Quote from: paxmao on Today at 12:55:07 PM

Quote from: DaRude on Today at 05:56:04 AM

Quote from: paxmao on September 27, 2023, 06:35:20 PM

Quote from: DaRude on September 27, 2023, 03:25:42 AM

[lots of stuff...]

Of course the estimates of losses are all over the place, but the consensus seems to be that artillery brings the most casualties in this conflict, and so far Russia has fired more artillery shells than Ukraine (there are reports that RU scaled back now but is either still outpacing Ukraine by a bit or both sides fire equal amounts of shells now). RU has also been firing exponentially more missiles to the rear, UA only now just started to fire on Crimea (which as you pointed out is considered breakthrough in UA), and UA is pretty much forbidden from attacking inside Russia elsewhere with provided missiles. Judging by videos and reports, drone attacks have been at par at first but Russia seems to have scaled up faster now. UA had more anti-tank weapons and lit up more thanks in the begging of the conflict.

To achieve higher kill rate, from your link, the US coalition strength was "Over 950,000 soldiers" and Iraq at "Over 650,000 soldiers" so they had overwhelming manpower, and a total control of airspace, both of which Ukraine lacks. Are you seriously trying to compare Ukraine to USA and Russia to Iraq, and claim that resourceful uber Ukrainian super soldiers (and ghosts of Kyiv) sustained an average kill rate of 5:1 for continuous 19 month? And will now increase that ratio even further to over 5 RU killed for every 1 UA loss, with some groundbreaking gamechanger weapon? I mean i saw anecdotal reports that Russians were attacking with shovels as Ukrainians are mowing them down with machine guns, but surely no one actually believed that right? Maybe Ukraine could achieve such odds against indigenous tribesman of amazon or Papua New Guinea, but the sober reality is that there's just no weapon in existence that would allow Ukraine to achieve such ratios against Russia. That's why no one really thought that Ukraine could defeat Russia on the battlefield. Objectively, UA's only realistic chance was for economical/political collapse inside RU, but we now see that China would not allow that to happen.

Quote from: https://www.ft.com/content/cad37c16-9cbd-473c-aa2f-102c21393d2e

Russia dodges G7 price cap sanctions on most of its oil exports

Russia has succeeded in avoiding G7 sanctions on most of its oil exports, a shift in trade flows that will boost the Kremlin’s revenues as crude rises towards $100 a barrel.

Almost three-quarters of all seaborne Russian crude flows travelled without western insurance in August, a lever used to enforce the G7’s $60-a-barrel oil price cap, according to an analysis of shipping and insurance records by the Financial Times.

That is up from about 50 per cent this spring, according to data from freight analytics company Kpler and insurance companies. The rise implies that Moscow is becoming more adept at circumventing the cap, allowing it to sell more of its oil at prices closer to international market rates.

The Kyiv School of Economics (KSE) has estimated that the steady increase in crude prices since July, combined with Russia’s success in reducing the discount on its own oil, means that the country’s oil revenues are likely to be at least $15bn higher for 2023 than they would have been.

The shift is a double blow for western efforts to restrict Russia’s revenues from oil sales — which make up the biggest part of the Kremlin’s budget — following its full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Not only is a higher proportion of Russian oil being sold outside the cap, but Moscow’s increasing independence as a seller has coincided with a strong rally in oil prices, which topped $95 a barrel for the first time in 13 months this week.

Now back to the real world,

Quote from: https://kyivindependent.com/women-with-medical-education-to-be-considered-eligible-for-military-enlistment/

Women with a medical or pharmaceutical education must register at military enlistment offices from Oct. 1, Fedir Venislavskyi, President Volodymyr Zelensky's representative in parliament, said on Sept. 7.

This will mean that these women, like Ukrainian men aged between 18 and 60, will not be able to leave the country without special permission.

Under martial law, they must stay in Ukraine as they may be called up at any moment for military service.

Quote from: https://kyivindependent.com/ukraines-ministry-of-defense-expands-list-of-persons-with-diseases-suitable-for-mobilization/

According to the report, amendments to the law were made on Aug. 18 and entered into force on Aug. 25.

From now on, people with clinically cured tuberculosis, viral hepatitis, slowly progressing blood diseases, thyroid gland diseases with minor functional disorders, and those who are HIV-positive but without symptoms, are considered still fit for military service.

In addition, people suffering from mild mental disorders, neurotic disorders, slowly progressive diseases of the central nervous system and others have been added to the list.

On Aug. 30, President Volodymyr Zelensky announced a mass review of decisions by military medical commissions to issue medical certificates of disability or unfitness for military service, which have been made since the start of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022.

