Everyday Math

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,948
People are not volunteering at high numbers anymore. Ukraine will continue to lose ground if they don't have the numbers to support their units.

They're gonna have to figure something out. Because right now they're in no position to take back any stolen land. They can barely defend as it is.
——
This policy needs to change immediately or at least give Ukraine a grey zone to work with. Actively hampering Ukraine's ability to defend when it's already having a hard time.


View: https://x.com/dave_brown24/status/1790488203738128533?s=46&t=zmlNC97WauosZt7jmwO0Ago
Two U.S. officials, when asked for comment, confirmed that the Biden administration's policy has not changed. "The assistance is for the defense and not for offensive operations in Russian territory," said one of the officials, who was granted anonymity to discuss sensitive issues.
——
The Russians are "smart now," Ustinova said, "because they know there is a restriction for Ukrainians to shoot at the Russian territory. And we saw all of their military equipment sitting one or two kilometers from the border [near Kharkiv] and there was nothing we could do."

The U.K. government this month lifted a similar restriction on the use of British weapons inside Russia, an announcement made by British Foreign Secretary David Cameron during a visit to Kyiv. "Just as Russia is striking inside Ukraine, you can quite understand why Ukraine feels the need to make sure it's defending itself," he said.
———
U.S. officials increasingly believe Putin's plans to mobilize new military units, coupled with additional ammunition from Beijing and dwindling Western support for Kyiv, could land him a win in Ukraine — and sooner than expected.

It might not be the win that Putin originally wanted, which was a total takeover of Ukraine. But by the end of this year, he may be able to use his gains to negotiate favorable terms for Moscow, three officials familiar with Western intelligence say.
———
Ukraine has for months launched strikes inside Russia using its own small drones to attack oil facilities. But officials in Kyiv insist they need the more powerful U.S. missiles to break through Russian air defenses along the border.

"Everybody knew the Russians near Kharkiv [were] bringing the manpower, everybody knew they were bringing a lot of artillery, so what they're aiming at doing now is they're going to turn Kharkiv into the second Mariupol, or Aleppo," Ustinova said.

"We keep coming back to the same problem — that it's Russia telling us what we should be doing," she said. "You're giving us a stick but you will not let us use it."
 
Last edited:

Tomasoares

Member
Oct 28, 2017
4,707
I guess either NATO countries sends money to Ukraine to incentive more Ukraines to subscribe to war or they start sending troops to Ukraine, because the other option is to send anyway when Russia attacks Nato after taking Ukraine.

Or they send massive aircrafts to compensate the armies difference
 
Last edited:

Magni

Member
Yeah the other obvious solution to the manpower issue is the hundreds of thousands of professional soldiers from NATO forces. Start by using them in the rear, to guard the Moldovan and Belarusian borders and man air defense in Lviv, Odesa, Kiev, etc.

Don't wait until you need to send them straight to the front.

It has been infuriating to see how Biden and the rest of the West have utterly failed to live up to the moment. By slow-walking aid maybe they think they're boiling the Russian frog, but they need to realize they've been getting boiled themselves for over a decade now.
 

Res

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,652
People are not volunteering at high numbers anymore. Ukraine will continue to lose ground if they don't have the numbers to support their units.

They're gonna have to figure something out. Because right now they're in no position to take back any stolen land. They can barely defend as it is.
——
This policy needs to change imminently or at least give Ukraine a grey zone to work with. Actively hampering Ukraine's ability to defend when it's already having a hard time.


View: https://x.com/dave_brown24/status/1790488203738128533?s=46&t=zmlNC97WauosZt7jmwO0Ago

I think it will happen eventually. However, by the time they lift the restriction Ukraine will have already lost a significant chunk of territory. I understand limiting it at the start of the war, but it has been over two years now. Things are getting worse by the day, and Ukraine needs to at least be able target within Russia to slow their advance
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,318
People are not volunteering at high numbers anymore. Ukraine will continue to lose ground if they don't have the numbers to support their units.

They're gonna have to figure something out. Because right now they're in no position to take back any stolen land. They can barely defend as it is.

Yes, and unfortunately I can already hear critics of the war in the US and other places chiming in how if Ukraine can't even get enough of their own citizens to fight for their own survival and volunteer then why should the US/NATO keep giving them aid?

Problem is that if Ukraine is in some existential fight for their life they should have had some kind of draft or conscription right from the start- I'd expect that from like any country that's being invaded by another, honestly.

