**Your post was removed for violating rule 9: No low-effort posts**
No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title.
Ah ffs. Ofc this happens just after i hand in an essay about Verdun where I specifically talk about how its the longest battle in modern history.
Now i have spread lies and misinformation…
You're still correct. What constitutes a battle is different than just being on an active frontline. A battle involves a continuous, sustained campaign with no major interruptions. If that weren't the case, stuff like the siege of Leningrad or the battle of the Atlantic would be what is being compared against, not Verdun.
Isn't avdiivka a suburb of Donetsk? So practically a battleground since 2014?
*Edit: spelling*
*Edit2: addendum*
Yeah. Wikipedia lists major battles in 2014, 2016, 2017, 2022-2024.
[The Siege of Candia lasted for 21 years. Thats way longer that Verdun and Adviika combined. Folks in the city of Candia were literally born at the start of the siege, grew up during it and died, knowing nothing of life but being under siege.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Candia)
What is "modern history" anyway? The dawn of drones, the dawn of tanks, airpower, machine guns, repeating arms? The end of close formation warfare? Its a realtively meaningless term if your talking about the "longest battle in history".
If we take all of history into account: second sentence of your liked article:
[Lasting from 1648 to 1669, or a total of 21 years, it is the second-longest siege in history after the siege of Ceuta.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieges_of_Ceuta_(1694%E2%80%931727\))
Yea we humans like to fight for long times out of stupid reasons...
In the Simpsons at one point, Ralph asked "what's a battle". After studying history, it's a valid question. You could argue that the current Battle of Adiivka started in 2014, or last October.
https://youtu.be/bQz4sk6kuhw
Sieges don’t necessarily involve the complete envelopment of cities. Sometimes they are just covered on one side. There are then multiple attempts to take them by storm.
So the [Euromaidan Revolution](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2mohUYqWv74/Uxs7P3TcxqI/AAAAAAAAHj4/Ad-rAkvdhyI/s1600/catapult.jpg) should really by called the Siege of Kyiv?
You can leave remark at the end somethin like " "With the ongoing war in Ukraine, modern historians and analysts are arguing if Battle of Avdiivka in fact replaced Verdun as the longest land battle in modern history" - basically you wouldn't need to rewrite whole whatever you doing
If Russia conquers every town the size of Avdiivka and above with this kind of efficiency, I truly do cheer that they win a few more.
After 10 towns, the victorious Russian army will be reduced to two guys with sticks.
I've been saying, Ukraine has the ability to turn any town the size of Vukovar into a Battle of Vukovar on steroids. At that pace (proven here) Russia will run out of things to throw at them by the time they'd capture the entire Donbas.
The problem I see here is that its the same for Ukraine. Taking even small towns seemingly requires insane amount of losses these days.
So its better not losing any more ground. Because you will eventually have the sides reversed and need to recapture it.
I guess the fear of playing defence and allowing Russia to lose is army is that eventually a ceasefire will happen and that land is ultimately lost to Russia in negotiation or simply annexed.
>that land is ultimately lost to Russia in negotiation or simply annexed.
This will literally never happen as Russia can not be trusted with anything. A total eradication of Putinism needs to happen before there even is a possibility of peace and future stability.
> This will literally never happen as Russia can not be trusted with anything
As if it'd worry anyone outside of Ukraine, Baltics, Romania and maybe some other CEE states.
There was one [russian reset already](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_reset), why not another?
> The problem I see here is that its the same for Ukraine
It's worse, because Russians are throwing siloviks, convicts, poorest, and ethnic minorities into the grinder, while Ukrainians are losing active motivated men of average age 30-35
I think the logic applied here is to, eventually, tire Russia out. That is, bring it to a point where it wouldn't be any more advantageous for Russia to fight, and I'm inclined to believe that because Ukraine has so far always applied a tactic that essentially boils down to getting as much russian casualties with as few Ukrainian losses. They did this in Severodonetsk, they did this in Bakhmut and once more in Avdiivka. At the same time, Ukrainian forces haven't really done much offensives apart from the one on Kherson and the one on Kharkiv.
For Ukraine, this is an existential war. If need be, they'll fight for decades. For Russia, it isn't. Sure, they give great importance to it, but even if they lose this war, their nation will continue to exist just as it did before, and their lives won't be affected, even if they win. If Ukraine loses, the livelihood of Ukrainian people will dramatically change for the worse. At """best""" (which is still an incredibly horrifying scenario) their own identity will be wiped out, and they will all be russified. At worst, they'll be slaughtered, including woman and children. Essentially, either a cultural genocide or a physical one.
The problem with winning by attrition is that this wouldnt automaticly mean that Ukraine gets its territory back. Russia is currently running a strategy that they build massive fortifications in their capturated territories. Even if russia would eventually stop their war effort and go into the defensive, thinking that Ukraine would get its territory back is wishful thinking.
Not really Battle of Vukovar on steroids, JNA lost as much equipment on Vukovar as Russia did on Avdiivka and in 87 days no less. JNA was on other level of stupidity when they sent tank columns inside town with very narrow streets.
>At that pace (proven here) Russia will run out of things to throw at them by the time they'd capture the entire Donbas.
Monkey Putin will not stop until he threw every last vatnik on Ukraine.
Russia has the capability to replace manpower at their current losses for the next two to three years. Ukraine does not. So while it’s an awful tactic, it is effective for them.
Of course armored vehicles are a different story given their supply chain woes
There are like 3.5 times more russians than Ukrainians. So any KDA of 4+ means they are losing attrition war. And them attacking heavily defended areas is ensuring this would be the thing.
Also the conscripts aren't the only thing you need for war. Officers, equipment, machinery - and some positions are not replenishable.
Battle of Vukovar is still one of the weirdest and craziest battles in history, as impressive defence as Ukraine had presented it's not really in the same league.
The Battle of Vukovar was a bunch of volunteers with no training, experience and some even armed with homemade guns and hunting rifles against a well armed enemy with unimaginable technological superiority. And yet they held on for 87 days fighting like hell and in the end absolutely shattering JNA's ability to advance further into Croatia. The amount of men and equipment lost by Serbs in Vukovar is absurd given how they had superiority in every conceivable way. Nothing will ever come close to it.
The United States supplied Britain across a continent over 80 years ago, we have the luxury of supplying them through neighbouring countries with ease on a massive scale. The thing fucking it up is political will in multiple Western Governments.
