@Binkov Nah, more like biased assumptions and ramblings here.
15 часов назад+3
i think we are not watching the same map xd because ukraine is not losing that much ground,they are gaining more then they are losing specially in kursk so nice try rusky ;) that vodka is strong
That’s because you have no idea what you’re talking about this is a war of attribution please go look up what that is it might help you not sound so clueless in the future
@@christophe5756 +1 for hypothetical and historical crew! So many idiots profess to love the idea of war and conflict until it's literally their arse in the trench.
@MrJones-yq7wm no, not my show nor my monkeys, but been somewhere and seen enough . You do not know what being in a trench is like while shells are flying all over the place, and these days with drones, i believe it's even more horrific. When your best friend is turned into minced meat from waist up in a split second before your eyes, you start to question everything.
@@lewissmith-t4b The issue is people are mad because the guy in the video said the truth about the reality of this conflict, hence the invitation for them to go check for themselves
Obviously territorial losses and gains aren't equal, losing a major logistic hub and a well fortified chokepoint can lead to major cascading losses while losing random space no where near the front will not. I don't think the push into Kursk was bad, but it's too little too late. You will not persuade Russia by inserting a toke of forces in the middle of no where, at the worst they can just ignore your push or slow it down with an equal token of troops. It need to be a major effort, something that actually threaten their current front to be even worth it. They really need to stop doing this 'show off' push and aim at something with real tactical value.
I agree but I think the reason Ukraine made the offensive is to show there western backers and western people that they have a chance so that they keep supporting Ukraine
Another offense was alternative less from an efficiency standpoint. Offensive forces are wasted in an area where bombs are used in high numbers. You can't counter an offensive with another offensive if you don't have the necessary force. It's logical that the trenches are understaffed. If a bomb falls, it's preferable to only lose two instead of five men. What's Ukraine supposed to do against those bombs other than attacking the ammunition stores?
What the fuck are you talking about? The invasion into kursk had tons of positive outcomes for Ukraine and they didn't do it so that they would stop russia or some shit. That would never have worked. Also the idea that putin can just ignore an invasion into his country especially if it isn't stopping is absolutely braindead. No he cannot. I'm not even going to argue that because the most basic knowledge of warfare should allow you to see why. Also the idea that if you just deploy an equal amount of troops means you win the engagement is also extremely dumb. In war the determining factor for a winner isn't just "who has more people to throw at them". Russia has 500k while Ukraine has 300k though it has recently increased. That argument also assumes that there won't be any repercussions on eastern part of Ukraine if they redeploy troops to kursk which is again extremely detached from reality. Honestly it's fascinating that this comment got so many likes while understanding so little about actual modern or overall warfare.
Yeah the amount of orc bots on anything Ukraine war related is always huge. Unfortunately many uninformed people fall for these bots and their propaganda.
Territory gains at this stage is not nearly as significant as the destruction of the other side's fighting power. Possibly with the exception of strategic areas like logistical hubs and major defensive lines.
In regards to the eventual siege of Pokrovsk, I don't think we will see much of a grind if Ukraine aren't willing to sacrifice just as many soldiers. Why? Because like you said Russia now has a superiority in basically everything AND they now have access to large FABs that can literally demolish large commie block houses, so there's nowhere to hide. During the siege of Bakhmut you still had a large amount of veterans on the ukrainian side that could easily hold out for months against what was then Wagner troops, however now those veteran brigades are very rare. They're so rare Ukraine had to send the veteran brigade from Vuhledar to plug the holes in the Pokrovsk direction, which has now led to Russia advancing on Vuhledar, and on-top of that they had to deploy four national guard brigades from different parts of the fronts to Pokrovsk aswell. Ukraine clearly has a gigantic issue with manpower if they have resort to these things, so are they actually willing to defend Pokrovsk against superior firepower? Maybe, but judging by the reaction from Ukraine's leadership, they obviously expect this to be very very costly, there's no 5:1 or 3:1 kill ratio anymore.
I think the dismissal of Valery zaluzhni was a catastrophic mistake. If he had been given another task to strengthen the defenses instead of dismissing an experienced general like him, maybe the Russians would have advanced much more slowly
@@MrGreghome Gerasimov is not in charge of commanding troops in Ukraine, his job is to directly report to the president, Teplinsky is in charge of overall groupings in Ukraine.
Problem is, he is being more realistic about what is happening and what must happen to achieve the goals set by the politicians, and which changes to the goals must happen to be able to actually achieve them. He isn't just a totally blind follower of any orders he was given, following political whims at any cost even if they don't make sense and can't lead to good long term results. The fact that he was replaced with the guy who was responsible for how Bakhmut fell is very telling. It wasn't a mistake, this whole war is built on denying reality and then getting surprised, and then demanding more support. It's a media campaign with a gripping narrative much more than a military campaign, and Zaluszhny is out of place here
Kursk was a reasonable gamble for Ukraine to take, but now it's done and nothing's come of it. But what was Ukraine supposed to do? What they did before was have their professional soldiers run from place to place like a fire brigade to stem the Russians, but it only delayed the inevitable fall of these defensive works. Now we see a faster collapse of defenses because you have Ukrainian troops who, by no fault of their own, don't know what they're doing and so are just giving up ground to the Russians. I think the biggest failure of the AFU can be attributed to the abysmal performance of their officers and lack of accountability. If a Russian commander makes a mistake and gets a lot of people killed for nothing, they're fired or rotated, if they're caught stealing from the army and soldiers, they're fired and probably prosecuted. The AFU has very little accountability for such commanders
We will never see a WW2 style blitzkrieg steamroll in this war ever it's literally impossible. Nothing can be hidden these days there's no such thing as a surprise especially in Ukraine. which is the most fortified defensive position on Earth Now defended by one of the most capbale and experienced modern amries in existence
@@dgfgable u think if they strike within Russia, russia will not openly strike nato countries providing those systems? Nato is a bully who likes to make.people fight but not get punched itself
If most of the deaths are caused by artillery rounds and Ukraine is running out of be them , the casualties on the Ukranian side should correspond to that . Russia can't be moving slow while also opting for mass attacks . Quite obviously the Russians are not benchmarking their progress on territorial gains . They are looking to destroy the Ukrainian military . That's also why the Kursk chapter lacks any strategic caluculus that's satisfactory enough to vindicate the diversion of prime troops and equipment in a season of scarcity .
Ukraine is actually increasing its artillery supply by producing them locally now while still getting them from the west. Furthermore, unlike Russian artillery, Ukraine artillery like HIMARS always hits its target.
@@SelfProclaimedEmperorMust be hard to run factories without power. Bro, Zelenskyy isn’t the 17th Avenger like the telly says, so step outside and touch grass and lay off the copium. It’s actually embarrassing. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a Russian bot - that’s also cope.
Two recent pieces published in Ukrainian media take a look at the situation in eastern Ukraine and describe the reasons for the crumbling of Ukraine's defense lines. The usual government friendly Ukrainska Pravda talked with units at the front line: The Pokrovsk front didn’t just crumble overnight. Since 15 February 2024, when they withdrew from Avdrrvka, Ukraine’s defense forces have been retreating towards Pokrovsk - sometimes faster, sometimes slower - almost every week. The first difficulties arose when the 3rd Separate Assault Brigade, which had been holding the line in the vicinity of Orlivka and Semenivka (not far from Avdeevka), was replaced by the 68th Separate Jaeger Brigade. The rotation of military units is one of the most vulnerable defense areas in general, and for the Ukrainian army in particular, and the Russians took advantage of that. Rotations are a complicate business. The unit that gets relieved is supposed to wait until the replacement unit has completely arrived. Only after explaining the positions and situation to the new troops are the old ones supposed to retreat. In reality that rarely happens as it is described in military manuals. The troops eager to get out do not take time to brief the incoming forces. Positions are emptied before the replacements have had time to settle in. Traffic snarls ensue as the number of vehicles in an area double before returning to a normal level. The enemy will of course use any such situation to make it more difficult for the rotating side. Botched rotations have caused several occasions where the lines were open and allowed Russian units to break in. They may be the main cause for the Russian break through from Avdeevka towards the key supply point in Pokrovsk. From those in the known: Vitalii, a crew member who operates a large attack drone, tells Ukrainska Pravda that he was deployed in the area in March, and that the Russian attacks started even before the 68th Brigade could take up its positions. "We met guys from the 68th who had only just taken up their positions and were forced to retreat immediately because of the FPV drone attacks. When a brigade leaves, they take all the electronic warfare equipment with them. This is typical on this front: they [the Russians] advance the most during rotations. The occupiers take advantage of those times." "The night we replaced the 3rd Separate Assault Brigade in Semenivka, the Russians attempted to carry out an assault operation. The meat-grinder attacks haven’t stopped since then," an Ukrainska Pravda source in the 68th Brigade confirms. Another big cause of losses is miscommunication between the various units that hold the lines. The results are breakthroughs and utter confusion about who holds positions and where: Another major turning point that marked the undoing of the Pokrovsk front was the Russians’ sudden breakthrough in Ocheretyne, a relatively large, urbanized town on the railway with industrial facilities, and therefore a particularly useful defense position. Russian liberation forces entered the town in mid-April. ... "Before the offensive, I received intelligence that the Russians were going to assault Ocheretyne, where we had no troops at the positions," the officer says. "I passed this information on to my commanders straight away, but the commander of the brigade stationed there [the 115th Separate Mechanized Brigade - ed.] responded: ‘We have forces there, they’re all there.’ Next morning the Russians started to walk into [Ocheretyne], moving through what were officially minefields - but in fact there were no mines there. After we surrendered Novobakhmutivka, Ocheretyne and Soloviovo, the front started to collapse at the rate we’re seeing now." "When the Russians captured Ocheretyne, there was no stable contact line as such," Vitalii the drone crew member adds. "No one knew where the front was. Soldiers in the villages of Sokil, Yevhenivka and Voskhod were walking around with guns in their hands, asking each other for passwords to figure out if they were dealing with one of us or the enemy." In general, Russian troops are superior in experienced manpower and have more ammunition to fight: "The first problem on the Pokrovsk front is personnel numbers, the second is their level of training, and the third is the skills of the unit command. And then we run into the defense-related issues - tactics, measures, and so on." This, a soldier from the 47th Brigade tells Ukrainska Pravda, is the order of priority of the reasons for the Russians’ super-fast advance. Brigades are kept in the fight even as they are staffed to as low as 40% of their nominal strength. Replacements, if they arrive at all, are unqualified for fighting: "The backbone of the brigades was lost during the battles near Avdeevka, and the replenishments that arrived later left a lot to be desired," says a source from the 68th, explaining the shortage of motivated people. "The mobilization failed. Let's be honest - each subsequent replenishment was less motivated and trained. So, they could not reliably hold the defense. In Semenivka we had about 90% experienced people in the unit and 10% newcomers. Now we have about the same ratio, but the other way round. And the average age of the newcomers can even be 55+, not 45+." On the positive side there were a number of well-prepared fortifications had been built near Pokrovsk. Unfortunately, they had been built by unexperienced forces in the wrong places and were thus unusable: Bunkers and connected trench lines were indeed built on the Pokrovsk front - but there’s a catch. Many of these fortifications are unsuitable for serious defense. They’re frequently located in the middle of fields, which makes them visible to the enemy and difficult for the defense forces’ personnel, ammunition and supplies to reach. "When [Ukrainian MP Mariana] Bezuhla posts photos of empty trenches and asks why nobody was defending them, I know exactly why. Because it’s stupid to sit in a hole in the middle of a bare field. Sooner or later an FPV drone will fly right into your face," Vitalii tells Ukrainska Pravda angrily. ... "On the Pokrovsk front, trenches and dugouts had been made right in the middle of fields, making logistics impossible. They dug anti-tank ditches that led directly from enemy positions to our rear positions, and it’s impossible to monitor them. These fortifications help the enemy advance more than they help us defend. A second report on the war in the Pokrovsk direction, this one by Kyiv Independent, comes to similar conclusions: Since the first break through of Ukrainian defense lines in April near the village of Ocheretyne, Russian forces have advanced over 20 kilometers towards Pokrovsk, with the key logistics hub once considered to be deep in the rear, now gradually coming in range of Russian artillery and suicide drones. Despite Kyiv’s attempts to draw away Russian forces from Pokrovsk with the surprise incursion into Kursk Oblast, Moscow made sure not to take its foot off the pedal, further intensifying its attacks over August. Thin defense lines and a lack of supplies make losses inevitable: The infantrymen’s stories testify to the starkly attritional nature of the fight: although Russia’s relentless infantry assaults come at a high cost, with enough time and enough fire covering the defending positions, the defenders are inevitably overwhelmed. “We can be fighting them off for a while, but eventually our ammunition runs out,” said Dmytro, 32. “And while they are getting resupplied constantly, we can't do the same, they cover all the routes, and because of that, we have to give up our positions.”
This is pretty detailed and accurate. I'd add to it that there's also a "rebound" of military industrial capacity, which was temporarily slowed by sanctions. The sanctions interrupted supply chains, but did not remove any absolute capacity to produce military hardware & ordinance. Over the course of 2023, as Ukraine's greatest-offensive flopped and spent large numbers of personnel & hardware, Russia's industrial capacity for the war was slowly getting back on track at the same time. I'd argue that the tipping point was around November 2023 (about whom was on defense, and whom on offense), although the writing was on the wall by sometime August 2023. Krinky in particular was a complete mess for Ukraine. Clearly it was intended as stage 2 of a 2-part plan, and part 1 was for the Robotyne push to reach considerably further south, and cut off the railroad. Then Krinky could actually accomplish something. It was completely baffling to commit to the Krinky offensive without the success of the Robotyne push, but Ukraine did it anyway, with very predictable results. Current miltary industrial production is WAY up in Russia. Across the same time span where Ukraine's losses have mounted in a very concerning way. I think the war is much closer to ending than most people realize. Square kilometers don't really tell the whole story. It's not a matter of rate of sq km vs how many sq km are left. The armed forces are rather scrunched up against the line of contact. When lines start truly breaking, territory will change hands in a very rapid manner (much like the early days of the Kursk offensive, but without the resources to contain it and push back). It will end slowly, until it starts ending suddenly. I think the transition from one to the other has already begun. I tend to put more weight into Russian casualty claims than Ukrainian. This has nothing to do with preference, only with the manner in which tactics are being used in the field. Despite some truly incompetent early commanders, Russia has settled into a rather cautious and systematic approach. And the manner in which maneuvers are playing out simply cannot be favorable for Ukraine. It speaks to manpower shortages for Ukraine, which only begets deeper manpower shortages as this is exploited. Surely Russia downplays losses. But I think they have a lot deeper manpower potential than Ukraine, and are spending less manpower, day to day, than Ukraine. Ukraine's ideal scenario was to take the Minsk accords. And Ukraine's last "good" negotiating position (with negotiating leverage), was summer of 2023. All of which sounds rather negative towards Ukraine. It's not meant to be negative or positive, just realistic. The only people I have significant sympathies for are the civilians in affected areas, and conscripts, on both sides.