This policy needs to change immediately or at least give Ukraine a grey zone to work with. Actively hampering Ukraine's ability to defend when it's already having a hard time.
It constantly baffles me how the US/NATO/EU are so concerned with escalating with Russia and forcing Ukraine to fight with one hand behind their back and they're surprised when Ukraine starts taking big losses because the Russians 100% realize the Ukrainians are hampered with these restrictions. Its completely asinine for the US/NATO at this point to have these kind of restrictions on where Ukraine can strike. Its just prolonging the war and the suffering for everyone involved.
 
Nov 8, 2017
13,363
Its just prolonging the war and the suffering for everyone involved.

It is, and it's barely coherent. Unmanned bombs, commando teams and partisans are already fighting the war inside Russia. Oil refineries are being set on fire, Moscow is having bombs fall on it. But people expect us to believe that if "Made in the USA" is found on a scrap metal as it explodes 10km inside the border region instead of waiting until they cross the border for the exact same munition to blow them up, apparently that's a "risk of ww3" for some reason.
 
Nov 23, 2019
7,750
RRT4 ▶︎▶︎▶︎
cepa.org

Russia’s Economy: Closer to the Edge Than it Looks

Russia's Vladimir Putin may be able to violate international law with relative impunity. The laws of economics are less yielding.
The Kremlin, as a result, is in a three-way bind of its own making. The government can't cut spending as long as the war continues. The war, however, saps the labor force, fueling inflation and diminishing both welfare and public sentiment. And high interest rates, necessitated by all that inflation, stifle investment in productivity and further distort the economy.

To be clear, Putin can keep this juggling act going for a while longer. Oil sales are keeping the budget sound enough (sales in April alone doubled to $14bn year-on-year), while military spending is still much lower as a share of GDP than in the USSR, and state capitalism remains much more efficient than late socialism. However, with every tick of the clock, Russia's wartime economy becomes more susceptible to external (or internal, for that matter) shocks.
Putin used to know that the economy was best left to professionals. Indeed, the men and women running the country's central bank, finance ministry, and ministry of economic development remain highly skilled and saved the country from economic collapse in 2022.

Two years on, they clearly understand the longer-term impossibility of the task they've been set. The question is, do they dare tell the boss? And if they do, will he listen?
 

Tovarisc

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,546
FIN
I believe it will not help to forcefully mobilize.
Ukraine might be outnumbered even with forcefully mobilization and losing the benefit of good morale.
Even worse would be the idea to deport Ukrainians from the EU to Ukraine after 2 years for mobilization.
Maybe it would have been better to not let them go in the first place and offer them to fight for their home.

Good morale wont help you when your reserves have been worn out to a point that there just isn't anyone left to contain possible front breaches, or properly rotate units from the front. That is what will break morale of your forces over time. Front in size of Ukraine's takes a lots of men just to hold it, and we are starting to see Ukraine weakening parts of it just to try and strengthen others as they move units to other sectors.

Two years ago Ukraine did prevent a lot of fighting age men from leaving the country, and Ukrainian leadership was called cruel for it. There were demands that they let anyone leave who wants to leave, and I'm not sure if there was policy change at some point regarding that by Ukrainian government.

What confuses me is all this talk about how NATO countries should mobilize their armies and send them into Ukraine for support and/or active combat duty, but moment there is mention that Ukraine should first mobilize its own nation there is immediate pushback about how it's awful idea. West should and needs to do better with weapons and ammunitions support, but when it comes to manpower I don't see how answer is to put that also on West instead of Ukrainian political leadership refusing to mobilize when military has been asking for it for long time. We even get stories from the front(s) about how poorly trained and few replacements are because they are being rushed into active combat duty, instead of being properly trained with time.

Maybe it loops back to "conscription / mobilization Vs. professional military" debate, but countries so large with excessive amounts of volunteers that make purely voluntary professional military possible are very few in number. When you are forced to conscript / mobilize it should be proactive action, not reactive one.
 
Oct 28, 2017
3,697
I believe it will not help to forcefully mobilize.
Ukraine might be outnumbered even with forcefully mobilization and losing the benefit of good morale.
Even worse would be the idea to deport Ukrainians from the EU to Ukraine after 2 years for mobilization.
Maybe it would have been better to not let them go in the first place and offer them to fight for their home.
You think everyone at the front right now is a volunteer and wouldn't leave if given the option?
 