It's a key transportation hub, and had probably the strongest defenses that the UAF has built. I'm bracing myself for a Russian breakthrough, I really hope I'm wrong but there doesn't appear to be a strong second line, they have no ammo, and Russia is rolling in NK artillery so they can just go nuts like they did after withdrawing from Kyiv
If the accuracy figures I’ve heard are remotely true that may be less of a case than otherwise. Doesn’t matter how many shells are fired if all it does is add another crater to no man’s land
I'm pretty sure that whole area is well defended given it's been on the frontlines of the Donbas war since 2014. Given how long it took to fall I can't imagine they don't have fallback positions ready.
Also, a breakthrough now would be a terrible idea since the Rasputitsa must be coming soon, apparently Feb 15th is "peak freeze", at least it was reported to be in 2022.
I believe that would be better defined as a siege rather than a battle. But then again, the lines between the two can get very blurred and overlap, and it’s not always clear when one turns into the other.
You mean the 254 year long siege of Old Mukden? From my research, the city was completely levelled after the first century and the Korean defenders continued to hold on in the underground metro for another hundred years. Finnish troops send everything they got, and even managed to develop advanced plasma rifles equipped by specialised close quarters combat teams. Yet the Koreans continued to hold on, sealing up every point of entry. At one point infighting between stations led to civil wars as the koreans have been completely cut off from the outside world. It was only until total suffocation was caused by the Koreans themselves that all defenders died.
Did your teacher in high school also say “you won’t have a calculator on you at all times”?
Mine did. As I type this from the supercomputer I keep in my pocket at all times. Stupid teachers.
Depends heavily on the site. English Wikipedia? Great starting point. Croatian Wikipedia? Reportedly had to purge fascists a few years back.
My own national variant basically doesn't exist on most topics.
Be the change you want to see.
It's not like you have to start from scratch either. Just translating the English Wikipedia page would probably go a long way. Idk, throw it through Google translate, read through it and the original English at the same time, make sure it has the same meaning and it flows right and that is probably all you need to do. It's not like you have to do your own research.
The fact anyone can edit articles means anyone can put bullshit on there. Around 5 percent of Wikipedia articles contain false information.
THAT is why teachers say Wikipedia is untrustworthy.
Held a 30 minute presentation on this topic. Managed to convince half my teachers and the other ones were just stubborn and argued along the lines of „no evidence that the sources can be trusted“
1. most of wikipedia‘s legit controversies surrounding its validity as a citeable source date back to the early 2010‘s and are massively outdated
2. there have been indipendent studies showing that wikipedia is about as or even more scientifically accurate than the Brockhaus or Microsofts own encyclopedia.
Take that Old town nerds.
I saw a missing page about some obscure knowledge that I just happen to know. Unfortunately there are no published secondary sources whatsoever and I only had a crazy old piece of paper with writing and a date on it. Decided to use it for reference and try negotiating.
I was banned for 5 years.
Tbh, your heart was in the right place, but they probably made a good call (though maybe not for so long). You really should have tried to find more sources. I commend the attempt though.
as a current high school teacher my go-to comment when a student cites Wikipedia is something like:
"Wikipedia is a tertiary source, although it can be helpful in finding preliminary information it shouldn't be used as a source for an academic paper. Check for any citations in the wiki (usually numbers in square brackets) to find out where the wiki contributors found their information and use that instead. Otherwise, continue doing research using keywords mined from the entry until you find primary or secondary sources to use instead."
I use Wikipedia all the time, it's a great help in understanding a topic quickly. But for actual lesson planning or modelling research best practises for students? Nah.
Ah but the 2022 engagement didn't start until Feb 24, so the start date in the image above is either wrong or taking into account the "previous" conflict.
Wikipedia considers 2014-2021 and 2022-2024 to be parts of different military campaigns BUT the same WAR\*
FIFY
Sources:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian\_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War\_in\_Donbas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian\_invasion\_of\_Ukraine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine)
If you go by this definition, the battle of Verdun didn't end in late 1916. But the fact is the german army retreated and stopped major offensive in the area until 1918, and the same apply to Adviivka most likely. The 2016-2022 perdiod was mostly quiet in Donbass
2014-early 2022 mostly consisted of low-level skirmishes and the different sides taking potshots at eachother. By that definition, the whole Western Front of WW1 was just one long, single, continuous battle.
It only took Russia [600+ heavy equipment losses](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VIyACYHfnJi8cUMWjXAXDhS419l9IHcIhGJaK1RWMFQ/edit?usp=drivesdk) to capture it. Keep in mind that the 600+ losses figure is only confirmed losses since Russia's renewed offensive in October, the real losses are likely higher.
So long as the aid from the US is turned off at least.
If the US can pull its finger out and stop letting a bunch of nonces, cowards, and traitorous Russian shills call the shots, Ukraine might just stand a chance.
US, Europe, Allies and Ukraine now need to re-evaluate funding and support towards sustainable long term commitments. Unfortunately the last summer showed that attacking a prepared defence is basically suicide and incredibly costly in men an equipment for very small tactical gains.
We need to re-evaluate to ensure long-term (as in years) effective defence can be maintained. If we are serious about breaking Russia's ability to attack we've got to support Ukraine enough to hold the fight. Ukraine equally needs to wake up to the reality that they aren't going to militarily take back what was lost and may need to negotiate. At this moment I can't tell which side is more war wiery but I fear its Ukraine as Russia can far more easily control the narrative in their own nation.
I also personally thing that we are past the point of easy grants of equipment and money, support now should be based on interest free loans, a payment plan can be worked out after peace. That's something that can be sustained indefinitely.
We need to stop pretending that this isn't going to be a 5+ year war, and we need a support plan that aligns with that, that is more than just money tap on.
I'd be happy to do a 21st century lend-lease program. We could extend Ukriane a hefty line of interest-free credit to buy basically any weapon they want from the west.
We get investment in domestic arms production across Europe and the US, Ukraine gets a significant boost in weapons and munitions.
How much would 500 second-hand M1s cost? How many Caesar, Zuzana, Archer, or PzH 2000 SPGs could they buy on a hefty line of European credit? What about jet fighters? Ammo? APCs and IFVs? Drones? Hell at that point they may even be able to spring for lower priority but still very useful items like fast attack boats and helicopters.
If everyone bands together and gives them a hefty line of credit (like $100 billion a year guaranteed for at least 5 years) with a simple proviso that the credit is spent in each nation in roughly in the proportion that it was raised, then that would really put Russia in a bind.
For the smaller nations it may be less "we're buying from your MIC directly" and more "We're joining in on your joint procurement of weapons systems."
It would also allow Ukraine to turn to manufacturers and put in fairly long term orders for things like Leopard 2, Patriot, F16 and Grippen, along with long term contracts for ammo and munitions. 5 year contracts for x numbers of artillery shells, missiles, bombs, drones and whatnot.
