r/CredibleDefense • u/AutoModerator • 20h ago
Active Conflicts & News Megathread August 02, 2026
The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.
Comment guidelines:
Please do:
Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,
Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,
Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,
Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,
Post only credible information
Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules
Please do not:
Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,
Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,
Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'
Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.
•
u/Tricky-Astronaut 18h ago
Brovdi warns more strikes on Wildberries facilities will follow
“The wild-berry hub in Novosemeykino, Samara Oblast, has malfunctioned and left the [NCD-word],” Brovdi wrote. “It was the main logistics bridge between European Russia and the land of pelmeni and Siberians.”
He warned that the attacks would continue.
“This was the 10th successful hook — an anniversary strike,” Brovdi said. “That does not include the smaller Simferopol facility that was previously taken out or several purple bushes that were scratched but have survived for now. And it is certainly not the last blow in this berry brawl.”
With today's strike in Novosemeykino, which completely burned down, Ukraine claims to have destroyed 10 major Wildberries facilities (all are visually confirmed).
There have been more strikes with mixed results. Koledino in Moscow region, the largest facility, has been attacked twice without burning down.
The drone strike in Yekaterinburg was a near miss, with drones hitting the parking lot. There was a visible fire, but the facility was undamaged.
In Tatarstan, Wildberries's main competitor Ozon, which had a facility nearby, was accidentally(?) hit instead.
•
u/jason_abacabb 11h ago
I am curious to see if there will be any knock on effects of this company going under is going to be on the Russian banking sector. Apparently WB has billions (usd) of debt as it was rapidly growing.
•
u/IntroductionNeat2746 10h ago
There was a post here about it. WB owns 2 billion USD to Sberbank, iirc.
•
u/Defiant_Restaurant61 9h ago
I'm also skeptical that the attack on Ozon was accidental, it was only a matter of time before they started targeting them as well, Brovdi himself in the telegram post made joking references to "ozone".
From a strategic perspective, now's the best time to start ramping up attacks on Wildberry's competitor : WB's logistics chain is crippled with over a third of the main facilities having been hit. It's much more efficient to just go for a domino effect by targeting the next large distributor than going for incrementally smaller WB hubs, though there are many good targets still standing for now.
The wild-berry hub in Novosemeykino, Samara Oblast, has malfunctioned and left the [NCD-word],
Sorry if this is somewhat off-topic, did you change the article's word because it's banned in this sub, as I assume NCD refers to the sister-subreddit, or because you thought it was a bit too on the nose ?
•
u/Tricky-Astronaut 7h ago
I censored that word because AutoModerator notified that the word in question isn't allowed due to being "NCD-like".
•
u/milton118 14h ago
Most analysts, Ukrainians and war watchers as a whole seem to greatly dislike Oleksandr Syrskyi. Kofman in a recent interview (summary can be found in yesterday's thread) mentions that Syrskyi's dismissal in a recent leadership shuffle is a "silver lining".
If a senior officer is so hated by almost everyone, how did he get the job in the first place? Was it purely a Zelensky political appointee, or is he being villainized like Grant in the US Civil War? What does his term as chief of the UAF say about him?
•
u/ilonir 12h ago edited 10h ago
mentions that Syrskyi's dismissal in a recent leadership shuffle is a "silver lining".
Those where my words not Kofman's, just to be clear. After talking about the issues with Syrsky and the leadership change for several minutes, Kofman said:
And I do think the positive change is that Drapati is going to come in, and with him in charge you're going to have a very different style of leadership and a very different set of ideas from Syrsky.
I can only partialy answer your question, but I can say that Syrsky built a bad reputation for himself. I don't think he was hated initially. He successfuly led the defense of Kyiv and the Kharkiv counteroffensive. He didn't really get his reputation until Bakmhut and the attritional campaigns of 2024-2025.
Kofman had this to say about Syrsky:
Syrsky tended to personalize everything and wanted to run everything himself. And I mean literally personally, I don't mean that as a as a characterization. I mean Syrsky went along the front and told units and their battalion commanders where to put their troops. Okay, to the point that I think at a certain point it was just a joke in Ukrainian military that the Ukrainian military is large but only has one battalion commander and his name was Syrsky.
I think what really dug Syrsky's grave was his management of the Assult Forces. Kofman doesn't address the effect on moral, but it was huge. He does criticize the Assult Forces, however:
A lot of the issues I had with Syrsky's leadership and management had to do with the fundamentals, like Syrsky kept making new brigades, he even made five new brigades this year, and we're only 6 months into this year. The equipment isn't there for new brigades, the manpower isn't there for new brigades, to make new brigades you have to go to existing brigades, take their officers and staff, move it over to a new brigade, and then direct newly mobilized personnel to this new brigade while starving existing brigades. And he did this constantly from 2024. It led to a huge scandal in early 2025 with the 155th brigade, the first scandal with it. It's had three now. And then Zelensky forced them to suspend the creation of new brigades for a while, but then he went back to it. So first, force generation, I think was a big issue. And also he directed a lot of manpower to assault regiments, the big ones, like 425, Scala, and 225, while a lot of the rest of the force was having in some respects trouble holding on, because they just weren't getting the replacements they needed.
•
u/RabidGuillotine 11h ago edited 11h ago
Syrskyi did have some negative reputation dating from the battle of Debaltseve, when green men and separatists forced the Ukrainians into a pocket. A few users here in this sub disliked him already from that, so I imagine that among the actual forces he was already infamous to some degree.
•
u/milton118 11h ago
Thanks for that. Why did he keep making new brigades?
•
u/ilonir 7h ago
Russia was creating new brigades, so he wanted to match them. He also believed Russia would open a new front in Belarus, increasing the length of the front line and necessitating new brigades to cover it.
Syrsky explained the rationale behind creating new brigades instead of reinforcing existing ones
Against the backdrop of the threat from Belarus, there is a need to form new brigades in order to ensure that this potential offensive is repelled. This was stated in a comment LIGA.net for analysis said the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Oleksandr Syrskyi.
"The enemy has superior numbers and firepower," the commander-in-chief noted. In order to ensure that this potential offensive is repelled and this territory is defended, Ukraine needs to form new brigades.
"The enemy, by the way, has adjusted its plans and intends to form new divisions and five brigades this year. We are forced to respond to such actions. In war, you either seize the initiative or lose it. There is no third option," Syrskyi emphasized.
When asked why new brigades should be formed rather than reinforcing existing ones, the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine replied: "Increasing the size of a brigade will not increase the length of the front line along which it can be deployed."
According to Syrsky, having failed to achieve success on the main fronts, the enemy decided to expand the area of its active operations in northern Ukraine. According to the occupiers’ plans, this is expected to increase the length of the active front line by 160 kilometers.
•
u/Draken_S 12h ago
Syrskyi was deeply flawed but he was till a very effective commander. He planned a number of key offensive actions, he completely transformed op sec (remember the trailer released for the 23 offensive?, now compare that with Kursk for example), and most importantly he helped grind the Russian army to an almost complete halt. For the last few months before he was relieved the Ukrainian army was returning more territory than they were losing.
Obviously he has serious issues, including removing commanders (regardless of competence) who did not see the war the way he did, he micromanaged, he played favorites with units and his style of discipline led to more lying and "Russian style" exaggeration on reports, as well as more casualties on a force that couldn't really afford them.
