Ukraine: is it a Stalemate?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 июл 2024
- The war in Ukraine is a stalemate. How do we break it?
Join this channel to support it:
/ @millennium7historytech
Support me on Patreon / millennium7
One off donation with PayPal www.paypal.com/paypalme/Mille...
Join the Discord server / discord
Buy an Aircraft Model at Air Models! airmodels.net/?aff=173
----------------------------
Ask me anything!
Take part to the community Q&A clicking the link below!
forms.office.com/r/LNPQtf3Tc0
--------------------
Visit the subreddit!
/ millennium7lounge
---------------------
All images and additional video segments contained in the Thumbnails and/or B-roll segments are used in strict compliance with the appropriate permissions and licenses required from the source and in accordance with the RUclips Partner Program, Community guidelines & RUclips terms of service.
It is not a Stalemate, It's a war of attrition waged on Ukraine by Russia with completely predictable outcome.
Russia is pushing. It’s pushing areas hard. Just not having massive successes. Both sides have had taking territory problems.
Ukraine will fight to the last as the Ukrainians don’t have anywhere to run to. Russians can leave at anytime and not all the Russian population is pro war.
I think, it is safe to assume "Sugarcoating a Strategical defeat" is what "Stalemate" actually means. And Strategical, because it belongs to NATO's Strategical goal, to surround Russia and China. And without this important puzzle piece, this encirclement (siege/sanctions warfare) is not possible effectively.
@@Gunni1972 NATO has nothing to do with Russia's invasion. This is a psychotic theory that only exists within Putin's broken brain. Ukraine was denied NATO membership in 2006, and they were never allowed to apply again since Russia put a military base on Crimea in 1997 which is against NATO's rules.
Sounds like more BS from the Pro-NATO and EU crowd. Don't go killing Russian Speaking Ukrainians much like Israel did to the Palestinians in Gaza, and not expect a push back. This was a calculated War planned in the 2010 and carried out by Obama/Biden along with the EU in 2014. Of course if you are someone with a 6th Grade education you believe the Propaganda BS coming from the lying MSM.
Russia wiping out its ethnic sobering population?
In an age when so many people choose to only consume news they want to see, making a video with an opinion that doesn't please people is brave and shows integrity. Good for you please keep going!
I disagree, he is negotiating the sort of analisis his public is ready to accept. The stalemate hipothesis is absurd. There is no stalemate in the attrition war, one side has its fighting capabilities absolutely destroyed and is completely dependent on donations from Countries with their stockpiles almost depleted. We all know the ukranian support will fade away. Lets face it. Russia will dictate the terms of an unconditional surrender. It is sad but ukraine is not a viable nation anymore.
@@viniciustoresan4780 The author is stating his honest opinion. Fair and square. I may disagree with some of it, so what. Stalemate is a bad word. If you read Gen Zaluzhniy's article, from where everyone seems to be getting the idea, he writes about positional warfare and attrition. Yes, the Russian forces lose more materiel than Ukrainans and those have logistical challenges. Everything else you can say is mostly hear say. Can the Russians replenish their losses? Will Ukraine get sufficiernt supplies? I doubt you can state one or the other with any confidence.
I have trouble reading newspaper and TV reports, they are full of bad statistics, it seems most people don't know what that is.
@@MrDikini wake up. The russians did not loose more materials than ukraine. This is insanity. This war is over before it started, Russia is stronger than ever. Western media lies.
@@MrDikini no, russians never suffered from more attrition than the ukranians. Ukraine changed lifes for territory, not Russia, that instead abandoned (retreated from) every unfavorable positions.
Western stockpiles are depleted, not the russians.
Cmon, you cannot fall for propaganda so easily.
Ukraine aways needed to change the game that never changed.
Soviet equipment gave ukranians better results than western ones. Lets face it, it is game over. Russia will get the unconditional surrender.
@@viniciustoresan4780 Russians have 2x more dead and 1.5x more injured. They aren't winning, and they will never win. Losses right now aren't high enough for Ukraine to surrender. Ukrainians fought in ww2 for 4 years with 30 times more losses per year than they are losing in this war. That means this war can be fought 30x longer than ww2. Western stockpiles aren't even remotely close to depleted. America has over 25,000 aircraft, over 10,000 tanks, over 10,000 IFVs and APCs, over 10,000 artillery units. Just take one look at America's boneyard and tell me they are depleted lmao. You Russians have lost your minds. You're living in a fabricated world invented by your state media.
It's not a stalemate. This is a catastrophic loss in a war of attrition.
Hardly catastrophic. History is rife with similar loss rates being sustained for years.
France lost 1.4 million men in WW1, or about 350 000 dead per year. Casualties were 6 million, or 1.5 million per year.
Even the wildest estimates state either side has, at most, suffered 500 000 casualties, not deaths, over two years of war. So 250 000 casualties per year.
This war is entirely sustainable in terms of manpower calculus.
@@whitescar2 But these are different times. Ukraine has about 15 million people left, 90% are hiding from mobilization and the demographics are worse than France in the early 20th century. The biggest estimates are up to 1 million dead, based on the number of cemeteries in Ukraine. When old people, disabled and women are in the army, it is already an indicator of collapse similar to Germany from 1945. And this is only the manpower. Economy, industry, shells, everything is ten times worse.
@@D87468 Russia faces the same problem.
@@Junker_1 No. Even assuming the casualties are the same, Russia has 8 times the population. So the collapse will come 8 times later.
@@whitescar2 -
*Even the wildest estimates state either side has, at most, suffered 500 000 casualties, not deaths,*
Yes, ukrainian side lost 500.000 - 550.000 It is why they requested to capture another 500.000 people
And on Russian side casualties way lower.
