't a walk in the park like it is portrayed on /r/worldnews.  There is a legitimate chance Ukraine will lose significant ground during the next wave, and that it could be the beginning of the fall of Ukraine.  Zelenskyy isn't coming to the USA begging for weapons, and blaring pessimistic headlines for fun.  It's because things are starting to get bleak... but you wouldn't know that from Reddit, or a lot of western media.  This is a lot more of a even battle, and a coin flip than people here are willing to see through their optimistic lenses.
  Ukraine has a much harder time replacing soldiers than Russia does.  Its infrastructure is bombed out, unlike Russian infrastructure.  And for Russia, this is an existential problem... they aren't going away any time soon.  For the Ukrainian Benefactors... this is a war where they were 100% willing to let the whole of Ukraine fall into Russian hands without risking a single of their own countrymen's lives, less than a year ago.  This is getting scary for Ukraine.  And there's a very real chance they lose.  That's not being pro-Russian.  It's being objective.  This was always an uphill battle. 
  People on reddit seem to be very cognizant of pro-War propaganda in other situations.  But they fail to realize that the reason there is such a rosy picture being painted to them by western media is because if it ISN'T a rosy picture, and there's a serious chance Ukraine loses, people might want to stop supporting a lost cause. >
  
  they won't win, though.  they might drag it on as long as they can, at the cost of russian lives, but they certainly won't win.
  they're literally at a standstill right now because they're low on munitions and soldiers.   they have some, but with himars and ukrainian citizens helping with coordinates from the inside of the occupied areas, ukraine has been destroying entire caches very often, and with the train to crimea cut, and the supply roads from crimea to the north in himars range, russia's really slowed in resupplying.  their next best route is from the north, right by kharkiv, but that's RIGHT by the front line, where ukraine can hit it with both artillery and rockets.
  their 2 day mission turned into nearly a year.  their "there will not be a mobilization" turned into a mobilization.  not only have they struggled to capture land, but they've lost two huge areas of it to ukraine.  the standstill at bakhmut was turned around today, and ukraine started to push russia back along that front.  i think once the ground is completely frozen, we'll see them take a lot more back like we did with kharkiv and kherson.    
  once they get zapporizha, they'll really have crimea in a chokehold.  i think crimea will be a huge goal for them.  the biggest reason is that it's symbolic.  russia really sees that as a strong move by putin, the taking of crimea.  if they take it back, putin will have a lot of uncomfortable questions to answer back at home.  
  on top of this, sancations are slowly starting to do their work.  russia is trying to get europe to buy gas again, but we all know that that ship has already sailed.  the oil price cap was put in place and china's biggest shipping company cosco straight up refused to transport their oil.  i think this shows that other countries are seeing that associating with russia looks bad and can cause them to lose a lot of western business, even outside of sanctions.
  has ukraine lost a lot of citizens?  yup.  but given the size of russia's military and their projected "might", they've lost a lot more.  but the thing they've lost the most: their future.  their smartest minds fled the country.  others were conscripted and died in ukraine.  a lot of pro-war pro-putin people started to change tone after the retaking of kharkiv, and especially after the mobilization.  they were perfectly happy vlogging about russia's terrorism, but now that they might have to go back up their words, they're running like hypocritical bitches.   you have government officials slowly speaking up more. like last week when putin called it a war for the first time on tv, and was called out for using the word that gets everyone else 15 years in jail.  they're started to get fed up.  
  i don't think it will end tomorrow, but i absolutely don't think russia will "win".  if global help were to die off and lose interest, it would've happened months ago.  we're almost at a year and support is still increasing as russia's true face gets uglier and uglier to the world view. >
  
  Anyone that has been following the Institute for the Study of War's daily asssesments can clearly see Ukraine has been winning after the initial week of invasion. It isnt false optimism. Ukraine has shown they are winning and you do a great job of identify the reasons why that I wont repeat. The original commenter doesnt seem to know anything that is actually happening in Ukraine outside of what is on paper. What is on paper for Russia is largely ghost assets. 
  In the study of war you only start suggesting negotiations when you are aproaching your cost for war. Ukraine is willing for peace but hasnt budged on its demands. Russia's demands have been dwindling constantly and Putin's willingness to negotiate from what he said today is a major indication political pressure is mounting for the war to end in Russia. That really only happens by the players in power when things arent going well. 
  Russia's direction really mirrors WW1 Germany where the civilian population didnt know how badly things are going on the front lines and the military leadership continues to believe more men on the front lines will change the tide. Like WW1 that isnt the case and the resources/technology is what is in fact the key factor in war now. >
  
  If you’ve been following the latest ISW updates you would know that they assess Putin’s negotiation willingness as an information operation to drive a wedge between Ukraine and the west. Putin does not even acknowledge Zelensky as a sovereign leader, nor Ukraine as a sovereign state. There is no basis for negotiations.
  ISW also seems to expect another mobilization wave in January, which isn’t compatible with negotiations. >
  
  Reread my comment. Two separate ideas. Negotiations portion from War studies not from ISW. The ISW is on war operations and engagements. The information about negotiations is just about when willingness to negotiate  arises. >
  
  I’m simply saying ISW does not share your assessment regarding Putin’s willingness to negotiate being because of mounting political pressure, it actually makes him look weak. As they assess, it seems to be an information operation to make Ukraine look like the belligerent who doesn’t want to negotiate, and in turn reduce their flow of western arms. >
  
  That assesment by them I would disagree with. Zelensky has made it clear in his US visit he is willing to negotiate but not at the expense of giving up territory. All the supplying nations know this and all know this is a reasonable demand and Russia knows that is the NATO states' position as well. 
  Regarding the protrayal of weakness it is also weak to start saying you are willing to negotiate after you state you wont negotiate because that turn of face indicates failure. That is being said more and more by the milbloggers which ISW has identified in the last few months. 
  If anything it is a stall tactic to get a Northern Offensive in position or is a bad faith tactic to get a temporary ceasefire but violate it and make advances in the surprise, which was a common tactic Syria has used that Russia has learned and will likely utilize. >
  
  Hang on, Reddit told me Russia was on the verge of collapse and Zelensky was gonna personally behead Putin?! >
  
  To everybody trying to convince me that Reuters isn’t Russian propaganda, they even wrote Zelenskyy surname transliterating it from Russian language. >
  
  I believe if. 
  Fighting for real freedom. 
  Not an American right wing punchline. 
  Zelenskiy and his fellow patriots fighting for Ukraine are more “American” than even shitheads like Boebart, Gaetz or Greene, a bunch of fucking traitors >
  
  Yeah except for your point would be “freedom loving” not “American” Caus obviously even if they were the least “American” Americans they’d still be more American then a Ukrainian but I get your point it just done poorly >
  
  Could be worse,could be Russias frontline >
  
  Stay strong Ukraine!🇺🇸🇺🇸