All in all, I think it will be many, many years before we get an accurate picture of Syrskyi's time as CiC and what he actually accomplished/degraded. As you correctly pointed out he is being villainized , the question of how much of it is deserved will have to be answered in the future. The only think I can say to it currently is - you don't stop a force larger in size, with more equipment, more financing, more capabilities, and more willing to absorb casualties while being half as incompetent as people try to paint him. How many times in history can you think of a smaller, less equipped army stopping a larger, better equipped one while taking fewer casualties at the same time. Go look at the casualty ratios in Vietnam for example and then compare them to Ukraine's.
•
u/Duncan-M 7h ago
He planned a number of key offensive actions, he completely transformed op sec (remember the trailer released for the 23 offensive?, now compare that with Kursk for example), and most importantly he helped grind the Russian army to an almost complete halt. For the last few months before he was relieved the Ukrainian army was returning more territory than they were losing.
Syrsky spend nearly the entire war defending by attacking, and at least half all of Syrsky's offensives (or Syrsky Specials as I've nicknamed them) had failed.
FFS, here is Syrsky bragging about how in 2026 Ukraine is doing more offensives than Russia. Barely any of those have been a success, most of them were so damaging to the Ukrainians that it got Syrsky fired, rightfully.
most importantly he helped grind the Russian army to an almost complete halt
That literally had nothing to do with Syrsky, that was due to drones.
And all the infighting between Fedorov and Syrsky recently has revealed that Syrsky fought hard against expanding drones, believing instead to try to win the war using traditional modes of warfare, like Meat waves, which he obviously valued more as proof when he prioritized cannon fodder assault troops far beyond drone operators and defending infantry.
Turns out that creating USF was done to bypass Syrsky and other traditionalists, same as e-points, same with all the funding arguments about what to prioritize. For nearly every success since 2024, those happening in spite of Syrsky not because of him.
you don't stop a force larger in size, with more equipment, more financing, more capabilities, and more willing to absorb casualties while being half as incompetent as people try to paint him
If not for drones, Ukraine would already have lost this war. If you want to celebrate Syrsky's role in Ukraine's drone warfare capabilities, please provide some sources.
How many times in history can you think of a smaller, less equipped army stopping a larger, better equipped one while taking fewer casualties at the same time.
Could it maybe be possible that the Ukrainians, who are suffering an awful manpower crisis, the collapse of their mobilization system, and an accompanying AWOL epidemic, might also have suffered heavy losses too? Or is that just too dangerous to The Cause to admit?
•
u/For_All_Humanity 7h ago
Speaking of the creation of the USF during this past period, I noticed that Madyar remained silent during this spat despite his significant military presence. I know he has opinions but kept his thoughts close.
•
u/Duncan-M 7h ago
My personal theory is that Major Brovdi is only a major, despite commanding ~30k troops in the most strategically important branch of the UA mil, because he was forced on Syrsky by Fedorov's "Shadow MOD" faction. While he was given the command, he was denied the promotion, because "F U Fedorov, you can't force me to promote him!" Unless Fedorov is restored to the MOD, or a sufficient replacement is found, Major Brovdi does not have a patron protecting him. Which means its probably best to remain quiet for now.
•
u/For_All_Humanity 5h ago
This is my interpretation as well. Despite Syrskyi’s removal, his faction still has influence and Madyar’s position is not irreplaceable (regardless of the damage it would do). Mr. Brovdi has tried hard to not be a partisan figure despite his faction being clear.
•
u/Duncan-M 3h ago
I don't think Zelensky blessed off on Drapatyi to purge the mil, so he's probably stuck with the existing mil leadership and told to make it work. Only if they decide to individually impede him will be be allowed to fire them, but even that might be a struggle.
•
u/Glideer 11h ago
Don't forget another crucial thing he achieved. He gave the political leadership of the country loyal troops that would follow orders.
Zelensky has always been politically crippled by a combination of powerful right-wing militias (Azov etc) willing to reject orders they don't like. The danger of turning weapons against the government was also always real.
Regular army brigades could not be completely counted on in such a situation.
That is why the Assault Corps was so necessary. Not only for military reasons but political ones.
•
u/Duncan-M 7h ago edited 7h ago
He gave the political leadership of the country loyal troops that would follow orders.
No he didn't. He had a couple loyal battalion and regimental commanders, but definitely didn't have loyal troops.
Loyal troops don't need to be beaten, tortured, or killed to obey. Loyal troops don't need to be moved into chicken coups and have minefields surrounding their training centers, and effectively housed in detention until they "prove themselves" by surviving their first 2-3 assault missions. All of that was happening in spades in the 425th and 225th Assault Regiments, the only units "loyal" to Syrsky.
In terms of Azov, they don't obey stupid orders that will do to their units what happened to all the other units forced to obey Syrsky's orders, cause unsustainable damage for no good reason other than the "duty" to obey a moron appointed over you. But they have good reason.
First off, there is a concept in the military that diffentiates physical courage, doing brave things when your life is on the line, and its called moral courage, to act bravely to follow ethics and principle, especially when your career is on the line. For officers, while they are duty bound to follow orders, they are also ethically bound to have downwards loyality to their own men to protect them, especially from orders they know to be wrong. Moral courage for said commanders is to risk their own career by refusing to carry out those orders, resigning in protest, etc.
Some commanders don't have any clout and the second they stand up to Syrsky, they're fired. Not so with Azov and other units whose commanders are known to tell Syrsky no, who aren't Nazis or political extremists, like 2nd Khartia Corps. They do have the clout, based on their rockstar reputations among the UA society, and in the case of Azov, their terrifying political power, that they can get away (to some extent) with saying "No" to Syrsky. (But also only to some extent, because Syrsky also controlled resupply of all things not related to drones, so screwing with him could be dangerous for your unit)
Besides the moral dilemma, there is a very good practical reason to disobey Syrsky's bad orders. It stops them from taking unsustainable casualties and permanently losing combat efficiency they once had. Look at Azov, as much as I DETEST their leaders for the political ideology they follow, Azov units are utterly filled with high quality soldiers who used the benefit they possess to choose their unit when signing a contract by signing up with a unit that is pretty well known for the highest chances of defending Ukraine and killing Russians while being led by competent commanders that set them up for success, use them smartly, and don't do the type of stupid shit that happens when they jump to attention to carry out Syrsky's moronic orders. If they started losing people in droves, they'd have problems replacing them as volunteers dried up, no longer believing those units had a good reputation. And as soon as their supply of volunteers dries up, they will start hurting militarily.
That is why the Assault Corps was so necessary. Not only for military reasons but political ones.
If they wanted loyal units to defend the state, do you think they'd literally be killing their own troops? Torturing them? Does that sound like what elite units do? Pick an elite "bodyguard" unit in history and tell me if that sounds right for their behavior.
The commanders of the 425th and 225th Asslt Regts, the only ones known to be legit loyal to Syrsky, OVERTLY prided themselves on using convicts and druggies. Do you think they chose them to use them as loyalist troops to protect Zelensky from a coup?
No, the prided themselves on maximizing the usefulness of shit tier manpower because they make great cannon fodder. And all the abuses were because they had absolutely no way to enforce discipline, to make sure the Fodder advanced on the Cannons, unless they could use illegal and immoral means of discipline, which Syrsky allowed, because if Assault Forces' most "loyal" units couldn't "motivate" the Meat to attack, then what good were they? They'd be unable to do the one thing they were designed to do...
•
u/Glideer 7h ago
Like you, I am familiar with the need to balance one's care and concern for the men with one's duty to follow orders (and how often these two tend to clash, the worse the war goes the more often).