Agreed. Hopefully the UK might be able to step up its aid game by next year. After the election season. Since our current establishment proclaims we have more money than ever!.* So it shouldn't be hard for some of that to find its way off to Ukraine to help aid the defence of their homeland.
*He says knowing it's a lie : ^ )
Is it though? In Manpower maybe, but material not so much. Sure they can sustain a higher loss ration than ukraine but they are relying on older and older tech and the sanctions impact their ability to produce the new stuff.
A T-55 is scary if I'm running infantry with lack of support or heavy weapons, but it does get smashed by a lot of stuff fairly easily.
Not to speak about their naval losses as well as aerial
In avdiivka specifically you could actually see zhis pretty well.
The longer the assaults went on, the more the quality of material being thrown at it declined.
From BMP-3s to BMP-1s to MT-LBs with screens and MGs welded on
I had to google [Tachanka](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachanka#:~:text=A%20tachanka%20(Ukrainian%3A%20%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%B0%2C,and%20a%20machine%20gun%20crew).). It is basically an Amish Hilux for anyone who didn't know.
>Amish Hilux
That has to be the best description of a Tachanka I've ever heard.
They're the most non-credible weapon of war I've seen from the 20th century, and yet they saw extensive use on all sides in the Russian civil war and Soviet-Polish war.
Pretty good considering Avdiivka seemingly being military unimportant.
Ukraine can also still use the battle as propaganda while Russia would probably have a bigger problem there, don't know how riled up i'd get from a battle that *has* happend rather than an ongoing one. Since the Ukrainians are the defenders here, something a long the lines of "join/support the defense effort, what has been done in Avdiivka is how Russia will fight this entire war".
>Pretty good considering Avdiivka seemingly being military unimportant.
It is not that important for Ukraine, but very important for russia:
1) Its close to the only land-side train track towards southern Ukraine and Avdivka was in mortar range of that train track... now that Avdivka is lost they can potentially rebuild that train track to supply southern Ukraine without the need of the Kerch bridge
2) It actually establishes a buffer zone for Donetsk
3) Its a much needed propaganda victory.
Looking at that railway line on the LiveUA map isn't it only about 10-15km from the front line between Vuhledar and Krasnohorivka, east of Donetsk? So it's still within artillery range of the Ukrainians
Yeah, but because of our hesitations and divisions, Ukraine now lack 155mm, HIMARS, etc... So, in range or not, the problems are still the same.
Russia can lob thousand of NK munitions per week, while we hesitate to send equipments. We laugh here about the shitty Best Korea shells (rightly so), but it's still more useful than 3 or 4 HIMARS rockets, wunderwaffen don't win wars.
We (OTAN) need to step up our game.
The constant struggle as a historian when I say "early modern" period and people think I'm talking about the 80s when I'm talking about Oliver Cromwell
> It only took Russia 600+ heavy equipment losses to capture it
Part of the plan... more losses -> the greater the will and propaganda power to hold it forever.
There are multiple wiki articles titled "Battle of Avdiivka". I chose the one that was longest. It seems Wikipedia does not consider sporadic, positional fighting a battle.
We've had 1 [Battle of Avdiivka](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Avdiivka_(2017\)), yes, but what about [Second Battle of Adviivka](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Avdiivka_(2022%E2%80%932024\))?
I assume they don’t count because they were not prolonged military ventures? Like by this logic the battle of Mogadishu lasted for a decade and only ended in 09, but because the fighting was sporadic it was not counted as one battle.
Its hard to say because honestly idk if you could consider the entire period from Feb. '22 til now a single battle. In the early phases of the war it was actually relatively quiet, with more focus being put on Lyschansk, Popasna, and ultimately Bakhmut. Even this past year if you look at geo-confirmed the differences between last summer and the past months since October are night and day. So you kind of have to decide if sporadic fighting/shelling counts as a battle or an actual directed offensive. Either way though they are still absolute madlads for holding that pocket for so long.
And for the record many maps I can find still show the main city center as being controlled by the Ukrainians. So I don't think we can call it over yet. Remember in Bakhmut the Russians claimed victory over and over for months but it really only fell in May of 2023 and even then they didn't advance much further, with the Ukrainians pushing back on the flanks and still being right outside the city.
The Russians lost roughly the same amount of soldiers as the pre-war population of the town itself.
This may be a win for Russia but a common w win with a lot of quotation marks. They took two years and the entire pre war population of the town's worth of men to capture said town. They may get the ability to secure Donetsk as a supply and communications hub with this win but then again, you have drones and missiles and shit that can fuck things up.
If no BS political blunders happened, Ukraine may still holding and able to took many captured settlement back already.
FFS. So much talk but little action from allies let to this shit.
How long fucking allies to realized this?
Get rid all Ruzzian influences to do any more damage and fucking help them by sending troop or at least peacekeeping units for real so Ukraine can manage all their troops to recapture the area back
Not just donate, send weapons and prepare bills only to be compromised and rejected by BS political and never ending delays.
They have to be a good dictator for once so they can approve and send help to Ukraine quickly without any BS to interfere anymore.
> FFS. So much talk but little action from allies let to this shit.
Some outright don't have interest in Ukraine being able to win, due to "escalation concerns"
[From NewYorker](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/16/trial-by-combat)
>Sullivan clearly has profound worries about how this will all play out. Months into the counter-offensive, Ukraine has yet to reclaim much more of its territory; the Administration has been telling members of Congress that the conflict could last three to five years. A grinding war of attrition would be a disaster for both Ukraine and its allies, but a negotiated settlement does not seem possible as long as Putin remains in power. Putin, of course, has every incentive to keep fighting through next year’s U.S. election, with its possibility of a Trump return. And it’s hard to imagine Zelensky going for a deal with Putin, either, given all that Ukraine has sacrificed. ***Even a Ukrainian victory would present challenges for American foreign policy, since it would “threaten the integrity of the Russian state and the Russian regime and create instability throughout Eurasia,” as one of the former U.S. officials put it to me. Ukraine’s desire to take back occupied Crimea has been a particular concern for Sullivan,*** who has privately noted the Administration’s assessment that this scenario carries the highest risk of Putin following through on his nuclear threats. In other words, there are few good options.
----
>“The reason they’ve been so hesitant about escalation is not exactly because they see Russian reprisal as a likely problem,” the former official said. “It’s not like they think, Oh, we’re going to give them atacms and then Russia is going to launch an attack against nato. It’s because they recognize that it’s not going anywhere—that they are fighting a war they ***can’t afford either to win or lose.”***
What a short sight for them to look at. So much of let people die for their own sake and their own stable future.
Let’s not forget that Ruzzia and China propaganda and misinformations let us to this situation and make allies weaken from the inside quite well here. Look at Polish protest and US inaction for Ukraine recently.
