The Official Russian Invasion of Ukraine Thread

941,845 Views | 10279 Replies | Last: 6 hrs ago by Eastern Oregon Bear
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 12:13p, 7/12/23
sycasey said:
movielover said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
Big C said:
Got a 20 year old? Want to send him/her over to help this noble cause? I thought not, nor should you.


Why should anyone expect, at this point, that Russia's military is strong enough to require us to draft troops and send them over to fight them? Seems pretty clear from their results in Ukraine that it wouldn't require nearly that much effort.

So it's OK, as long as it's the Ukrainians, and soon the Poles, that are doing the dying for us?

A large number of Ukrainians don't want to die at the front, and are being forcibly conscripted.

As well, about 4,800 foreign fighters have already been killed, and NATO insiders (especially the Brits and Poles) have been calling for an escalation:

Russia can stop invading whenever they want. I think it's pretty clear at this point that the Ukrainians do not want to be part of Russia.


Half truth, half lie = lie.

Eastern UKR, the Donbas area of ethnic Russians, want peace either via a neutral zone or joining Russia partly, or in whole.

So Russia says. I think the people there should be able to choose or not choose that option freely rather than be militarily invaded.

People in the Donbass have been waging a guerilla war against the Kiev regime since 2014. Kiev sent their tanks and airplanes to crush them, and killed 11,000 civilians in the process. The Kiev regime president Poroshenko even boasted about bombing locals into submission, stating tin this speech hat the Donbass kids will grow up cowering in basements while Ukrainian kids go about their daily lives.



Mutinies against the Maidan Coup were also violently repressed in the rest of russophone Ukraine, including Mariupol and Odessa. Kiev sent their tanks into Mariupol to crush locals on Victory Day, which commemorates the defeat of Nazi Germany (see below), and they bussed hundreds of thugs from the northwest to crush unarmed protestors in Odessa, burning alive dozens of them in May 2014.







Odessa massacre:


Reply Quote
3
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 12:36p, 7/12/23
sycasey said:
oski003 said:
sycasey said:
oski003 said:
sycasey said:
oski003 said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
Big C said:
Got a 20 year old? Want to send him/her over to help this noble cause? I thought not, nor should you.


Why should anyone expect, at this point, that Russia's military is strong enough to require us to draft troops and send them over to fight them? Seems pretty clear from their results in Ukraine that it wouldn't require nearly that much effort.

So it's OK, as long as it's the Ukrainians, and soon the Poles, that are doing the dying for us?

A large number of Ukrainians don't want to die at the front, and are being forcibly conscripted.

As well, about 4,800 foreign fighters have already been killed, and NATO insiders (especially the Brits and Poles) have been calling for an escalation:

Russia can stop invading whenever they want. I think it's pretty clear at this point that the Ukrainians do not want to be part of Russia.


Which part of Ukraine are you referring to? Does this include the Donbass? Crimea? Yes, we are all aware that Russia can unilaterally withdraw. We are also aware that peace can be achieved by NATO recognizing Crimea as Russian, recognizing Donbass as independent, and not expanding into Ukraine.

That's kind of up to the Ukrainians. Seems like they still want to fight for the Donbass, at minimum.


Which Ukrainians? The ones in Western Ukraine? Do the people in Crimea have a say?
I'm all for everyone in Ukraine getting the chance to participate in a free and fair election. Hopefully they get to do it without an ongoing military invasion or while under the thumb of Russian occupation. I think it goes without saying that an election under those conditions would not be free and fair.


Got it. The people in the Crimea and Donbass don't have a say right now because the area is either Russian controlled or contested. However, the people in Kyiv have a say over their fate because these areas were part of Ukraine when Ukraine was a close ally of Russia.

Yes, the Ukrainian government gets to govern parts of Ukraine. Was this supposed to be a gotcha?


No, but it is important to clarify whose will we are talking about. In which case, we are talking about Zelensky who, according to Cal88, ran on a platform that respected the ethnicities in the Eastern regions. I truly don't know if the majority of Ukraine wouldn't accept Russia's terms. You pretend you do. When is the next election?
Reply Quote
4
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oski003 • 1:19p, 7/12/23
oski003 said:
sycasey said:
oski003 said:
sycasey said:
oski003 said:
sycasey said:
oski003 said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
Big C said:
Got a 20 year old? Want to send him/her over to help this noble cause? I thought not, nor should you.


Why should anyone expect, at this point, that Russia's military is strong enough to require us to draft troops and send them over to fight them? Seems pretty clear from their results in Ukraine that it wouldn't require nearly that much effort.

So it's OK, as long as it's the Ukrainians, and soon the Poles, that are doing the dying for us?

A large number of Ukrainians don't want to die at the front, and are being forcibly conscripted.

As well, about 4,800 foreign fighters have already been killed, and NATO insiders (especially the Brits and Poles) have been calling for an escalation:

Russia can stop invading whenever they want. I think it's pretty clear at this point that the Ukrainians do not want to be part of Russia.


Which part of Ukraine are you referring to? Does this include the Donbass? Crimea? Yes, we are all aware that Russia can unilaterally withdraw. We are also aware that peace can be achieved by NATO recognizing Crimea as Russian, recognizing Donbass as independent, and not expanding into Ukraine.

That's kind of up to the Ukrainians. Seems like they still want to fight for the Donbass, at minimum.


Which Ukrainians? The ones in Western Ukraine? Do the people in Crimea have a say?
I'm all for everyone in Ukraine getting the chance to participate in a free and fair election. Hopefully they get to do it without an ongoing military invasion or while under the thumb of Russian occupation. I think it goes without saying that an election under those conditions would not be free and fair.


Got it. The people in the Crimea and Donbass don't have a say right now because the area is either Russian controlled or contested. However, the people in Kyiv have a say over their fate because these areas were part of Ukraine when Ukraine was a close ally of Russia.

Yes, the Ukrainian government gets to govern parts of Ukraine. Was this supposed to be a gotcha?


No, but it is important to clarify whose will we are talking about. In which case, we are talking about Zelensky who, according to Cal88, ran on a platform that respected the ethnicities in the Eastern regions. I truly don't know if the majority of Ukraine wouldn't accept Russia's terms. You pretend you do. When is the next election?

Zelensky himself is a Russophone who spoke broken Ukrainian at the time he run for president. He run on a peace and reconciliation platform with the Donbass and the rest of the russophone country, emphasizing the basic rights of the large russophone minority in the south (Crimea) and east, and the need to restore harmony in his country:

Reply Quote
4
1 edit
Unit2Sucks
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:41p, 7/12/23
Hard to overestimate the amount of misinformation coming from Putin and his numerous propagandists.

