Head of Ukraine’s national foreign intelligence service – “We have studied…the strengths and weaknesses of the enemy. We are aware of Russia’s long-term plans…at least until 2030.”
  • nednobbins@lemm.eeEnglish
    0·
    3 days ago

    I’ve found that Colonel Maruks Reisner provides some of the best information available on the war.

    https://youtu.be/IDRjughhXMg

    He doesn’t update frequently but all his analysis are sober, detailed, and realistic. He states his pro-Western, pro-NATO, pro-Ukrainian bias clearly.

    If I could sum up the general trend of his presentation it’s, “The status quo favors Russia. If we don’t get our heads out of our asses and step up Russia will win.”

    • VerifiedSource@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      0·
      3 days ago

      He is okay and mostly factual. The tactical and operational analysis is good. However he has been wrong in the past, especially with his strategic interpretations and long term predictions.

      The status quo favors Russia. If we don’t get our heads out of our asses and step up Russia will win

      That has been his refrain from the beginning. Yet Ukraine is still very much in the fight.

      The we is also kind of ironic since Austria doesn’t send any arms to Ukraine. The Austrian government and intelligence services as notoriously influenced by Russia. So take that in mind as well.

      • nednobbins@lemm.eeEnglish
        0·
        2 days ago

        I’m not aware of any major predictions he’s gotten wrong. As near as I can tell, he’s very focused on ex-post analysis.

        Ukraine is still in the fight but it’s clearly loosing. Ukraine is still rich in subjective resources like “spirit” and “determination”. When it comes to hard metrics the picture is pretty bleak; casualties, ground gained, artillery production, depth of reserves…

        The “we” wasn’t a quote by Colonel Reisener. I did put it in quotation marks but I thought it would be clear from the vocabulary that I was paraphrasing him. I’m sure you already know that Austria is constitutionally obligated to remain neutral. While Austria is barred from providing military assistance it has participated in sanctions and provided humanitarian assistance. That’s earned Austria a spot on Russia’s official Unfriendly Countries List https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfriendly_countries_list

        I try to keep a more complete set of facts in mind when assessing the reliability of sources.

        • Tuukka R@sopuli.xyzEnglish
          1·
          2 days ago

          In casualties as in military losses Ukraine is doing quite badly: Ukraine has lost some 300 000 as dead and wounded, while the Russia has lost around 800 000 as dead and wounded. The population difference is 1:3½, and the difference in total military losses is 1:2½. That means, Ukraine is losing a slightly larger share of its population as military casualties than the Russia is.

          However… Neither side is going to run out of population anytime soon. Ukrainian soldiers go to the front, eventually maybe get wounded and return home one leg poorer. Their children will not have to live with their father, only without an organic right leg of the father. And for the Russian side, the deaths are a much bigger proportion of the population. There the ratio is around 1:4½, and that one favours Ukraine.

          If a person is measuring ground gained in this war, he does not understand the war very much at all. Neither side is trying to gain ground. Both sides are trying to incur as much losses to the enemy as possible. The Russia because they need to keep the gore to the maximum in order to convince the west to stop supporting Ukraine, and Ukraine, because if the Russia’s losses drop under 1000 per month, they will be able to start training their soldiers, which will make a huge difference in their dangerousness. The Russia knows very well that it will never take over Ukraine with the current speed of advancing. Remember, in year 2024 the Russia was gaining ground faster than expected. And in year 2024 they managed to gain 0.7 % of Ukraine’s total territory. Less, if you take the Kursk province’s happenings into account. 0.7 % is strategically meaninglessly little.

          Artillery shell production is currently about twice as high in the Russia as it’s in the west. But when you take into account that to hit a specific target, the very inaccurate Russian artillery needs to shoot about ten times as many rounds as western artillery, the numbers start looking different: For military use, you either should divide the Russia’s artillery shell numbers by ten, or alternatively multiply ours by ten. Depth of reserves… Well, here we come back to casualties and motivations.

          • As said, the population ratio is 1:3½.
          • The total military casualty ratio is 1:2½, favouring the Russia.
          • The military death ratio is 1:4½, favouring Ukraine.

          Russian soldiers are in it for the money. The Russia will have useful amounts of money to give to the soldiers for another six to fifteen months, about. After that the motive is gone. Typically, it is easier for the defending party to find soldiers for a war than it is for the aggressor. This is the case in this war as well. This means, when interpreting the casualty ratios, you need to add a multiplier for taking into account that the defender can tap into a larger share of the population than the aggressor can.

          Remember, Ukrainians are sending to the front less than a fifth of what they could, if we compare with Finland. Finland has a population of 5,6 million and we have about one million soldiers ready to serve within some months of the begin of a hypothetical war. Each one of them has received a top-class military training and each one has a specific place in a specific unit in the army should a war break. Ukraine has about the same size army as that, even though they have over 40 million people. The unwillingness to join the front is a surprising feature, at least from a Finnish perspective, but also a result of a lack of motivation. If the scales were to tip in the favour of the Russia, Ukrainians would get scared and more would be ready to help their country. When looking at the very large difficulties Ukraine has with conscription, you need to take this into account. The problem is of a type that solves itself. It’s extremely unfair towards the soldiers at the front that they never get relieved. And idiotic that people don’t want to join the army because soldiers never get relieved from the front … because there are not enough people ready to go to the front. And, from my experience living in Ukraine, I would say that this won’t change. They will remain understaffed as long as the war will go on, but always precisely at the limit where they can still keep scraping on.