@@markienlYou writing that comment has TOTALLY turned the tables for Ukraine just now! They TOTALLY are no longer losing thanks to your comment! Great work!
Diverting manpower to kursk while suffering man power shortages in the frontline is what the ukrainian high command gambled on, from a previous video i mentioned that this kursk gambit may pay off politically and strategically. But i think its becoming too obvious that the risk taken was not worth it, best case scenario is that russia is slowed down enough for another year or two, worse case would be a total collapse of logistics and thus the front…
You mean, worst case scenario is Russia opening up another front in Sumy because Ukraine's has been weaken in that area while attacking to Pokrovsk. Now Ukraine have to choose which city to save.
@@SelfProclaimedEmperorFailed? If their goal was to liberate all of Kursk area than yes, but I doubt that. I mean, as far as I know, they only counterattacked in one direction
First name + last name + four numbers accounts are here at full force sharing their very valuable insight on what their vague "my country" is doing wrong.
Taking those potato fields has had a political ripple effect across Ukraine’s allies and has been important for Ukrainian morale. The effects of an offensive are not only measured in the type of territory they take or the quantity. Pokrovsk will likely fall in the next few months based on the current pace of advance. Had Ukraine not invaded Kursk perhaps they could have delayed Russia taking the city by 2-3 months. Invading Kursk will likely have more benefits than holding Pokrovsk for a few more months.
But they broke through the defenses and if it wasn't for the American intervention, it would have ended the war in a German victory. Is anyone coming to reinforce the shattered Ukrainian army?
@@Jan-rq8mo they did not break the defensive lines .... the French just retreated into another trench behind it, over and over again... the Entente started counter attacking even before the Americans arrived... this was only possibly because Germany had lost, far far far too many troops in these suicidal attacks... the dumbass Hindenburg than blamed the Jews for stabbing Germany in the back BeCaUse tHe aRmY was totally wiNNing due the greatness of his own Ego.... yeah with leaders like that, its a miracle they lasted to 1918 to begin with... the true backstabbers were the idiots in charge all along... German WW1 high command, even considered Tanks to be useless toys, hence why Germany only built around 20 compared to the 14-16.000 Tanks of the Entente
@@simple17226 Germany did not break the defensive lines .... the French just retreated into another trench behind it, over and over again... the Entente started counter attacking even before the Americans arrived... this was only possibly because Germany had lost, far far far too many troops in these suicidal attacks... the dumbass Hindenburg than blamed the Jews for stabbing Germany in the back BeCaUse tHe aRmY was totally wiNNing due the greatness of his own Ego.... yeah with leaders like that, its a miracle they lasted to 1918 to begin with... the true backstabbers were the idiots in charge all along... German WW1 high command, even considered Tanks to be useless toys, hence why Germany only built around 20 compared to the 14-16.000 Tanks of the Entente.... German Leadership spent all troops it had and they lost because of it
Russian strategy has been to slowly grind down Ukraines best troops until mostly forced conscripts remain. Russias ultimate goal, I suspect, is to settle for Donbass and southern area South of the Dnieper River as a buffer between a future NATO Ukraine and Russia itself. A new Russia allied nation, call it East Ukraine, could be formed. These areas were mostly ethnic Russian from the days when Stalin added those area to Ukraine.
"Russian strategy has been to slowly grind down Ukraines best troops until mostly forced conscripts remain." Ukraine started with mostly conscripts. The war is creating more professional and experienced soldiers. If anything, Russia's war is militarizing Ukraine more and more and not the other way around. It is also not Russia grinding down Ukraine, but Ukraine grinding down the Russian military.
@justsefa1843 kool aid much? Ukraine is desperate for men, they only train 4 weeks and then destroyed. Make that sense. You think this is ww2? You that obtuse? Or coping? Russia goals is to demilitarize ukraine and they doing great job at it. 800k casualties for ukraine so far. Its over. Many men are cutting arms or running away from ukraine to not join. Thats why ukraine puts any ukranian passport expired unless they report?
When I saw Avdiivka just get covered in red on most of the maps of this war back in february, that's when I knew that Ukraine was probably not doing so well. Especially when after that the Russians have just been gaining more and more ground. I don't know where they're at right now, but last I checked they were approaching Ocheretyne. I don't want Russia to win either, but at some point there is not enough copium in the world to convince me that Ukraine is somehow still winning.
I remember a Ukrainian officer or Commander saying to prepare for the battle of Pokrovsk on the day when Russia captured Avdiivka, everyone thought he was a little over his head...
I think the change of territorial control doesn't tell us that much. Soldiers complaining does tell us something but then again, soldiers really like to complain. Of course there are stories about how bad it is for some ukrainians. Because it is. But being miserable is part of the job description of soldiers. Currently Ukraine is in a difficult spot. Does that mean it's losing? I don't think so. At least not in the near future. Who is winning in an attritional type war is a slow process that might take years to come out. But people always do a quick judgment depending on who had the last victory. I do agree however that we should look at Pokrowsk. If it holds, Russia is sitting around in a somewhat awkward overextended position. That makes it vulnerable to counterattacks assuming Ukraine has the capabilities to mount one. If it falls, it is an indication that Ukraine is somewhat in trouble. But either way: The war is far from over. Just my thoughts
Do you really think that Ukraine will stop the Russian offensive and start there offensive and liberate the 110,000 km squares occupied by Russia including crimea Are u high or something ? 😂
“Over extended” Have you not noticed that the Russian army stopped their main thrust and is consolidating its flanks now? On an operational level the Russians have improved quite a bit. Carl Von Clausewitz identifies something called “the culminating point” of an attack. The moment when an offensive operation becomes unviable. Securing your flanks rather than pushing until the culmination point is a new idea for the Russians.
@@markienl I'm talking to you. Neutrality is supposed to be the default approach to coverage on wars, otherwise it's just propaganda. You can't force anyone to pick your side. Get over yourself.
The answer is really simple. Kursk was a waste of time, men and resources. While the Russians fought through fortifications and prepared defenses, Ukraine took their reinforcements and attacked a meaningless area on the boarder.
Disagree. A. the morale bonus alone is worth it. B. The 'showing Victory' to the EU will increase weapons transfer. C. the 'Anti-morale' to the Russians who don't believe the war is real to them, is increased. So Strategically, it's a victory. (Tactically, you're 100% correct. The territory is worthless.)
@@scottmadison4380 "morale bonus" is useless to the achievement of Ukraine war objectives. Has it increased volunteer numbers? Has it made soldiers on the front invincible? Has it triggered rioting in Moscow? The opposite is the case. Get fuccing real.
It is. The only type of victory is serves is a morale one, which is pretty important considering current low morale,and a public one. In a pure military perspective thought, it’s not very great. Better to keep the war going to try to wear Russia down as much as possible, before moving on to a dedicated insurgency once the ukranian army loses out. There’s no way to get a quick decisive push into Russia, and there’s really no reason to send seasoned elite troops to a tiny area in Russia, military wise,
Well done Binky. You are covering this thing the fairly. I'm glad that when facts exist you cover them. Now if only the media would tell us the things you are telling us.
I don't support either side of this conflict. Yet if I bring up that Ukraine is consistently losing ground and troop at a higher rate per capita they call me a russian bot
There's a saying in Russian, a folklore wisdom: " He who shouts the loudest " get this thief" is a thief himself. " . They are doing it as an organization, and are diverging on others(genuine people) what they are doing themselves...
About 90% of the casualties (dead and wounded) are due to indirect fire - artillery and bombing. It is not hard to get the losses ratio using the firepower ratios. No wonder why Ukraine is performing forced mobilization, while the Russian have a steady flow of volunteers that are signing professional contracts with the army.
And russia has had massive artillery superiority in the whole war. Bro they were firing 32 times the amount of shells as Ukraine was in the first couple months of the war
I said this when it happened, but the Ukrainian push into Kursk was absolutely pointless. There's no conceivable advantage to it. There was never any chance of any serious chance of making real gains through the push. It's not as if the Ukrainians were going to march on Moscow, or even less grand, conquer the entirety of Kursk. Even then, the Russians have a ring of Home Guard type troops all around the Eastern Border of Ukraine that would be able to limit any push the Ukrainians would be able to muster. It also drew manpower and important weapon systems (arguably more important than the manpower at this stage) away from more needed fronts. Finally, while it may have been a morale boost for some in Ukraine, it also left many others wondering why they were invading parts of Russia rather than liberating their own territory. I just can't make sense of why they would do it. It was a big gamble that they could never push further on, can't hold long term, and comes at the cost of other fronts. My only theory is that they were either hoping that this would cause some massive Russian overreaction that would force the hand of NATO (like the use of nuclear or chemical weapons) or that it would inspire Western nations to donate even more supplies in light of this offensive. The first option was obviously not going to happen because of the Russian's ability to contain Ukrainian efforts and the second fails to see that the well is dry. There isn't a lot more meaningful aid to be given to Ukraine anymore, even if there was the will to do it.
It prevents Putin from proposing a ceasefire and thus Western nations from pressuring Ukraine into accepting such a deal for short term political gain.
@@RichelieuUnlimited I think it is unlikely that the Russians would propose a cease fire. The war is, and has been, in their favor. Domestic and military morale is also quite good. Recruiting numbers are excellent. War is costly, but the door is beginning to open for the Russians to begin making serious gains. War is sometimes like a boxing match. Both sides have to take and give punches, but once a fighter starts to win they don't want to leave the fight up to decision. Ukraine is looking tired whereas the Russians aren't but, also like a boxing match, as long as you are throwing punches you have a chance to win. In either case, it still seems like an incomprehensible move by the Ukrainians.
@@jackpeters2884 Reminds me of flat-earthers arguing why something doesn’t prove earth is spherical. If you can find an explanation within the confines of your interpretation of the situation, then maybe your interpretation is off.
@@RichelieuUnlimited The explanation is that the Ukrainian Army leadership is incompetent. I don't think anyone seriously disputes that point. That's not to say that the Russian leadership is much better, but even still incompetence at this level is surprising.
My friend at the Russian MoD normally tells me if something is just propaganda or not, and he says since Kursk, they've been averaging about 1,900 volunteer sign-ups per day. Russia doesn't seem to have manpower issues, and attacks like what happened in Kursk tend to provoke a patriotic fervor in many young men, who then impulsively volunteer for service. I have a feeling Ukraine will not be able to maintain its current lines, let alone recapture lost territory. The real hammer blow will be the loss of the Kursk salient, which will be followed by Russian attacks into Sumy to continue tying up AFU. Morale is the intangible factor, and it will be disastrous when it really starts to slide.
operation barbrossa had 3m soldiers from europe. 4 years later Russia had 10m soldiers in eastern europe and berlin. Ukraine can never do anything with 10-20k soldiers attacking a weak spot. they took a few potatofields and empty villages before logistics broke down, Russia didnt even def3nd this area. Napoleon hitler karl,XIimall learned hard taking empty russian potatofields.
This isn't a complete picture. Almost 100,000 (I could be wrong about that number) Russians are either in Ukranian held territory, or are internally displaced in Russia. It is also not empty land now, VDV and other units are in the area. They also took many POW's and were swapped in exchanges. This is decreasing stress on the Ukranian government and increasing stress on the Russian government.
There are more stupid mobalized troops than well trained soldiers in Ukrainian army. Those mobalized troops can hold a position but were unable to attack due to their incompetence. Reserve are also decreasing since Kursk needs alot of resources and manpower. The defenses in Pokrovs are weak and very new. They failed to building a proper defensive positions after Avdiivka falls. So Weak defenses, badly trained soldiers defending it, change of tactics in Russian command enable Russia to captured huge chunk of land towards Pokrovs. Ukraine is weakening as Russia keeps getting stronger.
Weak lies. Russia essentially doesn’t train their new troops at all and sends them to die in meat waves with blocking forces at their back. Ukraine trains thousands of recruits for a shorter time than a NATO country would in peacetime, but they get better training than Orc meatbags do.
Plenty of videos on telegram and Reddit of mobilized Ukr conscripts that arrived to the front after 72hrs of being mobilized. Both sides use poorly trained penal battalions. Quit acting like every Ukr soldier is some highly equipped and nato trained super soldier with a heart of gold.
Well it depends what is the win.. they did not take over country i. 3 days or few weeks and its not real that they are going to take over it at all. When for Ukraine to take back all their land is most likely not possible either. One has enormous casualties for minor gains another keep their independence
Wars are lost because the leadership loses the will to continue the fight (as happens in America), or because there aren't enough people and resources to keep throwing into the fight (as as likely to happen to Ukraine if Russia does not lose its will). Also, when a country is dependent on an outside country for its resources, as Ukraine is, that makes its position even more precarious.
Ukraine has two issues far bigger than lack of artillery or western supplies: 1) they are running out of men. By Ukranian accounts, some of which were mentioned in this video, ukraine is not replacing losses adequately. That means that each month there are less and less men holding the line. As drones have been less effective, ukraine has also been pressing drone crews into infantry roles to hold the front line. Fewer men and a thinner line makes it easier for russia to break through, though a grand mechanized offensive like france in 1940 is a fantasy. Russia cant and isnt trying to do something similar. 2) Ukraine desperately needs time to regroup and reorganize. Even without replacement troops, the lack of breathing space has meant that basically every formation at the line of contact is ad hoc. Bridades will have one batallion near Kharkov, another near Chasiv Yar, and a third holding Vugledar. Yes its been that spread out. Companies at the more local level are just as spread out. Thus urkaine is utterly unable to defend as a battalion or brigade, but is fighting a bunch of small individual battles and thus holding on by their finger nails. They need to rotate in fresh brigades and pull out spent ones for rebuilding and reorganization. But there are no reserves to do so. Thus the defenses are poorly organized, especially when russia makes an advance and whatever troops are around are sent in to full a hole. Binkov makes a good point that you need your best troops for attacking and you can defend with lower quality troops. The problem isnt that ukraine went on the offensive and tried to regain the initiative. The problem is how they did so. Kursk achieves nothing. Furthermore, because they are inside russia proper, russia can use conscripts to defend, which they could not use inside Ukraine. It was a vanity project designed to sacrifice precious military assets and men for a moral victory, which is already fleeting as russia counterattacks. Its very possible that 7 of urkaines best brigades are going to be largely ineffective as a result which makes counter attacks elsewhere impossible. Again, the blunder was not attacking. The blunder was where they chose to attack.
