Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

apple_kicks OP t1_j27xg0r wrote

> Fighting in Ukraine is currently at a deadlock as neither Ukraine nor Russia can make significant advances, the head of the Ukrainian military intelligence agency has said, while Kyiv waits for more advanced weapons from Western allies.

>"The situation is just stuck," Kyrylo Budanov told the BBC in an interview. "It doesn't move."

>After Ukrainian troops recaptured the southern city of Kherson in November, most of the fiercest battles have been around Bakhmut, in the eastern Donetsk region. Elsewhere, Russian forces appear to be on the defensive while winter has slowed down the pace of Ukraine's ground operations across the 1,000km (620-mile) front line.

>Mr Budanov said Russia was "now completely at a dead end" suffering very significant losses, and he believed the Kremlin had decided to announce another mobilisation of conscripts. But, he added, Ukrainian forces still lacked resources to move forward in multiple areas.

> We can't defeat them in all directions comprehensively. Neither can they," he said. "We're very much looking forward to new weapons supplies, and to the arrival of more advanced weapons."

>Earlier this month, after a series of Russian military setbacks, Ukrainian officials warned about the possibility of another ground offensive by Moscow's forces from Belarus at the start of 2023. The push, they said, could include a second attempt to seize the capital, Kyiv, and involve tens of thousands of reservists being trained in Russia.

>Mr Budanov, however, dismissed Russia's activities in Belarus, including the movement of thousands of troops, as attempts to make Ukraine divert troops from the battlefields in the south and east to the north.

33

Alcorevan t1_j27yu8v wrote

> Recently, he said, a train loaded with Russian soldiers stopped in a location close to the Belarus-Ukraine border and returned, several hours later, with everyone on board.

> "They did it openly during the day, so that everyone would see it, even if [we] didn't want to,"

Man's still got humor.

32

danielbot t1_j27zcvz wrote

What he actually said:

>Mr Budanov said Russia was "now completely at a dead end" suffering very significant losses, and he believed the Kremlin had decided to announce another mobilisation of conscripts. But, he added, Ukrainian forces still lacked resources to move forward in multiple areas.

So I don't think the headline is accurate. If Russian forces are taking significant losses and Ukrainian forces are not, then it is not deadlocked. The same if Russian equipment is degrading while Ukrainian equipment is improving.

26

scorchpork t1_j28mbsb wrote

Ukraine is taking significant loses. They are taking the same amount of military loses as Russia plus civilian according to US estimates. Our news is only highlighting Russian loses as a morale booster and because that is what people want to hear. This has been pretty 50/50 though.

14

CheesecakeMedium8500 t1_j28vjxi wrote

Oh it’s nowhere close to 50/50. It’s not 99/1 like Reddit makes it seem but it’s nowhere close to 50/50. The reason Ukraine isn’t advancing is not because they’re taking super heavy casualties. It’s because Russia is successfully throwing meat shields in their way and Ukraine is unwilling to show a similar disregard for their soldier’s lives in order to advance.

24

SiarX t1_j294wv0 wrote

Were not there recently news that Russia lost 100k troops, and Ukraine lost around 100k troops, too?

1

CheesecakeMedium8500 t1_j29avdu wrote

You’re including wounded in the “casualty” number. Russia has seen more than 20,000 soldiers confirmed killed. Ukraine has seen about 10,000. And the trend for Ukraine is stable. The trend for Russia is ever increasing.

4

dipsy18 t1_j29s62f wrote

No, confirmed killed for Russia is a lot higher based on reports. Also, since Russia doesn't have proper medics and field hospitals the wounded converted to killed % is high.

1

CheesecakeMedium8500 t1_j29srhs wrote

Where have you seen confirmed killed higher? BTW confirmed killed is always lower than the actual number killed because confirming deaths and reporting them takes time and resources.

2

daniel_22sss t1_j29f4dm wrote

" This has been pretty 50/50 though."

50\50? I sure don't see pictures with hundreds of ukranian bodies just lying on the ground, like russian bodies are doing in Bakhmut. Why would they take equal number of casualties, when russian attacks are just blind zerg rushes, while ukranian attacks were smart pushes with combined arms and good strategy? Its closer to 65\35 or even 70\30.

9

scorchpork t1_j29ntj8 wrote

Nonexistence of proof isn't proof of nonexistence. It is hard to parse out non-distorted reality. Most of the media and outlets we are exposed to are pro-ukraine. And it is going to highlight Ukrainian success and undersell any Russian success. Also, the number of loses doesn't necessarily equal the detriment of the lose. Imagine you were in a fight and it were 5 against 3: if both sides lose 2 people is it really 50/50?

Edit: I am pro Ukraine and want to see Russia get their ass kicked. I'm just also skeptical of possibly biased information fed to me.

5

Don11390 t1_j2biots wrote

Independent observers already have noted the incredible disparity between Russian and Ukrainian losses of men and materiel. The Russians have lost much more of both than the Ukrainians, that isn't remotely disputed by anyone who knows the truth.

What is true is that the Russians have a greater potential reserve of manpower and materiel. A Ukrainian unit losing, say, 10 men hurts the Ukrainians more than a Russian unit losing 10 men, if we oversimplify things. Same thing with aircraft and vehicles, armored and otherwise.