Ont

Prophet of Truth
Member
Oct 29, 2017
2,061
I was surprised to hear how high Ukrainian mobilisation age was (25?). Historically in wars the average age for mobilisation has been much lower.

Mobilisation of younger generations always sounds horrifying. But more horrifying is the prospect of Russian occupation of Ukraine after we have seen how Russians have treated the locals still alive in the occupied areas. We know Russia was prepared for purges and mass deportations when they started the second stage of the invasion in 2022.

It also seems like a missed opportunity to send a portion of the younger generations to receive a 1 - 2 year military training in NATO countries. Tank crews and infantry who have been trained together for at least one year would have a higher effectiveness and survival rate.

To guarantee peace in the future, Ukraine needs to start thinking about mobilising and properly training the younger generations. And Ukrainian allies should offer 1 - 2 year military training to Ukrainian youth, covering all military roles.
 

Ephonk

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
1,991
Belgium
Yeah the other obvious solution to the manpower issue is the hundreds of thousands of professional soldiers from NATO forces. Start by using them in the rear, to guard the Moldovan and Belarusian borders and man air defense in Lviv, Odesa, Kiev, etc.
NATO will never put boots on the ground in Ukraine as Ukraine isn't part of NATO. If anything like this would happen, it'll be individual countries like Estonia.
 
Oct 28, 2017
3,697
No, i don't think so.

Do you think deported persons that have to be forced into the armed forces will make a good job ?
I don't know, depends on the person obviously? Does it really matter compared to no one doing the job?

Btw, I'm not going to argue here if they should force people or not. There is already a long thread for that. My original point didn't even make such a statement, just what I think the consequences are if they don't mobilize people who don't want to be mobilized at this point in this war.
 

Mivey

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,007
No, i don't think so.

Do you think deported persons that have to be forced into the armed forces will make a good job ?
If the alternative is letting Russia occupy thousands of smaller villages and cities and committing dozens of new Buchas, then yeah, maybe. War is not nice bedtime story where there's a good ending where everyone is happy and the prince and princess live happily ever after. You are faced with fucked up choices that bring human suffering with them, no matter what you do, and you try to balance the need to survive with trying to stay humane. Given the massive advantage that Russia has in being able to put up massive amounts of bodies, Ukraine will need to make massive sacrifices to keep up. The alternative might well be that Ukraine will never get its pre 2022 borders back, with most of the children and population either dead or moved to who-knows-where, leaving behind a broken wasteland.
 

Vector

Member
Feb 28, 2018
6,724
Mobilisation sucks but Ukraine has no other way out of this and it's dumb expecting a country that's been invaded to adhere to such a high moral standard.

The alternative is letting civilians fend for themselves and they're not equipped to do that properly. We've seen what Russia is capable of doing to civilians.

There's a manpower shortage on the UA side so forced mobilisation is imo not only not off the cards but an inevitable outcome.
 
Nov 23, 2019
7,750
RRT4 ▶︎▶︎▶︎
www.theguardian.com

Lammy and Healey visit Ukraine to say Labour would keep up UK’s backing

Shadow foreign and defence ministers go to Kyiv ‘to ensure we take politics out of the UK’s support for Ukraine’
Britain's shadow foreign and defence ministers have completed a visit to Kyiv to deliver a message that little would change when it comes to British support for Ukraine if Labour won the general election expected later this year.

"We wanted to come now, in the run-up to the UK election, to ensure we take politics out of the UK's support for Ukraine," said John Healey, the shadow defence secretary, in an interview with the Guardian in Kyiv before leaving Ukraine. "There's total support for Ukraine across the full breadth of the Labour party in and outside parliament," he added.
 

EagleClaw

Member
Dec 31, 2018
11,029
That question only means something if there is another option.

Right now they can force people to fight or be genocided, that's it. That's the options

Tbh, i believe it isn't even an option, atleast for Ukrainians that fled to the EU.
Surely you have the Polish PIS that says it would deport Ukrainians to Ukraine, but Ukrainians are under temporary protection per EU law and can't be deported.

But maybe somehow the EU will decide to deport foreigners to a country that forcefully mobilizes, and they will do that because Ukraine needs that to happen.
I wonder if only single men will be deported or also single fathers with their children, and how all of that will be written in EU law.

In the end i just say if you let man power leave the country during an invasion you can't be surprised if that man power is later missing.
 