As I noted a few days ago, Russian construction firms are being forced to provide "volunteers" for their stupid war. This is only happening because Russia is suffering massive losses and needs more people. Of course, this isn't helping their economy which was already struggling under the lack of productive workers due to massive brain drain.



Why else might they need more soldiers? Because they are dying. The shills will make up massive numbers for UFA losses and pretend that Russia has suffered almost no casualties (soon they will tell us they've brought people back from the dead with their superior technology) but the reality is that they are suffering huge losses for a variety of reasons, among them inadequate medical care. I've noted this for quite a while. The UK MOD is acknowledging it now as well.



And of course, there are legions of anecdotes from Russian language sources..



And of course, the lack of sufficient personnel leads to insufficient leave. Fortunately, the corrupt Russian free market has provided an opportunity.



None of this should be surprising to anyone - it's consistent with the absolute sh(t show of a war. I do, of course, recognize that this post will be followed by a firehose of falsehoods linking to Russian media accounts which claim that everything going swimmingly and that 500+ days into a 3 day war they are exactly where they want to be.




Reply Quote
4
dimitrig
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:07p, 7/12/23

Russia, for all its faults, is a large modern country. I don't for a second believe that thousands of its soldiers are dying because of lack of first aid even with the logistical problems they have had.

That said, I also don't believe that the casualty ratio is as lopsided as Putin88 wants us to believe.

Artillery isn't really all that effective against hardened targets. Destruction requires a direct hit with high-explosive or concrete-piercing shells and we have seen that Russian artillery has not been that accurate.That is probably why it took so long to capture Bakhmut, which was heavily fortified.

According to an assessment collated by the U.S. Defence Intelligence Agency, Russia has suffered 189,500-223,000 total casualties, including 35,500-43,000 killed in action and 154,000-180,000 wounded.

Ukraine has suffered 124,500-131,000 total casualties, including 15,500-17,500 killed in action and 109,000-113,500 wounded in action, according to the document entitled "Russia/Ukraine - Assessed Combat Sustainability and Attrition."

Link:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-war-already-with-up-354000-casualties-likely-drag-us-documents-2023-04-12/

These numbers sound much more realistic given that Ukraine is on the defensive and Russia has taken on assault roles but let's allow that these numbers are too low and Ukraine has suffered twice as many casualties. That still puts the number about on par with Russia. To me that seems totally believable given the stalemate on the battlefield. If the numbers were really as lopsided as Putin88 says then Russia would be in much better shape strategically.



Reply Quote
3
1 edit
Big C
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 2:15p, 7/12/23
sycasey said:
Big C said:
Got a 20 year old? Want to send him/her over to help this noble cause? I thought not, nor should you.


Why should anyone expect, at this point, that Russia's military is strong enough to require us to draft troops and send them over to fight them? Seems pretty clear from their results in Ukraine that it wouldn't require nearly that much effort.

You quoted part of my post and I believe that part is taken a tiny bit out of context. The last thing we want is to go in there with US/NATO troops, since the thing we want the most is for the war to remain contained.

Russia has clearly under-performed, but because they are larger and better armed than the smaller Ukraine, it is basically a stalemate over there. One that is costing tens of thousands of lives (on both sides) and ripping a country to shreds.

My point about sending our men and women into that war (which no one wants to do) was to emphasize how bad it is in Ukraine right now. And that that has been exacerbated by talk of Ukraine joining NATO, stretching over the past almost 30 years.
Reply Quote
2
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Big C • 2:27p, 7/12/23
Big C said:
sycasey said:
Big C said:
Got a 20 year old? Want to send him/her over to help this noble cause? I thought not, nor should you.


Why should anyone expect, at this point, that Russia's military is strong enough to require us to draft troops and send them over to fight them? Seems pretty clear from their results in Ukraine that it wouldn't require nearly that much effort.

You quoted part of my post and I believe that part is taken a tiny bit out of context. The last thing we want is to go in there with US/NATO troops, since the thing we want the most is for the war to remain contained.

Russia has clearly under-performed, but because they are larger and better armed than the smaller Ukraine, it is basically a stalemate over there. One that is costing tens of thousands of lives (on both sides) and ripping a country to shreds.

My point about sending our men and women into that war (which no one wants to do) was to emphasize how bad it is in Ukraine right now. And that that has been exacerbated by talk of Ukraine joining NATO, stretching over the past almost 30 years.

Ukraine has exacerbated that talk themselves, more than anyone. This and continuing to fight without surrender are their choices.
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oski003 • 2:28p, 7/12/23
oski003 said:
sycasey said:
oski003 said:
sycasey said:
oski003 said:
sycasey said:
oski003 said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
Big C said:
Got a 20 year old? Want to send him/her over to help this noble cause? I thought not, nor should you.


Why should anyone expect, at this point, that Russia's military is strong enough to require us to draft troops and send them over to fight them? Seems pretty clear from their results in Ukraine that it wouldn't require nearly that much effort.

So it's OK, as long as it's the Ukrainians, and soon the Poles, that are doing the dying for us?

A large number of Ukrainians don't want to die at the front, and are being forcibly conscripted.

As well, about 4,800 foreign fighters have already been killed, and NATO insiders (especially the Brits and Poles) have been calling for an escalation:

Russia can stop invading whenever they want. I think it's pretty clear at this point that the Ukrainians do not want to be part of Russia.


Which part of Ukraine are you referring to? Does this include the Donbass? Crimea? Yes, we are all aware that Russia can unilaterally withdraw. We are also aware that peace can be achieved by NATO recognizing Crimea as Russian, recognizing Donbass as independent, and not expanding into Ukraine.

That's kind of up to the Ukrainians. Seems like they still want to fight for the Donbass, at minimum.


Which Ukrainians? The ones in Western Ukraine? Do the people in Crimea have a say?
I'm all for everyone in Ukraine getting the chance to participate in a free and fair election. Hopefully they get to do it without an ongoing military invasion or while under the thumb of Russian occupation. I think it goes without saying that an election under those conditions would not be free and fair.


Got it. The people in the Crimea and Donbass don't have a say right now because the area is either Russian controlled or contested. However, the people in Kyiv have a say over their fate because these areas were part of Ukraine when Ukraine was a close ally of Russia.

Yes, the Ukrainian government gets to govern parts of Ukraine. Was this supposed to be a gotcha?


No, but it is important to clarify whose will we are talking about. In which case, we are talking about Zelensky who, according to Cal88, ran on a platform that respected the ethnicities in the Eastern regions. I truly don't know if the majority of Ukraine wouldn't accept Russia's terms. You pretend you do. When is the next election?

No idea, but Zelenskyy won big and there is no reason to think he's lost significant support since then.
Reply Quote
4
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Unit2Sucks • 2:31p, 7/12/23
Unit2Sucks said:
Hard to overestimate the amount of misinformation coming from Putin and his numerous propagandists.