No I am comparing Ruzzia with Ruzzia. They shelled more, had more manpower, more equipment, better air forces and yet... they lost Kherson and the region. Is this real life enough for you?

Another of those funny syllogisms that you frequently fall into:"Ruzzia shells more, shells kill, ergo Ruzzia kills more". HIMARS has been a game changer, you speak about volume of shelling, but I will take a HIMARS rather than 30 pieces of Soviet equipment shooting with rusty barrels and likely to miss a target by 20 meters or more (which is actually the case in the front). The quality counts - the reports speak of more than 25 Ruzzian artillery pieces destroyed per day in artillery duels. Guess what is destroying them?

I think that many weapons have been a game changer (e.g. drone economics) and before you say anything about mines, notice that these do not fly and do not change anything... unless you are still WW II gaming.

But perhaps the clear proof of what is happening, and that is actually reality, is that Ruzzia has stopped any minimally significant gain while Ukraine is taking territory. That is what is happening "in real life".

Re recruiting, I have that information yes... but it is a duma decree, plus some sources...

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-recruiting-soldiers-mental-asylum-ukraine-war-1739963

Quote

Russia Recruits Soldiers From Mental Health Unit to Make Up Troop Shortfall

F16 will also change the game. Those GBUs modified to "fly" may be just to risky to launch any longer.

All these things together are effectively game changers. Also for Ukraine, as attacking in large formations or with over abundance of mechanized means is no longer a good option.

Yes yes lets concentrate on how this one sniper is so great and killed 100s, just don't talk about overall state of affairs, and lets pretend as if i'm arguing that simple numerical majority is what wins wars. You're picking some specific UA weapon/system and claim how great it is. That might even be true but regardless of how great these miracle systems might be, it's simply impossible for them to be so great that they make up for all other casualties and bring OVERALL kill ratio (meaning all kills including planes, choppers, ships, submarines, drones, tanks, missiles, mines, handguns, knifes etc etc etc...) to over 5x in Ukraine's advantage. And without that Ukraine just can't win on the battlefield. From your example US actually did achieve 10x+ casualty rates in Iraq and Afghanistan. But even the most craziest UA propagandists make up casualty numbers at maximum 3x over RU, so even if we consider those ridiculous numbers, that would still mean that UA is loosing 2x faster of its relative population to RU, which is clearly not sustainable. The grim reality is that if RU casualties are less than 5x of UA (which is globally acknowledged) this means that UA is loosing % of their population faster.

Ukraine does not need a x5 advantage, that is just a number you made up and keep repeating. Is false logic and sad math but also unrelated to the dynamics of modern warfare. Nor any warfare.

Quote

“It is better to be on hand with ten men than absent with ten thousand.” — Timur

(born in 1336)

To gain territory you need to attrite and degrade the enemy response. This does not require massive number nor a "x5". A basic example: you blow up the Kerch bridge, all supplies to Crimea have to make a dangerous route of hundreds of kilometres more. You have killed 0 people, but the frontline is not getting ammo and they are forced to retreat.

Once you understand these dynamics, you will be able to understand why the "kill ratio" is not the limiting factor for a victory.

You keep fighting a straw man that you yourself created. Numerical majority doesn't matter AS LONG AS your kill ratio is higher than opponents numerical majority ratio. And you're in trouble on the battlefield if your kill ratio doesn't compensate for your lowered numerical force. The logic of “It is better to be on hand with ten men than absent with ten thousand.” is because ten men on hand can do more damage (have higher kill ratio) than absent with ten thousand. You "attrite and degrade" opponent on a battlefield by reducing their manpower (or their equipment which ultimately directly leads to loss in manpower). Of course you can also push propaganda to destroy the morale (willingness to fight) enough in hopes for a political change but that wouldn't be a battlefield victory, and all current polls indicate it's extremely unlikely to occur.

As stated bellow look at the map and you'll see that Kerch bridge is not the only supply route and not a single point of failure that you're making it out to be. There are other alternatives including ferries. In fact Kerch bridge was only opened in 2018-2019 good 4 years after Russia took Crimea, so Crimea was somehow supplied for four years before the bridge and without alternative land corridor in place now. Regardless, the point of taking out supply routes, is to reduce combat effectiveness of the enemy so to cause unbearable losses to the opponent. Or of course just to push propaganda that opponents lines will collapse because now they'll get melted ice cream with their rations because supplies are going over longer/more dangerous alternative supply routes. The illusion that Russian will just withdraw while having lower losses in % of population, is just that, an illusion pushed by dishonest propagandist, who ironically at the same time attempt to claim that Russia doesn't care for their soldiers lives, which of course is mutually exclusive. All of that not to say that there wouldn't a point to such exercise, of course the gain would be a morale boost for your own troops.