Let's talk about the similarities between WW1 and the current war for just a moment; by late 1918 Germany still controlled something like 10% of the territory of France, but decided to sign an armistice to end the conflict.
Why has it been stated so many times by Pro-RU sources that the AFRF having taken roughly 12% of enemy territory so far means they are winning, when the situation was similar for Germany in 1918, in terms of land held?
In purely military terms, the concept of holding only a relatively small portion of enemy territory after so much time cannot mean anything close to a victory, correct?
There's no need to compare it to WW1. Russia is losing manpower and equipment at unsustainable rates and is being bombed inland. They have been beaten back severely, can hardly conduct terror strikes any longer, can't deal damage to ukranian military installations, it's all a matter of time now.
>it's all a matter of time now
Let me guess, two more weeks
Nah, realistically 7 or 8 months.
anonkun 7 months from exactly today is end of march 2024. first frost in ukraine averages mid-october, coldest month is january. there's only about 6 weeks to work with before offensive tempo falls to the whims of weather.
It depends a lot on how aggressive Ukraine chooses to be. Even two more years is not especially unlikely if Ukraine is quite passive and reserved and if no more shocks to the Russian political system with more bite than Prig's mutiny occur.
Russia wants to freeze the conflict precisely because Ukraine's relative position is only getting stronger day by day
But yeah it could be less than a year if Russian logistics fail hard in Zap and then in the resulting chaos Putin is challenged once again
Funny how "two more weeks" started as zigger cope and now they aim it at their opponents, as if it was ever a claim made by anyone else but themselves.
I think Russia is losing and won't walk out of this with any Ukrainian territory (Crimea included), however, it's not really that similar. Germany is rich in coal and iron, but overall depends very heavily on imports for manufacturing; by the war's end Germany's economy and industrial base had basically collapsed, and would not really recover until the NSDAP introduced sound money and public works programs to kick-start it again.
Russia on the other hand has all the natural resources it needs (but on the flip side, doesn't have a large, advanced industrial base). So while Russia faces the same issue of not being able to produce modern military supplies that Germany did, they don't really face the whole "basic economic collapse affecting the average working man" thing that Germany did. This means that they may stall and be unable to advance or even hold ground, but they're unlikely to see the collapse in domestic support or widespread civil unrest that Germany did.
Accordingly I don't think Russia will actually sign a peace treaty until they've been physically driven out (which will happen) and even then they might only agree to a ceasefire, hoping that status of a frozen conflict will prevent Ukraine from being able to join NATO or the EU, even if they don't technically occupy any land. (I also don't think this will work; even if it prevents NATO membership it won't prevent separate defensive alliances with America and the UK.)
USA does not want complete collapse as that would cause more problems. The sanctions are slow acting and targeted.
> sanctions are working
Anon? You been living under a rock?
its over for russiacels, rouble is worthless!
>anon doesn't know how currency works, thinks big number = good
>giant fucking spike in conversion
>sarcastic reply about it not being garbage wastepaper
Anon.... Can you read graphs
>i was only pretending to be retarded
They have an interest rate of 12.5% after a currency crash.
The babby sanctions from 2014 genocided the T14 and Su57 in the crib
>by the war's end Germany's economy and industrial base had basically collapsed, and would not really recover until the NSDAP introduced sound money and public works programs to kick-start it again.
That's a really weird take, on both accounts. German industry even in late WW1 was doing fine, suffering from lack of imports (mostly rare metals and rubber) but generally still capable. Lack of food was the biggest problem. And inbetween that and the nazis was a decent little economic recovery fueled by international trade and american investment.
Btw. I agree with your assessment on the russian populace. Their basic economic needs are still met and will be met, and russia today has means of surveillance and opression besides that germany didn't.
>inbetween that and the nazis was a decent little economic recovery
Is that a joke? Weimar was a hyperinflationary disaster, famously so in fact.