1) Because most of the time they were in active defense not offensive operations.
2) For each 5 - 7 shells or missiles; Russian army replied with 30 - 50
A positional Stalemate is the good time to hire good accountants for a slow grinding war of attrition. Not to hire creative accountants for Public Relation.
Ouch
That's how the first cold war was won, and it took decades :(
Thank you for inviting the mossy rock to your video. His contemplative silence is very relaxing to see.
The transparency of the battlefield might be what keeps both sides actually fighting. Because of all the data, they feel there is less overall risk on the strategic level. The data massages the risk out of the fight. Part of the faulty human gambler fallacyy thing.
What a bunch of horseshit.
Calling the Kessler dyndrome "hypotetical" is a daring statement. For those who work in the field of orbital determination, this scenario is not hypotetical anymore, but an emerging threat.
Do you work in that field?
The kessler syndrome is a chain reaction that has probably already started, however so far it's not really taken as an emerging threat, after all the theory is that it would end in a shutdown of rocket launches into either all, or some orbits. Considering how companies like space x are still allowed to be doing stupid shit, it's not really a serious enough threat just yet
I'm not an expert but an article where the actual possibility was calculated as extremely unlikeable looked genuine.
Space is big and empty, way bigger then you may think and it's not that easy to intentionally hit something in orbit with guided weapons. Unintentional hits by shrapnel is a miracle
No, this is wrong. Destrucción of satellites with kinetic means has already happened several times without triggering a cascade effect.
@carlosvasquez9890 that is like saying that because a car didn't catch fire in a car crash, it can't catch fire in a car crash.
It's illogical at best.
"I don't have crystal balls", thank you, I'm going to use this version from now on.
Showing that A50 at 2:43 while saying "Russian have capability in this area" was very prescient of you!
A war of attrition (which is what it is the war you are referring too), it cannot technically be considered a Stalemate. It is or one, or the other, but not both at the same time.
@Tod_oMal
When you look just at the amount of territory exchanged that only paints one part of the grand picture, and if upon looking into it with more depth you discover that one side has a vast advantage in a wide array of resources while it's sucsesfully bleeding out the other side with far less resources more effectively you can't really call that a stalemate unless you're a propagandist now can you?
Surely not a stalemate.
I wouldn't exactly call it a stalemate right now. There is, and has been for quite a while, stagnation of the front lines. But the war is competing in the form of attrition, and Ukraine is losing. Obviously I'm posting this in english on western social media, so that statement will get swarmed by koolaid drinkers. But it is what it is. A year and a half ago, I'd have said that Russia was losing, because Ukraine was doing an amazing job of inviting Russia to overextend themselves and then punishing them harshly for it. But officers with more political clout than brains have been pretty thoroughly weeded out of the Russian military. In some cases BY Ukraine (personally I'd argue that cutting off the head of the snake is actually unwise if you're dealing with a snake crippled by poor expertise). At the start of the war, it looked like Russia was winning massively, then it looked like Ukraine was winning massively, now it looks like Russia is winning _incrementally_ . I don't see any "good guys" pulling the strings of the conflict. And the real losers are both the Russian and Ukrainian soldiers, and east-Ukrainian citizens.
Doctrinally, the criteria for precision munitions may be 5-10 troops, In practice it's more like 1-3 though. Soldiers are more willing to spend assets than accountants up the chain of command.
Also, a fair amount of the ordinance at this point is coming from the drones directly, so 'not' firing at even 1 enemy soldier means wasting more time & energy looking for one to fire at. It's an incredibly hazardous meat grinder. I don't think "small" is workable.
Anti-space capability is probably best carried out by lasers of sufficient, but not overwhelming, power. So that satellites are more "disabled" rather than turned into debris fields. Although significant numbers of disabled satellites which are not "deorbited" can eventually lead to Kessler.
Lasers vs drones is an option. But the ground fighting does not seem to be kind to any high-value assets. Ye olden AA-guns are not able to reach most drones, as they're specifically designed to fly above their reach, or above the reach of MPADS. Probably "drones vs drones" will end up being the method, though this will require design evolution to pull off effectively.
Apart from drones, increasingly longer ranged strike capability has also come to the forefront as a key capability.
Mind you, this was has progressed with fairly minimal use of SEAD, and neither Russia nor the west is using their most advanced assets for fear of enemy capture. Which makes it perhaps a little warped in methodology, as conflicts go.
Don't feel bad about losing footage :) Tech companies keep replacing UI features with unlabled 'symbols', and adding, removing, and rearranging features, in ways which are incredibly insular to the average user. I still keep a windows 7 machine as a secondary computer, full of 10-20 year old software, which is generally vastly more user-friendly and more full featured to be honest. Except in the few ways in which progress has actually been progressive... and I need the more modern hardware. Hardware has gotten massively better. Software, not so much.
Lots of really good points. 2 things I wanted to mention:
1. A lot of commercial drone weapons cannot physically be returned for reuse while armed. Both FPV kamikaze drones and the multi-copter drones which drop ordinances. Neither can be returned and landed with any explosives still attached. They cannot be disarmed safely once armed. It is one of the main reasons we see such horrors as grenades being dropped on dead/wounded soldiers. The ordinances must be released one way or another, and that FPV bomb cannot return at all.
2. The defence against drones is complicated by the methods used to detect them. A radar capable of pinpointing small drones cannot practically be scaled down and attached to a quadcopter. Wherever the detection platform is, it will likely always present a large, expensive, localised target. And because of that the advantage will always be with the attacking drone user, at least within the frame of current and near future tech.
So imo that leaves EW and lasers.