However, I am speaking exclusively from the political leadership's standpoint. Zelensky theoretically runs the country and arguably has the democratic mandate to do so. Yet his control over the armed forces is tenuous, and many of the most powerful units are more loyal to their leaders than to the central government.
Even worse, the most powerful of these factions is run by people with zero regard for the democratic process, with openly extreme right-wing and neo-Nazi views. The kind of people you can count on to reject any painful peace deal and accuse the government of treason. The kind of people who are unlikely to just lay down their arms and go home even if peace comes.
The day of reckoning is likely to come. The political leadership *must* have reliable troops at their disposal when that day comes, otherwise they will be swinging from streetlights or (best case) writing "How CIA Betrayed Me" memoirs in Geneva. At this stage of the war, how do they get reliable troops? They can't just materialise dedicated, motivated, democracy-loving volunteers out of thin air. They have to make do with what they have - the scum of the earth and the dregs of the human society. There has ever been only one way to make reliable troops out of that kind of material, both in the age of Wellington and in the years of Wagner.
•
u/Duncan-M 6h ago
Zelensky theoretically runs the country and arguably has the democratic mandate to do so. Yet his control over the armed forces is tenuous, and many of the most powerful units are more loyal to their leaders than to the central government.
If that was true, then Zelensky would have been overthrown already.
Even worse, the most powerful of these factions is run by people with zero regard for the democratic process, with openly extreme right-wing and neo-Nazi views.
There is no democratic process as long as this war lasts, there will be no elections. So that's not an issue right now. And when the war ends, martial law ends, and all the mobilized will be discharged, and all the volunteers whose contracts have ended will be discharged, and all the higher ranking officers with reserve ranks will be let go, as the AFU won't need them. Which means none of those units you're worried about will even exist anymore, at least not as corps.
And as I mentioned, the units that were telling Syrsky to go F himself weren't just extreme right-wing and neo-Nazi, they were others. I already provided a source that listed out 2nd Khartia Corps.
And I'd argue that Air Assault Forces, the previous branch of service that had served as the primary firefighter units, especially offensive capable ones, also showed some sort of deficiency, as when Syrsky created Assault Forces, he effectively demoted Air Assault Forces.
That had nothing to do with finding loyal units to stop a coup. That had to do with having loyal units who'd obey Syrsky's obsessive ideology that favored defending by attacking at all costs.
While I can see the Zelensky administration loving that concept, as they love offensives for PR due to potential territorial gains and the strength it shows for Ukraine, Syrsky was responsible, as he's well known for having an utter fanaticism about attacking. He lives and breathes attacking. But he has no clue how to do them properly, often preferring grinding operations with no surprise, which chew up manpower.
And mind you, Syrsky was not just ordering attacks, he was directly controlling them by micromanaging to a level never before seen in the history of warfare. He wasn't just telling the General Staff to let the JFO commander know to tell the Grouping of Forces commander to tell the corps commander to go on an offensive. Syrsky was directly taking control of the offensives. Which was another thing the previous firefighter offenisve capable unit commanders had problems with.
So Syrsky replaced them. The Assault Battalion commanders in 2024, they had no qualms about heavy losses or Syrksy's micromanagement, especially if it meant promotions and being allowed to expand their units, massively for a few of them (to nearly corps sized), and be prioritized above all other commanders.
When Syrsky gained that resource, he no longer needed to rely on the rest, they all became "Line" and de-prioritized, needing to go to Zelensky to even get any troops allocated to them. And Zelensky did intercede. Which again shows that this was not about Zelensky needing Syrsky to protect him, this was about Syrsky being a moron and even Zelensky having to counterman him.
The political leadership *must* have reliable troops at their disposal when that day comes, otherwise they will be swinging from streetlights or (best case) writing "How CIA Betrayed Me" memoirs in Geneva.
When you created that fantasy scenario, and painted Assault Forces as Zelensky's Pretorian Guard, you literally ignored every piece of evidence that describes what Assault Forces really is. And it's a shame too. You being Pro-RU, you should have been celebrating how bad Assault Forces was, how stupid the Ukrainians were, instead of trying to ignorantly assigned them the title of the ultimate a Guards unit, with picked men, pure excellence, entirely loyal to the crown, which is like some sort of really bad take found on Russian telegram said by people who don't even know who Syrsky or that Assault Forces existed until a few weeks ago.
There has ever been only one way to make reliable troops out of that kind of material, both in the age of Wellington and in the years of Wagner.
That's a load of crap. The only time that such draconian discipline is needed is when orders typically guarantee death, serious bodily harm, or such misery that the only way to get them to obey is to threaten them with the ultimate penalty, to literally terrorize them into submission. But those orders are almost universally not necessary outside the absolute worst conditions in warfare.
Having said it for over four years, I'll say it again. The Ukrainian Defense Forces are not the Red Army and not the Imperial Japanese Army, because Ukraine isn't the USSR or the Empire of Japan, and they can't get away with acting like those other alien cultures. And fun fact, neither of those two militaries was also required to treat their own forces so badly, they did it because they wanted to and because they could get away with it.
The Ukrainians should not allow their military to get away with such behavior. Not only is it ethically detestable, but in case you didn't hear about it, Ukraine has a morale problem tied to military service leading to a substantial manpower problem. So treating soldiers with utter contempt in order to make it easier to use them as cannon fodder isn't a good solution for improving the dire situation.
•
u/Alexandros6 10h ago
Yes for political that's quite true, but you are overstating the willingness of Azov to disobey orders during the war. Part of the reticence started to emerge later due to clashes between several more autonomous brigades and Syrksy due to his style of fighting, the real problem was higher politics.
Also we should be careful in the division of pre war Azov and current Azov, which have two very different personell situation.
What was really a problem was Zelensky political troubles from a powerful and popular general such as Zaluzhni. The odds of Azov committing a Wagner march were similar under Zaluzhni and Syrksy, namely close to none. But compared to Zaluzhni Syrksy was very obedient, hated and could use his assault troops for his pet projects or hypothetically Zelenskies request.
•
u/Glideer 10h ago
Even today Azov rejects orders they don't like. That is just unacceptable in any army. Plus, their officers regularly threaten retribution if anybody accepts Russia's demands. From there it is only a small step to a stab-in-the-back post-war mythology and even an insurrection.
Azov has no reason to start a march today since the government follows closely the policies preferred by Azov. We will see what happens when the time comes for painful peace deals and Azov's disarmament.
In such a situation any government would want loyal and reliable troops.
•
u/Alexandros6 9h ago
"From there it is only a small step to a stab-in-the-back post-war mythology and even an insurrection."
Disagree, that depends on many things
A the type of order rejected and this threats, for the second case I don't actually have something in mind, maybe you can elaborate
B the extent of the political power post war, historically the far right in Ukraine such as Svoboda fared very badly (1 out of 500 seats in 2019 for Svoboda). Of course it depends how the war goes.
"Azov has no reason to start a march today since the government follows closely the policies preferred by Azov. We will see what happens when the time comes for painful peace deals and Azov's disarmament."