I think you're just flat out wrong on the Kursk side of things lol Firstly, it was not a vanity project. The objective is to have valuable Russian land to trade back in the event a ceasefire was forced by a Trump-led US. Sure, there's a morale element to it, but to just flatly say "this was the whole point" is completely wrong. Secondly, Russian conscripts are not properly trained and equipped. The fact that there's more of them works in Ukraine's favor by allowing them to exchange poorly trained conscripts for higher quality Ukrainian POWs. Thirdly, resources must be divered from the Donbass, whether it's manpower or ammo, to deal with the troops in Kursk. And as we can see in the most recent weeks, Russian advances in Ukraine have slowed dramatically. Finally, assaulting Ukrainian positions in Kursk will require Russia to fight in its own territory, bomb it's own houses, raze its own towns, demine its own fields. The benefits there are pretty obvious. I think "unga bunga moral victory, ooga booga power plant" are the narratives people parrot when they want to undercut the success of the operation.
@@LogisticsWW I don't know what kind of land trade you're imagining but it sure ain't going to be 1991 borders for a 1000 square kilometre section of Kursk in which the largest population centre is 6000 odd people. At best holding a small part of Kursk might be enough to negotiate a Russian withdrawal from their small incursion in Kharkov or some other such trade of limited magnitude. That and your other points hardly justify the increased losses that the Ukrainians take in coming out of their fortified home territory.
@@1llus1ve No one said or implied it would be. I'm not even sure why that's the first place your mind went; almost like you're trying to discredit the argument by imposing the most extreme variation possible onto my position. Russia will never allow Ukraine to hold Russian land at the end of the war. Therefore, this land can be traded back at a premium to Russia in exchange for land they've gained this year. It can likely be done at a premium as well, trading back 1sqkm of Kursk for 1.5-2sqkm of captured Ukrainian territory. Let's imagine a scenario where the lines don't change much until November, and Donald Trump wins. He forces a ceasefire in Ukraine to win some favor at home. Ukraine trades back Kursk for the entirety of Russian land gains in 2024. Pretty incredible deal for a couple weeks of combat and significantly fewer losses vs months of offensive action and tens of thousands of losses. Ukrainian losses in Kursk are minimal in comparison to Russian losses everywhere lol. But feel free to believe the opposite. It's served Russia very well in the past to be confident their enemy had no more men or equipment to fight with. I'm sure it'll help the war effort this time, too.
@@LogisticsWW American presidents aren't inaugurated until January 20. So the Ukrainians would have to hold out in Kursk for a lot longer than until November. Nor, even if he was inclined to do so, does Trump have a magic spell that can force the Russians to a ceasefire any more than Biden does. In fact, why are you even talking about a quick November ceasefire and land trades if Ukrainian losses are minimal in comparison to the Russians everywhere ? If we're imagining a world where the Russians are desperate enough to take the terrible deal you sketched out - trading strategically important and hard-won fortified towns in the Donbass at a 2 to 1 ratio in order to get back rural Kursk - then we're also imagining a world where there's no reason to believe the deal would be offered in the first place. In that world the Ukrainians and their Western backers would be confident of and pressing for total victory, not offering ceasefires.
After 900+ days some idiots still do not get it, what the scope of this SMO is. It's not about to conquer "land", it's to destroy as much of AFU as possible - which is a success. If AFU implodes, conquering land will become a piece of cake.
Yes, russias plan was to demolish itself lol 😂 Who cares about ukraine, the US lost 30 tankers, Russia 5000+, the Americans lost 200 IFVs, Russia lost over 8000, the Americans lost 0 aircraft the Russians 300, the Americans lost 0 boats, the Russians 20+. Russia threw away all of its equipment for a country that farms wheat as it's only source of money 😂
What a HORRIBLE thing to say about Wuzzia. Are you a wrecker? Seems like it.... Out here pointing out that the Little Duchy still....still.....STILL can't beat Ukraine after "900+ Days". What a brilliant way of pointing out Russia's failure for the last "900+ Days". Do you have a choice of gulag you'd like to be sent to for this display, Einstein?
@@TheAncientSnack.Last time I checked Russia was fighting Ukraine not the US. Plus, the US lost more when they were in Vietnam and Afghanistan which were both weaker than Ukraine today. Imagine spending 10-20 years against two nations with no army but only farmers with guns? Couldn’t be Russia. But could count on the US!
So for one, this is wrong lol. Russia has taken enormously lopsided casualties to capture small strips of land. Like, lopsided to the point of being completely unsustainable. It's apparent to most analysts that this was preparation for a Donald Trump win in the US elections and a ceasefire would be forced along the current battle lines. This was also probably a major factor in the Kursk offensive. Secondly, if demilitarization of Ukraine was the objective, it's been wildly unsuccessful. Ukraine is better armed with a larger military than they ever have been. And Russia, while it has a large mobilized force, hasn't been this short on equipment probably in it's entire history. In addition, two nations on it's border that have historically remained neutral have joined an alliance with Russia sees as a threat. Countries on the defensive don't tend to implode. Germany was still managing to field units as the Allies advanced into Berlin. I think you're probably the idiot that doesn't get you've been fed vatnik propaganda, meant to cover Russia's enormous losses and lack of success.
It is the basic of attrition war. Ukraine has been eroded and eroded, and after a while the pace of failures into the ukranian side led to faster and faster advancements of the russian side. RUssia has more resources, men, and its strategies are geared up to minimize its losses and maximize the other's losses.
Hahaha. Binkov really disappointed me with how far he went along with the western narrative. He's just another grifter trying to make his subscribers happy instead of informed.
@@wolfswinkel8906 ?? Everything he says is pretty true. Ukraine is currently not doing so hot, and Russia seems to be taking the upper hand after years of a more or lesss stalemate.
@@smthsmthsmthsmthin this video, yes, he says the truth. In other videos though, he went along with the "Russians are running out of tanks and using meat waves" narrative.
@@mugenmugen9632 that’s kind of true, in a sense. Russia is, in fact, running out of T90s, and the T14 has not even made that large of an impact yet. Russian production is pretty good, but they’re still forced to use half century tanks to make up for it. And while they might work fine for purely infantry operations, in tank on tank engagements, they suck. Though to give the Russians credit, tank on tank engagements are becoming less and less prominent, so going back to a WW1 ground support idea isn’t too debilitating. Not great, but could be worse. As for meat waves, again, it’s kinda true. Unless you consume Russian media, which gives pretty outlandish statements of 2-1 casualties in favor of Russia, more sources give around 1.5-2 casualties, in favor of Ukraine. So Russia is throwing men at the situation, to keep gaining ground. I’m not saying Ukraine isn’t either, they’ve suffered at least 200k casualties by now, but Russia is still sitting at around 350k back in February I think it was, and that number mights grown to 400-450 k by now. The numbers aren’t really solid. But yeah, binkov is kinda right that one of Russia’s major edges is that they have the men to spare and go on the offfensive with, while Ukraine is running dangerously low.
@@smthsmthsmthsmth well then, let's take it one at a time, shall we? how do you know Russia is running out of T-90s? Did you count their stockpiles and how did you access them? Did you factor in the new production numbers and do you know what they are? Show all sources. Go.
I do wonder if this video had to be shit out by Zelensky first... the Ukrainian summer offensive started with no bang if you don't count the thousands of people lost by the idiots before they pivoted to the style of offensive they used in Kursk.
I believe what some commenters might be missing about the Kursk offensive, is that any calls for a "ceasefire" have stopped ever since Ukraine took land in Russia. So long that land is held, the Western Allies will be unable to force a ceasation to the conflict, as Putin will definitely be unwilling to give up Russian land. That issue boils down both down to his personal pride, as well as his political standing to the Russian society.
Given that a ceasefire would be terrible for Ukraine, this is positive (just look at Russia's strategy since 2014, as well as how they took both the Baltics and Ukraine the last time, 1917-1945, in a long, invade-pretend to just want peace, get ceasefire-invade some more process....yes, I know there was no state occupying all the current borders of Ukraine today, but I mean the area of today's Ukraine/what was turned into the Ukrainian SSR by the Soviets). A ceasefire would likely lead to a dropping of current ongoing western aid commitments, the forgetting of Ukraine in the media, Russia rearming, then pushing to take more of Ukraine until they have everything (Lavorv, Medvedev, Putin, as well as Putin's favourite thinkers, like Dugin, and media personalities, have all, at different times, spoke of taking all or almost all of Ukraine, either up to the Polish border, or at least up to Odesa and the Bug River, i.e. the interwar Polish-Soviet border).
@@WangMingGe so a ceasefire would be a mistake because, if they stopped combat, there would be a risk that they may eventually loose more territory? They are currently loosing territory as well as horrific losses in men and equipment... make that make sense. This makes about as much sense as "we must declare war on x because, if we don't do it now, there may be a war at some point". Backwards and illogical.
@@MrChickennugget360 ? makes zero sense, they're not going to bargain with you to begin with while you're on that land so how does it give any bargaining power?
There's been a consistent tendency to trade land for troops throughout this conflict...a change of a few lines on a map doesn't impact long term outcome... remember we've had this debate before around bakhmut and wagner got crushed on that anvil
I think deep down everyone knew that Kursk was a PR operation. They captured fields while Russia is capturing 10 year fortified urban areas. Not remotely similar
@@shanerooney7288morale boosts, shaking dulcet allies from a relative slumber, challenging red lines narratives, taking over a thousand prisoners, and yes a PR win. These were all things that Ukraine needed to make headway on regardless of the progress in the Donbas, no?
Russia has the advantage of being bigger and having more capacity to absorb losses while they analyze this new modern battlefield. Allowing them to slowly but surely adapt and crank up to the steamroller. Ukraine had to settle this early, they did not. Now they have no leverage.
@@OttoKreml in what way?LOL when they entered ukraine as the people had enough of the ukraine ignoring minsk as the agreement was just to buy time to build up their army , its all part of the great game , which I doubt you have even heard of
@@OttoKremlThat was literally the west. Chancellor Merkel even literally admitted in the Reichstag that they and the Ukrainians had no intention of upholding the Minsk Treaty and that the agreement was simply a ploy to buy time. The Russians signed in good faith and made the mistake of hoping the west would show at least some integrity and hold up it’s end.
Thanks for a detailed video as always. It's a bit confusing when the diagram shows area in km2 but the number you say are in square miles (e.g. around minute 6).
Have to imagine, Russia keeps grinding it out, and capturing most Donetsk in next couple of years. Here depending on Russias internal stability, Putin could easily declare some goals attained and plant a victory flag. Either moving forward or consolidating and preparing for more. But to move onward and take cities like kharkhiv or even Odesa would take much greater mobilization, more than anything we’ve seen so far with Russias high casualties. But all that could change if Russias escalates or Ukraine lines collapse due to desertion/manpower, or trump finding a way to cut funding
These are realistic and concerning issues. The west needs to escalate the war effort substantially, most importantly Europe, in case the worst might happen in the US. Germany and Poland are becoming our best hopes.
Russian high casualties,they said artillery and bomb's are doing most of the killing,Russia has use way more than the Ukraine but your saying Russia has high casualties compare to who,who kidnapping volunteers of the streets by beating the down and even lowering the age to fight even threatening,their citizens abroad I'm wondering how long before they lower the age to 16,we already know that zelenskyy and is back is backers are deviants inhumane people.
Ukraine's 2022 Counter-offensive was a masterpiece, Ukraine's 2023 Counter-offensive was a blunder, Ukraine's 2024 Kursk (or Sudzha?) Offensive was a suicide
Because it was a NATO missile strike, coming from the West, and not some drone - and these kinds of strikes at ammo depots have been happening all through the war ever since 2022. Russia has taken out lots of Ukrainian ammo and missiles storages.
Also, high priced? Really? I wouldn't mind saying the storm shadow missiles stored many a dozen or maybe more and an aircraft if I remember, that was destroyed maybe a year ago a "cheap priced ammunition".
@@Kruger_Mk1 The importance of this one blast has been massively overstated by some of the media. I've seen newspaper articles claiming that it had a yield of 30 kiloton of TNT (equal to two Hiroshima bombs!) and that it represented the amount of ammo and shells used by Russia in Ukraine for a month or two. That's obviously joyride talk designed to beef up morale on the NATO side.
Who says they are failing? All i hear about is Ukrainian success on the news every day. Its almost like there is a whole other side to the story that we are being kept completely oblivious about in western media huh?
In the end, the only relevant metric is the ratio of resources spent and lost, and the ability of both countries to restore them... Russia can occupy thousands of square kilometers, but if it loses a disproportionate amount of men, equipment, and creates an impossible supply situation, it is still loss... at the rate of 200 kilometers per month, Russia would occupy Ukraine for 150 years, so the territory will not be 100% decided by this conflict :D and warehouses of tanks, IFVs and cannons in Siberia are being deliberately emptied...
Your analysis would have some weight if you apply the same analysis to both Russia and Ukraine. The war is an attritional war, which aims at depleting the resources of enemy not taking over the country completely. The point is Sure the warehouses are getting empty in Siberia, but then again we have to see the situation for Ukraine, do they still have equipment in warehouses? The question is who runs out of weapons and ammo first. The problem is Ukraine is solely reliant on NATO/EU for this while Russia is capable of reproducing equipment, albeit it is also receiving shells from NK. The point is Ukraine only holds for as long as there is support from EU/USA as they rely on them for supliers and have already defaulted financially. They are surviving on aid. The point of atritional war is to break to inflict such loses at one point, that they cannot fill the gap left behind. We saw the same at Avdeevka, where Ukraine made the worst decision to hold the line and suffered massively. This allowed Russia to push towards Pokrovsk because Ukraine couldnt fill the gap quickly. The point is if Ukraine can no longer supply their troops, Russian advance would get faster. If the troops are thinned out in an area, the advane will be faster(Pokrovsk). The war ends not when the whole of country is captured, the war ends whent the oponent loses the ability to fight. Given the capabilities of both sides, Russia can cover their loses, Ukraine cannot. So it is always wise to share stats for both sides.
@@callumsaunderson1089 dude,it takes less than 10 seconds to check ones identity! Don't be lazy because it makes you stupid! From NYC with love and keep your 🫧 bubbles
One of the biggest mistakes Ukraine and the West also sadly did often enough is making fun of russia, overestimating their own capabilities and underestemating russia. I mean there are entire Websites, which counted losses, according to them russia has no army anymore. And still it is fighting and will have the longer breath. Never underestimate the enemy and overestimate yourself. Kursk incursion for example was an absolut useless and stupid move again. Troops that bind russian forces will also bind ukraines forces, and they have less to spare.