"Ukraine was doing an amazing job of inviting Russia to overextend themselves and then punishing them harshly for it"
It was not doing an amazing job. Objectively. There was not a single case of a Russian force of any significance (like a couple companies) cut off and surrounded. Even when Ukraine theoretically had the opportunity to do so (like during the Kharkov offensive).
There were multiple cases of Ukrainian forces, numbering in hundreds and even thousands, cut off, surrounded, and eventually killed or taken PoW. Most notably in Mariupol, but it was not the only case.
"At the start of the war, it looked like Russia was winning massively, then it looked like Ukraine was winning massively"
No. It never looked anything like this. What happened at the start didn't even have an aim of "winning" against Ukraine, just force them to the negotiating table.
The talks in Turkey did not deliver. Russia shifted gears, came to peace with the thought that negotiations were off the table and started the long work of dismantling Ukrainian fortifications in the East. It was presented in the media as Ukrainain "victory" and you fell for it, hence your confusion.
There was nothing particulary surprising about this conflict, it unfolded more or less as expected.
@@jackdaniels5538 That's a really good point about the drones not being able to come back once armed. It makes a lot of sense. I didn't even think of that. I just noticed that there was a lot of drone munitions being used sometimes even against single individuals.
Radar? yeah. And the power requirement alone would be impractical. Drones do show up on IR though. Not like a jet would, at dozens of kilometers, or anything like that. But those drones which are looking down at soldiers on IR, can also see other drones if they're close enough, probably a kilometer or two. I could see small extra-cheap unarmed drones with only an IR camera, out looking for other drones to just 'run into'. Something like that.
I wonder of the WWII german "Wind Cannon" could be adapted as an anti-drone idea? Or a very small scale emp.
I dunno. Probably will be 101 ideas thrown at the wall, 1 or 2 of them will stick. And then the race to think of ideas to counter those ideas ;)
@@ayrnovem9028 Hmmm, I'm not much of a fan of media ...from anywhere.
But you may have a point.
I would more say that at the start, my "expectation" was that Ukraine was completely and totally F'd. And when Russia hit a large amount of frustration, and Ukraine wasn't crumbling ...relative to my initial expectations, ukraine was "doing great". so... 'context'.
But there were some pretty disastrous advances made by Russia, where they learned the hard way that their anticipated fuel and supply reserves only existed on paper. Russia tripped (hard) over themselves on the issues of corruption and inept officers early in the war. There was quite a house-cleaning of personnel in Russia early on. Some ended up in jail or house arrest. I do think, those issues were fairly quickly sorted out though. But it would be fair to say that Ukraine didn't, in fact, do all that good of a job at exploiting this.
The state of disrepair of the Moskva is just one of many examples. If properly maintained (years prior), it likely wouldn't have been sunk. The logistical bureaucracy was not at all prepared for actual war.
The fact that Putin only had incompetents arrested, and 'not' rounded up & put up against a wall. suggests he has a cooler head than western media tends to give him credit for.
@@kathrynck "I would more say that at the start, my "expectation" was that Ukraine was completely and totally F'd"
It was not untrue in the timescale of several years. The decisions Ukraine made actually led it to being "completely and totally F'd"
But if you were expecting a quick military win, you were extremely ignorant of the numbers involved and the general situation.
Ukraine at the start of 2022 had a far stronger land force than almost any European nation. Stronger than UK or France or Germany. And due to the years of simmering conflict with the separatists, many in Ukrainian armed forces had real combat experience.
It was around 400-500k standing army which could be easily be expanded to 1M through mobilization and enlisting volunteers. Which was done.
Russian force at the initial stages of the conflict was only about 200k. (Obviously, I am talking of what they deployed to Ukraine specifically, not the overall number.) Even after another 300k were added to that number in a few months, Russia continued fighting at a significant manpower disadvantage.
If you did not know that, how could you hope to have a look at things that would be even remotely realistic?
"The state of disrepair of the Moskva"
Do you mean the legends that the anti-air systems did not work or something?
"Moskva" most likely hit a drifting mine. Maybe it was avoidable with better decision making, maybe it was an acceptable risk that just turned out bad.
Yes, sometimes you can do EVERYTHING right and still blow up. Such is the nature of warfare. It is also known as inherent risk.
There were many naval mines set up around Odessa by Ukraine and a lot went drifting due to storms tearing them off or maybe released on purpose. Some even reached Turkey. There were numerous reports on that, but not with any big headlines (because it does not paint Ukraine in a very good light now, does it).
Always outstanding analysis. Thank you.
6:14 IF (and a strong IF) one side is able to concentrate enough hard- and softkill air defence, that the other cannot touch it that counts as a force concentration. It takes the "conventional" CIWS-MANPADS-short-medium-long-SAM multilayer bubble, plus the same in EW, be it GPS- and drone jamming as well as the suppression of the other side's communication....
Russia did that in some areas - but it is hard.
Ukraine is hopeless in that respect.
I think you missed the Khinzals taking out the patriot systems. The Uko air defense is just another easy target for the Russians.
Another video I really enjoyed. Thank you.
The problem with preferrence of shattering the current international laws will probably lead to more lives lost as there are parties willing to go for it. Not everyone considers the human lives nearly as valuable as the land and resources that they can later exploit much more directly than their populus.
The Problem is, They can't. It ALWAYS takes personnel to exploit resources. SOMEONE needs to build, and run a Plant, a Mine, A Factory, Roads, Tracks etc. And if you waste your people on a battlefield, You'll simply lack the manpower to rebuild stuff you smashed. Not to mention, that a lot of people who were displaced by these actions most likely are not going to support it, Or even try to sabotage the effort. Which makes it twice as expensive to do. As now you also need to hire defense contractors to guard your stuff. That cuts nicely into your profits. Or makes you outright uncompetetive. FAILED Economically, Is all i can say to that.