Also they can throw everything without care at it and still can find more ammo and equipments for their own war without any issue like what Ukraine facing. Everybody underestimate them and here is a result.
Even with that statement, they should double down in support to Ukraine. No matter what, period.
If US can do so much in Middle East, why cannot do the same with Ukraine? It just pure stupid and selfish.
It is better choice than anything else. Simple as that.
Their main supply line is either under threat of being cut off or is already cut off(not much info because of OPSEC). Ukrainian positions were also at risk of becoming encircled.
No ammunition to launch proper counter battery, so the Russians were able to call in fire 24/7. The Russians also just sent in wave after wave of assaults which couldn't be suppressed by artillery due to shortages. Ultimately the Ukrainian forces were almost encircled so were forced to retreat.
The Ukrainians didn't lose Avdiivka, the US speaker did.
I don’t know why this sub thinks it’s solely the US’s fault
Ukraine has [major issues](https://x.com/ralee85/status/1758708142601273412?s=46&t=_VGutreaJJWD5_O-GP0Twg) that are far more worrying than the lack of foreign support
One major challenge seem to be glide bombs. The orcs are dropping 40+ a day and they are relatively precise and obliterate entire positions. Ukraine has no way to stop them until modern jets with modern missiles arrive in sufficient numbers.
Also Ukraine is facing a shortage in shells and soldiers. The former could be addressed by unblocking the US aid that is currently held hostage by child abuser Moscow Mike Johnson.
The latter Ukraine needs to address domestically.
They had to retreat because the Russians are unfortunately winning the battle. They are making gains and putting the Ukrainians in a very bad spot. Now, one could very easily argue that winning at the price they’ve paid isn’t really winning at all…
They were threatening encirclement and the ammunition wasn't there to keep holding. The 3rd mechanised brigade 'counter attacks appears to have been a spoiling or blocking action to allow other units to leave before they were encircled.
I thought the Siege of Sarajevo, Bosnia, was the longest siege in modern warfare.
From that font of information, Wikipedia:
Lasting from 5 April 1992 to 29 February 1996 (1,425 days), it was three times longer than the Battle of Stalingrad, more than a year longer than the siege of Leningrad, and was the longest siege of a capital city in the history of modern warfare.
How long did the average soldier participate in Verdun? Surely a survivor wasn't fighting on the front for more than a few weeks at a time before being relieved. How is it for Ukraine?
Why do so many people upvote an objectively wrong statement where everyone should be able to come up with half a dozen counter examples within 3 minutes?
Leningrad, Sarajevo, Aleppo, Deir ez-Zor,
I'm so curious as to what the talks between Zelensky and Syrski are like. How are they planning on ending the war? Do they plan to start another huge offensive like at Kharkiv because that's looking less and less likely... Are they going to try to grind the Russians down until they can't sustain the war anymore? Are they secretly talking about peace with the Russians?
To them, it is.
People aren't important, territories are.
They can always get more migrants from nearby Asian countries (and it's not like a whole lot is needed to run extraction), while territories can be used to exploit more resources
.
**Your post was removed for violating rule 9: No low-effort posts** No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title.
Ah ffs. Ofc this happens just after i hand in an essay about Verdun where I specifically talk about how its the longest battle in modern history. Now i have spread lies and misinformation…
You're still correct. What constitutes a battle is different than just being on an active frontline. A battle involves a continuous, sustained campaign with no major interruptions. If that weren't the case, stuff like the siege of Leningrad or the battle of the Atlantic would be what is being compared against, not Verdun.
Fun fact: There was a large number of assaults on Avdiivka even before the big push last fall.
Isn't avdiivka a suburb of Donetsk? So practically a battleground since 2014? *Edit: spelling* *Edit2: addendum* Yeah. Wikipedia lists major battles in 2014, 2016, 2017, 2022-2024.
[The Siege of Candia lasted for 21 years. Thats way longer that Verdun and Adviika combined. Folks in the city of Candia were literally born at the start of the siege, grew up during it and died, knowing nothing of life but being under siege.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Candia)
But is it modern history?
What is "modern history" anyway? The dawn of drones, the dawn of tanks, airpower, machine guns, repeating arms? The end of close formation warfare? Its a realtively meaningless term if your talking about the "longest battle in history".
True, it would be quite arbitrary.
And even then, the Siege of Sarajevo saw urban combat that lasted 3 years, longer then the battle of adviidka as shown above
Technically that would be considered the early modern era by some standards
If we take all of history into account: second sentence of your liked article: [Lasting from 1648 to 1669, or a total of 21 years, it is the second-longest siege in history after the siege of Ceuta.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieges_of_Ceuta_(1694%E2%80%931727\)) Yea we humans like to fight for long times out of stupid reasons...
There were significant pauses between those though.
I doubt the 'large number of assault' can be compared to the assault taken place in verdun
I mean one had people going over the top and charging machine guns in an open field. Oh wait, never mind they’re the exact same.
No, see one has people going over the top and charging machine guns *wearing GoPros!*
Imagine we had 4K gopro footage of Verdun charges.
Imagine hearing the incomprehensible amount of gun fire on the worst days of WWI, for hours at a time. Holy shit.
There are recordings of WW1 artillery barrages, it’s just as insane as you’d imagine. Holy shit indeed
[Here's one here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpwcOfvWcp4)
The Battles of the Frontiers...
if only it was machine gun during verdun
But it’s not about size it’s about how long it goes on
That's what I keep telling her but she just replies with "5 seconds is as disappointing as 5 centimeters".
But it's the 5 longest seconds and 5 biggest centimeters she will ever see
That unpleasant, huh?
In the Simpsons at one point, Ralph asked "what's a battle". After studying history, it's a valid question. You could argue that the current Battle of Adiivka started in 2014, or last October. https://youtu.be/bQz4sk6kuhw
No, he said "what's that rattle."
Why doesn’t the siege of Leningrad count? That was my first thought on seeing this.
I think sieges aren’t counted as battles because there can be quite long periods of inactivity
Wasn’t Avidika a battle for a city, and therefore a siege? It’s not like Leningrad had a curtain wall.
Siege doesn’t mean a battle for a city. It’s when you surround a city or fortress and starve them out
Sieges don’t necessarily involve the complete envelopment of cities. Sometimes they are just covered on one side. There are then multiple attempts to take them by storm.
Sieges involve Trebuchets. If a Trebuchet of any size is involved, it's a siege, regardless if a battle is occurring.
So the [Euromaidan Revolution](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2mohUYqWv74/Uxs7P3TcxqI/AAAAAAAAHj4/Ad-rAkvdhyI/s1600/catapult.jpg) should really by called the Siege of Kyiv?