As I noted a few days ago, Russian construction firms are being forced to provide "volunteers" for their stupid war. This is only happening because Russia is suffering massive losses and needs more people. Of course, this isn't helping their economy which was already struggling under the lack of productive workers due to massive brain drain.



Why else might they need more soldiers? Because they are dying. The shills will make up massive numbers for UFA losses and pretend that Russia has suffered almost no casualties (soon they will tell us they've brought people back from the dead with their superior technology) but the reality is that they are suffering huge losses for a variety of reasons, among them inadequate medical care. I've noted this for quite a while. The UK MOD is acknowledging it now as well.



And of course, the lack of sufficient personnel leads to insufficient leave. Fortunately, the corrupt Russian free market has provided an opportunity.

None of this should be surprising to anyone - it's consistent with the absolute sh(t show of a war. I do, of course, recognize that this post will be followed by a firehose of falsehoods linking to Russian media accounts which claim that everything going swimmingly and that 500+ days into a 3 day war they are exactly where they want to be.

The construction workers mobilized here are being used as construction workers to rebuilt areas like Mariupol, where several thousands new units are being rebuilt right now:









All these buildings above are brand new, built in Mariupol after Russia dislodged the Azov Batallion from there. A lot of the work has been done by construction workers from Russia, who were conscripted into military contractor units.

The British Ministry of Defense knows this, they are deliberately misrepresenting this information, claiming instead that these construction workers are forcibly conscripted to fight in the war... George Orwell is alive and well in Britain. Unfortunately, there is next to zero chance of the broader western and British public being skeptical about MoD propaganda, all this is taken at face value. They are trying to counter the narrative from dozens of captured scenes of forced conscriptions across Ukraine with these stories of construction workers being sent to the front... Projection!


Also, the injured left to rot and dying: more pure projection. I can post a dozen somewhat gruesome videos here of Ukrainians abandoning their own, including several only published today, from Ukrainian sources and Russian drone footage, pretty harrowing stuff. In one footage, which I will post because there is no gore, one Ukrainian injured soldier is literally getting pushed out from an AFV and left to fend for himself (at 1:30).


In another video also posted only today, an older bearded Ukrainian soldier is hit in the trench, his leg taken out (you can see him painfully pulling out a tourniquet), crying for help, only to be found later dead in that trench by Russian soldiers :
(warning, although not graphic, fairly painful to watch)


There is also the testimony of the Irish mercenary, also published today, he was shocked at how common a practice within Ukrainian military to not care for their wounded or attempt to retrieve the bodies of dead soldiers. You can't fake that kind of firsthand testimony from western soldiers interviewed by western media:

"Ukrainian soldiers dead, just left there! Just left there! I don't know why!"


Reply Quote
4
1 edit
Big C
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:35p, 7/12/23
Written yesterday by Steven Erlanger and Cassandra Vinograd, for the New York Times (italics and parentheticals are mine):

" ... The alliance's (NATO's) leaders, meeting at a summit in Vilnius, had struggled to agree on language about how to describe a timeline and conditions for what everyone agrees will be Ukraine's eventual membership in NATO ... "

Well, I guess that the word "everyone" in this passage refers only to all of NATO's leaders... because I certainly do not agree that Ukraine should have an eventual membership in NATO. Nor do many international relations experts with credentials far greater than mine (although you rarely hear this perspective on "regular" US news).

It seemed like only a couple of days ago that the NATO folks who were about to meet seemed to be against pushing the idea of Ukraine joining. Suddenly, "everyone agrees". Although I haven't been following the inside workings of NATO super, super closely, I feel like this is being ramrodded through. Seriously, none of NATO's leaders are against bringing in Ukraine?!? They got some good group-think going on over there!

With all the pointless wars we've been involved in over the past 75 years, you'd think we would, at some point, learn something from them. Seems like we do, for maybe a few years, but soon all is forgotten in time for the next war. USA!


Not 100% analogous, but how would the US feel if Mexico wanted to join a close military alliance with Russia?
Reply Quote
3
4 edits
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 2:43p, 7/12/23
sycasey said:
oski003 said:




No, but it is important to clarify whose will we are talking about. In which case, we are talking about Zelensky who, according to Cal88, ran on a platform that respected the ethnicities in the Eastern regions. I truly don't know if the majority of Ukraine wouldn't accept Russia's terms. You pretend you do. When is the next election?

No idea, but Zelenskyy won big and there is no reason to think he's lost significant support since then.

Come on, you know better. Zelensky pulled a 180, collaborating with the Banderites in power. He talked of reconciliation with the Russia and cultural autonomy and freedom for the russophones, and a few years later after he got elected he oversaw the killing of two members of his Istanbul peace talks being assassinated in broad daylight because they were deemed too soft on Russia.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/ukraine-reports-claim-negotiator-shot-for-treason-officials-say-he-died-in-intel-op/
Reply Quote
3
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 3:15p, 7/12/23
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
oski003 said:




No, but it is important to clarify whose will we are talking about. In which case, we are talking about Zelensky who, according to Cal88, ran on a platform that respected the ethnicities in the Eastern regions. I truly don't know if the majority of Ukraine wouldn't accept Russia's terms. You pretend you do. When is the next election?

No idea, but Zelenskyy won big and there is no reason to think he's lost significant support since then.

Come on, you know better. Zelensky pulled a 180, collaborating with the Banderites in power. He talked of reconciliation with the Russia and cultural autonomy and freedom for the russophones, and a few years later after he got elected he oversaw the killing of two members of his Istanbul peace talks being assassinated in broad daylight because they were deemed too soft on Russia.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/ukraine-reports-claim-negotiator-shot-for-treason-officials-say-he-died-in-intel-op/
I know you are a fan of citing polling numbers for Putin's approval within Russia.

What are Zelenskyy's numbers?
Reply Quote
4
dimitrig
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 3:19p, 7/12/23
Cal88 said:
Unit2Sucks said:
Hard to overestimate the amount of misinformation coming from Putin and his numerous propagandists.

As I noted a few days ago, Russian construction firms are being forced to provide "volunteers" for their stupid war. This is only happening because Russia is suffering massive losses and needs more people. Of course, this isn't helping their economy which was already struggling under the lack of productive workers due to massive brain drain.



Why else might they need more soldiers? Because they are dying. The shills will make up massive numbers for UFA losses and pretend that Russia has suffered almost no casualties (soon they will tell us they've brought people back from the dead with their superior technology) but the reality is that they are suffering huge losses for a variety of reasons, among them inadequate medical care. I've noted this for quite a while. The UK MOD is acknowledging it now as well.