@@Gunni1972 That only applies if you go for manpower intensive industry, but Russia doesn't work like that. They rely a lot on resource extraction that can be serviced by fewer people and is controlled by oligarchs that are in turn awarded control via state-owned companies. Their economy is far less service heavy and they has huge periphery that they can strip bare without feeling the loss of revenue nearly as much. Plus if you are watching current conflict they did mobilise separatists to the fullest and used them as fodder, so it seems that depopulating the area and filling the necessary gaps with their own people seems to be a feature, rather than a bug in their plans.
Please no more hyperventilating about "shattering international law." The great powers pay no attention to this law when they want something, and they never have. The US "shattered" international law when it bombed Serbia in 1999 (no UNSC sanction) and then invaded Iraq in 2003 (same). Toppling Ghaddafi in Libya in 2011by violating their limited UN mandate for humanitarian intervention was little different. China demands the Law of the Sea be followed everywhere from the Arctic to the Indian Ocean, but has its own law (historic-imperial justification) for the South China Sea. All these and dozens more clear breaches of international law (and we haven't even mentioned trade, sanctions, asset seizures and other violations of WTO and trade law) by the US, China, Russia, and also the UK and various NATO countries (don't even ask about how the West behaves in Africa) are constant. "International Law" is honored mainly in the breach. No wonder the Global South scoffs at the West's demand that they join in sanctions against Russia, the hypocrisy is stunning. Appeal to any intelligent Indian about the importance of maintaining the "liberal international order" and they will either roll their eyes or fall down laughing, with good cause. "But thanks for stopping by Delhi on your way to deliver more bombs and missiles to Tel Aviv."
@@robertenglish8428 So in whif of all the mentioned cases there was an actual border redrawn and land annexed?
@@vojtechpribyl7386 The bombing of Serbia led directly to the loss of Kosovo, which radically redrew the border not through annexation but succession. Thanks to the US invasion Kurdistan and other internal borders of Iraq are now disputed, and the Kurds will surely secede one day too. Of course the Iraq invasion also triggered the "Arab Spring" and conflict everywhere, including in Syria where with US support that country is partly dismembered. Oh, and Israel is slowly but surely annexing the Palestinian West Bank and who knows what will become of Gaza. Nobody's claiming that all of these and other violations of international law are the same. I'm simply arguing that it's laughable for the US to wrap itself in the banner of international law over Ukraine when it breaks international law regularly when it's in the US interest to do so. And that is why most countries outside of NATO-EU indeed laugh when the US invokes international law.
Since the battlefield is really transparent and larger offensive operations are very difficult, Russia is waging a war of attrition. With smaller attacks it's forcing Ukraine to commit reserves, which are then attacked and destroyed due to Russia's superiority in artillery, missiles, air support and drones. Taking territory is just secondary - as opportunity allows. The objective is to exhaust Ukraine to the point where it either a) will agree to negotiations, or b) will lose the ability to defend itself. And considering how the force sizes changed from 200,000 to 170,000 in Ukraine's favor at the start of the war to about 400,000 to 600,000 in Russia's favor now, I would not call it a stalemate. Ukrainian force size actually decreased since June 2023. In a war of attrition what matters are these numbers, and how the sides are able to increase them.
It’s supposed to be over. Putin can drive to Odessa and nobody will stop him. He is is not i a rush because there is no need! LOL!
Pretty shitty attrition since Russians are dying 3 to 1
@@m0rtifiedpenguin I don't think the Russian force size is sufficient for that, or that they even have such plans.
@@wakko454 that’s what Scott Ritter col mcgregor and mearsheimer are saying. Delusional bunch
@@amazin7006 Nonsense, don't believe everything that comes out of Ukraine.
*"NATO is trying to put a happy-face on a dead rat."*
_-Colonel Douglas Macgregor_
douglas is a lying propagandist
Oh great quote. From the person who has been wrong in every assessment he’s made over the past 10 years
@@Statueshop297 Red alert! We have a 'Karen' here 💩
@@Statueshop297 According to who? Some random nobody on RUclips?
All I got from this video is that M7 does not have crystal balls but he DOES have a crazy hat.
Very interesting !!
Good question, good analysis: couldn't have said it better.
Thank you Sir.
It would be stalemate if Ukraine could defend itself on its own. This is just deferred loss.
This is no longer Ukraine vs Russia. This is literally NATO vs Russia with Ukraine as a sacrificial pawn.
And trust me , this will not be seriously affected till US elections take place and Anti-war politician like Trump or DeSantis or Ramaswamy or Robert Kennedy Jr himself and stops it all together.
Meanwhile the second best military in Ukraine is getting equipment from china, Iran, north Korea and Belarus.
I'm not even mentioning conscription from Cuba, the whole of central Asia and Africa.
But nice try...
@@reekpeekseek I know, but Russians have a lot of old trash and not issues with meat waves.
@@NeuroScientician The difference between "a lot" and "infinitely" is, that "a lot" eventually runs dry.
No matter what Putin's propaganda is saying, sanctions have a huge effect on the russian economy and he feels more political pressure from inside every day.
As long as the west keeps up support, Russia will fail.
@@NeuroScientician when was Russia's last successful offensive?
To be honest, this looks more like a rolling grind in Russia's favor. While Russia grew economically last year, Ukraine's economy is in tatters and dependent on external financial help. They also need to go through another unpopular mobilization, while Russia still doesn't. Their supporters are also not in a good shape, having stretched themselves thin. From where I stand, things don't look good for Ukraine short of a massive game changer event, which seems less and less likely.