Arilian

Member
Oct 29, 2020
2,382
But maybe somehow the EU will decide to deport foreigners to a country that forcefully mobilizes, and they will do that because Ukraine needs that to happen.
The EU has already done so much worse to refugees: if something/someone is blocking a decision on the subject, morality is not at play (even if the people responsible for these decisions may pretend it is).
 

Vector

Member
Feb 28, 2018
6,724
Russia and its proxies are using the EU's bureaucratic and overly institutional mechanisms against itself and I don't know how the EU can overcome that without outright excluding members. If somethings not done the entire thing might collapse before the decade is over.
 

EagleClaw

Member
Dec 31, 2018
11,029
The EU has already done so much worse to refugees: if something/someone is blocking a decision on the subject, morality is not at play (even if the people responsible for these decisions may pretend it is).

I don't believe it has anything to do with morallity, it has something to do with law.
Protection status of Ukrainians has to change to make deportation possible, it has to state that men of certain age will be deported into Ukraine.
And EU law makers have to hope that the EU Court of Human Rights allows such a classification based on gender and age.
 
Nov 23, 2019
7,750
RRT4 ▶︎▶︎▶︎
www.theguardian.com

Intensifying war increasing threat to Ukraine economy, EBRD warns

European Bank for Reconstruction and Development cuts growth forecasts for regions it operates in, saying war ‘casting long shadow’
Interviewed by the Guardian after Russia's offensive towards Ukraine's second city, Kharkiv, Javorcik said: "The war has intensified. Mobilising additional men to fight will hit the economy, and the destruction of power generation is something that will have repercussions. The situation is challenging."
"The war is the big unknown. In the initial phase of the war the military fighting took place in an area that generated 60% of Ukraine's economic activity. Subsequently, the fighting moved to a much smaller area. If the area affected by the fighting goes back to the early days of the war that would take its toll of the economy."
"While the short-term outlook for Russia has improved, in the medium term Russia is going to feel the effects of the war. Sanctions and the impact of the brain drain will affect its productivity growth."

The EBRD said the weakness of the German economy, wariness among central banks about cutting interest rates and the running down of savings accumulated during the Covid pandemic had also contributed to weaker growth in its regions.

"Geopolitical tensions are having a profound impact on the EBRD regions and beyond, leading to rapid fragmentation of trade and investment and a notable rise in defence spending", it said.
 
Nov 23, 2019
7,750
RRT4 ▶︎▶︎▶︎
https://www.theguardian.com/world/l...0818dde2142f34#block-664499708f0818dde2142f34
At a press conference in Kyiv, Blinken announced an additional $2bn in foreign military financing from the US for Ukraine. He said new support from the US was coming at a "critical time".

He was speaking at a joint press conference in Kyiv alongside Ukrainian foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba, adding that the support would be aimed at investing in Ukraine's industrial base.
Blinken said: "We're rushing ammunition, armoured vehicles, missiles, [and] air defences to get them to the frontlines."
 
Nov 23, 2019
7,750
RRT4 ▶︎▶︎▶︎
Portugal's new government favours tougher sanctions against Russia
Portugal's new government is keen on ramping up sanctions on Russia over its invasion of Ukraine, Environment and Energy Minister Maria da Graca Carvalho said on Wednesday.
The European Commission's next sanctions package is expected to propose restrictions on Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG) for the first time, including a ban on trans-shipments in the EU, according to a document seen by Reuters.

This would not directly bar Russian LNG imports to the bloc, but would ban provision of re-loading services by EU facilities for trans-shipment of Russian LNG to third countries.

"In general, the Portuguese government is aligned with the European Union's energy policies, namely with the measures that aim to ensure our strategic sovereignty ... just as it is in favour of toughening sanctions" to pressure Russia to end the invasion, the minister said in a statement sent to Reuters.
 

P-MAC

Member
Nov 15, 2017
4,587
Tbh, i believe it isn't even an option, atleast for Ukrainians that fled to the EU.
Surely you have the Polish PIS that says it would deport Ukrainians to Ukraine, but Ukrainians are under temporary protection per EU law and can't be deported.

But maybe somehow the EU will decide to deport foreigners to a country that forcefully mobilizes, and they will do that because Ukraine needs that to happen.
I wonder if only single men will be deported or also single fathers with their children, and how all of that will be written in EU law.

In the end i just say if you let man power leave the country during an invasion you can't be surprised if that man power is later missing.

