Here we go again-Ukraine once again pt2

[Jimbuna]

In case of Trump’s return to power in USA, "Europe will not be able to remain pro-war" - Orban

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has said that if Donald Trump wins the US election, Europe will not be able to "remain pro-war" in the future.

This was reported by Censor.NET with reference to Telex.

As noted, in the context of the US elections, Orban said that by the end of the year there will be different conditions in the world, that "peaceful" forces will be in the majority, and this change will occur with the victory of Donald Trump.

Regarding the Russian-Ukrainian war, he said that if Trump returns to power,"Europe will not be able to remain pro-war," and will not be able to bear the burden of the war it was "irresponsibly dragged into" on its own.

"We will also have to adapt to the situation," he added.

Earlier, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said that if Donald Trump wins the US election, he will immediately take the initiative to diplomatically resolve the Russian-Ukrainian war. Source: https://censor.net/en/n3518180

[Dargo]

Originally Posted by mapuc

^ Thank you-Well these maps are truly showing Ukraine is losing grounds in Kursk.

Markus

Giving up ground has a strategic purpose. Ukraine has too few troops and cannot afford to fight to the death in every position, trench or bunker. So what they are doing is very controlled, trading terrain for time. They want to use that time to keep the war going for as long as possible. Ukraine does not hold position for the sake of holding positions it trades them for meat, in the last months more than +8000 Russians and a lot of equipment were lost in Kursk alone. Like they have in the Donbas postponed their timetable to conquer these regions meaning they lose again those staggering numbers of men and equipment. And do not come they have enough, they have not, that is why they import the majority of ammunition from North Korea with meat to feed the grinder. The ratio of shells has dropped from 10:1 to 3:1 on the fronts.

[Skybird]

[Jimbuna]

[Dargo]

Stopping Ukraine aid would cost Berlin 10-20 times more than current support, think tank says

Kiel InstituteÂ’s research shows German economy would suffer 1-2% GDP loss annually, compared to current 0.1% GDP assistance, due to increased defense spending and refugees. A new analysis by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy suggests that stopping military aid to Ukraine would cost GermanyÂ’s economy “significantly more” than maintaining current support levels. The researchers estimate that ending support would lead to substantially higher costs for Germany through three main channels: increased military spending, additional refugee influx, and loss of trade and investment with Ukraine... https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/11/...ink-tank-says/ Was kostet es, die Ukraine nicht zu unterstützen?

Originally Posted by Skybird

You can facepalm, but this is Ukraine strategy they saved more than they would in an offensive strategy I know you can not grasp the idea of this because you believe more in a strategy of a neutral country that has not been in a war since 1945. This strategy is based on real military doctrine that proven itself for centuries and is the only strategy that under the current criteria sustain Ukraine army to defend themselves. All said why keep defending Bakhmut, why keep defending Avdiivka and/or why keep defending... because they lose so many for a town/city now Ukraine changed that strategy you throw facepalms how swell much knowledge really courageous.

[Catfish]

^ I guess Skybirs's facepalm post was directed at Jim's post about Orban:
"In case of Trump’s return to power in USA, "Europe will not be able to remain pro-war" - Orban".
Orban can go to hell. Filling the pockets and those of his family with foreign money intended to help Hungary's people is one of the worst cases of nepotism ever seen in Europe.

[mapuc]

Are we seeing a controlled withdrawal by the Ukrainians or is it a hasty retreat we see ?
And
Do they make the Russians pay for each meter they take ?

Markus

[Dargo]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Are we seeing a controlled withdrawal by the Ukrainians or is it a hasty retreat we see ?
And
Do they make the Russians pay for each meter they take ?

Markus

Mostly controlled, sure in certain situation they realize they had to withdraw earlier in war not everything goes according perfection what we see from visible checked sources Russia pays. And Ukraine figures are not so off.

[mapuc]

A task who has to be done.



Markus

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Dargo

Stopping Ukraine aid would cost Berlin 10-20 times more than current support, think tank says

Kiel Institute’s research shows German economy would suffer 1-2% GDP loss annually, compared to current 0.1% GDP assistance, due to increased defense spending and refugees. A new analysis by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy suggests that stopping military aid to Ukraine would cost Germany’s economy “significantly more” than maintaining current support levels. The researchers estimate that ending support would lead to substantially higher costs for Germany through three main channels: increased military spending, additional refugee influx, and loss of trade and investment with Ukraine... https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/11/...ink-tank-says/ Was kostet es, die Ukraine nicht zu unterstützen?

You can facepalm, but this is Ukraine strategy they saved more than they would in an offensive strategy I know you can not grasp the idea of this because you believe more in a strategy of a neutral country that has not been in a war since 1945. This strategy is based on real military doctrine that proven itself for centuries and is the only strategy that under the current criteria sustain Ukraine army to defend themselves. All said why keep defending Bakhmut, why keep defending Avdiivka and/or why keep defending... because they lose so many for a town/city now Ukraine changed that strategy you throw facepalms how swell much knowledge really courageous.

You must not explain to me these strategems and tactics - I predicted some of them for the time after their first offensive collapsed in the deep layered russian minefields and costed them a decisive ammount of their Western tanks. I predicted they would go into defensive mode, and that we would see tactical fallbacks and straightening of frontlines for better defence.