Russia never finished its "partial" mobilization.
@@The_Tau Aren't the new Russian recruits strictly contract? I haven't read anything that contradicts this.
Russia mobilized 300k and at the same time got 475k volunteers.
@@persuadertron6454and 200k penal troops.
@@georgethompson913 that's a myth perpetuated by butthurt.
2024 will be the year of the drone
As fluid and dynamic as the situation is, it is no secret that information is king.
Deception is as old as dirt when it comes to battle order.
I remember Caporetto (Kobarid). There was a break in a stalemate there, infiltration of elite stormtrooper covered by the fog. Could be an example?
No, the Italians knew that the offensive was coming. but they were surprised by the tactics. Here you can't surprise anyone anymore.
*clink* *clink* *clink*...
"Who's that?"
"Millennium 7*"
"You mean the guy with the crystal balls? Well, that would explain it."
Like your Pug ;-) keep up the good
Interesting video and fair points. However, I would suggest different take: Less that what we are witnessing is a “genuine stalemate” and more that under the conditions you highlight “winning” looks completely different.
Without opportunities for surprises and large advances, winning is slow, incremental and with a greater focus on attrition. I.e. which side can outlast the other in terms of military production and troop numbers.
On all these points - slow but steady incremental advances, military production and troop numbers - Russia’s advantages in these areas is growing, while Ukraine (and its Western allies) is diminishing.
"Shatter the principles of the international law"
Didn't that already happen in 2014 on Maidan when a multitude of Western politicians was calling upon "kicking the *ss of the president" and discussing who they will make the president? Remember that "**ck the EU!" statement made by Nuland?
You cant shatter the shattered.
""Shatter the principles of the international law"
Didn't that already happen in 2014 on Maidan"
What's more, the Russian side cited a legal argument, based on the UN regulation about collective, preventive defense, which was not even discussed, nor ruled by any international tribunal - neither pro, nor contra.
It was the Ukrainian parliament, including members of his own party that kicked Yanukovych out. That's not against international law and neither is saying "f*** the EU". You are either a Russia troll or another Western simpleton.
Nope. Not sure how a popular revolution breaks the principles of international law...probably only makes sense for the overly creative minds.
or when Boris Johnson pushed Ukrainians to exit peace negotiations
or when Ukraine with guarantees of Merkel and Hollande signed an agreement to prepare for war?
Its also currently happening in gaza and no one cares. International law is a joke
Is it a joke? Stalemate? It assumes none of the sides are in advantage, this assumption is insane.
Nice seeing an Italian visiting ancestral walls, nice presentation as usual.
"Yeeeeehaw, howdy y'all? It's me, ya boy M7"
As much as I enjoy your commentary, there is no "stalemate" in the Russia Ukraine conflict. Sorry.
Exactly. Russia has most ukranian divisions in operational encirclement. it can chose when and where to win under its own terms.
@@singular9which divisions?
The change in territory over the past 12 months was somewhere between 0.00% - 0.05%. I'd call that a stalemate. It's not like both sides sat on their hands all year either. Thousands have died and billions of dollars have gone up in smoke.
@@poppyrider5541 nah according to arm chair generals,
when 1 out of 1000000 russian ammo stockpiles explode, ukraine wins immediately
when russia shoots 150 missiles and barely disables the ukrainian energy grid for 10 hours, russia is clearly winning
It’s almost as if both forces lack a decisive weapon system/kill chain to deal enough damage, thus unbalancing the military balance of not just a tiny village but an actual salient.
Read Clousavits, guys. Rrussia has a fkn ton of territory on its own, no need to rush, better keep soldiers alivw while enemy gets ground down. Ask Napoleon how did that "stalemate" worked out for him. He have even captured Moscow😂
The stalemate is basically determined by actions that NATO is willing to take. If it wanted to, it could provide sufficient long range weapons to nullify the land bridge and Crimean bridge, which would lead to problems with Russia holding on to Kherson territory.
No it couldn't not without risking everything
What makes you think that Russia isn't just chugging along doing bare minimum with plenty in its stand off arsenal that could seriously damage any part of NATO should NATO be daft enough to get involved further ?
Also where is the industrial capacity to supply weapons going to come from ? Do you realise how many missiles Russia has fired in the last two years alone compared with USA/NATO's total production of similar systems in the last 40-50 years ?
@@gibbo675 Why do I think Russia isn't just chugging along, holding back stand off weapons? A variety of RUclips analyses and observable news events. For example, prior to this recent barrage of missile launches, Russia reduced missile launches for several months. Where is the industrial capacity? I'm not talking about new production, I'm talking about using missiles that are in existing stocks. AFAIK, the existing stock of Storm Shadow, ATACMS, and whatever the German equivalent is, is sufficient to the task of taking out the Kerch Strait bridge, and railroad infrastructure near Melitopol. Similarly, if providing weapons and intelligence is acceptable, providing naval drones and allowing commerce raiding, and pipeline sabotage equipment to Ukraine should be in principle no change to things from an act of war prospective.
The actual question is “how to break the stalemate in Ukraine’s favor without devolving into nuclear war?” Answer, you can’t.
@@showdown66 Hmm. Given past history, where the balance of power was shifted by delivery of new weapons, are you sure that you can't shift it again with triggering nuclear war? It still seems like that could happen several times, until Russia is like the frog that gets boiled by a gradual heating of the pot.
Damn right its a stalemate, its Iran-Iraq war part 2. Neither side has decisive Air superiority nor is there Firepower superiority. Heck the Iraqis and Iranis even used chemical weapons. Fact remains, Air Superiority is KEY.
Sorry to tell you, but there will be no negotiating right now.