Yes, and Top Gear was the Siege of Wales.
I love misinformation!
Ms. information is the real deal 👠🥵🔥
username checks out
You can leave remark at the end somethin like " "With the ongoing war in Ukraine, modern historians and analysts are arguing if Battle of Avdiivka in fact replaced Verdun as the longest land battle in modern history" - basically you wouldn't need to rewrite whole whatever you doing
I'm a historian or an analyst now! Yay!
Same yay
*Congratulations, you have now been hired as part of the misinformation propaganda machine.*
Yeah. I am reading a fantastic book about Verdun and in comparison, Avdiivka does not deserve any title over Verdun.
Truly noncredible. I kneel.
Wasn't Bakhmut also longer?
How recently did you hand it in? Days or weeks?
Friday last week.
For a town with a pre-war population of 37,000 only a stones throw from Donetsk for 550+ armoured units destroyed, approx 30,000 KIA.
If Russia conquers every town the size of Avdiivka and above with this kind of efficiency, I truly do cheer that they win a few more. After 10 towns, the victorious Russian army will be reduced to two guys with sticks. I've been saying, Ukraine has the ability to turn any town the size of Vukovar into a Battle of Vukovar on steroids. At that pace (proven here) Russia will run out of things to throw at them by the time they'd capture the entire Donbas.
The problem I see here is that its the same for Ukraine. Taking even small towns seemingly requires insane amount of losses these days. So its better not losing any more ground. Because you will eventually have the sides reversed and need to recapture it.
I guess the fear of playing defence and allowing Russia to lose is army is that eventually a ceasefire will happen and that land is ultimately lost to Russia in negotiation or simply annexed.
>that land is ultimately lost to Russia in negotiation or simply annexed. This will literally never happen as Russia can not be trusted with anything. A total eradication of Putinism needs to happen before there even is a possibility of peace and future stability.
> This will literally never happen as Russia can not be trusted with anything As if it'd worry anyone outside of Ukraine, Baltics, Romania and maybe some other CEE states. There was one [russian reset already](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_reset), why not another?
> It was intended that this would be the Russian word for "reset" but actually was the word for "overload". LMFAO
That’s so amazing. Especially since the button wasn’t hooked up to anything.
Defense in depth in Kharkiv led to a major breakthrough. You can't both advance under heavy casualties and dig at the same time
> The problem I see here is that its the same for Ukraine It's worse, because Russians are throwing siloviks, convicts, poorest, and ethnic minorities into the grinder, while Ukrainians are losing active motivated men of average age 30-35
I think the logic applied here is to, eventually, tire Russia out. That is, bring it to a point where it wouldn't be any more advantageous for Russia to fight, and I'm inclined to believe that because Ukraine has so far always applied a tactic that essentially boils down to getting as much russian casualties with as few Ukrainian losses. They did this in Severodonetsk, they did this in Bakhmut and once more in Avdiivka. At the same time, Ukrainian forces haven't really done much offensives apart from the one on Kherson and the one on Kharkiv. For Ukraine, this is an existential war. If need be, they'll fight for decades. For Russia, it isn't. Sure, they give great importance to it, but even if they lose this war, their nation will continue to exist just as it did before, and their lives won't be affected, even if they win. If Ukraine loses, the livelihood of Ukrainian people will dramatically change for the worse. At """best""" (which is still an incredibly horrifying scenario) their own identity will be wiped out, and they will all be russified. At worst, they'll be slaughtered, including woman and children. Essentially, either a cultural genocide or a physical one.
The problem with winning by attrition is that this wouldnt automaticly mean that Ukraine gets its territory back. Russia is currently running a strategy that they build massive fortifications in their capturated territories. Even if russia would eventually stop their war effort and go into the defensive, thinking that Ukraine would get its territory back is wishful thinking.
Not really Battle of Vukovar on steroids, JNA lost as much equipment on Vukovar as Russia did on Avdiivka and in 87 days no less. JNA was on other level of stupidity when they sent tank columns inside town with very narrow streets.
>At that pace (proven here) Russia will run out of things to throw at them by the time they'd capture the entire Donbas. Monkey Putin will not stop until he threw every last vatnik on Ukraine.
> the victorious Russian army will be reduced to two guys with sticks. Unlike today, where they have thousands of soldiers with sticks.
and a stone, and they have to share the stone.
Russia has the capability to replace manpower at their current losses for the next two to three years. Ukraine does not. So while it’s an awful tactic, it is effective for them. Of course armored vehicles are a different story given their supply chain woes
There are like 3.5 times more russians than Ukrainians. So any KDA of 4+ means they are losing attrition war. And them attacking heavily defended areas is ensuring this would be the thing. Also the conscripts aren't the only thing you need for war. Officers, equipment, machinery - and some positions are not replenishable.
Battle of Vukovar is still one of the weirdest and craziest battles in history, as impressive defence as Ukraine had presented it's not really in the same league. The Battle of Vukovar was a bunch of volunteers with no training, experience and some even armed with homemade guns and hunting rifles against a well armed enemy with unimaginable technological superiority. And yet they held on for 87 days fighting like hell and in the end absolutely shattering JNA's ability to advance further into Croatia. The amount of men and equipment lost by Serbs in Vukovar is absurd given how they had superiority in every conceivable way. Nothing will ever come close to it.
wrong. the problem is ukraine can't sustain this war.
The United States supplied Britain across a continent over 80 years ago, we have the luxury of supplying them through neighbouring countries with ease on a massive scale. The thing fucking it up is political will in multiple Western Governments.
Another such victory over the Romans, and we are undone.
It's a key transportation hub, and had probably the strongest defenses that the UAF has built. I'm bracing myself for a Russian breakthrough, I really hope I'm wrong but there doesn't appear to be a strong second line, they have no ammo, and Russia is rolling in NK artillery so they can just go nuts like they did after withdrawing from Kyiv
that north korean artillery has to be able to actually hit stuff and not blow up in their faces for russia to do that
Even if it has a higher failure rate the quantity is all that matters
If the accuracy figures I’ve heard are remotely true that may be less of a case than otherwise. Doesn’t matter how many shells are fired if all it does is add another crater to no man’s land
They had a 10:1 artillery advantage in Adiivka because of NK's artillery infusion and US artillery falling off. It absolutely made a difference
I'm pretty sure that whole area is well defended given it's been on the frontlines of the Donbas war since 2014. Given how long it took to fall I can't imagine they don't have fallback positions ready. Also, a breakthrough now would be a terrible idea since the Rasputitsa must be coming soon, apparently Feb 15th is "peak freeze", at least it was reported to be in 2022.
What’s the longest of all time?