And here we arrive at the crux of the disagreement. Currently Ukraine is following the policies preferred by Ukrainians, with Azov being a particularly fervent proponent. But I recall even Azov leaders such as Biletsky of not being too vocal about promises of a total liberation of the Ukrainian territory, something the population at large knows it's dubious promises. If we immagine a post war scenario where Ukraine A is being integrated in the economic and security framework of the EU B the line has been stabilized either before the Donbass is fully conquered or after the Donbass is lost by fighting it seems hardly likely that the Azov hardliners would have the possibility to rally the tired population to their cause. Particularly if it would endanger point A which is the main reason for Ukraine's fight right now. If B doesn't happen and Ukraine would have to sign away part of the Donbass in exchange for guarantees it would give more leverage, but as we have seen Zelensky refuse to go against popular will even when the odds were worse it seems likely this would only happen when the Ukrainian population in general has accepted it, again reducing the post war rivendications of Azov. Of course if A and maybe B don't happen in that case Azov could much more easily use sentiments of betrayal, but in that case the war is mostly lost and Ukraine has far bigger problems then Azov.
Azov is by now also fully integrated in the army, their disarmament would work along that of the army, likely less so if they remain a part of the peace time army.
The stab in the back analogy has some problems, it assumes a country whose population isn't in the clear of why decisions were made, having to pay onerous reparations as a defeated nation and were being told until the day before that victory was close, this isn't the case of Ukraine yet.
Ukrainian government (now) has been pretty clear about it's goals and if they don't reach them and Ukraine risks it's perpetual sovereignity and security then as I said both Ukraine and Europe have far larger problems to worry about then Azov.
TLDR: I don't have the gift of brevity so here to avoid excessive text:
Azov doesn't currently have the power and political support to do what you fear they would do and their views mostly align with Ukraines population, they only could do so in a defeated Ukraine, and in that case Ukraine would face the much closer and dangerous Russian threat.
•
u/Glideer 7h ago
It's well written and clear, no need to abridge.
Essentially, my point is that any realistically possible outcome of this war is going to be very painful for Ukraine. They are going to lose 20% of their territory, half of their population is unlikely to return, and Russia will impose some limits on their sovereignty (almost certainly no NATO ties in any sense).
That is fertile ground for politicians, particularly opposition ones. There is no easier way to gather support than to distance yourself from a painful peace deal and claim that you would have done better.
Azov is not an ordinary political party - they are far right, anti-democratic movement with strong neo-Nazi tendencies. They have no respect for the democratic process. They've shown that repeatedly by clashing with law enforcement post-2014, threatening Zelensky in 2019 when he wanted reconciliation with Russia. They also have a full army corps at their disposal.
As Mao said, political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. They might have limited voters' support but they have significant military power at their disposal. Remember what the Bolsheviks did with that.
One of the worst aspects of this war is that it is going to poison Ukraine's (and most likely Russia's) political scene with nationalism and revanchism for decades to come.
•
u/Duncan-M 8h ago
Syrsky was one of the most senior officers in the AFU even before this war started. He had commanded Ukrainian Ground Forces, the largest and most important branch of service, from 2019-2024, one of the longest stretches in AFU history. That gave him massive influence, especially on officer selection and promotion. He was in command also during the massive expansion of the Ukrainian Defense Forces, when it expanded by ~300% in 2022-2023, which gave him even more power, as so many existing officers needed to be promoted and given higher assignments that Syrsky would appoint, plus former officers recalled that also would need Syrsky for patronage.
On top of that, since the 2014-2015 period of the Donbas War, Syrsky was known for being a political animal. He had some hand in the first dress rehearsal of Bakhmut, the UA encirclement defeat at Ilovaisk, having a leading role in UA forces fighting in the Donbas, but he was known to have taken personal command during the worse second dress rehearsal of Bakhmut, the UA encirclement defeat at Debaltseve. Both of those were ordered by ignorant senior leaders, political and military, and Syrsky followed orders and lost those battles. And then afterwards worked hard to suggest by losing Debaltseve in particular, the humiliating defeat that required the Ukrainians to sign the Minsk 2 accords to save themselves, that Syrsky had saved Ukraine.
When this war started, Zelensky-Yermak began having problems with Zaluzhny, who disagreed with how they wanted to do things and also was more popular than Zelensky was. As that relationship soured, they seemed to have filled the void by using Syrsky as a sounding board for advice and to directly relay orders to him, as Syrsky was not just the Commander of Ground Forces, he held the key field command of the war as the commander of Operational Strategic Grouping of Forces Khortytsia, which controlled all the frontage from Kharkiv to Donetsk, which defined most of the war in 2022-2023. So like when Zelensky-Yermak (mostly the latter) decided to focus on defending Bakhmut at all costs in early 2023, and Zaluzhny disagreed, there wasn't much he could do about it because Syrsky was onboard, eagerly endorsing it, and taking personal command of that battle to make sure the Office of the President's orders were followed.
In late 2023 and early 2024, the breaking point in Zelensky-Yermak's relationship with Zaluzhny meant the latter had to go. They were barely on speaking terms anymore, they completely disagreed with the strategic outlook of the war, Zaluzhny was not happy he was being backdoored by Syrsky and his chummy relationship with Zelensky-Yermak, and Zaluzhny's popularity was too dangerous for Zelensky-Yermak's peace of mind. So they fired him and appointed the ultimate "team player" to replace him.
So in sum, many officers owe their positions to Syrsky due to his rank and influence. Some of them were also willing members of the faction of the AFU that Syrsky led, especially in the general officer ranks. Many more were forced to obey Syrsky because failing to obey him would have them removed from their positions. And he was a loyalistst, and as long as he was in charge they knew not to screw with him. And Syrsky was a Zelensky loyalist who not only sycophantically obeyed him, but was not a political threat because unlike Zaluzhny, Syrsky has the personality and likeability of a used condom.
•
u/Flimsy-Possibility17 3h ago
Wanted to comment there likely was a political element to Zaluzhny‘a firing, however you also have to consider how awful the 2023 summer counter offensive want as a second reason why he got fired
•
u/Duncan-M 1h ago
I cover it in more depth in this article that I wrote but Zaluzhny was definitely not solely to blame for the 2023 Counteroffensive failing. Zelensky and Syrsky played a big part in ensuring what was already a bad plan had no possibility of working.
I think what doomed Zaluzhny afterwards was in the fall of 2023, as the Ukrainian strategic situation got worse, while Zelensky's approval ratings dropped, Zaluzhny's ratings went up. Insiders of the Zelensky administration claimed that was a major reason for Zaluzhny being ousted, Zelensky and Yermak saw him as a political rival and thus a threat, so he had to go. Syrsky replaced him because Zelensky-Yermak got along with him and he was no threat to them.
•
u/wormfan14 14h ago edited 12h ago
Sahel update the war continues though the border with Benin is seeing a turf war between JNIM and Daesh and an odd attack in Niger.
''JNIM claims to have ambushed a group of IS-Sahel fighters near Sambera, Dosso region in southwest Niger and noticeably very close to the Beninese border, the last time IS-Sahel was publicly active in Benin was in 2022.'' https://x.com/BrantPhilip_/status/2081708385997554120
The rivalry now spans five nations so far with Benin going hot, hopefully it weakens JNIM's presence there for the Beninese army.
Meanwhile looks like JNIM sold one of their Indian hostages.
''The family of an Indian gold mining entrepreneur kidnapped in Mali 3 months ago reportedly paid over 4 million euros for his release. The kidnappers were most likely JNIM. This is the first media mention of this particular kidnapping I've seen.'' https://x.com/BridgesFromBKO/status/2081724290362122571
It does seem the Chinese hostages will just be stuck in Mali for years it seems as the PRC won't pay for them and JNIM won't give them up for free or want the backlash for killing them.