And of course, the lack of sufficient personnel leads to insufficient leave. Fortunately, the corrupt Russian free market has provided an opportunity.

None of this should be surprising to anyone - it's consistent with the absolute sh(t show of a war. I do, of course, recognize that this post will be followed by a firehose of falsehoods linking to Russian media accounts which claim that everything going swimmingly and that 500+ days into a 3 day war they are exactly where they want to be.

The construction workers mobilized here are being used as construction workers to rebuilt areas like Mariupol, where several thousands new units are being rebuilt right now:









All these buildings above are brand new, built in Mariupol after Russia dislodged the Azov Batallion from there. A lot of the work has been done by construction workers from Russia, who were conscripted into military contractor units.

The British Ministry of Defense knows this, they are deliberately misrepresenting this information, claiming instead that these construction workers are forcibly conscripted to fight in the war... George Orwell is alive and well in Britain. Unfortunately, there is next to zero chance of the broader western and British public being skeptical about MoD propaganda, all this is taken at face value. They are trying to counter the narrative from dozens of captured scenes of forced conscriptions across Ukraine with these stories of construction workers being sent to the front... Projection!


Also, the injured left to rot and dying: more pure projection. I can post a dozen somewhat gruesome videos here of Ukrainians abandoning their own, including several only published today, from Ukrainian sources and Russian drone footage, pretty harrowing stuff. In one footage, which I will post because there is no gore, one Ukrainian injured soldier is literally getting pushed out from an AFV and left to fend for himself (at 1:30).


In another video also posted only today, an older bearded Ukrainian soldier is hit in the trench, his leg taken out (you can see him painfully pulling out a tourniquet), crying for help, only to be found later dead in that trench by Russian soldiers :
(warning, although not graphic, fairly painful to watch)


There is also the testimony of the Irish mercenary, also published today, he was shocked at how common a practice within Ukrainian military to not care for their wounded or attempt to retrieve the bodies of dead soldiers. You can't fake that kind of firsthand testimony from western soldiers interviewed by western media:

"Ukrainian soldiers dead, just left there! Just left there! I don't know why!"


It doesn't really matter what role the conscripts are playing. Some will be doctors, nurses, engineers, and yes construction workers. It's not normal to conscript people into the military except during wartime. That Russia has to do this means they have a manpower issue.



Reply Quote
5
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dimitrig • 3:23p, 7/12/23
dimitrig said:

Russia, for all its faults, is a large modern country. I don't for a second believe that thousands of its soldiers are dying because of lack of first aid even with the logistical problems they have had.

That said, I also don't believe that the casualty ratio is as lopsided as Putin88 wants us to believe.

Artillery isn't really all that effective against hardened targets. Destruction requires a direct hit with high-explosive or concrete-piercing shells and we have seen that Russian artillery has not been that accurate.That is probably why it took so long to capture Bakhmut, which was heavily fortified.

According to an assessment collated by the U.S. Defence Intelligence Agency, Russia has suffered 189,500-223,000 total casualties, including 35,500-43,000 killed in action and 154,000-180,000 wounded.

Ukraine has suffered 124,500-131,000 total casualties, including 15,500-17,500 killed in action and 109,000-113,500 wounded in action, according to the document entitled "Russia/Ukraine - Assessed Combat Sustainability and Attrition."

Link:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-war-already-with-up-354000-casualties-likely-drag-us-documents-2023-04-12/

These numbers sound much more realistic given that Ukraine is on the defensive and Russia has taken on assault roles but let's allow that these numbers are too low and Ukraine has suffered twice as many casualties. That still puts the number about on par with Russia. To me that seems totally believable given the stalemate on the battlefield. If the numbers were really as lopsided as Putin88 says then Russia would be in much better shape strategically.

Last November, Ursula von der Leyen, head of the EU (and also the former Minister of Defense of Germany, so she is not some dumb paper pusher bureaucrat), publicly declared that Ukraine had already lost more than 100,000 soldiers. So you're off by a factor of 10+ in your estimate of dead Ukrainians.



That part of the video where she states 100,000 dead Ukrainian soldiers was edited out within 24hrs, but as they say, the internet remembers...


Quote:
Artillery isn't really all that effective against hardened targets. Destruction requires a direct hit with high-explosive or concrete-piercing shells and we have seen that Russian artillery has not been that accurate.That is probably why it took so long to capture Bakhmut, which was heavily fortified.

The Russians have dropped around 8,000 FAB-500/1000 1/2 ton and 1 ton precision gliding bombs to date, they've run two dozen sorties per day since winter. They've targeted hardened positions and buildings occupied by soldiers. As well apartment buildings can't withstand regular shelling, they have used an average of 20,000 shells per day, throughout this war, astronomical quantities.
Reply Quote
3
Unit2Sucks
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dimitrig • 4:44p, 7/12/23
dimitrig said:

Russia, for all its faults, is a large modern country. I don't for a second believe that thousands of its soldiers are dying because of lack of first aid even with the logistical problems they have had.

That said, I also don't believe that the casualty ratio is as lopsided as Putin88 wants us to believe.

Artillery isn't really all that effective against hardened targets. Destruction requires a direct hit with high-explosive or concrete-piercing shells and we have seen that Russian artillery has not been that accurate.That is probably why it took so long to capture Bakhmut, which was heavily fortified.

According to an assessment collated by the U.S. Defence Intelligence Agency, Russia has suffered 189,500-223,000 total casualties, including 35,500-43,000 killed in action and 154,000-180,000 wounded.

Ukraine has suffered 124,500-131,000 total casualties, including 15,500-17,500 killed in action and 109,000-113,500 wounded in action, according to the document entitled "Russia/Ukraine - Assessed Combat Sustainability and Attrition."

Link:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-war-already-with-up-354000-casualties-likely-drag-us-documents-2023-04-12/

These numbers sound much more realistic given that Ukraine is on the defensive and Russia has taken on assault roles but let's allow that these numbers are too low and Ukraine has suffered twice as many casualties. That still puts the number about on par with Russia. To me that seems totally believable given the stalemate on the battlefield. If the numbers were really as lopsided as Putin88 says then Russia would be in much better shape strategically.
Russia's status as a "large modern country" is somewhat irrelevant to the question of medical attention in the field.

This war has been a logistical disaster for them from the start. Large modern countries, particularly petro-states, shouldn't have any trouble providing fuel for their vehicles, but we saw at the start of the war that Russia lost columns of tanks that were abandoned because they ran out of fuel. We've seen that they have trouble equipping, feeding and sheltering their fighters in Ukraine.

Why it would surprise anyone that they also have trouble attending to their sick and wounded is probably because you assume a level of competence that they simply haven't demonstrated.

The fact that Russian propaganda is so devoted to projecting Russia's faults on Ukraine is a good indication that the stories are true.