The collective west though Kiev would fall within three days. The west has been scarred of Russia for years. No one was making fun till the Russians showed us who they really are.
This is an interesting comment, clearly nonsense but it's interesting to examine and understand the mind of an idiot peddling Pro-Russian bias Russia's capabilities are definitely NOT underestimated, if anything they're vastly overestimated - We assumed Ukraine would fall in days, meanwhilst the abysmal command and control of Putins forces conducting assaults have resulted in one of the biggest losses of life to war since WW2 and embrrassing the Russian military beyond the likes of which we have never seen before to a military so large To call Kursk useless and stupid just shows your bias as it has allowed Ukraine to use Russia as a slaughtering ground for RU troops whilst they destroy their own towns to recapture them , I guess Russians don't like to take ground unless they lose at least 1000 men for every 100 meters
@@2010cam1 So you mean Kursk is a success? UA sending their best of the best then losing grip the rest of Ukraine for 1/10 of Kursk Oblast? According to UA channels at least 3 brigades has lost their combat capabilities in Kursk (you can hypothesize why): 103rd, 80th, 82nd (I didnt read more updates since end of August but I believe there are 2 more that had lost combat capabilities)
One thing to take into account for when it comes to casualties is that even the ukrianians admit that 75 percent to 90 percent of the battlefield casualties are cause by artillery. And the russians have had pretty massive artillery advantage throught the whole war, 32x superiority in the first few months and the leveled down to around an order of magnitude with some fluxuation in the last year or so. Even at least triple is still a major advantage
According to Ukrainian sources Russia Lost 637k KIA likly 2.5x this number taking into account WIA,MIA and POWs Russia has Lost a Total of 1.5 Million men in casualties. Tanks: 8,500+ Aircraft: 369 Artillery: 18,009 Helicopters: 328 Vehicles and fuel tanks: 24,481 As of 12/9/2024 For Ukraine: 31k KIA which brings us about 80K~90K Totall casualties since February 2022. No further info on equipment losses of UA was found.
Deepstate does not update because they are not allowed too. It is not an independent source. Does not make it bad though, it's just like Suriak. Theti Mapping has done a great job of balancing sources.
Pre-emptively commenting to say i appreciate the perspective on these videos. Comments are usually filled with chest thumpers on both sides, but these videos show a perspective not seen from major news and YT channels.
"To defeat Russia, Ukraine might need direct NATO involvement..." What are the odds that France, Germany, etc will join a fight in Pokrovsk? Zero. Poland and the Baltics? Non zero but at this point very close to zero. The time to get Poland directly involved was in 2022, with a very nationalist government in Warsaw and Ukrainian success in Kharkov oblast. Had the Poles been involved there, the offensive might have continued to push through Lugansk to the Russian border and Putin might have been in real political difficulty. The Russian military had begun to formulate a plan (Surovikhin: attrition and fortifications, defense of the 4 oblasts and positional fighting with strong force protection) but in October 2022 it hadn't really had time to implement it. Dependence on Wagner was only growing and even with the prison recruitments Russia was in a desperate situation with troops leaving after their 6-month contract obligation. Today, Russia is in an implacable position of strength. The only reasonable move is to seek peace and accommodate Russian terms.
@@engineerenginering8633 If Ukraine collapses shortly at Pokrovsk, this will instead prove the folly of the last 2 years. Binkov is still overly optimistic about Ukraine's situation. Russia is currently menacing Pokrovsk, Kurakhovo and Vugledar, in other words the entire southern Donetsk line. Given the dilapidated state of the UAF and the constant underperformance of its construction efforts, how will Ukraine mount a serious defense against Russia once these formidable defenses have been overcome?
@@charlesiragui2473 why would Ukraine fall at Pokrovsk? you do realize that Ukraine is a big country right? Russia could take over the whole of the donbass regions and it wouldnt collapse Ukraine. And you do know that formidable defenses are manmade right? new ones can be built father back
Thank you for being pro Ukrainian and being non biased and reporting on Ukrainians failures. This goes MILES for your credibility, not like I'm the gate keeper, but whoever is would appreciate this.
@@mabussubam512 you can be Ukrainian and be non-biased lol what is even the point in this comment? Do you think you have to be one or the other? WillyOAm has publicly stated he is personally pro Ukrainian but he has a passion for unbiased news. So he is unbiased. I'm not sure what else I need to explain here.
@@chasem4183 It's oxymoronic to be both as one is biased by default. Think the word you're looking for is "neutral" but even then it fails because you can't be neutral when you're pro-something. Language is to communicate, not obfuscate. To be unbiased means that you don't take any side. That's being unbiased. "Oh look, my pro-country is currently losing the war, here, let me make a statement of it" No. Stating the Truth isn't being unbiased. It's being realistic even when you have a bias via politics. What unbiased person would say is something in the following: " Oh look, a goiym killing goyim. Too bad there is no stop to this because the majority is too mentally impaired to acknowledge the problem beyond the politics. Oh well, waiting for my turn to be offed because the majority dictates over my life. "
@@cyruslupercal9493 warehouse in Odessa was destroyed by an iskander a few hours ago. It happens on the daily but your low iq brain chooses to ignore reality. For every ammo dump destroyed by Ukraine Russia destroys 10. Its been the same since the start of the war bud.
Both countries were short on manpower even before the war. These are old, shrinking countries that are fighting. The Philippines has more military-age men than Russia these days.
It's so ironic how Ukrainian supporters resort to name calling insteas of engaging with arguments... You guys know that you will NEVER regain the most territories and this war will end with negociations right? The terms could have been so favorable to Ukraine 1 year ago but now they'll have to take whatever Russia gives them...
Where do smart experts like you come from? This was not a mistake. Ukraine needed to show Biden that the occupation of sovereign Russian territory would not lead to anything terrible. In addition, the war should be transferred to Russian territory. Otherwise, it turns out that Russia loses nothing by leaving its territory intact and destroying Ukrainian territory.
ma come sempre,conquista un villaggio ucraino qui,uno la.Fai piangere gli ucraini perchè tu hai munizioni e loro no. Fai una piccola gang bang a Pokrovsk con ratio di 5 a 1. Da voi invece?vi hanno finalmente mandato i nuovi giocattoli dall'Occidente? ah no?! mi spiace.
i have all along heard that the Russia has been sending meat waves to the frontline, fighting with shovels and equipment made from Ukrainian washing machines, Now adjectives like well manned,better trained etc are common.
They initially attacked with too few men. Russians had to withdraw from their attack on Kyiv and reinforce their gains in the east and south of Ukraine. During this period, Russia needed to get into a proper war footing now that it was clear Ukraine wasn’t going to capitulate easily. It was during this period, when Russia enacted a partial Mobilization, that you saw random criminals and woefully under trained units thrown into the meat grinder. As time has gone on, Russian units have become more experienced and better trained as Russia slowly began offering higher and higher wages to go to Ukraine and ramping up production. From what I’ve seen, Russia now has more than 500k on the front line and they’re still suffering a 3 to 1 casualty rate. Russia also had an immense stockpile of military vehicles that they’ve been burning through. Eventually, the stocks are going to run out and production likely won’t be able to replace the vehicles at the rate they’re being lost.
Ukraine defense is failing because of many factors. Russian artillery advantage, numerical advantage, armor advantage and air supremacy. Ukraine just didn't have enough of anything to be able to survive a long attrition. And it didn't manage to pull off a shock and awe blitz style back in the counter offensive. It's now, unfortunately, just a matter of time to collapse. Unless NATO is somehow drawn in, there is no longer a win scenario for Ukraine.
Ukraine also has manpower problems, their volunteers for infantry has been low for over a year. They also had extremely high insubordination and desertion rates. The initial recruitment effort was full of willing soldiers. Not any more... Also one thing people never consider is that at the start Ukraine had huge stockpiles of Soviet equipment and ammunition... this is by now all gone. They are now dependant totally on donations. Even just the mines, shells, small munitions and anti air missies that were Soviet were all a huge part of their defense in the first year or so.
dumb comment. Ukraine has more weapons than Soldiers. That is the crux of the problem. Ukraine as a whole doesn't want to fight, if they did they wouldn't counter Armies and Corps with Bridgades.
@@davidporter7051 That's exactly what I said. The numerical advantage is not on Ukraine's side. The initial burst of recruitment didn't last. The numbers of military age men who immediately fled the country is significant, and is why Ukraine is stopping services so those with Ukrainian passports will be forced to return home and be subject to conscription. Weapons don't count as advantaged if they're lying in storage waiting for someone to pick them up.
Go to ground.news/binkov to see through media bias in coverage of Ukraine and Russia. Try Ground News today and get 40% off your subscription.
@@Binkov you are a horrible analyst do you have any military experience at all because it sure doesn’t seem like it
@@Binkov even when your information is correct you almost always come to the wrong conclusion
@Binkov Nah, more like biased assumptions and ramblings here.
i think we are not watching the same map xd because ukraine is not losing that much ground,they are gaining more then they are losing specially in kursk so nice try rusky ;)
that vodka is strong
That’s because you have no idea what you’re talking about this is a war of attribution please go look up what that is it might help you not sound so clueless in the future
I miss the days when the wars you talked about were hypothetical. 💔
@@christophe5756 +1 for hypothetical and historical crew!
So many idiots profess to love the idea of war and conflict until it's literally their arse in the trench.
A lot of keyboard warriors here that know nothing about the war. Go and volunteer in ukraine and you will change your mind very quickly.
Are you in Ukraine?
I did volunteer & back home how about yourself. Did you volunteer for Russia is that why you think you know so much
@MrJones-yq7wm no, not my show nor my monkeys, but been somewhere and seen enough . You do not know what being in a trench is like while shells are flying all over the place, and these days with drones, i believe it's even more horrific.
When your best friend is turned into minced meat from waist up in a split second before your eyes, you start to question everything.
@@lewissmith-t4b The issue is people are mad because the guy in the video said the truth about the reality of this conflict, hence the invitation for them to go check for themselves
@@lewissmith-t4bwhy.. why you back home?
Obviously territorial losses and gains aren't equal, losing a major logistic hub and a well fortified chokepoint can lead to major cascading losses while losing random space no where near the front will not. I don't think the push into Kursk was bad, but it's too little too late. You will not persuade Russia by inserting a toke of forces in the middle of no where, at the worst they can just ignore your push or slow it down with an equal token of troops.
It need to be a major effort, something that actually threaten their current front to be even worth it. They really need to stop doing this 'show off' push and aim at something with real tactical value.
I agree but I think the reason Ukraine made the offensive is to show there western backers and western people that they have a chance so that they keep supporting Ukraine
And I was afraided that was the case the first time I saw the news.
Another offense was alternative less from an efficiency standpoint. Offensive forces are wasted in an area where bombs are used in high numbers. You can't counter an offensive with another offensive if you don't have the necessary force. It's logical that the trenches are understaffed. If a bomb falls, it's preferable to only lose two instead of five men. What's Ukraine supposed to do against those bombs other than attacking the ammunition stores?
@@e21big can't help but think the battle of the bulge still
What the fuck are you talking about? The invasion into kursk had tons of positive outcomes for Ukraine and they didn't do it so that they would stop russia or some shit. That would never have worked.
Also the idea that putin can just ignore an invasion into his country especially if it isn't stopping is absolutely braindead. No he cannot. I'm not even going to argue that because the most basic knowledge of warfare should allow you to see why.
Also the idea that if you just deploy an equal amount of troops means you win the engagement is also extremely dumb. In war the determining factor for a winner isn't just "who has more people to throw at them". Russia has 500k while Ukraine has 300k though it has recently increased.
That argument also assumes that there won't be any repercussions on eastern part of Ukraine if they redeploy troops to kursk which is again extremely detached from reality.
Honestly it's fascinating that this comment got so many likes while understanding so little about actual modern or overall warfare.
Please no more highlighter sound effects.
Brain rot in the comments again. Who could have predicted such tragedy
Yeah the amount of orc bots on anything Ukraine war related is always huge. Unfortunately many uninformed people fall for these bots and their propaganda.
Territory gains at this stage is not nearly as significant as the destruction of the other side's fighting power. Possibly with the exception of strategic areas like logistical hubs and major defensive lines.
Measuring military success in square kilometers is absurd thing. Espetially for such "achievments" as forgotten villages in the middle of nowhere.
Artillery, still the God of war
Well, not really. That's called air superiority. If you don't have that I guess artillery is a good second place.
@@Poo_Brain_Horse they have both, hoss
@@Poo_Brain_Horse The luftwaffe eventually ran out of air superiority and lost.
@@clone3_7 Meaning the Allies had air superiority lmao.
@@Poo_Brain_Horse I was mostly thinking about the eastern front...
Excellent vid! 👍🏻 I don’t buy propaganda from both sides.
In regards to the eventual siege of Pokrovsk, I don't think we will see much of a grind if Ukraine aren't willing to sacrifice just as many soldiers. Why? Because like you said Russia now has a superiority in basically everything AND they now have access to large FABs that can literally demolish large commie block houses, so there's nowhere to hide.
During the siege of Bakhmut you still had a large amount of veterans on the ukrainian side that could easily hold out for months against what was then Wagner troops, however now those veteran brigades are very rare. They're so rare Ukraine had to send the veteran brigade from Vuhledar to plug the holes in the Pokrovsk direction, which has now led to Russia advancing on Vuhledar, and on-top of that they had to deploy four national guard brigades from different parts of the fronts to Pokrovsk aswell.
Ukraine clearly has a gigantic issue with manpower if they have resort to these things, so are they actually willing to defend Pokrovsk against superior firepower? Maybe, but judging by the reaction from Ukraine's leadership, they obviously expect this to be very very costly, there's no 5:1 or 3:1 kill ratio anymore.
I think the dismissal of Valery zaluzhni was a catastrophic mistake. If he had been given another task to strengthen the defenses instead of dismissing an experienced general like him, maybe the Russians would have advanced much more slowly
and replace him with valery gerasimov?
@@MrGreghome Gerasimov is not in charge of commanding troops in Ukraine, his job is to directly report to the president, Teplinsky is in charge of overall groupings in Ukraine.
Problem is, he is being more realistic about what is happening and what must happen to achieve the goals set by the politicians, and which changes to the goals must happen to be able to actually achieve them.
He isn't just a totally blind follower of any orders he was given, following political whims at any cost even if they don't make sense and can't lead to good long term results.