The last 3 times Russia negotiated with Ukraine, Ukraine only wanted to waste time to get an advantage. Times over. Right now Russia is grinding the 12th mobilization wave in Ukraine.
Also this year is election year and Putin won't do anything to look weak, because he has the request from Russia to eliminate the Ukrainian problem.
Russia doesn't want to negotiate with Ukraine and they never will. They want total surrender or death by a thousand cuts. Ukraine is willing to negotiate with Russia and it always wanted to. For obvious reasons. But they don't believe in the BS from Russia anymore. If Russia was genuine about negotiations then they could show that by getting out of Ukraine territory. Russia like always is BS.
Well, do be crystal clear here - the reason, why Ukraine and Russia are not officially sitting at the negotiation table, are the terms and conditions. Russia invaded Ukraine and their negotiation offer is about dividing what Russia has conquered so far or even trading peace for what has been conquered so far. Essentially the same as if I take $100 from your wallet and then we sit down and talk whether we'd split 50:50, 40:60, or 60:40. How do you like that?
@@michaela.178look up minsk 1 and minsk 2 , you have no idea what you are talking about
Request from Russia?
Can you explain? What is this mythological Russia from whom Putin gains his marching orders? The Duma answers to Putin, not the other way around. Public discourse is forbidden, on penalty of prison, and expressing your opinions not aligned with Putin's government is tantamount to treason. So it can't be the public.
So tell me, when it isn't the state legislature, nor the Russian people, what is this "Russia" that apparently has told Putin to re-enact Hitler to solve the Jewish question? I mean, the Ukrainian question?
I think we just found who the real Nazis in this war are. Talking of final solutions to the Ukrainian question.
@@xblade11230 Well, no need to look that up. It's part of the Russian position to casually dismiss the fact that Russian forces are currently occupying Ukrainian territory which distorts any negotiation. For domestic purposes Russian politicians are usually stressing some Ukrainian threat they had to address in 2014 - that has been debunked by real world evidence and witness statements from Russian actors we have now. The Minsk treaties were an international attempt to curb the shooting war and to save lifes but eventually they led us to 2022. Selling negotiations that aim at less than reestablishing pre-2014 conditions plus reparations are a tough sale for the Ukrainians. Kinda understandable, isn't it?
If Ukraine will sue for peace on Russia's terms because all potential outcomes from the war are becoming extremely unfavourable. Either:
1. West continues current policy and Ukrainians continue to die with no hope to regain lost territory, which is suicidal for the country and likely results in military coup.
2. West stops aid or reduces it significantly which causes front to collapse.
3. Some kind of Western military intervention occurs which carries a very high risk of nuclear escalation. Ukraine could become nuclear wasteland if this happens.
They could also try to lure Russia into a risky offensive and crush it, but is this really going to topple Putin if no territory is lost. Because the Russian military can surely withstand a bigger beating and still keep the lines steady.
Currently 2. Literally just happened. The US have stopped any further aid packages.
Ukraine was already screwed, now theyre EXTRA screwed.
You are wrong about Avdievka, it was taken with operational surprise with casualty rate of 28% with Soviet doctrine target of 20%.
The question that needs to be answered is how much blood does a meter of land cost when comparing small vs large attacks. Large attacks are the way to capture lots of land but the one time cost is huge. You can pay a small amount each day with the small attacks but when you reach the same finish line, who has paid more? You need to also factor in if you want to liberate towns and cities or capture rubble piles.
The line of thought is valid. I was thinking the same two days ago. But in my age, caro signiore, I'll need more than two Otises to sustain my concentration. Waiting for the LP.
It's okay, I don't have crystal balls either.
A this point it looks to be the side who can outproduce the other in sufficiently large numbers of drones to reliably overwhelm any defensive measures for whatever it is being attacked. The hold up is microchip production I'd hazard to guess.
"iT Is A StTaleMaTe". Yeah, sure.
Whenever some talking point gets turned into a slogan (like "is a stalemate" thing) and repeated ad nauseum by various official and unofficial talking heads, you can be damn sure that it is a lie meant to "bend" the public perception.
There is no such a thing as "failure", there is but a "delay in reaching our goals", right? There can be no such thing as a "success" on the opposite side, there can be only "temporary and unsustainable gains at a big, BIG cost", right?
If this war has shown us something is how other Generals are dilusional about the reality of this new war (Hodges). I dont think a General is a solid source just by itself and I doubt it would know much about this new disruptive era. I would reach to NCOs and liutenant level people for advisory. TBH..that big or small response equals to nothing in a military briefing.
The problem is also the reason why this situation could even to occur, by sending just enough for Ukraine to survive the war. By getting everything in small Salami slices Russia had time to react. Mr. Salushnyj´s request to send all and everything is a statement to his current dilemma. In the current situation one side needs a significant advantage over the other, since the element of surprise is hard to come by. Such things are Stealth Aircraft, Electronic Warfare, behind the front attacks by Partisans, HIMARS, Cruise Missiles (Olaf Scholz, take note!!!), submarine drones maybe and much more equipment and ammunition. It might be my German Angst but I think we (EU + US) will eventually do the right thing but only after all alternatives have been tried. I don´t think we can in any way justify the current status quo of not delievering what is needed, else we are in a much bigger pickle (from an ethical standpoint, militarily and cost wise).
The west sent everything it could and even borrowed from partners like Israel an South Korea.
They just cant give more because there is no more.
What about decoys? Very realistic decoys can work? Maybe it require a huge skilled workforce almost as complex as a real army, but maybe decoys armies can defeat the transparent battlefield...
Russia does this - the attacks on Ukraine with missiles and drones have lots of decoys.