>hyperinflationary disaster
1921-1923, ended 10y before the nazis and due to the germans being massive bitches about the war reparations
You are historically illiterate
While Russia isn't in or reasonably going to be in a situation like Germany where a blockade leads to a lack of foodstuffs which leads to unrest I wouldn't be surprised if a mid to long term result of the sanctions is that Russia builds up such a backlog of machinery that needs replacement parts from specialized factores in the west that the black market can't cover all their needs and Russia can't process all it's natural resources and, for example grain.
you got a loicense for all that fuzz? vastly in excess of hooman fluff saffty regulamtion
PoZZia can easily starve, even without sanctions.
Germans didn't have their people and clientes in the occupied lands so one of the main reasons why Russia is not pulling out didn't apply to them.
>Why has it been stated so many times by Pro-RU sources that the AFRF having taken roughly 12% of enemy territory so far means they are winning, when the situation was similar for Germany in 1918, in terms of land held?
Because Germany was taking on 4 world powers at once, Ukraine is taking on 1 former world power with the backing of the entire western world and Russia is running off of rapidly depleting stockpiles and is getting dangerously close to putting WW2 weapons in the field.
100 years after and more, when the forest is cut down for wood, the trenches are still visible, I wonder if it will be the same in Ukraine.
You can still see the trenches and breastworks from the US Civil war.
Looks like a hentai womb.
You can still see earthworks leftover from the English Civil war in the 1600's.
You can still see the earthworks left over from vigorous games of hide-and-seek in the 70's.
moron there are still impressions of middle ages round forts in Ukraine. Ukraine is way way older than people think as a continuous culture. The world's first historian detailed the scythian culture, and Herodotus lived like 2400 years ago. Ukrainian steppe settlement might well be 6,000 years old. You can't dig a garden over there without finding ancient shit.
depends if anyone bothers to remove the fortifications afterwards
if not they might be around 10000 years from now
Ahaha! Germany is winning!
Ententesisters, the 100 days counteroffensive has failed... we barely even got through the Hindenburg crumple zone...
It seems very similar and in WW1 the breakthrough came with the introduction of combined forces. I'm guessing such a doctrine change will be necessary now as well.
That will probably be tactics involving drones. Seeing Ukraine using flying cardboardboxes to hit targets deep in Russia, my money is on the ukies, but it is likely the tactical change needed will be something I can't think off now because it is too far from what I've seen. Still: creativity and intelligence points go the the ukraine-side so my bet is on Ukraine.
>in WW1 the breakthrough came with the introduction of combined forces
The tactical breakthrough yes, but strategically it wasn't all that necessary. And I don't think there are any substantial tactical changes to be expected in ukraine. Either they will eventually break through russian lines and use their western equipment for some real mobile warfare, or they will slowly grind the russians away - either will work.
if combined forces mean artillery+infantry, you're right. Tanks were anecdotical in the victory during ww1.
>Why has it been stated so many times by Pro-RU sources that the AFRF having taken roughly 12% of enemy territory so far means they are winning
Because they think it's a Paradox game and that Russia is running an Enforce Claims CB and has a high warscore. They're autistic.
omg ukrainwarts is holding off Putler while the orks dig in! European transgenderism is saved!!!!!!
I predict: nothing will change
>chud slop zog mutt globohomo garden gnomes
I don't believe you can fairly assess this as a situation with 1918 Germany. Russia declared war over what he justified as a rightful territorial claim (to "save" ethnic Russians in certain areas of Ukraine- this isn't an argument on if this is justified or not by the way). I'd say that Western media has falsely portrayed Russia as incapable of continuing the fight. Russia has already claimed what it set out to take- the conflict is basically done. NATO is pushing Ukraine to counterattack to take as much as they can before some deal can be made (in other words, lowering Putin's leverage). Russia doesn't (and as I see it, won't) push further because it would be unnecessary at this point in the war.