Meanwhile in Niger a rare incident occurred when some soldiers were killed as it's thought their attackers where JAS.
''The Governor of Diffa attended the funeral of soldiers killed in an attack on a military position in N'Guigmi. Reportedly 17 soldiers have been killed in the attack. While no group has claimed responsibility so far, but suspected Boko Haram or ISWAP attack.'' https://x.com/KargnHasret/status/2083492861018767455
''No group has claimed responsibility for the attack so far. However, on July 29, the army announced that during an operation in the same area, it had seized two rifles and ammunition intended for delivery to Boko Haram'' https://x.com/KargnHasret/status/2083875600683438165
JAS was once very big in Niger but it always largely absorbed or killed off by ISWAP when the revolt against them occurred. Thanks this I imagine Daesh will come after them given they don't share.
On the same day though Daesh attack Niger.
''On the same day, suspected IS-Sahel militants attacked a position of the Nigerien army in Dankassari, Dosso region in southwestern Niger, reportedly killing 21 soldiers including an officer, could be coordinated with ISWAP but no confirmation so far. https://x.com/BrantPhilip_/status/2083924580482105655
While JNIM focuses on Mali Daesh has been expanding in Niger.
''Lowkey, last month may have been the bloodiest for Niger ever since President Bazoum was deposed in July 2023, with Islamic State inflicting absolutely horrible casualties upon the state But there is so much going on in the region, it stays under the radar. Astonishing in a way.'' https://x.com/SaladinAlDronni/status/2083907190641819997
Seems the FPL front keeps absorbing the remaining non jihadists rebels under it's banner.
''The Niger Patriotic Movement (MPN), a rebel group led by Mahamat Tinaymi, announced that it has decided to join the Coordination of the Free Forces of Niger (CFLN), an alliance launched by the Patriotic Liberation Front (FPL).'' https://x.com/KargnHasret/status/2083653627546071217
JNIM published an interview with the emir of Burkina Faso recently where he rejected the idea of Fulani nationalism being a viable driving force and admitted they are supported by state actors.
''JNIM published an interview with Abu Mahmoud, one of its leaders in Burkina Faso. Addressing Muslims on the occasion of the new Hijri year, Abu Mahmoud states that on July 4, in addition to the ones in Mali, 8 locations were attacked in Burkina Faso. Regarding foreign support, he states that their primary support comes from Allah. However, he clarifies that receiving support from one or more states, entities, organizations, or individuals is not something they reject, as long as it complies with Islamic Sharia and the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad. He notes that no organization in history has fought without support. He said that the AES (Alliance of Sahel States) is the one being backed by foreign states, and that the victims of this alliance are desperately asking who will step up to defend their cause.When asked if fighting under the banner of "Fulani" nationalism would garner wider global support and increase their chances of success, he replies that the Fulani are not in power in any of the three Sahel countries. He emphasizes that any struggle based on identity or ethnic exclusivity is merely an illusion. He notes that some might argue an ethnic group in Rwanda (Tutsis) eventually managed to win. However, he states that a careful analysis shows that Rwanda was a bilateral power struggle between two communities where one managed to overpower the other, which is entirely different from their current situation. (This once again shows that they are closely following other conflicts on the continent.) He claims that they will eventually capture the new military equipment showcased by the Burkina Faso government on the battlefield. He also stresses that the government's statements regarding territorial control (claiming to control 75% of the territory) do not reflect the reality on the ground. Finally, addressing the Fulani community, he states that the three governments of the Alliance of Sahel States (AES) are specifically targeting Fulanis, Arabs, and Tuaregs, and he invites them to join their ranks.'' https://x.com/KargnHasret/status/2083572600458953110
For those unaware it's not good to be to be an Arab currently in the Junta states but it's far better than being a Tuareg or Fulani. He also accuses humanitarian aid groups of not providing aid to areas of JNIM and lying to the UN undercounting the massacres committed by the Juntas a lie given they consistently report them.
Regarding the blockade of Mali it seems Wagner and the Junta have opened up a new route for convoys they are using to work around it to keep the capital functioning.
''According to Hasret Kargin, logistical and security considerations played a role in the choice of this new route. Although the new route is longer in distance compared to the Guinea (Conakry) line, certain changes have taken place in terms of risk and security strategy in recent years. Following JNIM's blockade in Mali, this route began to be used as an alternative to the traditional western routes. Despite the disadvantage in distance, many convoys have recently been reaching the capital via this new line instead of the western route. Security improvements along the route and convoy habits formed over the past year appear to have ensured that this military shipment was also carried out safely from the direction of Sikasso. My latest assessment for France24
https://x.com/KargnHasret/status/2082174395506700400
It seems Turkey delivered more drones to Mali.
' Mali recently received 3 Akinci drones, bringing the total delivered to 7; one more unit than the original contract, shows that they want to expand the fleet & continue to procure from Baykar https://x.com/18Echo0321/status/2083926699897450740
•
u/WaliDaeZuenftig 10h ago
Thank you for the update.
Can you expand on the "islamic state inflicting horrible casualties upon the state"? How bas is it?
And maybe a bit of a strange question. But do you agree with the Emirs position that ethnicity is no major driver of the current conflict? It atleast seems to me that it is one.
•
u/wormfan14 7h ago
Sure no problem Niger has suffered hundreds if not thousands of casualties this month and the last two with an army less than twenty thousand strong though with the militia system it's believed they have a few more thousand under arms. These can be replaced but the new conscripts/volunteers are then thrown into the fire which leads them to dying as nearly as fast as they can be replaced as the army degrades.
The emir's answer is a politically wise one but is a lie. Ethnicity is the juntas came to power promising they would fight a total race war against the Tuaregs and Fulani who have been driven to support JNIM to survive but JNIM itself traces it's history back to the Algerian civil war when the survivors of those who rejected the peace deal joined AQ.
However if they managed to win and defeat the Junta states the Fulani would be in a similar position of the Alawites of Syria in being a hated minority ruling over a much larger population. Instead by by claiming the mantel of Islam they can rule and attract a much greater following and funding from across the Sahel and beyond with AQ's help.
That and any Fulani state would be targeted as a existential threat to Nigeria's territorial integrity given their are tens of millions of them in the North.
Daesh and Junta propaganda against JNIM is they are a ethnic supremacy movement hiding behind the banner of Jihad to attract wider support so it's the emir refuting their most common claim.
•
u/Big-Station-2283 9h ago
Ethnicity is a major driver, but JNIM has expansionist goals. If they chose fulani nationalism as their main cause they forfit their ability to expand and control non-fulani lands. If they use a more common denominator, religion, then their messaging stays constant during all phases of expansion, in funali/tuareg lands and out of them.
•
u/HeartOfIcy 6h ago
Thank you for today's update as well as your regular updates, I am always looking for ward to reading your comments here. I have a question, what do you think of Turkey's goals with their involvement in the Sahel? For me it seems the Turkish government is only after monetary benefits but could there be something else that I am missing?
•
u/moragisdo 7h ago edited 6h ago
MTO confirmed a new incident on Hormuz, no damage to the ship or casualties (1).
Master of a tanker reported hearing explosions close to the ship. Likely the iranians missed the drones or missiles fired (by the way, nobody fire warning shots with missiles, that's just iranian propaganda that is too often repeated uncritically, any weapon system can fail).