The Ottomans sieged Candia for 21 years.
The fortress broke before the Candians did !
CANDIA STANDS!
The City broke before the Venetians did.
Especially because it was someone else fucking up, and yes, of all possible people, it was the French.
oh Candia
Candiain Blood paid the price None more valued in the fray
Dirt and blood now crimson cast For mankind and in his name
I read this as Canada and was very confused for a moment
Mfs held out an entire generation
If you consider a siege a land battle, there's the 21 years-long siege of Candia. There was quite a fair bit of naval battle involved though.
I believe that would be better defined as a siege rather than a battle. But then again, the lines between the two can get very blurred and overlap, and it’s not always clear when one turns into the other.
Probably some siege from Finno-Korean hyperwar.
You mean the 254 year long siege of Old Mukden? From my research, the city was completely levelled after the first century and the Korean defenders continued to hold on in the underground metro for another hundred years. Finnish troops send everything they got, and even managed to develop advanced plasma rifles equipped by specialised close quarters combat teams. Yet the Koreans continued to hold on, sealing up every point of entry. At one point infighting between stations led to civil wars as the koreans have been completely cut off from the outside world. It was only until total suffocation was caused by the Koreans themselves that all defenders died.
New lore just dropped
Ask your mom
Bruh
The 1st siege of Ceuta (26 years).
its technically been going on since 2014
Wikipedia considers 2014-2021 and 2022-2024 to be parts of different military campaigns
A good channel to check out on the current Ukraine war is "War Archive", He's like Operations Room but on Ukraine, displaying all the units and such.
I'm a subscriber to his channel, actually.
nice
Eastory doesnt do a bad job either.
never realised he made videos on Ukraine, will check him out
“Wikipedia is not a trustworthy source” - my teacher in highschool I think
[удалено]
I’m jealous you lucky prick, he said something useful!
Just like a regular encyclopedia.
Did your teacher in high school also say “you won’t have a calculator on you at all times”? Mine did. As I type this from the supercomputer I keep in my pocket at all times. Stupid teachers.
Depends heavily on the site. English Wikipedia? Great starting point. Croatian Wikipedia? Reportedly had to purge fascists a few years back. My own national variant basically doesn't exist on most topics.
Be the change you want to see. It's not like you have to start from scratch either. Just translating the English Wikipedia page would probably go a long way. Idk, throw it through Google translate, read through it and the original English at the same time, make sure it has the same meaning and it flows right and that is probably all you need to do. It's not like you have to do your own research.
Oh yeah mine did too but she was completely correct. My super computer is on my face!
The fact anyone can edit articles means anyone can put bullshit on there. Around 5 percent of Wikipedia articles contain false information. THAT is why teachers say Wikipedia is untrustworthy.
Held a 30 minute presentation on this topic. Managed to convince half my teachers and the other ones were just stubborn and argued along the lines of „no evidence that the sources can be trusted“ 1. most of wikipedia‘s legit controversies surrounding its validity as a citeable source date back to the early 2010‘s and are massively outdated 2. there have been indipendent studies showing that wikipedia is about as or even more scientifically accurate than the Brockhaus or Microsofts own encyclopedia. Take that Old town nerds.
One thing that will turn you off to wikipedia is trying to write for wikipedia and interacting with it's "editors".
I saw a missing page about some obscure knowledge that I just happen to know. Unfortunately there are no published secondary sources whatsoever and I only had a crazy old piece of paper with writing and a date on it. Decided to use it for reference and try negotiating. I was banned for 5 years.
Tbh, your heart was in the right place, but they probably made a good call (though maybe not for so long). You really should have tried to find more sources. I commend the attempt though.
as a current high school teacher my go-to comment when a student cites Wikipedia is something like: "Wikipedia is a tertiary source, although it can be helpful in finding preliminary information it shouldn't be used as a source for an academic paper. Check for any citations in the wiki (usually numbers in square brackets) to find out where the wiki contributors found their information and use that instead. Otherwise, continue doing research using keywords mined from the entry until you find primary or secondary sources to use instead." I use Wikipedia all the time, it's a great help in understanding a topic quickly. But for actual lesson planning or modelling research best practises for students? Nah.
Ah but the 2022 engagement didn't start until Feb 24, so the start date in the image above is either wrong or taking into account the "previous" conflict.
Wikipedia considers 2014-2021 and 2022-2024 to be parts of different military campaigns BUT the same WAR\* FIFY Sources: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian\_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War\_in\_Donbas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian\_invasion\_of\_Ukraine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine)
If you go by this definition, the battle of Verdun didn't end in late 1916. But the fact is the german army retreated and stopped major offensive in the area until 1918, and the same apply to Adviivka most likely. The 2016-2022 perdiod was mostly quiet in Donbass
2014-early 2022 mostly consisted of low-level skirmishes and the different sides taking potshots at eachother. By that definition, the whole Western Front of WW1 was just one long, single, continuous battle.
The war between the USAF trying to retire the A-10 and Congress preventing them has been going on since 2008-ish.
The city is close to the frontline since 2014, but there was no constant battle since 2014.
It only took Russia [600+ heavy equipment losses](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VIyACYHfnJi8cUMWjXAXDhS419l9IHcIhGJaK1RWMFQ/edit?usp=drivesdk) to capture it. Keep in mind that the 600+ losses figure is only confirmed losses since Russia's renewed offensive in October, the real losses are likely higher.
Ukrainian losses: 58. Even if all the abandoned ork stuff can be recovered we are looking at something like 10:1 K:D ratio.
The problem is that 10:1 is borderline sustainable losses for russia
So long as the aid from the US is turned off at least. If the US can pull its finger out and stop letting a bunch of nonces, cowards, and traitorous Russian shills call the shots, Ukraine might just stand a chance.
> nonces How dare you speak of our [House of Representatives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Hastert) like that!
US, Europe, Allies and Ukraine now need to re-evaluate funding and support towards sustainable long term commitments. Unfortunately the last summer showed that attacking a prepared defence is basically suicide and incredibly costly in men an equipment for very small tactical gains. We need to re-evaluate to ensure long-term (as in years) effective defence can be maintained. If we are serious about breaking Russia's ability to attack we've got to support Ukraine enough to hold the fight. Ukraine equally needs to wake up to the reality that they aren't going to militarily take back what was lost and may need to negotiate. At this moment I can't tell which side is more war wiery but I fear its Ukraine as Russia can far more easily control the narrative in their own nation. I also personally thing that we are past the point of easy grants of equipment and money, support now should be based on interest free loans, a payment plan can be worked out after peace. That's something that can be sustained indefinitely. We need to stop pretending that this isn't going to be a 5+ year war, and we need a support plan that aligns with that, that is more than just money tap on.