The point is that you cannot see the difference between the successful implementation of just these things, and the the change when these things started to fail and the plans did not turn out successful anymore. Hence you mistake these previous ideas with the grim reality there now is, and where they cannot hold a line anymore and get pressed back, sometimes under heavy own costs, you still call that "a Ukrainain trap", "a tactical withdrawel", "according to plan".

And the biggest miscalculation of yours: you do not see that the losses of Ukraine may be smaller in total and so the losses they impose on the Russians in total may be higher, but that they are not sufficently higher to give the ukainians a compensation for their own losses und numericla inferiority. They would need MUCH HIGHER KILL RATES. Russia can easier afford its high losses, than the Ukraine can afford its in relation smaller losses (which does not mean they are not high, too). Thats why in this war of attrition Ukraine falls back more and more, and runs out of breath easier and more decisevely than Russia. And thats why Russia accepts any losses of its own to enforce that the war is beign fought as an attrotion war. Because this is where Russia can maximise its advantages.

Pull your head out of the sand. The despair of the ukrainians became obvious when they went into Kursk, it was a desperate attempt to enforce somehow, by miracle and wonder, a change of the way the war was working against them, it was a gamble, and that they took it with all the immense risk involved shows how desperate their situation was already back then. And I wrote that too, at the beginning of the Kursk offensive. Their gamble did not work, they did not get what they wanted, neither did they distract forces from Donezk to a degree that it was felt on the battlefield, nor did the Russians slow down. Quite the opposite: the Ukrainian troops in Kurks ar no longer available for the defence in Donezk and Donbass, and the Russians massively raised their pressure and speed of advance while at the same time pushing back in Kursk and degrading the territorial gains by Ukraine there. Ukraine's attempt to counter that with a second pocket west of the main drive into Kursk also failed. And the assumed idea of that they wanted the land as a trading argument to exchange land for land in negotiations with Putin also failed, since Putin does not want to negotiate. Ukraine now mulls pulling out there, sicne it cannot hold the pressure much longer, and its losses are dramatically mounting. They wasted their reserves for this excursion. They were unable in preservign these forces as active reserves or as a stockpile of troops for the building of future reserves. They suffered losses in material that they cannot afford to lose.

In my thinking, Kursk is not just a failure - its a total DESASTER for Ukraine. Standardizing losses versus what each side can sustain and afford in losses due to its potentials, Ukraine suffered a technical knockout over Kursk. It got nothing, and now stands there with empty hands and gone reserves, the remaining forces additionally exhausted. As a healdine of an article I linked to some day ago put it: the frontline in total is now trembling.

You can twist and turn it any way you want. As things run now: Ukraine loses, and since a long time. And it loses at increasing pace. Maybe Western support will change in the future, though I do not expect it, but if it does, decisevely and not just cosmetically, then we can talk again. But until then, I stick to my assessments.

[Gorpet]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

In case of TrumpÂ’s return to power in USA, "Europe will not be able to remain pro-war" - Orban

I think, if Europe want's to continue to support Ukraine,They can without the support of the United States. After all Europe is the United Nations. And the situation will allow all of Europe.To show the rest of the Planet just how strong and cohesive,The European Union and the countries under the Blue Flag and helmets are.Without the support of the United States.And i suspect that is what will happen if Trump wins the election. And it will be a plus for the American taxpayer. And the war if you want it to continue is now on the shoulders of the politicians. Orban is a smart man that, looks for the future of his country and the future of his culture and his people. You gotta respect that.

[QUOTE=Skybird;2931679]You must not explain to me these strategems and tactics - I predicted some of them for the time after their first offensive collapsed in the deep layered russian minef

[Jimbuna]

[Jimbuna]

[Jimbuna]

[Catfish]

It looks worse for Ukraine than I thought
(yes Skybird, I know you are posting this since years)

How quickly could Europe be in a position to provide effective assistance, even though it would hardly be able to completely replace US supplies?
"The necessary decisions should have been made two or three years ago. We are experiencing a war of attrition here. Whoever can send more material and more soldiers into the field will win. Our help has so far given Ukraine many advantages, but not a really decisive advantage. If the USA fails, Europe will have to rethink things massively. The production of weapons and ammunition would have to be massively increased. But time is running out because Ukraine is running out of soldiers. Ukraine's population is much smaller than Russia's. That is a massive disadvantage."


Regardless who 'wins' in the US, Colonel Markus Reisner from the Austrian Armed Forces fears that aid from Washington will decrease either way.
The US help for Ukraine already only amounts to 10 percent of the promised (and proudly published) numbers (see article).
But the main problem was and is the numbers of ukrainian soldiers.

https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Reisners...e25336040.html

english:
https://www-n--tv-de.translate.goog/..._x_tr_pto=wapp

What is not in the article is that big parts of the german SPD are still very Russia-friendly, like the whole left movement, Die Linke and Sarah Wagenknecht.
Which is completely idiotic. The Soviet union was never "communist" or left in the meaning of the word, it is and was plain dictatorial. I wonder what the left thinks and interpretes if they are such peace-loving folks. Liars.

Russia has influenced and paid german peace and disarmamant movements for decades, together with supporting terrorist groups like the RAF (Rote Armee Fraktion) back then. So chancellor Scholz' "reluctance" in delivering Taurus follows those paths. What does this mean for Germany?
Never thought I'd say this but the old slogan "Wer hat uns verraten, Sozialdemokraten" still seems legit.