The fact that he was replaced with the guy who was responsible for how Bakhmut fell is very telling. It wasn't a mistake, this whole war is built on denying reality and then getting surprised, and then demanding more support. It's a media campaign with a gripping narrative much more than a military campaign, and Zaluszhny is out of place here
Kursk was a reasonable gamble for Ukraine to take, but now it's done and nothing's come of it.
But what was Ukraine supposed to do? What they did before was have their professional soldiers run from place to place like a fire brigade to stem the Russians, but it only delayed the inevitable fall of these defensive works.
Now we see a faster collapse of defenses because you have Ukrainian troops who, by no fault of their own, don't know what they're doing and so are just giving up ground to the Russians.
I think the biggest failure of the AFU can be attributed to the abysmal performance of their officers and lack of accountability. If a Russian commander makes a mistake and gets a lot of people killed for nothing, they're fired or rotated, if they're caught stealing from the army and soldiers, they're fired and probably prosecuted. The AFU has very little accountability for such commanders
The big mistake the Ukrainians made was getting into this conflict in the first place. They never had a chance of winning and should have negotiated.
Always good to see objective coverage on this war
So really it’s still so slow that it’s all a bit meaningless until attrition causes one side to break ?
We will never see a WW2 style blitzkrieg steamroll in this war ever it's literally impossible.
Nothing can be hidden these days there's no such thing as a surprise especially in Ukraine.
which is the most fortified defensive position on Earth Now defended by one of the most capbale and experienced modern amries in existence
The west: *stops sending military aid*
Also the west: "How are Ukrainian defenses failing?!??!?!!"
Also still no permission to deep strike on war target in russia by nato weapons
western media outlets regularly say that the russian military and government are completely incompetent
We're still sending military aid...
@@dgfgable u think if they strike within Russia, russia will not openly strike nato countries providing those systems?
Nato is a bully who likes to make.people fight but not get punched itself
@hiteshadhikari Exactly russias playbook. Not Nato. But nice try, Ivan.
Also, russia strike Nato openly? As dumb as you all are, you wouldn't dare!
If most of the deaths are caused by artillery rounds and Ukraine is running out of be them , the casualties on the Ukranian side should correspond to that .
Russia can't be moving slow while also opting for mass attacks . Quite obviously the Russians are not benchmarking their progress on territorial gains .
They are looking to destroy the Ukrainian military .
That's also why the Kursk chapter lacks any strategic caluculus that's satisfactory enough to vindicate the diversion of prime troops and equipment in a season of scarcity .
Ukraine is actually increasing its artillery supply by producing them locally now while still getting them from the west. Furthermore, unlike Russian artillery, Ukraine artillery like HIMARS always hits its target.
@@SelfProclaimedEmperorMust be hard to run factories without power.
Bro, Zelenskyy isn’t the 17th Avenger like the telly says, so step outside and touch grass and lay off the copium. It’s actually embarrassing.
Not everyone who disagrees with you is a Russian bot - that’s also cope.
@@Komsomolskaya idk you tell me, Ukraine has hit all of Russias oil refineries and some of their power plants
@@SelfProclaimedEmperorWith drones, not artillery
When Binkov posts a title like that, you just know the situation is a lot worse.
Indeed
Two recent pieces published in Ukrainian media take a look at the situation in eastern Ukraine and describe the reasons for the crumbling of Ukraine's defense lines. The usual government friendly Ukrainska Pravda talked with units at the front line: The Pokrovsk front didn’t just crumble overnight. Since 15 February 2024, when they withdrew from Avdrrvka, Ukraine’s defense forces have been retreating towards Pokrovsk - sometimes faster, sometimes slower - almost every week. The first difficulties arose when the 3rd Separate Assault Brigade, which had been holding the line in the vicinity of Orlivka and Semenivka (not far from Avdeevka), was replaced by the 68th Separate Jaeger Brigade. The rotation of military units is one of the most vulnerable defense areas in general, and for the Ukrainian army in particular, and the Russians took advantage of that.
Rotations are a complicate business. The unit that gets relieved is supposed to wait until the replacement unit has completely arrived. Only after explaining the positions and situation to the new troops are the old ones supposed to retreat.
In reality that rarely happens as it is described in military manuals. The troops eager to get out do not take time to brief the incoming forces. Positions are emptied before the replacements have had time to settle in. Traffic snarls ensue as the number of vehicles in an area double before returning to a normal level.
The enemy will of course use any such situation to make it more difficult for the rotating side. Botched rotations have caused several occasions where the lines were open and allowed Russian units to break in. They may be the main cause for the Russian break through from Avdeevka towards the key supply point in Pokrovsk.
From those in the known: Vitalii, a crew member who operates a large attack drone, tells Ukrainska Pravda that he was deployed in the area in March, and that the Russian attacks started even before the 68th Brigade could take up its positions.
"We met guys from the 68th who had only just taken up their positions and were forced to retreat immediately because of the FPV drone attacks. When a brigade leaves, they take all the electronic warfare equipment with them. This is typical on this front: they [the Russians] advance the most during rotations. The occupiers take advantage of those times."
"The night we replaced the 3rd Separate Assault Brigade in Semenivka, the Russians attempted to carry out an assault operation. The meat-grinder attacks haven’t stopped since then," an Ukrainska Pravda source in the 68th Brigade confirms.
Another big cause of losses is miscommunication between the various units that hold the lines. The results are breakthroughs and utter confusion about who holds positions and where:
Another major turning point that marked the undoing of the Pokrovsk front was the Russians’ sudden breakthrough in Ocheretyne, a relatively large, urbanized town on the railway with industrial facilities, and therefore a particularly useful defense position. Russian liberation forces entered the town in mid-April.
...
"Before the offensive, I received intelligence that the Russians were going to assault Ocheretyne, where we had no troops at the positions," the officer says. "I passed this information on to my commanders straight away, but the commander of the brigade stationed there [the 115th Separate Mechanized Brigade - ed.] responded: ‘We have forces there, they’re all there.’
Next morning the Russians started to walk into [Ocheretyne], moving through what were officially minefields - but in fact there were no mines there. After we surrendered Novobakhmutivka, Ocheretyne and Soloviovo, the front started to collapse at the rate we’re seeing now."
"When the Russians captured Ocheretyne, there was no stable contact line as such," Vitalii the drone crew member adds. "No one knew where the front was. Soldiers in the villages of Sokil, Yevhenivka and Voskhod were walking around with guns in their hands, asking each other for passwords to figure out if they were dealing with one of us or the enemy."
In general, Russian troops are superior in experienced manpower and have more ammunition to fight: "The first problem on the Pokrovsk front is personnel numbers, the second is their level of training, and the third is the skills of the unit command. And then we run into the defense-related issues - tactics, measures, and so on." This, a soldier from the 47th Brigade tells Ukrainska Pravda, is the order of priority of the reasons for the Russians’ super-fast advance.
Brigades are kept in the fight even as they are staffed to as low as 40% of their nominal strength. Replacements, if they arrive at all, are unqualified for fighting:
"The backbone of the brigades was lost during the battles near Avdeevka, and the replenishments that arrived later left a lot to be desired," says a source from the 68th, explaining the shortage of motivated people. "The mobilization failed. Let's be honest - each subsequent replenishment was less motivated and trained. So, they could not reliably hold the defense.
In Semenivka we had about 90% experienced people in the unit and 10% newcomers. Now we have about the same ratio, but the other way round. And the average age of the newcomers can even be 55+, not 45+."
On the positive side there were a number of well-prepared fortifications had been built near Pokrovsk. Unfortunately, they had been built by unexperienced forces in the wrong places and were thus unusable: Bunkers and connected trench lines were indeed built on the Pokrovsk front - but there’s a catch. Many of these fortifications are unsuitable for serious defense. They’re frequently located in the middle of fields, which makes them visible to the enemy and difficult for the defense forces’ personnel, ammunition and supplies to reach.
"When [Ukrainian MP Mariana] Bezuhla posts photos of empty trenches and asks why nobody was defending them, I know exactly why. Because it’s stupid to sit in a hole in the middle of a bare field. Sooner or later an FPV drone will fly right into your face," Vitalii tells Ukrainska Pravda angrily.
...
"On the Pokrovsk front, trenches and dugouts had been made right in the middle of fields, making logistics impossible. They dug anti-tank ditches that led directly from enemy positions to our rear positions, and it’s impossible to monitor them. These fortifications help the enemy advance more than they help us defend.
A second report on the war in the Pokrovsk direction, this one by Kyiv Independent, comes to similar conclusions: Since the first break through of Ukrainian defense lines in April near the village of Ocheretyne, Russian forces have advanced over 20 kilometers towards Pokrovsk, with the key logistics hub once considered to be deep in the rear, now gradually coming in range of Russian artillery and suicide drones.
Despite Kyiv’s attempts to draw away Russian forces from Pokrovsk with the surprise incursion into Kursk Oblast, Moscow made sure not to take its foot off the pedal, further intensifying its attacks over August.
Thin defense lines and a lack of supplies make losses inevitable: The infantrymen’s stories testify to the starkly attritional nature of the fight: although Russia’s relentless infantry assaults come at a high cost, with enough time and enough fire covering the defending positions, the defenders are inevitably overwhelmed.
“We can be fighting them off for a while, but eventually our ammunition runs out,” said Dmytro, 32.
“And while they are getting resupplied constantly, we can't do the same, they cover all the routes, and because of that, we have to give up our positions.”
This is pretty detailed and accurate.
I'd add to it that there's also a "rebound" of military industrial capacity, which was temporarily slowed by sanctions. The sanctions interrupted supply chains, but did not remove any absolute capacity to produce military hardware & ordinance. Over the course of 2023, as Ukraine's greatest-offensive flopped and spent large numbers of personnel & hardware, Russia's industrial capacity for the war was slowly getting back on track at the same time.
I'd argue that the tipping point was around November 2023 (about whom was on defense, and whom on offense), although the writing was on the wall by sometime August 2023.
Krinky in particular was a complete mess for Ukraine. Clearly it was intended as stage 2 of a 2-part plan, and part 1 was for the Robotyne push to reach considerably further south, and cut off the railroad. Then Krinky could actually accomplish something. It was completely baffling to commit to the Krinky offensive without the success of the Robotyne push, but Ukraine did it anyway, with very predictable results.
Current miltary industrial production is WAY up in Russia. Across the same time span where Ukraine's losses have mounted in a very concerning way.
I think the war is much closer to ending than most people realize. Square kilometers don't really tell the whole story. It's not a matter of rate of sq km vs how many sq km are left. The armed forces are rather scrunched up against the line of contact. When lines start truly breaking, territory will change hands in a very rapid manner (much like the early days of the Kursk offensive, but without the resources to contain it and push back). It will end slowly, until it starts ending suddenly. I think the transition from one to the other has already begun.
I tend to put more weight into Russian casualty claims than Ukrainian. This has nothing to do with preference, only with the manner in which tactics are being used in the field. Despite some truly incompetent early commanders, Russia has settled into a rather cautious and systematic approach. And the manner in which maneuvers are playing out simply cannot be favorable for Ukraine. It speaks to manpower shortages for Ukraine, which only begets deeper manpower shortages as this is exploited. Surely Russia downplays losses. But I think they have a lot deeper manpower potential than Ukraine, and are spending less manpower, day to day, than Ukraine.
Ukraine's ideal scenario was to take the Minsk accords. And Ukraine's last "good" negotiating position (with negotiating leverage), was summer of 2023.
All of which sounds rather negative towards Ukraine. It's not meant to be negative or positive, just realistic. The only people I have significant sympathies for are the civilians in affected areas, and conscripts, on both sides.
Muchas gracias por la explicacion.
Really high quality post
damn those meat assaults with shovels :(
Don't you need shovels to dig trenches?
Meat assaults? Yes.
With shovels? Also yes though orcs did finally give them actual weapons to fight so the shovels are just for digging trenches.
@@SillyBillyMaleso bow long until you surrender?
Most young Ukrainians are in the West in Poland, Germany, Great Britain, etc.
But Ukraine is winning in the battlefield of Reddit, they’ve also launched a new counteroffensive in the RUclips front.
Ukraine is a proxy war between Reddit and 4Chan.
@@lamchunting856 ah you are likely one of the people whom thougt russia was gonna win in two weeks. Womp womp womp here we are 2 years later.
The 69th NAFO desktop brigade just captured new territory on the hellscapes of Commissar Binkov comment section. 😂
@@markienlYou writing that comment has TOTALLY turned the tables for Ukraine just now! They TOTALLY are no longer losing thanks to your comment! Great work!
Diverting manpower to kursk while suffering man power shortages in the frontline is what the ukrainian high command gambled on, from a previous video i mentioned that this kursk gambit may pay off politically and strategically. But i think its becoming too obvious that the risk taken was not worth it, best case scenario is that russia is slowed down enough for another year or two, worse case would be a total collapse of logistics and thus the front…
You mean, worst case scenario is Russia opening up another front in Sumy because Ukraine's has been weaken in that area while attacking to Pokrovsk. Now Ukraine have to choose which city to save.
@@esense9602Russia cannot open another front, they can't even keep the prokovsk offensive going and in Kursk their counter attack has already failed
@@SelfProclaimedEmperor if 150k troops is true they can but if it's not then they can't.
@@SelfProclaimedEmperorFailed? If their goal was to liberate all of Kursk area than yes, but I doubt that. I mean, as far as I know, they only counterattacked in one direction
First name + last name + four numbers accounts are here at full force sharing their very valuable insight on what their vague "my country" is doing wrong.
No no no ivanovsky from the US is definitely extremely upset about "them" sending aid to Ukraine.
@@SillyBillyMale "It is I, John Johnson of the Ohio Oblast."
Taking indefensible potato fields and in the process loosing fortified industrial towns and mining resources is not a smart move.
but CNN told me ukraine is winning
@@reorseX for CNN Bakhmut is still an ukrainan possession
🤣🤣
@@reorseX But RT told me russia is winning (while getting their asses whooped in their own country).
Taking those potato fields has had a political ripple effect across Ukraine’s allies and has been important for Ukrainian morale. The effects of an offensive are not only measured in the type of territory they take or the quantity.
Pokrovsk will likely fall in the next few months based on the current pace of advance. Had Ukraine not invaded Kursk perhaps they could have delayed Russia taking the city by 2-3 months. Invading Kursk will likely have more benefits than holding Pokrovsk for a few more months.
These comments, both sides, are just dumb. Thank you for the Video Binkov:)
Germany increased its advance speed in 1918 ... they achieved it with loses they could not replace and thus lost shortly after
But they broke through the defenses and if it wasn't for the American intervention, it would have ended the war in a German victory. Is anyone coming to reinforce the shattered Ukrainian army?
But they were dealing with fresh American troops unlike Ukraine where there is no hope
@@Jan-rq8mo"American intervention won WW1" 😂 holy crap what do they teach you American kids in school.