We see with the amount of high value targets Russia thinks it kills are mostly wooden mock ups, inflatable decoys etc. still no HIMARS lost but Russia says it’s killed loads.
Yes
given the US's far outsized payload to orbit capacity I could see it actually desiring kessler syndrome, if they can put in place high orbit (or other safe orbit) assets beforehand, or even brute force heavy satellites into those safe orbits with multiple redundant systems that could tolerate some punctures from debris during orbital insertion
In chess when your trapped on one square with no legal move...this is a stalemate ,but in war it total failure.
I can see a war shifting to logistics. Rather than destroy troops or equipment, disrupt the logistics and starve the front lines of bread and bullets. This will make holding ones position untenable.
Russia has very powerful jamming capabilities that are capable of disrupting Ukraining drones over a large area, but their lack of sophistication means the use of jammers disables their own use of drones.
2:05 sounds like Rossini - La Gazza Ladra
Correct!
When this war ends, Russia will be 600.000 square miles larger and 200 million population. Collective Zionist West miscalculate Russia and Putin.
The war in Ukraine backfired. In Greece you have to pay 20Euro for a litre of extra virgin olive oil. People can't afford to even cook and eat anymore. Turbulence and chaos approaching, we are seeing the last days of EU.
We should turn on the fog of war setting😂
I think the drone tecnology will expand to countermesures, swarms of drones (like in the show business), and to all saises. The wars are going to be a real video game. Tanks, planes and ships are going to become like Battleships in WWII.
🔴 i just liked a 14 minute video that was uploaded 4 mins ago. This is the kind of fanaticism this channel inspires. I'm now going to go f*** myself before you can say it.
Nice hat, sir
Drones are used in Ukraine. But the drone swarm has yet to appear on the battlefield. This will take war up another lever.
I will revisit this at the end of 2025.
Alexander DeLarge approved music .
next stepin space warfare: armored satellites
Where is this place?
Burgh Castle
So ... in a world with drones, what is the difference between "reconisance" and "surveillance"? ... discuss.
maybe the future is small radar units for tanks
Its a ww1 western front all over again, only with more deadly modern weapons. No chance to gain anything but casualties if you try to cross open fields wihtout any cover against dug in and fortiefied troops over sht tons of mines.
Sorry man, you are really good in planes, but that war stuff is not so. You at least need to use some internal russian sources, as all the west media will tell you it is a stalemate while it is not, look at the maps. I prefer The Duran description of the battle, they get alot of it right a year+ ago.
He uses only NATO /UKRAINE aligned sources
So it's no surprise he thinks it is a stalemate. That's the current narrative
The first narrative was Ukraine will win
Now the narrative is that it's
The Duran is a superb resource as to what is really going on. Catastrophic American intervention by proxy and it has failed (and they know it)
Not stalemate. Perhaps the fatty tissue is restricting blood flow to your brain.
😥Bummer. Great video.
11:40
If we look at things in low-level utiliarian way, we could say that:
Starlink is a clever universal deterrence strategy disguised as telecommunication system.
That's why they built it so fast and with that degree of effectiveness.
If you attack it, everyone looses that orbit and all access to superior orbits for a certain (im sure a lot of people out there have already developed a lot of models about that) slice of time.
Who knows? Years? Maybe even decades?
By presuming that no one would want something like that, potential strategic dominance through that platform (with all the possible hardware that may run on them along with small telco antenna beam phased arrays), is achieved.
I am not sure to agree. Those who have less dependence on space assets may have advantages in denying access to orbit.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech
Im just wondering. But in a sense, trying to pose myself in front of new questions, at the current state of things, everyone is running for having more dependence on space, both as first party AND as simple user of technological platforms (with different purposes) ran by others.
Even low gdp countries with 60's era ballistic solutions and not even a direct access to LEO.
Its an economic driver, a winwin theater and hence a Pivot, after all.
Problem is, considering the "big change" we ve observed globally in the last 5 years, where huge multidecade apparently incompromising Pivots have started to shift and crumble, will this situation change?
With this question in mind then I watch to some of the main characteristics of the space private market, and generally see that we are still in an optimist zone. Investments are made, new lauchers are launched to LEO (even if an apparent slowing showed up in this early 2024, especially on the american side). So there must be a missing piece somewhere, I guess. Still havent figured out tho ahah.
Thank you for the video. Amazing content as ever!
This is just the Iran Iraq war
Please brother, base your analysis on global reports, not US and EU propaganda... There's no stalemate, just demilitarisation plain simple
There's is a difference between stalemate and attritional war which looks like stalemate. Russians historically specialize in attritional war (just look at Napoleon invasion into Russia), so it won't be interested in ending it now, they are grinding and they believe they can break back of Ukrainian military in few years and it's inevitable.
Rossini: Ouverture "La Gazza Ladra"
Its an unstable equilibrium
dude we want some in depth tech videos, it's been a while
I don't think it is a stalemate. I think it's a situation where moving forward is very difficult, so Ukraine cannot, but Russia likely still can, albeit very slowly.
D E N A Z I F I C A T I O N is All that MATTERs
Russia is the fascist country, and with twice the casualties and 175k dead, it's denazifying quite quickly.
Stalemate....yeah naw. Once again failing to listen to what Putin is saying: "Odessa is a Russian city"
Ну а ещë путин сказал что это не конфликт за территорию
@StandingHereI it wasn't.
@@愛を込めてロシアから He is right. The conflict was about the government.
@@singular9 че? Понятно сказать можешь?
@@singular9 bull. it is an 18th century style imperial war. the peasants can't have it their way.
"The means by which a war ends will determine the means by which the next war begins" (Quote from an unkown general)
As long as there is Greed, there will be war. And Zionism has become the secular version of Capitalism, which is based on greed.