However, thanks to Western training and materiel support and Russian corruption and incompetence, AFU units are qualitatively superior to their Russian counterparts. As the Ukrainians themselves readily admit, they're lucky that the opposition is so goddamned stupid; this stupidity has largely neutralized any potential advantage that the Russians had. The Russians have also pissed away materiel that they can't afford to waste on civilian targets for very little gain; the Ukrainians are very much aware that this is a war for survival, and if rolling blackouts are the price to pay for survival they'll gladly pay it.

In any case, if you really want to read between the lines and see what way the wind is blowing, check on the status of Western support for Ukraine. The simple fact is that there wouldn't be this level of support if NATO didn't believe that the Ukrainians didn't have the ability to win.

6

scorchpork t1_j2bkjse wrote

Hard disagree. It is in our interest to have Ukraine fighting Russia, even if they lose. It isn't really hurting us to send the aid, and it is causing Russia to lose face, lose some men, and lose some equipment. We have been supplying Ukraine with defense materials for years (remember the whole 'quid pro quo' ordeal) nobody thought, prior to this year, that Ukraine stood a chance against Russia. And who are these "independent" observers? And as Schwarzkopf once said, "Quantity is a quality all its own"

−3

pro-crastibator t1_j2c00kz wrote

Yep, although both perspectives can be true at the same time. It’s in the US’s interest for Ukraine to survive as Russia’s punching bag for quite a while. Between sanctions and the gradual depletion of their military might, the longer this drags on, the worse it is for Russia (and better for the west). A swift and decisive victory for either side undermines this objective, although ultimately a victory for Ukraine against a heavily depleted Russia would be the best strategic outcome. This could take some time to play out.

2

Lord_Shisui t1_j289p0d wrote

Isn't it because its unusually warm for the time and they are both kinda stuck in muddy areas? I'm not so sure the war is deadlocked because neither side can get anything done. It's mostly weather, as soon as it starts freezing we'll surely see movements on both sides.

13

autotldr t1_j2810oe wrote

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot)

> Fighting in Ukraine is currently at a deadlock as neither Ukraine nor Russia can make significant advances, the head of the Ukrainian military intelligence agency has said, while Kyiv waits for more advanced weapons from Western allies.

> Although Iran has provided most of the drones used in Russia's attacks, the spy chief says it has so far refused to deliver missiles to Russia, aware that Western countries are likely to impose measures on Tehran, already under crippling sanctions because of its nuclear programme.

> The war may be deadlocked for now, but Mr Budanov is adamant that Ukraine will ultimately retake all the territory now under occupation, including Crimea, the peninsula that Russia seized in 2014.

Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Russia^#1 Russian^#2 Ukraine^#3 Budanov^#4 troops^#5

8

TimelessWander t1_j28z2fl wrote

It's winter. There'a going to be a deadlock.

7

drwiki0074 t1_j29l3gj wrote

I can't believe that reserves are coming into play. We have all heard about the casualties for both sides. I can't believe for one moment, throwing another "wave" of fresh troops at the conflict is going to be any different. If anything it will create more disarray among the cohesion of the "veterans" that are currently fielded. Having to deal with the FNG while fighting a battle against a country that is prepared to go out swinging until literally, no one can draw breath.

War is as much of a mental battle as it is a physical one, and I just can't see how any f this will create any kind of advantage for Russia.

2

Fabulous_Ad5052 t1_j2cgywd wrote

🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

2

heavy-minium t1_j28obpc wrote

It's well known that the more you prolong a war, the more it becomes impossible to finance and supply the necessary resources. Russia can withstand the pressure somewhat longer than Ukraine, making this a possible strategy for Putin. It's also possible for Russia's economy to recover slightly during prolonged wartime, while it would be impossible for Ukraine.

−13

dipsy18 t1_j29scoh wrote

Nope, Ukraine is being backed by NATO. Russia's economy is the size of New York in comparison.

9

Waanaev t1_j27z0h0 wrote

We should all find common ground for peace. It is for the good of all.

−61

jpf137 t1_j281pdr wrote

Yes, russians go back home to russia, Ukrainians stay home in Ukraine. It's pretty simple, actually.

35

FM-101 t1_j2899ou wrote

If russia stops fighting there is no more war. If Ukraine stops fighting there is no more Ukraine.
There's your common ground for peace.

23

OnthelooseAnonymoose t1_j280fe0 wrote

Exactly, now what I hope my country does (Canada) is pulls more weapons out of it's arse and sends them to Ukraine to kick those Russian bastards the fuck out of Ukraine, once they are across Russian borders I fully support a peace negotiation. Russia will need it since their economy will be in a shambles for a generation or more now.

19

kindofageek t1_j282we9 wrote

In this case peace is rather simple. Russia and retreat to the 1991 borders, stop murdering Ukrainians, return all prisoners and kidnapped children, and agree to significant financial payments to properly rebuild the country and provide money to the citizens of the country.

18

FrozMind t1_j28f32w wrote

Peace by legalizing land theft from 2014 will lead only to more land theft with corpses piling up all around globe (Moldova, Syria, Taiwan, Japan). And since NATO didn't pour into Ukraine, russia taught that having nuclear weapons is good for national health, since you can genocide all you want and nobody will respond directly. Allowing it will prove russia won 2014-2023 war completing minimal win goals.

11

LeoKyouma t1_j29tsss wrote

Yep, Russia fucks off and quite being murderous dicks and everyone lives to see tomorrow. Sounds perfect. Just need to get rid of Putin’s ego and we’re good to go.

3