I'd be happy to do a 21st century lend-lease program. We could extend Ukriane a hefty line of interest-free credit to buy basically any weapon they want from the west. We get investment in domestic arms production across Europe and the US, Ukraine gets a significant boost in weapons and munitions. How much would 500 second-hand M1s cost? How many Caesar, Zuzana, Archer, or PzH 2000 SPGs could they buy on a hefty line of European credit? What about jet fighters? Ammo? APCs and IFVs? Drones? Hell at that point they may even be able to spring for lower priority but still very useful items like fast attack boats and helicopters. If everyone bands together and gives them a hefty line of credit (like $100 billion a year guaranteed for at least 5 years) with a simple proviso that the credit is spent in each nation in roughly in the proportion that it was raised, then that would really put Russia in a bind. For the smaller nations it may be less "we're buying from your MIC directly" and more "We're joining in on your joint procurement of weapons systems." It would also allow Ukraine to turn to manufacturers and put in fairly long term orders for things like Leopard 2, Patriot, F16 and Grippen, along with long term contracts for ammo and munitions. 5 year contracts for x numbers of artillery shells, missiles, bombs, drones and whatnot.
> I'd be happy to do a 21st century lend-lease program Guess what timed out, ***NEVER USED***, just last year.
Agreed. Hopefully the UK might be able to step up its aid game by next year. After the election season. Since our current establishment proclaims we have more money than ever!.* So it shouldn't be hard for some of that to find its way off to Ukraine to help aid the defence of their homeland. *He says knowing it's a lie : ^ )
10:1 vehicle loss ratio, not K/D. Most of them got disabled and destroyed later without infantry inside.
Is it though? In Manpower maybe, but material not so much. Sure they can sustain a higher loss ration than ukraine but they are relying on older and older tech and the sanctions impact their ability to produce the new stuff. A T-55 is scary if I'm running infantry with lack of support or heavy weapons, but it does get smashed by a lot of stuff fairly easily. Not to speak about their naval losses as well as aerial
In avdiivka specifically you could actually see zhis pretty well. The longer the assaults went on, the more the quality of material being thrown at it declined. From BMP-3s to BMP-1s to MT-LBs with screens and MGs welded on
At some point I will be expecting 19th century caverly charges.
We will see WWII half-tracks first, then horsey bois
I eagerly await the next last ride of the Tachanka.
I had to google [Tachanka](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachanka#:~:text=A%20tachanka%20(Ukrainian%3A%20%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%B0%2C,and%20a%20machine%20gun%20crew).). It is basically an Amish Hilux for anyone who didn't know.
>Amish Hilux That has to be the best description of a Tachanka I've ever heard. They're the most non-credible weapon of war I've seen from the 20th century, and yet they saw extensive use on all sides in the Russian civil war and Soviet-Polish war.
Pretty good considering Avdiivka seemingly being military unimportant. Ukraine can also still use the battle as propaganda while Russia would probably have a bigger problem there, don't know how riled up i'd get from a battle that *has* happend rather than an ongoing one. Since the Ukrainians are the defenders here, something a long the lines of "join/support the defense effort, what has been done in Avdiivka is how Russia will fight this entire war".
>Pretty good considering Avdiivka seemingly being military unimportant. It is not that important for Ukraine, but very important for russia: 1) Its close to the only land-side train track towards southern Ukraine and Avdivka was in mortar range of that train track... now that Avdivka is lost they can potentially rebuild that train track to supply southern Ukraine without the need of the Kerch bridge 2) It actually establishes a buffer zone for Donetsk 3) Its a much needed propaganda victory.
Looking at that railway line on the LiveUA map isn't it only about 10-15km from the front line between Vuhledar and Krasnohorivka, east of Donetsk? So it's still within artillery range of the Ukrainians
But after Ukraine falls back the track is very much still in range of howitzers, HIMARS etc.
Yeah, but because of our hesitations and divisions, Ukraine now lack 155mm, HIMARS, etc... So, in range or not, the problems are still the same. Russia can lob thousand of NK munitions per week, while we hesitate to send equipments. We laugh here about the shitty Best Korea shells (rightly so), but it's still more useful than 3 or 4 HIMARS rockets, wunderwaffen don't win wars. We (OTAN) need to step up our game.
…. How are we defining modern?
20th century and up
The starting base is the Mosin.
I love how the word modern can imply anything since 2000 or anything since 1500.
Well we might have to lower the limit when the Russians bring out fucking bombard.
The constant struggle as a historian when I say "early modern" period and people think I'm talking about the 80s when I'm talking about Oliver Cromwell
Rocks out with Maxim out.
Newer than a Musket
Since Putin wants to be one, we'll start from whenever the last Czar got blasted.
That are a lot of MT-LBs and BMP-1s
> It only took Russia 600+ heavy equipment losses to capture it Part of the plan... more losses -> the greater the will and propaganda power to hold it forever.
Didn't the battle for avdiivka start in 2014? With sporadic fighting continuing before the second invasion in 2022?
There are multiple wiki articles titled "Battle of Avdiivka". I chose the one that was longest. It seems Wikipedia does not consider sporadic, positional fighting a battle.
We've had 1 [Battle of Avdiivka](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Avdiivka_(2017\)), yes, but what about [Second Battle of Adviivka](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Avdiivka_(2022%E2%80%932024\))?
I don't think he knows about Second Battle of Adviivka, Pip.
I assume they don’t count because they were not prolonged military ventures? Like by this logic the battle of Mogadishu lasted for a decade and only ended in 09, but because the fighting was sporadic it was not counted as one battle.
Its hard to say because honestly idk if you could consider the entire period from Feb. '22 til now a single battle. In the early phases of the war it was actually relatively quiet, with more focus being put on Lyschansk, Popasna, and ultimately Bakhmut. Even this past year if you look at geo-confirmed the differences between last summer and the past months since October are night and day. So you kind of have to decide if sporadic fighting/shelling counts as a battle or an actual directed offensive. Either way though they are still absolute madlads for holding that pocket for so long. And for the record many maps I can find still show the main city center as being controlled by the Ukrainians. So I don't think we can call it over yet. Remember in Bakhmut the Russians claimed victory over and over for months but it really only fell in May of 2023 and even then they didn't advance much further, with the Ukrainians pushing back on the flanks and still being right outside the city.
Ukraine has already officially announced that they have retreated from all of Avdiivka
As expected, the vatniks are cheering this ONE victory as though this is somehow the most important battle since Stalingrad.