As for total casualties (on either side) I wouldn't bother to hazard a guess. The "official" sources we've seen have varied wildly. Neither side is open with its casualties and we are still very much in a fog of war. What I do know is that the Russians through their propaganda channels are completely fabricating the casualty numbers on both sides. There is pretty much zero chance that they aren't both underestimating Russian casualties and overestimating Ukrainians. They rely so heavily on obviously doctored numbers (like the weak Russian photoshop job from the criminal release of US classified documents) because the classified documents showed ~3 to 1 ratios in favor of Ukraine. I'm not saying that the real US numbers were accurate (or inaccurate) but the fact that the propagandists relied so heavily on the falsified versions speaks volumes.

Obviously I agree with the thrust of your final statement (although I no longer read Putin88's mad progaganda), if the losses were anywhere close to what Russia's propaganda would have useful idiots believe, this war might have actually ended a long time ago. Every few days or weeks, the fakers increase the number that they falsely claim and it's not long before they claim that Ukraine has suffered 1 million casualties vs less than 100k for Russia. The irony is that they should be appalled at the loss of life caused by this pathetic and disgusting criminal invasion, but instead they proudly boast of what they believe to be lopsided casualties being taken by young men and women defending their homeland from a fascist revanchist war criminal.

This is why I continue to ignore Putin88 and Bakhmut Bob and suggest that any attempt to engage with them will just be met with a ridiculous litany of low-grade propaganda which will not further any reasonable discussion we may want to have.
Reply Quote
5
1 edit
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Unit2Sucks • 7:03p, 7/12/23
Unit2Sucks said:
dimitrig said:

Russia, for all its faults, is a large modern country. I don't for a second believe that thousands of its soldiers are dying because of lack of first aid even with the logistical problems they have had....
Russia's status as a "large modern country" is somewhat irrelevant to the question of medical attention in the field.

This war has been a logistical disaster for them from the start. Large modern countries, particularly petro-states, shouldn't have any trouble providing fuel for their vehicles, but we saw at the start of the war that Russia lost columns of tanks that were abandoned because they ran out of fuel. We've seen that they have trouble equipping, feeding and sheltering their fighters in Ukraine.

Why it would surprise anyone that they also have trouble attending to their sick and wounded is probably because you assume a level of competence that they simply haven't demonstrated.

Your posts are easy to dismantle, because they are emotionally-driven tripe, reflecting the superficiality of your cultural takes. If that weren't bad enough, you display the emotional maturity of a 13yo girl under the throes of a hormonal spike.

So Russia, which is producing 4 million shells/year and using 20,000 shells a day, is a... logistical disaster?!?

Do you even realize how complex and extensive their supply chain stretching from Siberia to the Dniepr must be for them to be putting out that kind of output from start to finish, day in day out, for over a year??



Quote:
As for total casualties (on either side) I wouldn't bother to hazard a guess. The "official" sources we've seen have varied wildly. Neither side is open with its casualties and we are still very much in a fog of war. What I do know is that the Russians through their propaganda channels are blah blah blah...

Let's pretend that this woman does not exist.
Reply Quote
3
2 edits
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dimitrig • 7:22p, 7/12/23
dimitrig said:
Cal88 said:


The construction workers mobilized here are being used as construction workers to rebuilt areas like Mariupol, where several thousands new units are being rebuilt right now:

All these buildings above are brand new, built in Mariupol after Russia dislodged the Azov Batallion from there. A lot of the work has been done by construction workers from Russia, who were conscripted into military contractor units.

The British Ministry of Defense knows this, they are deliberately misrepresenting this information, claiming instead that these construction workers are forcibly conscripted to fight in the war... George Orwell is alive and well in Britain. Unfortunately, there is next to zero chance of the broader western and British public being skeptical about MoD propaganda, all this is taken at face value. They are trying to counter the narrative from dozens of captured scenes of forced conscriptions across Ukraine with these stories of construction workers being sent to the front... Projection!

It doesn't really matter what role the conscripts are playing. Some will be doctors, nurses, engineers, and yes construction workers. It's not normal to conscript people into the military except during wartime. That Russia has to do this means they have a manpower issue.

Of course it does matter!

These construction workers are recruited to work on housing projects far removed from the frontlines, in order to attend to Maruipol's postwar housing crisis. They are not part of any military maneuvres.

More importantly, the British MoD and U2S are both deceptively implying that these construction workers are forcibly conscripted to be used as soldiers, and are completely misconstruing this false innuendo as a kind of proof that Russia has been losing a whole lot of soldiers:
Quote:
Why else might they need more soldiers? Because they are dying. The shills will make up massive numbers for UFA losses and pretend that Russia has suffered almost no casualties (soon they will tell us they've brought people back from the dead with their superior technology) but the reality is that they are suffering huge losses for a variety of reasons, among them inadequate medical care. I've noted this for quite a while. The UK MOD is acknowledging it now as well.

The Brits are knowingly lying, but I think U2S actually believes his own deluded narratives, he's not just drunk the koolaid, he's also bathing in it every day.

Reply Quote
4
dimitrig
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 8:01p, 7/12/23
Cal88 said:
dimitrig said:

Russia, for all its faults, is a large modern country. I don't for a second believe that thousands of its soldiers are dying because of lack of first aid even with the logistical problems they have had.

That said, I also don't believe that the casualty ratio is as lopsided as Putin88 wants us to believe.

Artillery isn't really all that effective against hardened targets. Destruction requires a direct hit with high-explosive or concrete-piercing shells and we have seen that Russian artillery has not been that accurate.That is probably why it took so long to capture Bakhmut, which was heavily fortified.

According to an assessment collated by the U.S. Defence Intelligence Agency, Russia has suffered 189,500-223,000 total casualties, including 35,500-43,000 killed in action and 154,000-180,000 wounded.

Ukraine has suffered 124,500-131,000 total casualties, including 15,500-17,500 killed in action and 109,000-113,500 wounded in action, according to the document entitled "Russia/Ukraine - Assessed Combat Sustainability and Attrition."

Link:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-war-already-with-up-354000-casualties-likely-drag-us-documents-2023-04-12/

These numbers sound much more realistic given that Ukraine is on the defensive and Russia has taken on assault roles but let's allow that these numbers are too low and Ukraine has suffered twice as many casualties. That still puts the number about on par with Russia. To me that seems totally believable given the stalemate on the battlefield. If the numbers were really as lopsided as Putin88 says then Russia would be in much better shape strategically.

Last November, Ursula von der Leyen, head of the EU (and also the former Minister of Defense of Germany, so she is not some dumb paper pusher bureaucrat), publicly declared that Ukraine had already lost more than 100,000 soldiers. So you're off by a factor of 10+ in your estimate of dead Ukrainians.