Then why did they advance further in Kherson and around Izium, anon? Also, the war isn't over because Russia, or you, says it's over. The west isn't looking to make any deals that don't involve full territorial integrity for Ukraine, either.
in ww1, germany wanted a short war and dug in once the plan fell through. russia's early maximalist war aims were similar in this regard.
>by late 1918 Germany still controlled something like 10% of the territory of France, but decided to sign an armistice to end the conflict.
>Why has it been stated so many times by Pro-RU sources that the AFRF having taken roughly 12% of enemy territory so far means they are winning, when the situation was similar for Germany in 1918, in terms of land held?
Germany was suffering under the blockade (hence why taking Scandinavia was so important in WWII) and gnomish communists started an uprising.
Russia's not starving and their commies aren't doing shit.
wrong massive war, retard, you should be ashamed
you're the retard, anon. he's saying as opposed to what went down in ww1, the blockade and the spartacist uprising, they tried to prevent it in ww2 by taking scandinavia.
germany had to quit the war due to a massive food shortage, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnip_Winter combined with an outbreak of spanish flu, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu
over the course of the war almost a million people died due to malnourishment and an even greate number of soldiers fell ill in 1918 due to influenza
back then agriculture was not nearly as industrialized and controlled as today, meaning a bad harvest season could easily lead to food shortages and a weakened population is susceptible to outbreaks of disease
it didnt really matter whether germany controlled 2%, 12% or 52% of french territory, germany had to give up due to reasons unrelated to that
Really we should have kept up the war till 1919 and dismantle Germany like we dismantled Austria-Hungary
They were starving wtf were they going to do
>In purely military terms, the concept of holding only a relatively small portion of enemy territory after so much time cannot mean anything close to a victory, correct?
There's no victory until the other side is completely conquered or admits defeat.
Only Ukraine gets to decide whether they think 12% of their territory equals defeat, and they're disinclined.
The most important thing in a situation like this is momentum, because people can see past the present moment.
Finland capitulated to Russia after a similar amount of occupation because they were inexorably falling back against an increasingly strong Russian military and couldn't see a long term hope of victory. Whereas Ukraine is the one making gains now.
It also matters how acceptable the enemy's demands are. Ukraine basically tolerated 2014 and signed ceasefires after Russia took some of their shit. But now that Russia came back for the rest, they see this as an existential conflict where they have to come out in a strong position or eventually die, even if Russia's ostensible present demand is just another ceasefire.
Russia doesn't have the same impetus for victory at any cost, they should be willing to withdraw well before they go off a cliff and suffer a WW1-style collapse, but it would take some extreme convincing to get them out of Crimea. It's very easy and attractive to underestimate an enemy and their resolve.
>Russia doesn't have the same impetus for victory at any cost, they should be willing to withdraw well before they go off a cliff and suffer a WW1-style collapse,
honestly i dont think they will. it seems that while the overwhelming majority of russians think or thought that going to war was a terrible idea, they now associate the war with the stability of the regime. They see that losing the war would certianly lead to the fall of putin and probably to a 90s style collapse of the entire country, possibly even the dissolution of russia. so while they probably dont give a single shit about taking territory from ukraine, they want to see russia 'win'.
my sources for this are very much word of mouth though so take this with a colossal grain of salt.
The states own language around this conflict started as 'bringing little bother Ukriane back into the fold' being defeated and humiliated by Ukraine is a big slap in the face. I've been going on Russia Today and looking at the comments occasionally over the last year, the schizo levels are though the roof now, even stuff that has nothing to do with Ukraine has people mentioning it now. So far it's still all 'daddy putin knows best' but see if they keep that up if they lose Crimea, Donbass or Mauripol
Because they're trolls. They operate by flooding you with a maximum volume of bullshit. If some of it sticks, good. If none does, that's also good, since you just shat up whatever forum you targeted. Truth is besides the point in Russia and for Russians
Germany was defeated in the First World War because it was losing ground and it knew that they would be hopelessly outnumbered within a year. Right now the RuAF is being poked by suicidal piecemeal attacks that have achieved no results.