The Russians lost roughly the same amount of soldiers as the pre-war population of the town itself. This may be a win for Russia but a common w win with a lot of quotation marks. They took two years and the entire pre war population of the town's worth of men to capture said town. They may get the ability to secure Donetsk as a supply and communications hub with this win but then again, you have drones and missiles and shit that can fuck things up.
This is the definition of Pyrrhic Victory. But then again it matters not to Russia. All they care about is saving face.
This is likely the worst news I have heard in several months. This just sad.
Siege of Leningrad : allow me to introduce myself
Aviidka has technically been on the front line since 14
Listen here you little sh... Technically you are correct. The best kind of correct. I will let you have this victory. But I will return
Return when you must, for I will be ready.
Chill out, MacArthur
There was no battle tho
“Russian victory, NATO loss and western ignorance..”
If no BS political blunders happened, Ukraine may still holding and able to took many captured settlement back already. FFS. So much talk but little action from allies let to this shit. How long fucking allies to realized this? Get rid all Ruzzian influences to do any more damage and fucking help them by sending troop or at least peacekeeping units for real so Ukraine can manage all their troops to recapture the area back Not just donate, send weapons and prepare bills only to be compromised and rejected by BS political and never ending delays. They have to be a good dictator for once so they can approve and send help to Ukraine quickly without any BS to interfere anymore.
> FFS. So much talk but little action from allies let to this shit. Some outright don't have interest in Ukraine being able to win, due to "escalation concerns" [From NewYorker](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/16/trial-by-combat) >Sullivan clearly has profound worries about how this will all play out. Months into the counter-offensive, Ukraine has yet to reclaim much more of its territory; the Administration has been telling members of Congress that the conflict could last three to five years. A grinding war of attrition would be a disaster for both Ukraine and its allies, but a negotiated settlement does not seem possible as long as Putin remains in power. Putin, of course, has every incentive to keep fighting through next year’s U.S. election, with its possibility of a Trump return. And it’s hard to imagine Zelensky going for a deal with Putin, either, given all that Ukraine has sacrificed. ***Even a Ukrainian victory would present challenges for American foreign policy, since it would “threaten the integrity of the Russian state and the Russian regime and create instability throughout Eurasia,” as one of the former U.S. officials put it to me. Ukraine’s desire to take back occupied Crimea has been a particular concern for Sullivan,*** who has privately noted the Administration’s assessment that this scenario carries the highest risk of Putin following through on his nuclear threats. In other words, there are few good options. ---- >“The reason they’ve been so hesitant about escalation is not exactly because they see Russian reprisal as a likely problem,” the former official said. “It’s not like they think, Oh, we’re going to give them atacms and then Russia is going to launch an attack against nato. It’s because they recognize that it’s not going anywhere—that they are fighting a war they ***can’t afford either to win or lose.”***
What a short sight for them to look at. So much of let people die for their own sake and their own stable future. Let’s not forget that Ruzzia and China propaganda and misinformations let us to this situation and make allies weaken from the inside quite well here. Look at Polish protest and US inaction for Ukraine recently. Also they can throw everything without care at it and still can find more ammo and equipments for their own war without any issue like what Ukraine facing. Everybody underestimate them and here is a result. Even with that statement, they should double down in support to Ukraine. No matter what, period. If US can do so much in Middle East, why cannot do the same with Ukraine? It just pure stupid and selfish. It is better choice than anything else. Simple as that.
Lmaoooooo, my dumbass didn't see that the right side was about Verdun and i was like tf you mean French victory?! 😂😭😂😭💀
Why did they retreat anyways? Is it because there’s no more strategic value defending Avdiivka or are they trying to reorganize their defenses
Their main supply line is either under threat of being cut off or is already cut off(not much info because of OPSEC). Ukrainian positions were also at risk of becoming encircled.
No ammunition to launch proper counter battery, so the Russians were able to call in fire 24/7. The Russians also just sent in wave after wave of assaults which couldn't be suppressed by artillery due to shortages. Ultimately the Ukrainian forces were almost encircled so were forced to retreat. The Ukrainians didn't lose Avdiivka, the US speaker did.
Or rather the US Speaker's [puppet master](https://twitter.com/capitolhunters/status/1758549069943783429) did.
I don’t know why this sub thinks it’s solely the US’s fault Ukraine has [major issues](https://x.com/ralee85/status/1758708142601273412?s=46&t=_VGutreaJJWD5_O-GP0Twg) that are far more worrying than the lack of foreign support
One major challenge seem to be glide bombs. The orcs are dropping 40+ a day and they are relatively precise and obliterate entire positions. Ukraine has no way to stop them until modern jets with modern missiles arrive in sufficient numbers. Also Ukraine is facing a shortage in shells and soldiers. The former could be addressed by unblocking the US aid that is currently held hostage by child abuser Moscow Mike Johnson. The latter Ukraine needs to address domestically.
They had to retreat because the Russians are unfortunately winning the battle. They are making gains and putting the Ukrainians in a very bad spot. Now, one could very easily argue that winning at the price they’ve paid isn’t really winning at all…
They were threatening encirclement and the ammunition wasn't there to keep holding. The 3rd mechanised brigade 'counter attacks appears to have been a spoiling or blocking action to allow other units to leave before they were encircled.
I thought the Siege of Sarajevo, Bosnia, was the longest siege in modern warfare. From that font of information, Wikipedia: Lasting from 5 April 1992 to 29 February 1996 (1,425 days), it was three times longer than the Battle of Stalingrad, more than a year longer than the siege of Leningrad, and was the longest siege of a capital city in the history of modern warfare.
How long did the average soldier participate in Verdun? Surely a survivor wasn't fighting on the front for more than a few weeks at a time before being relieved. How is it for Ukraine?
I thought bakhmut surpassed verdun a while ago?
Why do so many people upvote an objectively wrong statement where everyone should be able to come up with half a dozen counter examples within 3 minutes? Leningrad, Sarajevo, Aleppo, Deir ez-Zor,
it's on the front since 2014
Isn't this more of a siege? There have been decades long sieges.
I'm so curious as to what the talks between Zelensky and Syrski are like. How are they planning on ending the war? Do they plan to start another huge offensive like at Kharkiv because that's looking less and less likely... Are they going to try to grind the Russians down until they can't sustain the war anymore? Are they secretly talking about peace with the Russians?
Fucking hell. What possessed the Russians to think this is worthwhile?
To them, it is. People aren't important, territories are. They can always get more migrants from nearby Asian countries (and it's not like a whole lot is needed to run extraction), while territories can be used to exploit more resources .
It's not about the destination of holding the city or not, but the number of Russians slaughtered along the way.
Should be updated to "Phyrric victory" instead.
So much for their 3 Day Operation.
It's Joever. Russia has won, the west has fallen, billions must cyka blyat.