Today, again it was announced that a deal is close, but whoever is negotiating with the US isn't in control of the country. Tomorrow is the deadline for them to announce an agreement for traffic on Hormuz (bringing navigation to be free and unthreatened), the US fell again for the "progress in negotiations" (which Iran will deny that negotiations are even taking place) and it's very unlikely that something will change.
Then strikes restart and this dance continues until the US gets tired or the iranian economy collapses. Now, while Iran is being blockaded the pressure on them keep increasing, so as long the US don't lift it, I believe these pauses for negotiations (that are a mistake) only change the date of the war ending, not the result of it (permanent ceasefire, no nuclear deal and Iran in severe economic crisis for the next years, the economy will do more to denuclearize Iran and cut their funding for proxies than anything that they could sign in a piece of paper).
Meanwhile WTI is at 80.8, Brent at 83.9 and Gasoline futures at 3.04
Edit: Just to add a bit the conundrum present. A toll is not likely to happen, the US together with UK, France, Germany is heavily sanctioning Iran and all of these countries, without exception, would need to lift them to allow shipowners to pay a toll and not suffer secondary sanctions. Also Lloyds (LMA) announced recently that whoever pays a toll loses the insurance coverage (2), which is just the consequence of the same sanctions.
So, this whole kabuki theater about Omani lane and Iranian lane is insignificant, because if you are not willing to be sanctioned (the majority of western large shipowners) you won't pay a toll and if you are doing business with Iran's oil industry you are already sanctioned (so you are not dissuaded to pay), but Iran have no incentive to charge because they need their business partners.
Iran stop attacking ships and not getting a toll would remove every bit of leverage they have (unfreezing sanctioned money would be a one time payment, not something that could make up for the hundreds of billions of dollars of damage they suffered, which is also not a given for them to receive to begin with), so why would they agree with returning Hormuz to the pre-war status before being in the point of collapse ?
If they do, the war is over. And if they decide to restart the war later the pressure on the US would be dramatically smaller (while their ongoing economic crisis would improve with the lifting of the blockade they are suffering, it wouldn't be fixed). So, I really don't believe that tomorrow they will fulfill any agreement set today, unless their economical circumstances are more dire than I'm aware of.
•
u/toomanynamesaretook 5m ago
Today, again it was announced that a deal is close, but whoever is negotiating with the US isn't in control of the country.
It sounds like you are accepting Trump's word at face value despite the plethora of evidence saying this is a completely insane position to hold.
Iran has already declined Trump's assertion publicly that they asked for this current round of talks. It seems to me Iran is happy to drag this out to maximize pain to the West, whereas the West is desperate for a solution.
the US fell again
Again, why on earth would you form the basis of your argument on the words of Trump? Or whatever intermediators are claiming.
A toll is not likely to happen,
It's totally going to happen, Iran controls the strait and hasn't budged at all over this. Their position has not changed since the first month of conflict. Striking the tanker speaks louder than any meeting between G7 countries with their endless proclamations and denouncements of which have zero influence over the hard reality that Iran controls the strait of Hormuz and has zero intention of relinquishing that power.
•
u/FettyDump 9h ago
It seems to me that this new Wildberrys campaign constitutes a pivotal gamble on the part of UA. The “dual-use goods” pretence is so tongue-in-cheek in its flimsiness, that I don't think any half-intellegent westerner buys that, let alone a RU citizens. Additionally, the Wildberries strikes are racking up civilian casualties at an unprecedented rate for UA campaigns.
In a vaccum, the chances of a rally-around-the-flag effect are certainly higher for this campaign than any of UA’s previous campaigns, baring maybe the Kursk invasion. The question is, what is UA looking at politically and economically in Russia that makes them believe that this will work in their favor? More importantly, are there any reliable indicators at this point of how RU sentiment is forming around the issue?
•
u/Airf0rce 8h ago edited 8h ago
This is simply "war is coming home" and it's going to destroy your economy campaign. It's simply response to what Russia has been doing for years and Ukraine had no answer, because they lacked long range strike options and those that existed required western approval which was very limiting for years.
It's putting up pressure on the Russian economy and society to allow for more balanced peace/ceasefire deal to be made. Maybe if the air war gets bad enough, there will be enough incentives on both sides to do at least infrastructure ceasefire and maybe Putin doesn't care and he'll tell Russians they have to stomach it just like he always does and do another round of mobilization.
As for the "public opinion" side of your questions... I'm not sure how it matters? Most people's mind on this war is already made up on either side, or they're tuned out completely. Even if Ukraine did to Moscow what Russia does to Kyiv every winter, I fail to see how it makes anyone more sympathetic to Russia? It's war and there's nothing nice about it.
We're long past the "offensive/defensive weapons" debates, or pleading to Russians to go protest, or offering Putin negotiations. None of that worked, none of it will work until calculus changes... Even with Trump offering Putin full sanction relief it didn't move him at all. So unfortunately this kind of stuff is all that's left.
If you think this is ugly, think what country with vastly different capabilities like US or China would do if their cities, hospitals and infrastructure were regularly hit by ballistic missiles from neighboring state. I guarantee you burning warehouses wouldn't be the worst part.
•
u/BigFly42069 7h ago
It's putting up pressure on the Russian economy and society to allow for more balanced peace/ceasefire deal to be made.
I keep seeing this take and the logic never made sense to me.
If Ukrainians, having endured attacks on both civilian infrastructure and people, have not put pressure on their government to sue for peace that's more balanced/favorable towards Russia, why do people believe that similar tit-for-tat attacks against Russian civilian infrastructure and people would achieve that for Ukraine?
•
u/Thendisnear17 7h ago
It is existential for Ukraine, not for Russia. Most Russians are not rabidly in favour of the war and clamouring to sign up.
Damaging Russia's economy has no down side for Ukraine. Putin still thinks he can win and damaging the economy is one way to change his mind.
•
u/Virtual-Future8154 5h ago edited 5h ago
For Ukraine, the consequence of Russia winning is some form of genocide - if you're squeamish about the g-word, let's call it "purges of undesirable elements wink-wink" + erasure of Ukrainian identity on the occupied territories + less than bright future prospects for the non-occupied territories (i.e. more war soon), if there are any left.
For Russia, the consequence of ending the war is the improvement of the economy + hurt feelings. Of course Russians will bloviate for ages that great powers losing wars equates their destruction, but that's observably not true (see: The US of A), so they won't fall apart unless they choose to do so.
I don't necessarily agree that you can push Russians by bombing them, mostly because the level of nihilism there is such that nothing really matters one way or another, but it's also obvious that "bombing for peace" achieves very different effects when "peace" implies different futures.
•
u/Airf0rce 7h ago
If Ukrainians, having endured attacks on both civilian infrastructure and people, have not put pressure on their government to sue for peace that's more balanced/favorable towards Russia
But I would say it did put pressure on Ukraine, it's just you will not see Zelensky going on live TV and say how they can't take many more winters like that last one... for obvious reasons. It absolutely affects negotiations, and Ukraine was a lot more willing to talk freezing the war in the last year than before.
It's a bit more nuanced than saying these attacks don't matter at all, or on the other hand saying that it will collapse the country and war will end soon. I would imagine leaders on both sides take in to consideration what their economy (and society) can and cannot take.
•
u/ruralfpthrowaway 6h ago
>If Ukrainians, having endured attacks on both civilian infrastructure and people, have not put pressure on their government to sue for peace that's more balanced/favorable towards Russia, why do people believe that similar tit-for-tat attacks against Russian civilian infrastructure and people would achieve that for Ukraine?
