zone posted:

You're going to wait for a long time. They had something around 3,000-3,500 launchers of varying types on paper before the war started.

Khanstant posted:

i just dont how we can be in a war against russia for so long and republicans just don't care don't even try to pretend we can win our wars or act like we even want to

poor waif posted:

Wouldn't they run out of radars before they run out of launchers?

tiaz posted:

Why is that not an exchange Ukraine can win? They weathered it (relatively) fine the first year when Russia made it a major part of their strategy to try to freeze out Ukrainians over the winter by blowing up energy infrastructure.

Wrt "a war of attrition favors Whoever" (not explicitly aimed at you TC), I don't think it's possible to say with as little information we have with non-secret sources. Yeah Ukraine has a smaller conscript pool to draw from, but Russia is losing them way faster and force generation isn't just a matter of "how many dudes are there". Ukraine doesn't have tons of Western armor (or in general), but Russia is spaffing theirs up the wall losing tens per day. I have no idea how much spare capacity lies behind any of the factors that are keeping either side in the fight, so ... as long as Ukraine is willing to fight keep sending them what they need.

(also, naively, 5:1 is enough to win: Ukraine has >20% of Russia's population.)

Telsa Cola posted:

That all being said, you are totally correct and I/none of us have insider knowledge. It's still a developing situation. I just dont think it favors Ukraine if Russia makes it clear that further oil refinery attacks = energy infrastructure attacks on Ukraine.

spankmeister posted:

No further oil refinery attacks = energy infrastructure attacks on Ukraine.

It makes no difference. Russia has been attacking Ukraine's energy infrastructure before Ukraine attacked Russia's oil refineries and it will continue to do so regardless.

Dwesa posted:

Article summarizing recent developments on the battlefield and what to expect in 2024 and 2025

Abstract

Warning from Russian serviceman to others that consider earning money in Ukraine

https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1784860717159477315

Telsa Cola posted:

They appear to be doing it more frequently as a response to the oil strikes and that increase in frequency and intensity may be to much for Ukraine to easily mitigate in comparison. Sure, Ukraine could space poo poo out so they do have the time/resources to mitigate but that also gives Russia more time to deal with poo poo as well.

So yes, it does make a difference.

spankmeister posted:

They appear to do it more frequently, because Ukraine is low on air defense. Your conclusion is based on conjecture.

Telsa Cola posted:

Lol you are literally in the exact same boat with that claim unless you have access to information covering the distribution of Ukrainian air defense units, their stockpile of ammunition, and details on their intercept rates/failures.

Telsa Cola posted:

Lol you are literally in the exact same boat with that claim unless you have access to information covering the distribution of Ukrainian air defense units, their stockpile of ammunition, and details on their intercept rates/failures.

Telsa Cola posted:

Lol you are literally in the exact same boat with that claim unless you have access to information covering the distribution of Ukrainian air defense units, their stockpile of ammunition, and details on their intercept rates/failures.

Telsa Cola posted:

They appear to be doing it more frequently as a response to the oil strikes

god please help me posted:

lmao at the person telling the other to stop swearing.

Beffer posted:

This is a pro-click. It could be from any war. A soldier who enlisted telling everyone not to make the mistake he made.

spankmeister posted:

Framing Russian attacks on energy infrastructure as a response instead of something that Russia has been doing since the early days of the war is yet another way to victim blame Ukraine for the crimes being committed against it by Russia.

Khanstant posted:

You don't need all that info to know the side that's being attacked and has had weapons assist held back for most of a year have fewer defenses for targets that evidently could not be defended.

But even before that, what you're suggesting is that Russia will play nice if the people they have been trying to genocide since 1923 would just stop resisting, which is horrifyingly stupid for reasons you shouldn't have to have explained to you.

spankmeister posted:

So stop talking out of your rear end then.

AnacondaHL posted:

You seem really bent on this "as a response" narrative, when overall it has been clear that 1) they want to turn Ukraine into a failed state which includes crippling energy infrastructure, and 2) we all know Russia is preparing for a Summer offensive, as their last window of opportunity before Ukraine defences get replenished with the money.

i.e. these actions are inherent Russian strategy nearly regardless of Ukraine's actions. "As a response" sounds like situationally opportunistic propaganda for the Russians, and this take is really weak, hth.

zone posted:

Aieeeeeee monke man save us from the crests and their evil western missiles

Telsa Cola posted:

These responses lead to an increase in tempo/frequency of strikes against Ukrainian energy infrastructure. If Ukraine first had to weather strikes once a week/month/whatever and they now they have to deal with it twice as much then thats twice as much replacement parts, labor, etc they have to deal with to keep the lights on and I'm not sure if they actually come out better in that exchange given the supply issues that they have.