@@Jan-rq8mo they did not break the defensive lines .... the French just retreated into another trench behind it, over and over again... the Entente started counter attacking even before the Americans arrived... this was only possibly because Germany had lost, far far far too many troops in these suicidal attacks... the dumbass Hindenburg than blamed the Jews for stabbing Germany in the back BeCaUse tHe aRmY was totally wiNNing due the greatness of his own Ego.... yeah with leaders like that, its a miracle they lasted to 1918 to begin with... the true backstabbers were the idiots in charge all along... German WW1 high command, even considered Tanks to be useless toys, hence why Germany only built around 20 compared to the 14-16.000 Tanks of the Entente
@@simple17226 Germany did not break the defensive lines .... the French just retreated into another trench behind it, over and over again... the Entente started counter attacking even before the Americans arrived... this was only possibly because Germany had lost, far far far too many troops in these suicidal attacks... the dumbass Hindenburg than blamed the Jews for stabbing Germany in the back BeCaUse tHe aRmY was totally wiNNing due the greatness of his own Ego.... yeah with leaders like that, its a miracle they lasted to 1918 to begin with... the true backstabbers were the idiots in charge all along... German WW1 high command, even considered Tanks to be useless toys, hence why Germany only built around 20 compared to the 14-16.000 Tanks of the Entente.... German Leadership spent all troops it had and they lost because of it
Russian strategy has been to slowly grind down Ukraines best troops until mostly forced conscripts remain. Russias ultimate goal, I suspect, is to settle for Donbass and southern area South of the Dnieper River as a buffer between a future NATO Ukraine and Russia itself. A new Russia allied nation, call it East Ukraine, could be formed. These areas were mostly ethnic Russian from the days when Stalin added those area to Ukraine.
Its easy to knkw russian objectives by reading purpose of smo
"Russian strategy has been to slowly grind down Ukraines best troops until mostly forced conscripts remain."
Ukraine started with mostly conscripts. The war is creating more professional and experienced soldiers. If anything, Russia's war is militarizing Ukraine more and more and not the other way around. It is also not Russia grinding down Ukraine, but Ukraine grinding down the Russian military.
More likely it'll take the name the breakaway regions originally called themselves, Novorossiya (New Russia).
@justsefa1843 kool aid much? Ukraine is desperate for men, they only train 4 weeks and then destroyed. Make that sense. You think this is ww2? You that obtuse? Or coping? Russia goals is to demilitarize ukraine and they doing great job at it. 800k casualties for ukraine so far. Its over. Many men are cutting arms or running away from ukraine to not join. Thats why ukraine puts any ukranian passport expired unless they report?
@@alexnderrrthewoke4479not sure what Russian propagandist you get your info from
Attrition.
Very simple.
Ukraine is running out of men and weapons.
Avoidable tragedy.
When I saw Avdiivka just get covered in red on most of the maps of this war back in february, that's when I knew that Ukraine was probably not doing so well. Especially when after that the Russians have just been gaining more and more ground. I don't know where they're at right now, but last I checked they were approaching Ocheretyne.
I don't want Russia to win either, but at some point there is not enough copium in the world to convince me that Ukraine is somehow still winning.
I remember a Ukrainian officer or Commander saying to prepare for the battle of Pokrovsk on the day when Russia captured Avdiivka, everyone thought he was a little over his head...
不，只要美国及其殖民地系统性的宣传乌克兰获胜，那么世界百分之99的无知平民依旧会相信美国很厉害，轻松的帮助乌克兰击败俄罗斯，而中国只是军事力量排名世界第三对美国来说更不值一提
就好像过去几年美国通过不断的加息维持美元的高利率，同时因为中国政府内部自我革命主动戳破房地产泡沫，这让美国又抓住了机会与殖民地一起宣传中国崩溃论，让部分美国佬恢复自信声称中国永远无法超越美国，，总之应该继续相信西方宣传😂
You can't beat countries like Russia USA China in a conventional war it is just impossible
@@mohamedmido4866it is possible. Why wouldnt it be? (if adequately supported in training and equipment).
They're running out of 50 year old asthmatics to pressgang into front-line service.
I think the change of territorial control doesn't tell us that much. Soldiers complaining does tell us something but then again, soldiers really like to complain. Of course there are stories about how bad it is for some ukrainians. Because it is. But being miserable is part of the job description of soldiers.
Currently Ukraine is in a difficult spot. Does that mean it's losing? I don't think so. At least not in the near future. Who is winning in an attritional type war is a slow process that might take years to come out. But people always do a quick judgment depending on who had the last victory.
I do agree however that we should look at Pokrowsk. If it holds, Russia is sitting around in a somewhat awkward overextended position. That makes it vulnerable to counterattacks assuming Ukraine has the capabilities to mount one. If it falls, it is an indication that Ukraine is somewhat in trouble. But either way: The war is far from over.
Just my thoughts
Can you please explain to me how is it "not losing"? It's absolutely heading down the "rabbit hole" with no light in sight.
@@korana6308 When they are winning they are winning and when they're losing they are winning.
Do you really think that Ukraine will stop the Russian offensive and start there offensive and liberate the 110,000 km squares occupied by Russia including crimea
Are u high or something ? 😂
“Over extended”
Have you not noticed that the Russian army stopped their main thrust and is consolidating its flanks now? On an operational level the Russians have improved quite a bit.
Carl Von Clausewitz identifies something called “the culminating point” of an attack. The moment when an offensive operation becomes unviable. Securing your flanks rather than pushing until the culmination point is a new idea for the Russians.
Binkov: _*Mentions any point negative about Ukraine or positive about Russia_
Bots: "He is pR0-rUsSiaN" 🤡
You just can't be un biased in this war without getting jumped
@@IK_MK what is there to bias about. Its clear who is an invading force and who is defending their sorvereignty.
@@markienl don't be silly.
@@mugenmugen9632 i am not though ? Perhaps you were reading another comment ?
@@markienl I'm talking to you. Neutrality is supposed to be the default approach to coverage on wars, otherwise it's just propaganda. You can't force anyone to pick your side. Get over yourself.
The answer is really simple.
Kursk was a waste of time, men and resources. While the Russians fought through fortifications and prepared defenses, Ukraine took their reinforcements and attacked a meaningless area on the boarder.
Sadly it seems so.
Disagree. A. the morale bonus alone is worth it. B. The 'showing Victory' to the EU will increase weapons transfer. C. the 'Anti-morale' to the Russians who don't believe the war is real to them, is increased. So Strategically, it's a victory. (Tactically, you're 100% correct. The territory is worthless.)
Hmmm i dont know if you noticed but Russia already took a huge part of Kursk territory back @@scottmadison4380
@@scottmadison4380 "morale bonus" is useless to the achievement of Ukraine war objectives. Has it increased volunteer numbers? Has it made soldiers on the front invincible? Has it triggered rioting in Moscow? The opposite is the case. Get fuccing real.
It is. The only type of victory is serves is a morale one, which is pretty important considering current low morale,and a public one. In a pure military perspective thought, it’s not very great. Better to keep the war going to try to wear Russia down as much as possible, before moving on to a dedicated insurgency once the ukranian army loses out. There’s no way to get a quick decisive push into Russia, and there’s really no reason to send seasoned elite troops to a tiny area in Russia, military wise,
Let’s see how much Russia will take of Ukraine…
Well done Binky. You are covering this thing the fairly. I'm glad that when facts exist you cover them. Now if only the media would tell us the things you are telling us.
I don't support either side of this conflict. Yet if I bring up that Ukraine is consistently losing ground and troop at a higher rate per capita they call me a russian bot
yep, so much bots on both sides but NAFO bots are the definitely more in number than Russky bots. You're either one of us, or u're the enemy
Ivan my bot 😂
There's a saying in Russian, a folklore wisdom: " He who shouts the loudest " get this thief" is a thief himself. " . They are doing it as an organization, and are diverging on others(genuine people) what they are doing themselves...
@@korana6308Chinese have a very similar saying
About 90% of the casualties (dead and wounded) are due to indirect fire - artillery and bombing. It is not hard to get the losses ratio using the firepower ratios. No wonder why Ukraine is performing forced mobilization, while the Russian have a steady flow of volunteers that are signing professional contracts with the army.
Those areas are held by conscripts.
And russia has had massive artillery superiority in the whole war. Bro they were firing 32 times the amount of shells as Ukraine was in the first couple months of the war
I said this when it happened, but the Ukrainian push into Kursk was absolutely pointless. There's no conceivable advantage to it. There was never any chance of any serious chance of making real gains through the push. It's not as if the Ukrainians were going to march on Moscow, or even less grand, conquer the entirety of Kursk. Even then, the Russians have a ring of Home Guard type troops all around the Eastern Border of Ukraine that would be able to limit any push the Ukrainians would be able to muster. It also drew manpower and important weapon systems (arguably more important than the manpower at this stage) away from more needed fronts. Finally, while it may have been a morale boost for some in Ukraine, it also left many others wondering why they were invading parts of Russia rather than liberating their own territory.
I just can't make sense of why they would do it. It was a big gamble that they could never push further on, can't hold long term, and comes at the cost of other fronts. My only theory is that they were either hoping that this would cause some massive Russian overreaction that would force the hand of NATO (like the use of nuclear or chemical weapons) or that it would inspire Western nations to donate even more supplies in light of this offensive. The first option was obviously not going to happen because of the Russian's ability to contain Ukrainian efforts and the second fails to see that the well is dry. There isn't a lot more meaningful aid to be given to Ukraine anymore, even if there was the will to do it.
@@jackpeters2884 your correct
It prevents Putin from proposing a ceasefire and thus Western nations from pressuring Ukraine into accepting such a deal for short term political gain.
@@RichelieuUnlimited I think it is unlikely that the Russians would propose a cease fire. The war is, and has been, in their favor. Domestic and military morale is also quite good. Recruiting numbers are excellent. War is costly, but the door is beginning to open for the Russians to begin making serious gains. War is sometimes like a boxing match. Both sides have to take and give punches, but once a fighter starts to win they don't want to leave the fight up to decision. Ukraine is looking tired whereas the Russians aren't but, also like a boxing match, as long as you are throwing punches you have a chance to win.
In either case, it still seems like an incomprehensible move by the Ukrainians.
@@jackpeters2884 Reminds me of flat-earthers arguing why something doesn’t prove earth is spherical. If you can find an explanation within the confines of your interpretation of the situation, then maybe your interpretation is off.
@@RichelieuUnlimited The explanation is that the Ukrainian Army leadership is incompetent. I don't think anyone seriously disputes that point. That's not to say that the Russian leadership is much better, but even still incompetence at this level is surprising.
General 200 living up to his nickname
You should raise your noise gate and lower the bass on your mic, would sound better :)
it sounds like he uses a voice changer
Damn it you’re telling me Ukraine ain’t winning?! Whatttttt!!!!!
My friend at the Russian MoD normally tells me if something is just propaganda or not, and he says since Kursk, they've been averaging about 1,900 volunteer sign-ups per day.
Russia doesn't seem to have manpower issues, and attacks like what happened in Kursk tend to provoke a patriotic fervor in many young men, who then impulsively volunteer for service.
I have a feeling Ukraine will not be able to maintain its current lines, let alone recapture lost territory.
The real hammer blow will be the loss of the Kursk salient, which will be followed by Russian attacks into Sumy to continue tying up AFU. Morale is the intangible factor, and it will be disastrous when it really starts to slide.
Sudzha decided the fate of Ukraine
operation barbrossa had 3m soldiers from europe. 4 years later Russia had 10m soldiers in eastern europe and berlin. Ukraine can never do anything with 10-20k soldiers attacking a weak spot. they took a few potatofields and empty villages before logistics broke down, Russia didnt even def3nd this area. Napoleon hitler karl,XIimall learned hard taking empty russian potatofields.
This isn't a complete picture. Almost 100,000 (I could be wrong about that number) Russians are either in Ukranian held territory, or are internally displaced in Russia. It is also not empty land now, VDV and other units are in the area. They also took many POW's and were swapped in exchanges. This is decreasing stress on the Ukranian government and increasing stress on the Russian government.
xlimall?
@@TyllerBoom the hyhyls only made a LOT of previously neutral Russians into "to the last hyhyl" enjoyers. Good job, hyhyls.
There are more stupid mobalized troops than well trained soldiers in Ukrainian army.
Those mobalized troops can hold a position but were unable to attack due to their incompetence. Reserve are also decreasing since Kursk needs alot of resources and manpower. The defenses in Pokrovs are weak and very new. They failed to building a proper defensive positions after Avdiivka falls. So Weak defenses, badly trained soldiers defending it, change of tactics in Russian command enable Russia to captured huge chunk of land towards Pokrovs.
Ukraine is weakening as Russia keeps getting stronger.
Weak lies. Russia essentially doesn’t train their new troops at all and sends them to die in meat waves with blocking forces at their back.
Ukraine trains thousands of recruits for a shorter time than a NATO country would in peacetime, but they get better training than Orc meatbags do.
Plenty of videos on telegram and Reddit of mobilized Ukr conscripts that arrived to the front after 72hrs of being mobilized. Both sides use poorly trained penal battalions. Quit acting like every Ukr soldier is some highly equipped and nato trained super soldier with a heart of gold.
Didn't this channel claimed like 1 to 2 years ago, that Russia is going to lose?
holy shit! wars cahnge over time?
They are not going to win either
The scales eventually fall from everyone's eyes
Well it depends what is the win.. they did not take over country i. 3 days or few weeks and its not real that they are going to take over it at all. When for Ukraine to take back all their land is most likely not possible either. One has enormous casualties for minor gains another keep their independence
The original now removed pre war video of a Russia / Ukraine war predicted a Russian victory after a few years
Perhaps it could all boil down to the decline in westren support and ukrains manpower proplems
Wars are lost because the leadership loses the will to continue the fight (as happens in America), or because there aren't enough people and resources to keep throwing into the fight (as as likely to happen to Ukraine if Russia does not lose its will). Also, when a country is dependent on an outside country for its resources, as Ukraine is, that makes its position even more precarious.
You were kinda loosing it in the past 2 years, your first good video after a long time. Keep up the good work.
Čitao Deretića pa se opametio
Seems like the Russians should not push harder on Kursk...never kill a meat grinder while it's being fed....