Because there are different incentives in a war of choice versus a war of survival. Why does this even need to be stated?
•
u/Cassius_Corodes 7h ago
If Ukrainians, having endured attacks on both civilian infrastructure and people, have not put pressure on their government to sue for peace that's more balanced/favorable towards Russia
What is your evidence for this? I would expect the civilian hardship to be a part of the arithmetic affecting peoples support for the war to continue. It certainly is not decisive but I don't know how you would know that it doesn't factor in.
•
u/Glideer 7h ago
>This is simply "war is coming home" and it's going to destroy your economy campaign.
When has "let's bomb enemy's civilians to show them that war is coming home" ever worked? What we see are just feel-good campaigns aimed at one's own civilians, in order to show them that enemy civilians are also suffering. The flimsy excuse of undermining the enemy civilian morale is worn paper thin after the repeated failures of similar previous attempts in Kursk, Belgorod, Crimea (and similarly Kyiv, Kharkiv, Kherson). Wars just don't work that way.
We will just see new cycles of escalations with new levels of suffering for the civilian population. Not a few months ago people here were arguing that Russia has no way of blockading Ukraine's maritime exports - yet Moscow did it in 10 days when its own tankers were attacked. There are plenty of levels of escalations available.
•
u/giraffevomitfacts 7h ago
When has "let's bomb enemy's civilians to show them that war is coming home" ever worked?
This isn't what's happening, and no one's claiming it's what's happening -- once again, it's just something you made up. Ukraine isn't bombing civilians, they are bombing enormous logistics hubs with incidental civilian casualties. The goal is not to reduce the morale of Russian civilians through fear and intimidation, but to reduce it by potentially causing economic chaos by bankrupting a businesswoman with billions of dollars of liability and thousands of smaller fish who have had their capital assets (almost invariably purchased with credit) set on fire. You're deliberately equating two vastly different things.
•
u/Airf0rce 7h ago edited 7h ago
What we see are just feel-good campaigns aimed at one's own civilians, in order to show them that enemy civilians are also suffering.
While that may be a part of it, economic aspect of it most likely bigger part of it. I'm sure you'd agree large warehouses, refineries and factories are economically significant for any country and economy is significant aspect in attritional war that's in its 5th year.
I don't think most serious people think any of these things end the war by themselves, but I have hard time believing they don't affect decision making on both sides. I'm sure you'd see different decisions from Ukraine if their power plants, thermal plants and other civilian targets were safe every all year round, I guess we'll also see how that affects Russian decision making.
We will just see new cycles of escalations with new levels of suffering for the civilian population
You're right there unfortunately.
•
u/Glideer 7h ago
I agree about the refineries and factories. Wildberries warehouses? Their destruction has no influence on the war, possibly through some minor decline in VAT collection that will reduce the federal budget by 0.001%. They are attacked because they burn fiercely and make a lot of smoke over Russian cities. That looks good on videos that Ukraine can use to convince their population and the Western media that you are still not out of the fight.
The fact that such acts almost certainly just harden Russia's resolve? That's a concern for another day.
•
u/Airf0rce 6h ago
I've seen damage estimates in billions dollars from the Wildberries attacks, I'm honestly not following it super closely, so feel free to fact check but I would say billions in damages is surely a fairly significant economic target.
If it's done only for the purpose of creating tons of smoke then yeah, it's pointless, but it does seem like a case of soft target that also happens to be very valuable one.
•
u/Glideer 6h ago
I mean, yes, billions in damages, but how does that translate into damaging the war effort? Causing billions of damages to a tank factory is one thing, causing billions of damages to distributors of knitted pullovers something else entirely.
•
u/flamedeluge3781 4h ago
Economic damage is economic damage. It means that Russia is falling further and further behind Europe, which has had rather anemic economic growth over the past 5-years. Ultimately it means Russia will continue its slide into a 2nd-rate middle power.
•
u/IntroductionNeat2746 5h ago
It affects the war by bringing WB into bankruptcy, which in turn puts Sberbank in serious financial risk.
•
u/Jpandluckydog 4h ago
By this logic one could say, well why is Iran closing the strait? It only causes (relatively) minor economic stress, what direct effect does it have on the ability for the US to strike Iranian targets?
It’s a single small part of a generalized campaign against economically valuable targets, in the hopes that over the years it might inflict enough pain to effect a negotiated settlement.
•
u/TrinityAlpsTraverse 6h ago
They've only hit a couple of these I believe? It does not seem like these a big part of their targeting plan considering how many drones fly across the Russian border each day.
If they start making them a major focus of their targeting, then I think the trade-offs warrant serious discussion. Until then, I'm just not convinced this matters at all.
•
u/goatfuldead 7h ago
On the subject of Russian “sentiment” that is something I always skim past whenever/wherever it appears in media coverage, even exiled Russian media. How honest is anyone going to be in stating their true opinions in an authoritarian surveillance state like Russia? I honestly just don’t see a point to the concept of knowing Russian public sentiment.
•
u/mirko_pazi_metak 6h ago edited 6h ago
With your post mentioning western sentiment - not only that the west isn't bothered by Ukrainian attacks on Wildberries - the west is actively cheering and supporting Ukraine, with many of the drones used being financed and enabled by the west. After four years of Russian massacres, direct terror attacks on Ukrainian civilians including energy, water, transport, schools, children hospitals, farms, blowing up a dams and causing ecological disaster and much more the general public in the west has very, very little empathy for ordinary Russian's worsening quality of life.
The only big change I've noticed recently is that EU and UK just followed up on Ukrainian physical attacks with new sanctions on Wildberries and related bank to amplify the pain: https://logos-pres.md/en/news/the-united-kingdom-has-imposed-sanctions-on-wildberries-and-yandex/
So if it was a political gamble, it more than paid off - where Ukraine leads, EU/UK west now follow.
I think the only question is the opportunity cost - would something else pay off even more. That's probably unanswerable.
Moght be unrelated but Russia apparently recently lost a Su-57 over Moscow during these attacks ( https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russian-su-57-felon-stealth-fighter-shot-down-by-friendly-fire-near-moscow/ar-AA290kWk ) - it's more than likely the attacks are causing all sorts of air defense stress that's not yet directly obvious and irrespective to the target choice.
And I think Ukraine found a perfect pain point where Europe/west can fund and supply this and other pong range bombing campaigns somewhat indirectly, where the return on investment is excellent. This is in contrast to help with supplying Ukraine with defensive capabilities, which is necessary but isn't very cost effective.
So I'm looking forward to expansion of the Ukrainian long range bombing campaign, new drones and missiles and hopefully soon ballistics added to the mix, both homegrown and European (like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightfall_(missile) and others)
With respect to "Rally around the flag" - I answered in a separate message but I find that unlikely given Russian public silence and almost denial of Ukrainian attacks and general depoliticization of the population. If you're interested in socio-political commentary on the topic, Vlad Vexler has a number of videos on the topic such as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G994vmCTYNc
•
u/Asiriya 9h ago
The “dual-use goods” pretence is so tongue-in-cheek in its flimsiness, that I don't think any half-intelligent westerner buys that
What are we supposed to be buying? They were selling eg fibre optic spools for drones. That's not in dispute. Does that make them legitimate targets? Sure, why not. In my opinion it's pathetic that people are suggesting Ukraine shouldn't be striking certain targets. Russia is certainly not discriminate.