0:35 finally a yotuber who admits his mistakes. You earned a sub❤
You're going to love it.
👍
The question is how much russian economy can sustain the pressure. If russian economy can sustain the pressure for a couple of years russia is gonna win because there is nothing that the west can do to help ukraine defeat Russia in the battlefield.
I would like a video over russian ucav production orion sirius etc.
It's stalemate, both are losing big time.
'Small' doesn't work, we have seen drones used to attack small groups and even individuals, none of which have an effective anti drone weapon. 'Large' Russian style does not work but otherwise would require suppression in depth to incapacitate those forces which could indirectly attack the attackers. However the question would be - does Ukraine have sufficient forces to do such a large attack and then to take advantage of any breakthrough. Everything comes back to the West supplying appropriate weapons in sufficient quantities before the cost to Ukraine of conducting the war makes large attacks impossible. All this basically still applies unless a real game changer appears to seriously alter the present dynamics. Which seems unlikely.
It's not a stalemate, it just looks like one.
How is there a stalemate? One side is getting pummeled almost daily on its infrastructure and it isnt Russian...... Ua has no economy, no men power. Everyone that had any intelegence are long gone. Country budget relies on 5 billion a month from the west just to cover gov salaries......how is it a stalemate
? Its a "stalement" untill out of the blue ua folds.
Nobody talks that main attrition is in demographic field, in elimination of men.
nice hat by the way
It sounded like Wagner.
(And looked like a Peugeot 208 GT - forgive my keen eyes).
Oh man, Zelenskiy signed a decree PROHIBITING any negotiations with Russia, what negotiations with Ukrain then? Maybe something like negotiations directly between USSR and USA about, but without southern Vietnam can occure. The earlier tbe better.😢
There is no such thing as USSR anymore, it exists as a haunting memory among older westerners...
@@nasser-ist I just have given you the example how superpowers could decide that type of conflicts long ago after Vietnam "stalemate" was clear to be the defeat.
Another potential "solution" would be to remove the underlying technologies drones/aircraft/satellites report to and are composed with in terms of softwares.
Cyberattack/virus technology developed to such an extent that anything with a microprocessor gets attacked and disabled could return a fog of war to the battlespace.
It goes without saying however the insanity of expecting this to be contained to only the immediate battlespace.
you're in the uk!
There’s no stalemate. Ukraine as a military was finished months ago, if not a year ago. Anything beyond that point was entirely dependent on NATO. Now you’re seeing the result of Ukraine’s military with minimal support. They are losing and everyone knows it. It’s just a deferred loss atm.
I mean... when you have to borrow mud to sling at your enemies... are you really fighting a war?
Kiev in two more weeks?
@@bigsmokeinlittlechina174 idk, ask USA’s General Milley, he said it. He should know.
In you dreams.
I wouldn't call North Korean ammo "mud". More like turds.@@m4rvinmartian
Light up the comments😂😂😂. Bots assemble. I’ve not even watched it yet but know the bots are coming 😂😂😂
Nice hat 🙂
UKRAINE PART 2: I WAS WRONG! SORRY!
Your analysis is quite superficial and seems to be based on the information from the NATO cineverse. If Ukraine is outgunned and outshelled, how is that a stalemate? Its a tradeoff with Ukrainian bodies as the balancing factor. It is pretty simple obvious logic, which then leads to the follow-up. If so many people can see it, the Russians even say it, what the hell are doing talking about a "stalemate"?
of course it's a stalemate - the Ukrainian MOD said so ?
Visiting where your forebears first visited these shores i see 😉
I just wanted to say hallo to my gran gran gran 😆
With respect, disagree. Your hypothesis, that parity of technologies and rough equivalence in forces equals stalemate has a number of glaring issues, but I don't want to mire my blurb in dealing with them as others here undoubtedly will. Many significant engagements, recorded over thousands of years, have been won by factors not at all related to arms parity. Ignoring many, having to do with forces of nature, logistical boons/banes, disease, etc., I want to focus simply on morale. Again, there are repeated historical examples of this playing the most crucial role, but just to look at some recent wars, we can see how critical this is. Vietnam. Afghanistan (x2). Lebanon. Syria (this one is a bit murky). Struggles which pitted vastly inferior forces against first-rate super-powers. Not that I believe for a moment that there is arms-parity between Russia and Ukraine/collective West--it is clear Russia out-produces/sources the entire collective west combined, nor, as is often most crucial in military engagements, logistical supply and networks, but even if that were the case, it remains that Russian morale is much higher. They believe they're fighting the good fight. Not just because Putin is a great (or not) leader, not just because their propaganda is (or not) better, but because the vast majority of Russians feel in their bones that they're fighting for the right reasons. Ukrainians, and the collective west, despite all their polished propaganda pieces to convince the public, despite all their Hollywood'esque motivational video's, has, with literally 10's of thousands of examples, proven themselves to be pretty damned vile. It doesn't matter how many little good deeds they do here or there, rescuing a little old lady, a 3-legged dog, feeding and helping prisoners, all these little show-reels, some valid, some made-up, the simple fact remains the collective West/Ukraine has repeatedly shown itself to be 'the baddies'. Even if Russians only had spades they'd win this war, their morale sense of righteousness is that strong.
This is a silly take. One, Ukrainians have far higher morale than Russians, and are taking half the casualties.
Two, Russia has a state owned defense enterprise, and they can only outproduce the West prior to the latter building up, which is in progress.
By 2025, the advantage on both should be fully in Ukrainian hands.
And that Ukrainian battalion with Hindu symbol is an icing on cake making the Russians fully unite.
Your post made me vomit. It is that disgusting.