Syrskyi is nowhere near as intelligent as Zaluzhny. Zelensky has destroied his country by playing politics with his commanders instead of meritocracy.
did blinkov actually acknowledge reality? say it ain't so.
triggered
Ukraine has two issues far bigger than lack of artillery or western supplies:
1) they are running out of men. By Ukranian accounts, some of which were mentioned in this video, ukraine is not replacing losses adequately. That means that each month there are less and less men holding the line. As drones have been less effective, ukraine has also been pressing drone crews into infantry roles to hold the front line. Fewer men and a thinner line makes it easier for russia to break through, though a grand mechanized offensive like france in 1940 is a fantasy. Russia cant and isnt trying to do something similar.
2) Ukraine desperately needs time to regroup and reorganize. Even without replacement troops, the lack of breathing space has meant that basically every formation at the line of contact is ad hoc. Bridades will have one batallion near Kharkov, another near Chasiv Yar, and a third holding Vugledar. Yes its been that spread out. Companies at the more local level are just as spread out. Thus urkaine is utterly unable to defend as a battalion or brigade, but is fighting a bunch of small individual battles and thus holding on by their finger nails. They need to rotate in fresh brigades and pull out spent ones for rebuilding and reorganization. But there are no reserves to do so. Thus the defenses are poorly organized, especially when russia makes an advance and whatever troops are around are sent in to full a hole.
Binkov makes a good point that you need your best troops for attacking and you can defend with lower quality troops. The problem isnt that ukraine went on the offensive and tried to regain the initiative. The problem is how they did so. Kursk achieves nothing. Furthermore, because they are inside russia proper, russia can use conscripts to defend, which they could not use inside Ukraine. It was a vanity project designed to sacrifice precious military assets and men for a moral victory, which is already fleeting as russia counterattacks. Its very possible that 7 of urkaines best brigades are going to be largely ineffective as a result which makes counter attacks elsewhere impossible. Again, the blunder was not attacking. The blunder was where they chose to attack.
I think you're just flat out wrong on the Kursk side of things lol
Firstly, it was not a vanity project. The objective is to have valuable Russian land to trade back in the event a ceasefire was forced by a Trump-led US. Sure, there's a morale element to it, but to just flatly say "this was the whole point" is completely wrong. Secondly, Russian conscripts are not properly trained and equipped. The fact that there's more of them works in Ukraine's favor by allowing them to exchange poorly trained conscripts for higher quality Ukrainian POWs. Thirdly, resources must be divered from the Donbass, whether it's manpower or ammo, to deal with the troops in Kursk. And as we can see in the most recent weeks, Russian advances in Ukraine have slowed dramatically. Finally, assaulting Ukrainian positions in Kursk will require Russia to fight in its own territory, bomb it's own houses, raze its own towns, demine its own fields. The benefits there are pretty obvious.
I think "unga bunga moral victory, ooga booga power plant" are the narratives people parrot when they want to undercut the success of the operation.
@@LogisticsWW I don't know what kind of land trade you're imagining but it sure ain't going to be 1991 borders for a 1000 square kilometre section of Kursk in which the largest population centre is 6000 odd people. At best holding a small part of Kursk might be enough to negotiate a Russian withdrawal from their small incursion in Kharkov or some other such trade of limited magnitude. That and your other points hardly justify the increased losses that the Ukrainians take in coming out of their fortified home territory.
@@1llus1ve No one said or implied it would be. I'm not even sure why that's the first place your mind went; almost like you're trying to discredit the argument by imposing the most extreme variation possible onto my position.
Russia will never allow Ukraine to hold Russian land at the end of the war. Therefore, this land can be traded back at a premium to Russia in exchange for land they've gained this year. It can likely be done at a premium as well, trading back 1sqkm of Kursk for 1.5-2sqkm of captured Ukrainian territory.
Let's imagine a scenario where the lines don't change much until November, and Donald Trump wins. He forces a ceasefire in Ukraine to win some favor at home. Ukraine trades back Kursk for the entirety of Russian land gains in 2024. Pretty incredible deal for a couple weeks of combat and significantly fewer losses vs months of offensive action and tens of thousands of losses.
Ukrainian losses in Kursk are minimal in comparison to Russian losses everywhere lol. But feel free to believe the opposite. It's served Russia very well in the past to be confident their enemy had no more men or equipment to fight with. I'm sure it'll help the war effort this time, too.
@@LogisticsWW American presidents aren't inaugurated until January 20. So the Ukrainians would have to hold out in Kursk for a lot longer than until November. Nor, even if he was inclined to do so, does Trump have a magic spell that can force the Russians to a ceasefire any more than Biden does. In fact, why are you even talking about a quick November ceasefire and land trades if Ukrainian losses are minimal in comparison to the Russians everywhere ? If we're imagining a world where the Russians are desperate enough to take the terrible deal you sketched out - trading strategically important and hard-won fortified towns in the Donbass at a 2 to 1 ratio in order to get back rural Kursk - then we're also imagining a world where there's no reason to believe the deal would be offered in the first place. In that world the Ukrainians and their Western backers would be confident of and pressing for total victory, not offering ceasefires.
After 900+ days some idiots still do not get it, what the scope of this SMO is. It's not about to conquer "land", it's to destroy as much of AFU as possible - which is a success. If AFU implodes, conquering land will become a piece of cake.
Yes, russias plan was to demolish itself lol 😂
Who cares about ukraine, the US lost 30 tankers, Russia 5000+, the Americans lost 200 IFVs, Russia lost over 8000, the Americans lost 0 aircraft the Russians 300, the Americans lost 0 boats, the Russians 20+.
Russia threw away all of its equipment for a country that farms wheat as it's only source of money 😂
What a HORRIBLE thing to say about Wuzzia. Are you a wrecker?
Seems like it....
Out here pointing out that the Little Duchy still....still.....STILL can't beat Ukraine after "900+ Days". What a brilliant way of pointing out Russia's failure for the last "900+ Days".
Do you have a choice of gulag you'd like to be sent to for this display, Einstein?
@@TheAncientSnack.Last time I checked Russia was fighting Ukraine not the US. Plus, the US lost more when they were in Vietnam and Afghanistan which were both weaker than Ukraine today.
Imagine spending 10-20 years against two nations with no army but only farmers with guns? Couldn’t be Russia. But could count on the US!
@@christianryansino3257 insane cope dude 😂
So for one, this is wrong lol. Russia has taken enormously lopsided casualties to capture small strips of land. Like, lopsided to the point of being completely unsustainable. It's apparent to most analysts that this was preparation for a Donald Trump win in the US elections and a ceasefire would be forced along the current battle lines. This was also probably a major factor in the Kursk offensive.
Secondly, if demilitarization of Ukraine was the objective, it's been wildly unsuccessful. Ukraine is better armed with a larger military than they ever have been. And Russia, while it has a large mobilized force, hasn't been this short on equipment probably in it's entire history. In addition, two nations on it's border that have historically remained neutral have joined an alliance with Russia sees as a threat. Countries on the defensive don't tend to implode. Germany was still managing to field units as the Allies advanced into Berlin.
I think you're probably the idiot that doesn't get you've been fed vatnik propaganda, meant to cover Russia's enormous losses and lack of success.
Sobering
It is the basic of attrition war. Ukraine has been eroded and eroded, and after a while the pace of failures into the ukranian side led to faster and faster advancements of the russian side. RUssia has more resources, men, and its strategies are geared up to minimize its losses and maximize the other's losses.
😂 you had me until you mentioned Russia tries to minimize it's losses...
The "Humble Pie" tasting good? Need some more salt, or pepper??
Hahaha. Binkov really disappointed me with how far he went along with the western narrative. He's just another grifter trying to make his subscribers happy instead of informed.
@@wolfswinkel8906 ?? Everything he says is pretty true. Ukraine is currently not doing so hot, and Russia seems to be taking the upper hand after years of a more or lesss stalemate.
@@smthsmthsmthsmthin this video, yes, he says the truth. In other videos though, he went along with the "Russians are running out of tanks and using meat waves" narrative.
@@mugenmugen9632 that’s kind of true, in a sense. Russia is, in fact, running out of T90s, and the T14 has not even made that large of an impact yet. Russian production is pretty good, but they’re still forced to use half century tanks to make up for it. And while they might work fine for purely infantry operations, in tank on tank engagements, they suck. Though to give the Russians credit, tank on tank engagements are becoming less and less prominent, so going back to a WW1 ground support idea isn’t too debilitating. Not great, but could be worse.
As for meat waves, again, it’s kinda true. Unless you consume Russian media, which gives pretty outlandish statements of 2-1 casualties in favor of Russia, more sources give around 1.5-2 casualties, in favor of Ukraine. So Russia is throwing men at the situation, to keep gaining ground. I’m not saying Ukraine isn’t either, they’ve suffered at least 200k casualties by now, but Russia is still sitting at around 350k back in February I think it was, and that number mights grown to 400-450 k by now. The numbers aren’t really solid. But yeah, binkov is kinda right that one of Russia’s major edges is that they have the men to spare and go on the offfensive with, while Ukraine is running dangerously low.
@@smthsmthsmthsmth well then, let's take it one at a time, shall we?
how do you know Russia is running out of T-90s? Did you count their stockpiles and how did you access them? Did you factor in the new production numbers and do you know what they are? Show all sources.
Go.
I do wonder if this video had to be shit out by Zelensky first... the Ukrainian summer offensive started with no bang if you don't count the thousands of people lost by the idiots before they pivoted to the style of offensive they used in Kursk.
A surprisingly unbiased video about Russia wow
I believe what some commenters might be missing about the Kursk offensive, is that any calls for a "ceasefire" have stopped ever since Ukraine took land in Russia. So long that land is held, the Western Allies will be unable to force a ceasation to the conflict, as Putin will definitely be unwilling to give up Russian land. That issue boils down both down to his personal pride, as well as his political standing to the Russian society.
its also useful for bargaining power to exchange for land Russia took.
Given that a ceasefire would be terrible for Ukraine, this is positive (just look at Russia's strategy since 2014, as well as how they took both the Baltics and Ukraine the last time, 1917-1945, in a long, invade-pretend to just want peace, get ceasefire-invade some more process....yes, I know there was no state occupying all the current borders of Ukraine today, but I mean the area of today's Ukraine/what was turned into the Ukrainian SSR by the Soviets). A ceasefire would likely lead to a dropping of current ongoing western aid commitments, the forgetting of Ukraine in the media, Russia rearming, then pushing to take more of Ukraine until they have everything (Lavorv, Medvedev, Putin, as well as Putin's favourite thinkers, like Dugin, and media personalities, have all, at different times, spoke of taking all or almost all of Ukraine, either up to the Polish border, or at least up to Odesa and the Bug River, i.e. the interwar Polish-Soviet border).
@@WangMingGe so a ceasefire would be a mistake because, if they stopped combat, there would be a risk that they may eventually loose more territory? They are currently loosing territory as well as horrific losses in men and equipment... make that make sense.
This makes about as much sense as "we must declare war on x because, if we don't do it now, there may be a war at some point". Backwards and illogical.
@@WangMingGeif a cease-fire is terrible for Ukraine, wait and see what protracted fighting with a manpower shortage can cause for Ukraine
@@MrChickennugget360 ? makes zero sense, they're not going to bargain with you to begin with while you're on that land so how does it give any bargaining power?
Ukraine still getting their asses handed to them
There's been a consistent tendency to trade land for troops throughout this conflict...a change of a few lines on a map doesn't impact long term outcome... remember we've had this debate before around bakhmut and wagner got crushed on that anvil
This is about two weeks out of date.
Only Blackrock wins this war
I think deep down everyone knew that Kursk was a PR operation.
They captured fields while Russia is capturing 10 year fortified urban areas. Not remotely similar
A PR stunt with the side goal of trying to escalate and drag NATO directly into the conflict.
PR stunt? That's real Russian territory.
@@calc1657
What's Ukraine's tactical/strategic goal for taking this farmland?
Without some other rationale, then yes: it is a PR stunt.
@@shanerooney7288zelansky's wet dream is to drag nato Into the war
@@shanerooney7288morale boosts, shaking dulcet allies from a relative slumber, challenging red lines narratives, taking over a thousand prisoners, and yes a PR win. These were all things that Ukraine needed to make headway on regardless of the progress in the Donbas, no?
Russia has the advantage of being bigger and having more capacity to absorb losses while they analyze this new modern battlefield. Allowing them to slowly but surely adapt and crank up to the steamroller. Ukraine had to settle this early, they did not. Now they have no leverage.
There was no opportunity to settle this early. And even if Ukraine had it's not like Russia was going to respect any treaty laid down.
@@OttoKreml like the Minsk treaty?LOL
@@stuartpenman6387 Yes, like how Russia violated the Minsk agreement.
@@OttoKreml in what way?LOL when they entered ukraine as the people had enough of the ukraine ignoring minsk as the agreement was just to buy time to build up their army , its all part of the great game , which I doubt you have even heard of
@@OttoKremlThat was literally the west. Chancellor Merkel even literally admitted in the Reichstag that they and the Ukrainians had no intention of upholding the Minsk Treaty and that the agreement was simply a ploy to buy time. The Russians signed in good faith and made the mistake of hoping the west would show at least some integrity and hold up it’s end.
Upset Ukrops/ Ukies/ Westoids in the comment section are just hillarious. . . 😂
Indeed,.. Putin bad,... NAfo good,...😂😂😂😅😅😅😢😢
and they are exactly going for that ...MASSIVE ESCALATION in cinemas 2025
That's what the Ukrainian elite want to be honest.😔
Thanks for a detailed video as always. It's a bit confusing when the diagram shows area in km2 but the number you say are in square miles (e.g. around minute 6).
Good commanders talk about tactics, great commanders talk about logistics. 😊
Dunno why people say Binkov is biased, it was an objective video
Thank you for this video Because you help with visualization unlike many other channels that cover the war
Have to imagine, Russia keeps grinding it out, and capturing most Donetsk in next couple of years. Here depending on Russias internal stability, Putin could easily declare some goals attained and plant a victory flag. Either moving forward or consolidating and preparing for more. But to move onward and take cities like kharkhiv or even Odesa would take much greater mobilization, more than anything we’ve seen so far with Russias high casualties. But all that could change if Russias escalates or Ukraine lines collapse due to desertion/manpower, or trump finding a way to cut funding
These are realistic and concerning issues. The west needs to escalate the war effort substantially, most importantly Europe, in case the worst might happen in the US. Germany and Poland are becoming our best hopes.
Russian high casualties,they said artillery and bomb's are doing most of the killing,Russia has use way more than the Ukraine but your saying Russia has high casualties compare to who,who kidnapping volunteers of the streets by beating the down and even lowering the age to fight even threatening,their citizens abroad I'm wondering how long before they lower the age to 16,we already know that zelenskyy and is back is backers are deviants inhumane people.