          Ukraine’s army won’t be disappearing anytime soon, the west is effortlessly able to pay all of Ukraine’s budget indefinitely if it so wishes and the Russia is not able to gain any ground. The Russia’s goals are to cause Ukraine to collapse economically or its army to collapse from lack of manpower, and neither of those can happen. At the same time, the Russian economy, and therefore military, have at max one year time left. After that they will have nothing to use for stopping Ukraine from reclaiming its territories.

          EDIT: I want to add: While the Ukrainians’ readiness to defend their country is lower than Finns’, that’s mostly because Finland has an exceptionally high readiness for that. If you compare with Germany or France, the Ukrainians look extremely willing to go to the front. What I wanted to say is that although their willingness is very high, there is still a lot of place for improvement!

  • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.caEnglish
    0·
    4 days ago

    Russia is going to run out of troops.

    IDK when, but they’re basically feeding their population into a meat grinder trying to take Ukraine.

    That’s not too say the Ukraine isn’t taking losses… I’ve just, seen some numbers that indicate that Russia is going to run out of people to send to their deaths before Ukraine will.

    Putin needs to give this up before he doesn’t have a military anymore.

    • Rinox@feddit.itEnglish
      0·
      4 days ago

      It’s not that they will run out of people. They have people, but to keep recruitment levels so high and equipment manufacturing so high they are overcharging their economy. Right now in Russia there are three types of jobs if you want to make money afaik, work in the military complex (arms manufacturing), in the gas extraction industry or directly in the military.

      It’s Dutch disease x100, if the state at some point stops being able to fund the war machine, their economy collapses.

      • Camelbeard@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        4 days ago

        To add to this, Putin can recruit from the poorest regions for a while, but at some point he needs to get men from the larger cities. The last thing he wants is protests from Moskou etc. The average person from Moskou hadn’t had that much negative effects from the war yet. But if you, your son or father is forced to the battlefield it’s a different story.

  • alykanas@slrpnk.netEnglish
    01·
    4 days ago

    No, they are not.

    Trump is ditching them because they can’t win, and he doesnt want to carry a loser.

    Harsh, unjust, but true.

      • M137@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        3 days ago

        Firstly, that’s not certain at all, yet. Secondly “spoiler alert” goes first, you don’t write the spoiler then the alert, your inability to understand that says no one should trust anything you say.

    • NauticalNoodle@lemmy.mlEnglish
      0·
      4 days ago

      Ukraine is their neignbor. Being that most of Europe are also NATO members, It makes more sense to me that they be the ones to spearhead this proxy war if anyone should.

        • NauticalNoodle@lemmy.mlEnglish
          0·
          4 days ago

          “The EU has given far more support to Ukraine than the US.”

          Cite your sources.

          The “EU” is not a singular country. The US is.

            • NauticalNoodle@lemmy.mlEnglish
              1·
              3 hours ago

              Okay, person who admit’s to posting “stupid shit”

              “President Macron is correct, according to Kiel figures. But they suggest President Trump also has a point; the US has sent more grants, while the EU sent more loans. However, again, there are different figures out there.” -Per your article

              First, the source you provided isn’t as clear-cut as you seem to think it is, unless you want the U.S. to engage in even more profiteering off of this proxy-war by increasing loans.

              Secondly, I’m not opposed to spending less money to continue this war, so sending me articles claiming that the EU debatably spends more then the U.S. to perpetuate this war does nothing but make me feel okay about our decreasing involvement. -You guys seem to be making continued and exaggerated inferences about my position on this matter even though i’ve clearly stated my motivations for this position in other comments under this same thread.

              GTFO, Warmonger.

      • LandedGentry@lemmy.zipEnglish
        0·
        4 days ago

        Russia is all of our problem. Being that the US is part of the world and Russia is a rogue state with a nuclear arsenal and the flagrant aggressor, it makes plenty of sense for us to invest in reducing their ability to cause these kinds of shockwaves every 7-10 years on the world stage.

        Have you forgotten the social and political unrest Russia has caused in our country? Are you unaware of the money and personnel they invest into destabilizing our country? Should that just go completely unanswered?

        Do you seriously think we should only concern ourselves with Mexico and Canada or something?

        • NauticalNoodle@lemmy.mlEnglish
          01·
          4 days ago

          “Have you forgotten the social and political unrest Russia has caused in our country? Are you unaware of the money and personnel they invest into destabilizing our country? Should that just go completely unanswered?”

          you overestimate the influence russia previously had in our country while simultaneously underestimate the impact of americas history on my own fellow Americans as well as the rest of the world.

          Do you seriously think we don’t invest money and personnel in destabilizing russia?

          I also didn’t say to eliminate support, but we shouldn’t be leading this charge

          “Do you seriously think we should only concern ourselves with Mexico and Canada or something?”

          I seriously think we should do what our fellow NATO countries have been doing the past 8 decades and start focusing our attention on improving living conditions at home instead of constantly spending absurd amounts of money to perpetuate this infinitely growing war machine that claims to hold other countries to standards that it can’t even hold itself to.