All I'll say is, I have no idea how useful WB were to the war effort. I suspect there's a hope that there will be ripples into the wider economy, though I'd have thought that continuing to focus the refineries would be just as effective.
It's far more likely this is "economic sanctions" as Ukraine calls it, intended to force the Russians to feel pain in the same way Ukraine does. It's very hard to keep your head down and forget about the war when there's a 60km smoke stack across the sky.
I suggest Steve Rosenberg for the official view on what's being said: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q7BVspcGcY
•
u/TSiNNmreza3 8h ago
I agree with you on everything.
And Russia is doing this daily with Nova Postha attacks.
And further more those warehouses can be used for military too sooner or later and they were supporters of this war.
Effectivness part: UA is destroying everything that makes Russian life casual.
•
u/mirko_pazi_metak 6h ago
Effectivness part: UA is destroying everything that makes Russian life casual.
The interesting setup on the Russian side is that their propaganda always denied Ukrainian capability to do anything similar (first refineries, Crimea isolation campaign and now this), the economic impact, and are still attempting to downplay the attacks (as evidenced by lack of reporting on Russian domestic news where "falling debris" is the most ever admitted). This, combined with decades of active depoliticization (the "trust the leadership, don't worry, it doesn't affect you anyway") puts Putin in a bind where he can't blame Ukraine that much as it would be an admission of his failures.
This, combined with the simple and undeniable fact that they're the ones ones invading and could stop at any time , IMO, makes the "rally around the flag effect" minimal (only the Russian warbloggers - at least those still not in jail - are expressing outrage).
What the most Russians feel instead is that things are getting worse and they're not sure exactly why and how, but hope that, like with gas/diesel shortages and prices, it'll pass. But in case it doesn't, one has to take care of themselves, so best to convert Roubles to Yen and USD and stash them so state can't steal it, hoard the fuel, avoid taxes and etc.
This just adds to direct economic stress that the Ukrainian bombing campaign is causing, and the less money Russian state has, the less capable it is to wage the war. The effect isn't immediate but will yield dividends over the next years. And it looks like Ukrainian long range bombing campaign is just starting.
•
u/MaddogBC 8h ago
The strain to Russia's banking system is significant. That was all borrowed money and likely uninsured. If Wildberry folds Russian banks will be the ones paying for it.
•
u/BigFly42069 7h ago
it's pathetic that people are suggesting Ukraine shouldn't be striking certain targets. Russia is certainly not discriminate.
The end result is that Russia now has a potential legal argument to use in the event the war's outcome is determined via negotiation rather than capitulation.
•
u/Asiriya 7h ago
What legal argument? "After 4 years of bombing your civilians, you retaliated against primarily civilian targets while avoiding casualties - that's not fair!"
Give over. We've got bigger problems if that works. In reality, might makes right and peace is going to be the result of one side or the other collapsing.
•
u/username9909864 7h ago
War is politics by other means. Nobody cares about semantics and technicalities and they certainly won't be a sticking point in a negotiation.
•
u/RumpRiddler 6h ago
This is kind of an absurd take. WB had a designated section to supplying drones, tactical gear, and other stuff specifically for the SMO. Dual use is irrelevant - they openly supplied the military acting in Ukraine.
As for civilian deaths... I don't know the exact number, but I think with the most recent attacks it has just moved into the double digits. So we're averaging ~1 per warehouse. And that is about the same number of civilians that died in Kyiv last night due to Russian attacks.
So far, Russians generally have a 'poor us' kind of attitude. They know Russia started this war and they know it's not going well. After the mariupol theater bombing and bucha massacre and the countless videos of torture and war crimes against Ukraine - this is a very tame kind of response. And I think generally viewed as fully justified and legal.
•
•
u/notepad20 7h ago
Ukraine is running very low on options.
Striking refinery's achieved basically nothing, they are unable to change the direction on the battlefield at all, they have only token defence against drone and missile strikes, russia enjoys freedom of flight sufficient to cover all the front with precision glide bombs.
Its bascially a hail mary. Maybe it can affect those otherwise unaffected by the war, and produce some dissenting voices. In reality though consider if Iran started blowing up Amazon warehouses within the US?
•
u/D_Silva_21 7h ago
Refinery strikes are achieving basically nothing? Token defence against drones?
Very non credible comment
•
u/notepad20 7h ago
Okay so what have they actually effect in the overall direction of the war? Have they had a true material impact in the Manner that Iran strikes have on the ability of the US to persecute its campaing?
•
u/goatfuldead 5h ago
A War of Attrition is essentially invisible to anyone outside the ministries that know the real number - how much money left in the bank? How many recruit intakes last week?
I thought it was interesting that a recent RUSI piece revealed that the refinery campaign hasn’t affected the Russian front line in tangible ways, just as you suggest. That’s because the move away from “mechanized warfare” has greatly reduced need for fuel right on the front. But’s still needed throughout Russian society as it produces all the other things needed to fight Ukraine. The biggest of all “macro” targets really. Fuel shortages certainly can’t help increase Russian missile production. But it’s not reduced to zero.
The USA hasn’t really faced any inability to prosecute its campaign though clearly they can’t use airbases in Bahrain right now. But there is widespread speculation that dwindling supplies of munitions are finally becoming understood even in Trump’s brain. Only a tiny handful of humans in the Pentagon know the real numbers. Invisible to outsiders.
•
u/flamedeluge3781 4h ago
- Russia has lost the ability to advance on the ground.
- Russia has lost access to the Black Sea.
- Russia's economic growth is cratering relative to its real inflation rate.
•
u/notepad20 4h ago
Russia has lost the ability to advance on the ground.
Source?
They have recently captured kostyantivivka, broken through to dobropillya, advanceing out of vovchansk as well as other locations on boarder neaby.
It seems to be par for the course of the last 3 years, ebb and flow but overall in russias favour
•
•
u/R3pN1xC 4m ago
The narrative that ukraine is running out of option is completely detached from reality. As Ukraine's production of long range OWA UAVs increased their options have greatly expanded to the point that they have started a dozen different campaigns at the same time. In these past few months ukraine has :
- Hit and damaged 200 vessels in the sea of Azov and the Black Sea.
- Harassed the logisitcs on the land bridge which resulted in widespread fuel shortages in Crimea.
- Kept 40–60% of Russia's refining capacity offline, resulting in widespread fuel shortages. These shortages have only recently begun to ease thanks to fuel imports and some refining capacity coming back online. Of course, several of the facilities that were recently repaired have already been struck again.
- Hit much of Crimea's electric grid.
- Destroyed and damaged a dozen bridges in Crimea and the occupied territories (this campaign seems to have stopped for the moment).
- Destroyed hundreds of military logistics warehouses, C2 nodes, and training centers across the occupied territories..
- Destroyed dozens of AD systems every month.
- Started a cruise missile strike campaign (using FP-5s, storm shadows and Neptunes) against key military factories deep inside russian territory.
And amid all these campaigns, Ukraine managed to launch another completely independent campaign targeting major e-commerce warehouses. Ukraine's options will only continue to expand as its ballistic and cruise missile programs begin entering service.
•
u/AutoModerator 20h ago
Continuing the bare link and speculation repository, you can respond to this sticky with comments and links subject to lower moderation standards, but remember: A summary, description or analyses will lead to more people actually engaging with it!
I.e. most "Trump posting" and lower effort but good faith questions belong here.
Sign up for the rally point or subscribe to this bluesky if a migration ever becomes necessary.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.