Ukraine's 2022 Counter-offensive was a masterpiece, Ukraine's 2023 Counter-offensive was a blunder, Ukraine's 2024 Kursk (or Sudzha?) Offensive was a suicide
How did Russia lose 10's of thousands of lbs of high priced munitions, in a facility touted to be nuclear resistant?
Because it was a NATO missile strike, coming from the West, and not some drone - and these kinds of strikes at ammo depots have been happening all through the war ever since 2022. Russia has taken out lots of Ukrainian ammo and missiles storages.
Can u send me a link where they stated it was a nuclear resistant bunker?
Also, high priced? Really? I wouldn't mind saying the storm shadow missiles stored many a dozen or maybe more and an aircraft if I remember, that was destroyed maybe a year ago a "cheap priced ammunition".
@@Kruger_Mk1 The importance of this one blast has been massively overstated by some of the media. I've seen newspaper articles claiming that it had a yield of 30 kiloton of TNT (equal to two Hiroshima bombs!) and that it represented the amount of ammo and shells used by Russia in Ukraine for a month or two. That's obviously joyride talk designed to beef up morale on the NATO side.
@@Kruger_Mk1 RUclips, these days, blocks any post with links going beyond RUclips itself (unless made by the owner of the channel)
Who says they are failing? All i hear about is Ukrainian success on the news every day. Its almost like there is a whole other side to the story that we are being kept completely oblivious about in western media huh?
thats because they are keeping the truth from western media
In the end, the only relevant metric is the ratio of resources spent and lost, and the ability of both countries to restore them... Russia can occupy thousands of square kilometers, but if it loses a disproportionate amount of men, equipment, and creates an impossible supply situation, it is still loss... at the rate of 200 kilometers per month, Russia would occupy Ukraine for 150 years, so the territory will not be 100% decided by this conflict :D and warehouses of tanks, IFVs and cannons in Siberia are being deliberately emptied...
Lol
Your analysis would have some weight if you apply the same analysis to both Russia and Ukraine. The war is an attritional war, which aims at depleting the resources of enemy not taking over the country completely. The point is Sure the warehouses are getting empty in Siberia, but then again we have to see the situation for Ukraine, do they still have equipment in warehouses? The question is who runs out of weapons and ammo first. The problem is Ukraine is solely reliant on NATO/EU for this while Russia is capable of reproducing equipment, albeit it is also receiving shells from NK. The point is Ukraine only holds for as long as there is support from EU/USA as they rely on them for supliers and have already defaulted financially. They are surviving on aid.
The point of atritional war is to break to inflict such loses at one point, that they cannot fill the gap left behind. We saw the same at Avdeevka, where Ukraine made the worst decision to hold the line and suffered massively. This allowed Russia to push towards Pokrovsk because Ukraine couldnt fill the gap quickly.
The point is if Ukraine can no longer supply their troops, Russian advance would get faster. If the troops are thinned out in an area, the advane will be faster(Pokrovsk). The war ends not when the whole of country is captured, the war ends whent the oponent loses the ability to fight. Given the capabilities of both sides, Russia can cover their loses, Ukraine cannot. So it is always wise to share stats for both sides.
Ukraine is not suffering from lack of man power! There are millions of them on the Western Front!😅
Good comment comrade. 5 Rubles for you. You will now be able to queue for some bread.
@@callumsaunderson1089 lol, he really earned those 5 rubles, I wish more Russian bots were funny.
@@callumsaunderson1089it's not true? Everyone who could bribe their way out did so, including the Denys Davydov, the coward and traitor
@@callumsaunderson1089 dude,it takes less than 10 seconds to check ones identity! Don't be lazy because it makes you stupid! From NYC with love and keep your 🫧 bubbles
I'm the comment section on this video will be civil and not full of bots
Getting south Vietnam vibes
"Oh i can hold saigon, they outnumber my battalion 10 to 1 but i can totally hold them"
Agree the Russian quagmire when will the Muppet Putin realise he lost?
One of the biggest mistakes Ukraine and the West also sadly did often enough is making fun of russia, overestimating their own capabilities and underestemating russia. I mean there are entire Websites, which counted losses, according to them russia has no army anymore. And still it is fighting and will have the longer breath.
Never underestimate the enemy and overestimate yourself. Kursk incursion for example was an absolut useless and stupid move again. Troops that bind russian forces will also bind ukraines forces, and they have less to spare.
The collective west though Kiev would fall within three days. The west has been scarred of Russia for years. No one was making fun till the Russians showed us who they really are.
This is an interesting comment, clearly nonsense but it's interesting to examine and understand the mind of an idiot peddling Pro-Russian bias
Russia's capabilities are definitely NOT underestimated, if anything they're vastly overestimated - We assumed Ukraine would fall in days, meanwhilst the abysmal command and control of Putins forces conducting assaults have resulted in one of the biggest losses of life to war since WW2 and embrrassing the Russian military beyond the likes of which we have never seen before to a military so large
To call Kursk useless and stupid just shows your bias as it has allowed Ukraine to use Russia as a slaughtering ground for RU troops whilst they destroy their own towns to recapture them , I guess Russians don't like to take ground unless they lose at least 1000 men for every 100 meters
"according to them russia has no army anymore"
Doubtful
@@2010cam1 So you mean Kursk is a success? UA sending their best of the best then losing grip the rest of Ukraine for 1/10 of Kursk Oblast? According to UA channels at least 3 brigades has lost their combat capabilities in Kursk (you can hypothesize why): 103rd, 80th, 82nd (I didnt read more updates since end of August but I believe there are 2 more that had lost combat capabilities)
All part of the plan folks.
One thing to take into account for when it comes to casualties is that even the ukrianians admit that 75 percent to 90 percent of the battlefield casualties are cause by artillery. And the russians have had pretty massive artillery advantage throught the whole war, 32x superiority in the first few months and the leveled down to around an order of magnitude with some fluxuation in the last year or so. Even at least triple is still a major advantage
According to Ukrainian sources Russia Lost 637k KIA
likly 2.5x this number taking into account WIA,MIA and POWs Russia has Lost a Total of 1.5 Million men in casualties.
Tanks: 8,500+
Aircraft: 369
Artillery: 18,009
Helicopters: 328
Vehicles and fuel tanks: 24,481
As of 12/9/2024
For Ukraine: 31k KIA which brings us about 80K~90K Totall casualties since February 2022.
No further info on equipment losses of UA was found.
@@MohamedAli-eo2iz "According to Ukrainian sources"... that´s all anyone (beside the media dumies like you) need to know....
Deepstate does not update because they are not allowed too. It is not an independent source. Does not make it bad though, it's just like Suriak. Theti Mapping has done a great job of balancing sources.
Pre-emptively commenting to say i appreciate the perspective on these videos. Comments are usually filled with chest thumpers on both sides, but these videos show a perspective not seen from major news and YT channels.
True
"To defeat Russia, Ukraine might need direct NATO involvement..." What are the odds that France, Germany, etc will join a fight in Pokrovsk? Zero. Poland and the Baltics? Non zero but at this point very close to zero. The time to get Poland directly involved was in 2022, with a very nationalist government in Warsaw and Ukrainian success in Kharkov oblast. Had the Poles been involved there, the offensive might have continued to push through Lugansk to the Russian border and Putin might have been in real political difficulty. The Russian military had begun to formulate a plan (Surovikhin: attrition and fortifications, defense of the 4 oblasts and positional fighting with strong force protection) but in October 2022 it hadn't really had time to implement it. Dependence on Wagner was only growing and even with the prison recruitments Russia was in a desperate situation with troops leaving after their 6-month contract obligation.
Today, Russia is in an implacable position of strength. The only reasonable move is to seek peace and accommodate Russian terms.
as the 3 years have shown, Ukraine dosent need full nato involvement
@@engineerenginering8633 If Ukraine collapses shortly at Pokrovsk, this will instead prove the folly of the last 2 years. Binkov is still overly optimistic about Ukraine's situation. Russia is currently menacing Pokrovsk, Kurakhovo and Vugledar, in other words the entire southern Donetsk line. Given the dilapidated state of the UAF and the constant underperformance of its construction efforts, how will Ukraine mount a serious defense against Russia once these formidable defenses have been overcome?
@@engineerenginering8633 Last one year has shown that Ukraine cannot win without NATO intervention
@@aAverageFan "last one year" what does that even mean
@@charlesiragui2473 why would Ukraine fall at Pokrovsk? you do realize that Ukraine is a big country right? Russia could take over the whole of the donbass regions and it wouldnt collapse Ukraine. And you do know that formidable defenses are manmade right? new ones can be built father back
Would be interested to know your projections if NATO aid were to come to a halt suddenly, as it might with a Trump victory in November.
15,000 Azovskis have met Bandera in hell.
Good information 😅
So many ruzzians in the comments, it's weird. Clearly though, Ukraine needs more reinforcements.
i heard rope is at sale in walmart
Yeah it's a manpower proplem
Nothing magical Russians doesn't have some magical overnight victory thing, there's no such thing this war is slow and brutal
Imagine having such profile pic and using the word "weird"
@@thisbarb oh my fellow compatriot in grammatical accuracy thy knowledge in writing is deeply flawed.
Thank you for being pro Ukrainian and being non biased and reporting on Ukrainians failures.
This goes MILES for your credibility, not like I'm the gate keeper, but whoever is would appreciate this.
Yes thank you for stating that !!
>Pro ukrainian
>non-biased
Pick one.
Semantics matters.
@@mabussubam512 you can be Ukrainian and be non-biased lol what is even the point in this comment? Do you think you have to be one or the other?
WillyOAm has publicly stated he is personally pro Ukrainian but he has a passion for unbiased news. So he is unbiased. I'm not sure what else I need to explain here.
@@chasem4183 They are mutually exclusive
@@chasem4183
It's oxymoronic to be both as one is biased by default.
Think the word you're looking for is "neutral" but even then it fails because you can't be neutral when you're pro-something.
Language is to communicate, not obfuscate.
To be unbiased means that you don't take any side. That's being unbiased.
"Oh look, my pro-country is currently losing the war, here, let me make a statement of it"
No. Stating the Truth isn't being unbiased. It's being realistic even when you have a bias via politics.
What unbiased person would say is something in the following: " Oh look, a goiym killing goyim. Too bad there is no stop to this because the majority is too mentally impaired to acknowledge the problem beyond the politics. Oh well, waiting for my turn to be offed because the majority dictates over my life. "
Why are Russian ammo storages exploding?
Why are Ukrainian ammo storages exploding?
@@OzzyBloke😂 Seethe, cope and watch the fireworks vatnik.
Ukraine isn't the one with mini earthquakes this week.
@@cyruslupercal9493 warehouse in Odessa was destroyed by an iskander a few hours ago. It happens on the daily but your low iq brain chooses to ignore reality. For every ammo dump destroyed by Ukraine Russia destroys 10. Its been the same since the start of the war bud.
@@OzzyBloke Ignorance 101
Manpower... Russia has it, and Ukraineis running out/ getting tired
Saying Russia has it is a stretch
Both countries were short on manpower even before the war. These are old, shrinking countries that are fighting. The Philippines has more military-age men than Russia these days.
Stop blaming the U.S. for Ukraines problems, we are broke leave us alone
Alright Ivan
Classical trump fanboy in display🤘
It's so ironic how Ukrainian supporters resort to name calling insteas of engaging with arguments... You guys know that you will NEVER regain the most territories and this war will end with negociations right? The terms could have been so favorable to Ukraine 1 year ago but now they'll have to take whatever Russia gives them...
The Kursk offensive was a strategic mistake, a Russian trap
You mean Russia wanted them to cross the border?
A mistake? Possibly, only time will tell.
A Russian trap? Definitely not.
Where do smart experts like you come from? This was not a mistake. Ukraine needed to show Biden that the occupation of sovereign Russian territory would not lead to anything terrible. In addition, the war should be transferred to Russian territory. Otherwise, it turns out that Russia loses nothing by leaving its territory intact and destroying Ukrainian territory.
everything according to Cocainsky plan
Come va l'operazione militare speciale? Tutto ok?
ma come sempre,conquista un villaggio ucraino qui,uno la.Fai piangere gli ucraini perchè tu hai munizioni e loro no. Fai una piccola gang bang a Pokrovsk con ratio di 5 a 1. Da voi invece?vi hanno finalmente mandato i nuovi giocattoli dall'Occidente? ah no?! mi spiace.
i have all along heard that the Russia has been sending meat waves to the frontline, fighting with shovels and equipment made from Ukrainian washing machines, Now adjectives like well manned,better trained etc are common.
They initially attacked with too few men. Russians had to withdraw from their attack on Kyiv and reinforce their gains in the east and south of Ukraine. During this period, Russia needed to get into a proper war footing now that it was clear Ukraine wasn’t going to capitulate easily. It was during this period, when Russia enacted a partial Mobilization, that you saw random criminals and woefully under trained units thrown into the meat grinder. As time has gone on, Russian units have become more experienced and better trained as Russia slowly began offering higher and higher wages to go to Ukraine and ramping up production. From what I’ve seen, Russia now has more than 500k on the front line and they’re still suffering a 3 to 1 casualty rate. Russia also had an immense stockpile of military vehicles that they’ve been burning through. Eventually, the stocks are going to run out and production likely won’t be able to replace the vehicles at the rate they’re being lost.
One word marathon
Ukraine defense is failing because of many factors. Russian artillery advantage, numerical advantage, armor advantage and air supremacy. Ukraine just didn't have enough of anything to be able to survive a long attrition. And it didn't manage to pull off a shock and awe blitz style back in the counter offensive. It's now, unfortunately, just a matter of time to collapse. Unless NATO is somehow drawn in, there is no longer a win scenario for Ukraine.
Ukraine also has manpower problems, their volunteers for infantry has been low for over a year. They also had extremely high insubordination and desertion rates. The initial recruitment effort was full of willing soldiers. Not any more...
Also one thing people never consider is that at the start Ukraine had huge stockpiles of Soviet equipment and ammunition... this is by now all gone. They are now dependant totally on donations. Even just the mines, shells, small munitions and anti air missies that were Soviet were all a huge part of their defense in the first year or so.
dumb comment. Ukraine has more weapons than Soldiers. That is the crux of the problem. Ukraine as a whole doesn't want to fight, if they did they wouldn't counter Armies and Corps with Bridgades.
@@davidporter7051 That's exactly what I said. The numerical advantage is not on Ukraine's side. The initial burst of recruitment didn't last. The numbers of military age men who immediately fled the country is significant, and is why Ukraine is stopping services so those with Ukrainian passports will be forced to return home and be subject to conscription. Weapons don't count as advantaged if they're lying in storage waiting for someone to pick them up.
There is a name for this - Propaganda