I was more referring to mobilising people in general. I agree doing it with people in other countries is a bit more complicated
 
Oct 27, 2017
981
US does not encourage Ukraine to hit targets in Russia with US weapons but it is decision for Kyiv to make, Blinken says

The US does not encourage Ukraine to strike targets inside Russia with US-supplied weapons but believes it is a decision Kyiv should make for itself, secretary of state Antony Blinken said on Wednesday.

He was speaking at a press conference in Kyiv after weeks of regular missile and drone strikes across Russia that Ukraine has not officially confirmed.


From the guardian live update (12:52). This seems to be a fundamemtal change in the US position, which was previously that US weapons can only be used on Ukranian territory.

www.theguardian.com

Russia-Ukraine war live: Blinken announces $2bn in aid as Russia claims to have taken more settlements and Zelenskiy cancels trips

US secretary of state says ammunition, armoured vehicles and missiles will be rushed to frontline as Moscow says it has captured more territory
 

Pankratous

Member
Oct 26, 2017
9,348
US does not encourage Ukraine to hit targets in Russia with US weapons but it is decision for Kyiv to make, Blinken says

The US does not encourage Ukraine to strike targets inside Russia with US-supplied weapons but believes it is a decision Kyiv should make for itself, secretary of state Antony Blinken said on Wednesday.

He was speaking at a press conference in Kyiv after weeks of regular missile and drone strikes across Russia that Ukraine has not officially confirmed.


From the guardian live update (12:52). This seems to be a fundamemtal change in the US position, which was previously that US weapons can only be used on Ukranian territory.

www.theguardian.com

Russia-Ukraine war live: Blinken announces $2bn in aid as Russia claims to have taken more settlements and Zelenskiy cancels trips

US secretary of state says ammunition, armoured vehicles and missiles will be rushed to frontline as Moscow says it has captured more territory

That sounds good enough to me. Until they vehemently say no again, this is a go-ahead.
 

Zip

Member
Oct 28, 2017
4,051
US does not encourage Ukraine to hit targets in Russia with US weapons but it is decision for Kyiv to make, Blinken says

The US does not encourage Ukraine to strike targets inside Russia with US-supplied weapons but believes it is a decision Kyiv should make for itself, secretary of state Antony Blinken said on Wednesday.

He was speaking at a press conference in Kyiv after weeks of regular missile and drone strikes across Russia that Ukraine has not officially confirmed.


From the guardian live update (12:52). This seems to be a fundamemtal change in the US position, which was previously that US weapons can only be used on Ukranian territory.

www.theguardian.com

Russia-Ukraine war live: Blinken announces $2bn in aid as Russia claims to have taken more settlements and Zelenskiy cancels trips

US secretary of state says ammunition, armoured vehicles and missiles will be rushed to frontline as Moscow says it has captured more territory

An improvement if they don't backtrack, but at the same time a continuation of the incredibly weak pussyfooting that has allowed this situation to continue to get worse, and give russia the time it needed to reorient and adapt.

Pathetic.
 

Cosmonaut X

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,958
Yes, I think that can be taken as a clear shift in policy, and an overdue one. It won't solve all of Ukraine's problems - Russia still overmatches them in certain ways, Western support is still taking too long to build up to required levels and they are going to have to grapple with a wider mobilisation ASAP - but it will hopefully open the door to preventing the kind of build-up of forces we've seen recently, where not having their hands tied with usage of Western weapons on Russia soil could have helped enormously.
 

EagleClaw

Member
Dec 31, 2018
11,029
Considering all the shit done by Frontex, law would not exactly that hard to overcome.

(To be clear, I'm opposed to sending back Ukrainian living in an EU member state and the awful things done at the EU borders)

There is a huge difference.

Most Ukrainians and other nationalities coming from Ukraine aren't asylum seekers, they have temporary protection.
They don't have to prove that they are in danger and have certain rights granted as if they were a EU citizen, like the right for work and social security.

Asylum seekers have to prove that they are in danger and have to go thru the whole legal process.

But i believe some Ukrainians used their right of asylum, and therefore got their right of temporary protection suspended.
Maybe those could be deported after there is no reason found to grant them asylum.
But if those can switch back to temporary protection after asylum was denied.

Maybe in the end this whole temporary protection law wasn't good for Ukraine, and only real asylum seekers should have been let into the EU.
But Ukraine had also the control about who left the country.