Telsa Cola posted:

Your

Skanky Burns posted:

Framing the Russian attacks on electrical infrastructure as a "response" is a weird hill to die on given that they started a year before the action they are retaliating against started, but you do you.

Given that it is a major aspect of Russia's strategy, it is understandable that they have invested heavily in bomber drone production and the more frequent attacks are the direct result of that investment. We can see the same investment being made in recon etc drones used on the front line where they are fielded in significantly higher numbers than last year.

Runa posted:

Well, for what it's worth, there's not a whole lot we can do about it.

Also, this topic showing up in the American news cycle isn't particularly informative as I would suspect the USA has their own economic motives to deincentivise strikes on Russian energy infrastructure.

concise posted:

Telsa Cola posted:

Your still making an assumption/conjecture on that, and the recent pattern of the strikes don't actually fit that narrative. Russian strikes this year post all the oil refinery strikes have been larger and more coordinated than earlier in war. Either of those could explain an increase in hits.

Do you think its a coincidence that about a week after Ukraine hit like a half dozen energy targets in Russia, Russia launched one of the largest to date strikes? You can take it for what its worth but they literally also said thats what the strike was about.

Nope, I did not make that claim. My claim was "Russia is going to hit Ukrainian energy infrastructure as a response to Ukrainian oil industry attacks, and that might be an exchange that does not work well for Ukraine."

I have more evidence and support for my claim then you do, given that my claim is currently whats being reported by various news agencies, so uh, maybe you should take your own advice.

Russia has multiple target priorties, energy infrastructure being one of them. Russia has consistently shown that it will and does fire upon energy infrastructure. I don't think any of the above is controversial or up for debate.

Russia, like anyone, has limited resources. It cannot continuously use said resources to target energy infrastructure because utimately, those resources may be better used elsewhere/some other time.

When Ukraine hits energy infrastructure, Russia is "encouraged" to respond in kind because if they don't they look weak. So they make further strikes that target energy infrastructure. This is, by definition, a retaliatory strike. Ukrainian attacks on Russia's oil infrastructure are also retaliatory strikes.

These responses lead to an increase in tempo/frequency of strikes against Ukrainian energy infrastructure. If Ukraine first had to weather strikes once a week/month/whatever and they now they have to deal with it twice as much then thats twice as much replacement parts, labor, etc they have to deal with to keep the lights on and I'm not sure if they actually come out better in that exchange given the supply issues that they have.

Zeromus posted:

And what was the retaliatory reason Russia attacked: Apartment buildings, Malls, Hospitals, etc. with missiles? I'm guessing Ukraine was asking for that too? In fact, a majority of their attacks have been on civilians, so gently caress off.

Tai posted:

https://twitter.com/GAMZIRI24/status/1784668914699338032

CIA are at it again. They paid off tens of thousands of people to go out and march.

Telsa Cola posted:

Your still making an assumption/conjecture on that, and the recent pattern of the strikes don't actually fit that narrative. Russian strikes this year post all the oil refinery strikes have been larger and more coordinated than earlier in war. Either of those could explain an increase in hits.

Khanstant posted:

Actually it is self evident that Ukrainian targets that have been destroyed were not adequately defended. You can tell because they were destroyed, instead of not destroyed.

Stopped reading after you were going off of reasons Russia gave for their actions as of it were something you should ever consider taking at face value and it was clear you weren't making a joke, like you really typed it out because it's part of your argument of why Ukraine should not attack the people actively trying to genocide them, which is another set of stupid loving horseshit you shouldn't type.

Telsa Cola posted:

...what? That's not really how things work in the real world. You could have the best missile defense emplaced in the world and poo poo would still slip through because that's just kinda the reality of things. Particularly when your enemy really wants it gone.

Nah I didn't say that. What I said is that avenue of attack might not be beneficial for Ukraine in the long run because I don't think they come out better in the exchange.