That part of the video where she states 100,000 dead Ukrainian soldiers was edited out within 24hrs, but as they say, the internet remembers...


Quote:
Artillery isn't really all that effective against hardened targets. Destruction requires a direct hit with high-explosive or concrete-piercing shells and we have seen that Russian artillery has not been that accurate.That is probably why it took so long to capture Bakhmut, which was heavily fortified.

The Russians have dropped around 8,000 FAB-500/1000 1/2 ton and 1 ton precision gliding bombs to date, they've run two dozen sorties per day since winter. They've targeted hardened positions and buildings occupied by soldiers. As well apartment buildings can't withstand regular shelling, they have used an average of 20,000 shells per day, throughout this war, astronomical quantities.

I'm not off, but you are claiming that the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency is off and Ursula von der Leyen is correct.


Reply Quote
2
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dimitrig • 8:54p, 7/12/23
dimitrig said:
Cal88 said:
dimitrig said:

Russia, for all its faults, is a large modern country. I don't for a second believe that thousands of its soldiers are dying because of lack of first aid even with the logistical problems they have had.

That said, I also don't believe that the casualty ratio is as lopsided as Putin88 wants us to believe.

Artillery isn't really all that effective against hardened targets. Destruction requires a direct hit with high-explosive or concrete-piercing shells and we have seen that Russian artillery has not been that accurate.That is probably why it took so long to capture Bakhmut, which was heavily fortified.

According to an assessment collated by the U.S. Defence Intelligence Agency, Russia has suffered 189,500-223,000 total casualties, including 35,500-43,000 killed in action and 154,000-180,000 wounded.

Ukraine has suffered 124,500-131,000 total casualties, including 15,500-17,500 killed in action and 109,000-113,500 wounded in action, according to the document entitled "Russia/Ukraine - Assessed Combat Sustainability and Attrition."

Link:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-war-already-with-up-354000-casualties-likely-drag-us-documents-2023-04-12/

These numbers sound much more realistic given that Ukraine is on the defensive and Russia has taken on assault roles but let's allow that these numbers are too low and Ukraine has suffered twice as many casualties. That still puts the number about on par with Russia. To me that seems totally believable given the stalemate on the battlefield. If the numbers were really as lopsided as Putin88 says then Russia would be in much better shape strategically.

Last November, Ursula von der Leyen, head of the EU (and also the former Minister of Defense of Germany, so she is not some dumb paper pusher bureaucrat), publicly declared that Ukraine had already lost more than 100,000 soldiers. So you're off by a factor of 10+ in your estimate of dead Ukrainians.



That part of the video where she states 100,000 dead Ukrainian soldiers was edited out within 24hrs, but as they say, the internet remembers...


Quote:
Artillery isn't really all that effective against hardened targets. Destruction requires a direct hit with high-explosive or concrete-piercing shells and we have seen that Russian artillery has not been that accurate.That is probably why it took so long to capture Bakhmut, which was heavily fortified.

The Russians have dropped around 8,000 FAB-500/1000 1/2 ton and 1 ton precision gliding bombs to date, they've run two dozen sorties per day since winter. They've targeted hardened positions and buildings occupied by soldiers. As well apartment buildings can't withstand regular shelling, they have used an average of 20,000 shells per day, throughout this war, astronomical quantities.

I'm not off, but you are claiming that the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency is off and Ursula von der Leyen is correct.



Von der Leyen's comment was an error that was immediately corrected afterward (she meant wounded, not dead). The Russian propagandists will continue quoting this one flub from now until the end of time, of course.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/european-commission-president-ursula-von-der-leyen-flubs-speech-on-ukraine-war-losses-to-kremlins-delight

Reply Quote
5
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dimitrig • 9:26p, 7/12/23
dimitrig said:
Cal88 said:
dimitrig said:

Russia, for all its faults, is a large modern country. I don't for a second believe that thousands of its soldiers are dying because of lack of first aid even with the logistical problems they have had.

That said, I also don't believe that the casualty ratio is as lopsided as Putin88 wants us to believe.

Artillery isn't really all that effective against hardened targets. Destruction requires a direct hit with high-explosive or concrete-piercing shells and we have seen that Russian artillery has not been that accurate.That is probably why it took so long to capture Bakhmut, which was heavily fortified.

According to an assessment collated by the U.S. Defence Intelligence Agency, Russia has suffered 189,500-223,000 total casualties, including 35,500-43,000 killed in action and 154,000-180,000 wounded.

Ukraine has suffered 124,500-131,000 total casualties, including 15,500-17,500 killed in action and 109,000-113,500 wounded in action, according to the document entitled "Russia/Ukraine - Assessed Combat Sustainability and Attrition."

Link:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-war-already-with-up-354000-casualties-likely-drag-us-documents-2023-04-12/

These numbers sound much more realistic given that Ukraine is on the defensive and Russia has taken on assault roles but let's allow that these numbers are too low and Ukraine has suffered twice as many casualties. That still puts the number about on par with Russia. To me that seems totally believable given the stalemate on the battlefield. If the numbers were really as lopsided as Putin88 says then Russia would be in much better shape strategically.

Last November, Ursula von der Leyen, head of the EU (and also the former Minister of Defense of Germany, so she is not some dumb paper pusher bureaucrat), publicly declared that Ukraine had already lost more than 100,000 soldiers. So you're off by a factor of 10+ in your estimate of dead Ukrainians.



That part of the video where she states 100,000 dead Ukrainian soldiers was edited out within 24hrs, but as they say, the internet remembers...


Quote:
Artillery isn't really all that effective against hardened targets. Destruction requires a direct hit with high-explosive or concrete-piercing shells and we have seen that Russian artillery has not been that accurate.That is probably why it took so long to capture Bakhmut, which was heavily fortified.

The Russians have dropped around 8,000 FAB-500/1000 1/2 ton and 1 ton precision gliding bombs to date, they've run two dozen sorties per day since winter. They've targeted hardened positions and buildings occupied by soldiers. As well apartment buildings can't withstand regular shelling, they have used an average of 20,000 shells per day, throughout this war, astronomical quantities.

I'm not off, but you are claiming that the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency is off and Ursula von der Leyen is correct.

Yes, the US DIA is lying, no question about this. "Massaging the truth" is one of the main tasks of intel agencies.



VDL is a former German defense minister, she was just caught in a candid moment and her handlers tried to backpedal. She stated in that sentence that both Russia and Ukraine have had over 100,000 soldiers killed, so she couldn't have been wrong about the numbers of Ukrainians killed, and she didn't mention anything about "casualties" or wounded. As a defense minister, and a German one at that, she knows the difference.
Reply Quote
4
dimitrig
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 9:37p, 7/12/23
Cal88 said:
dimitrig said:
Cal88 said:
dimitrig said:

Russia, for all its faults, is a large modern country. I don't for a second believe that thousands of its soldiers are dying because of lack of first aid even with the logistical problems they have had.

That said, I also don't believe that the casualty ratio is as lopsided as Putin88 wants us to believe.

Artillery isn't really all that effective against hardened targets. Destruction requires a direct hit with high-explosive or concrete-piercing shells and we have seen that Russian artillery has not been that accurate.That is probably why it took so long to capture Bakhmut, which was heavily fortified.

According to an assessment collated by the U.S. Defence Intelligence Agency, Russia has suffered 189,500-223,000 total casualties, including 35,500-43,000 killed in action and 154,000-180,000 wounded.

Ukraine has suffered 124,500-131,000 total casualties, including 15,500-17,500 killed in action and 109,000-113,500 wounded in action, according to the document entitled "Russia/Ukraine - Assessed Combat Sustainability and Attrition."

Link:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-war-already-with-up-354000-casualties-likely-drag-us-documents-2023-04-12/

These numbers sound much more realistic given that Ukraine is on the defensive and Russia has taken on assault roles but let's allow that these numbers are too low and Ukraine has suffered twice as many casualties. That still puts the number about on par with Russia. To me that seems totally believable given the stalemate on the battlefield. If the numbers were really as lopsided as Putin88 says then Russia would be in much better shape strategically.

Last November, Ursula von der Leyen, head of the EU (and also the former Minister of Defense of Germany, so she is not some dumb paper pusher bureaucrat), publicly declared that Ukraine had already lost more than 100,000 soldiers. So you're off by a factor of 10+ in your estimate of dead Ukrainians.



That part of the video where she states 100,000 dead Ukrainian soldiers was edited out within 24hrs, but as they say, the internet remembers...


Quote:
Artillery isn't really all that effective against hardened targets. Destruction requires a direct hit with high-explosive or concrete-piercing shells and we have seen that Russian artillery has not been that accurate.That is probably why it took so long to capture Bakhmut, which was heavily fortified.

The Russians have dropped around 8,000 FAB-500/1000 1/2 ton and 1 ton precision gliding bombs to date, they've run two dozen sorties per day since winter. They've targeted hardened positions and buildings occupied by soldiers. As well apartment buildings can't withstand regular shelling, they have used an average of 20,000 shells per day, throughout this war, astronomical quantities.

I'm not off, but you are claiming that the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency is off and Ursula von der Leyen is correct.

Yes, the US DIA is lying, no question about this. "Massaging the truth" is one of the main tasks of intel agencies.



VDL is a former German defense minister, she was just caught in a candid moment and her handlers tried to backpedal. She stated in that sentence that both Russia and Ukraine have had over 100,000 soldiers killed, so she couldn't have been wrong about the numbers of Ukrainians killed, and she didn't mention anything about "casualties" or wounded. As a defense minister, and a German one at that, she knows the difference.


Let's say that she is correct. It is still a casualty ratio of 1:1.

Reply Quote
1
1 edit
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 10:06p, 7/12/23
Cal88 said:
dimitrig said:
Cal88 said:
dimitrig said:

Russia, for all its faults, is a large modern country. I don't for a second believe that thousands of its soldiers are dying because of lack of first aid even with the logistical problems they have had.

That said, I also don't believe that the casualty ratio is as lopsided as Putin88 wants us to believe.

Artillery isn't really all that effective against hardened targets. Destruction requires a direct hit with high-explosive or concrete-piercing shells and we have seen that Russian artillery has not been that accurate.That is probably why it took so long to capture Bakhmut, which was heavily fortified.

According to an assessment collated by the U.S. Defence Intelligence Agency, Russia has suffered 189,500-223,000 total casualties, including 35,500-43,000 killed in action and 154,000-180,000 wounded.

Ukraine has suffered 124,500-131,000 total casualties, including 15,500-17,500 killed in action and 109,000-113,500 wounded in action, according to the document entitled "Russia/Ukraine - Assessed Combat Sustainability and Attrition."

Link:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-war-already-with-up-354000-casualties-likely-drag-us-documents-2023-04-12/

These numbers sound much more realistic given that Ukraine is on the defensive and Russia has taken on assault roles but let's allow that these numbers are too low and Ukraine has suffered twice as many casualties. That still puts the number about on par with Russia. To me that seems totally believable given the stalemate on the battlefield. If the numbers were really as lopsided as Putin88 says then Russia would be in much better shape strategically.

Last November, Ursula von der Leyen, head of the EU (and also the former Minister of Defense of Germany, so she is not some dumb paper pusher bureaucrat), publicly declared that Ukraine had already lost more than 100,000 soldiers. So you're off by a factor of 10+ in your estimate of dead Ukrainians.



That part of the video where she states 100,000 dead Ukrainian soldiers was edited out within 24hrs, but as they say, the internet remembers...


Quote:
Artillery isn't really all that effective against hardened targets. Destruction requires a direct hit with high-explosive or concrete-piercing shells and we have seen that Russian artillery has not been that accurate.That is probably why it took so long to capture Bakhmut, which was heavily fortified.

The Russians have dropped around 8,000 FAB-500/1000 1/2 ton and 1 ton precision gliding bombs to date, they've run two dozen sorties per day since winter. They've targeted hardened positions and buildings occupied by soldiers. As well apartment buildings can't withstand regular shelling, they have used an average of 20,000 shells per day, throughout this war, astronomical quantities.

I'm not off, but you are claiming that the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency is off and Ursula von der Leyen is correct.

Yes, the US DIA is lying, no question about this. "Massaging the truth" is one of the main tasks of intel agencies.

Just so we're clear, you're saying the US DIA was lying in LEAKED documents that were released without their permission. So they were deliberately lying to . . . themselves?
Reply Quote
6
tequila4kapp
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Big C • 10:15p, 7/12/23
Big C said:
Written yesterday by Steven Erlanger and Cassandra Vinograd, for the New York Times (italics and parentheticals are mine):

" ... The alliance's (NATO's) leaders, meeting at a summit in Vilnius, had struggled to agree on language about how to describe a timeline and conditions for what everyone agrees will be Ukraine's eventual membership in NATO ... "

Well, I guess that the word "everyone" in this passage refers only to all of NATO's leaders... because I certainly do not agree that Ukraine should have an eventual membership in NATO. Nor do many international relations experts with credentials far greater than mine (although you rarely hear this perspective on "regular" US news).

It seemed like only a couple of days ago that the NATO folks who were about to meet seemed to be against pushing the idea of Ukraine joining. Suddenly, "everyone agrees". Although I haven't been following the inside workings of NATO super, super closely, I feel like this is being ramrodded through. Seriously, none of NATO's leaders are against bringing in Ukraine?!? They got some good group-think going on over there!

With all the pointless wars we've been involved in over the past 75 years, you'd think we would, at some point, learn something from them. Seems like we do, for maybe a few years, but soon all is forgotten in time for the next war. USA!


Not 100% analogous, but how would the US feel if Mexico wanted to join a close military alliance with Russia?
Considering the alliance requires us to militarily aid NATO allies I can hardly think of a more risky proposition than allowing a country to join which is currently at war with Russia and which has contested lands with Russia that are occupied largely by cultural Russians. That's a recipe for disaster.
Reply Quote
5
3 edits
dimitrig
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 10:31p, 7/12/23
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
dimitrig said:
Cal88 said:
dimitrig said:

Russia, for all its faults, is a large modern country. I don't for a second believe that thousands of its soldiers are dying because of lack of first aid even with the logistical problems they have had.

That said, I also don't believe that the casualty ratio is as lopsided as Putin88 wants us to believe.

Artillery isn't really all that effective against hardened targets. Destruction requires a direct hit with high-explosive or concrete-piercing shells and we have seen that Russian artillery has not been that accurate.That is probably why it took so long to capture Bakhmut, which was heavily fortified.

According to an assessment collated by the U.S. Defence Intelligence Agency, Russia has suffered 189,500-223,000 total casualties, including 35,500-43,000 killed in action and 154,000-180,000 wounded.

Ukraine has suffered 124,500-131,000 total casualties, including 15,500-17,500 killed in action and 109,000-113,500 wounded in action, according to the document entitled "Russia/Ukraine - Assessed Combat Sustainability and Attrition."

Link:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-war-already-with-up-354000-casualties-likely-drag-us-documents-2023-04-12/

These numbers sound much more realistic given that Ukraine is on the defensive and Russia has taken on assault roles but let's allow that these numbers are too low and Ukraine has suffered twice as many casualties. That still puts the number about on par with Russia. To me that seems totally believable given the stalemate on the battlefield. If the numbers were really as lopsided as Putin88 says then Russia would be in much better shape strategically.

Last November, Ursula von der Leyen, head of the EU (and also the former Minister of Defense of Germany, so she is not some dumb paper pusher bureaucrat), publicly declared that Ukraine had already lost more than 100,000 soldiers. So you're off by a factor of 10+ in your estimate of dead Ukrainians.



That part of the video where she states 100,000 dead Ukrainian soldiers was edited out within 24hrs, but as they say, the internet remembers...


Quote:
Artillery isn't really all that effective against hardened targets. Destruction requires a direct hit with high-explosive or concrete-piercing shells and we have seen that Russian artillery has not been that accurate.That is probably why it took so long to capture Bakhmut, which was heavily fortified.

The Russians have dropped around 8,000 FAB-500/1000 1/2 ton and 1 ton precision gliding bombs to date, they've run two dozen sorties per day since winter. They've targeted hardened positions and buildings occupied by soldiers. As well apartment buildings can't withstand regular shelling, they have used an average of 20,000 shells per day, throughout this war, astronomical quantities.

I'm not off, but you are claiming that the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency is off and Ursula von der Leyen is correct.

Yes, the US DIA is lying, no question about this. "Massaging the truth" is one of the main tasks of intel agencies.

Just so we're clear, you're saying the US DIA was lying in LEAKED documents that were released without their permission. So they were deliberately lying to . . . themselves?


They wrote it and then they "leaked" it as disinformation.

Don't you know how these conspiracy wingnuts think?

Reply Quote
3
Unit2Sucks
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dimitrig • 11:23p, 7/12/23
dimitrig said:
sycasey said:

Just so we're clear, you're saying the US DIA was lying in LEAKED documents that were released without their permission. So they were deliberately lying to . . . themselves?


They wrote it and then they "leaked" it as disinformation.

Don't you know how these conspiracy wingnuts think?



Don't forget that they gleefully took the laughably fake photoshops which reversed the kill ratios. You will note this pattern of cherry-picking to favor their unsupportable view point is common. We've seen it in other contexts for years and now we have seen it for more than 500 days with respect to this war.

If you ignore all of the evidence showing how poorly things are going for Russia and you focus entirely on the positives, even if those positives are literal shameless fabrications by Russian state media, they can almost pretend like this war isn't a total debacle for their beloved Putin.

But that's not reality and the reality is that they have been making false predictions for 500+ days (MacDoofus predicted the war would last 72-96 hours months before the invasion) and nothing they're predictions haven't come to pass.

I know I'm a broken record here, but at least I'm a credible one. The people defending Putin are almost as good at predicting the future as Q morons.
Reply Quote
7
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dimitrig • 11:30p, 7/12/23
dimitrig said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
dimitrig said:
Cal88 said:
dimitrig said:

Russia, for all its faults, is a large modern country. I don't for a second believe that thousands of its soldiers are dying because of lack of first aid even with the logistical problems they have had.

That said, I also don't believe that the casualty ratio is as lopsided as Putin88 wants us to believe.

Artillery isn't really all that effective against hardened targets. Destruction requires a direct hit with high-explosive or concrete-piercing shells and we have seen that Russian artillery has not been that accurate.That is probably why it took so long to capture Bakhmut, which was heavily fortified.

According to an assessment collated by the U.S. Defence Intelligence Agency, Russia has suffered 189,500-223,000 total casualties, including 35,500-43,000 killed in action and 154,000-180,000 wounded.

Ukraine has suffered 124,500-131,000 total casualties, including 15,500-17,500 killed in action and 109,000-113,500 wounded in action, according to the document entitled "Russia/Ukraine - Assessed Combat Sustainability and Attrition."

Link:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-war-already-with-up-354000-casualties-likely-drag-us-documents-2023-04-12/

These numbers sound much more realistic given that Ukraine is on the defensive and Russia has taken on assault roles but let's allow that these numbers are too low and Ukraine has suffered twice as many casualties. That still puts the number about on par with Russia. To me that seems totally believable given the stalemate on the battlefield. If the numbers were really as lopsided as Putin88 says then Russia would be in much better shape strategically.

Last November, Ursula von der Leyen, head of the EU (and also the former Minister of Defense of Germany, so she is not some dumb paper pusher bureaucrat), publicly declared that Ukraine had already lost more than 100,000 soldiers. So you're off by a factor of 10+ in your estimate of dead Ukrainians.



That part of the video where she states 100,000 dead Ukrainian soldiers was edited out within 24hrs, but as they say, the internet remembers...


Quote:
Artillery isn't really all that effective against hardened targets. Destruction requires a direct hit with high-explosive or concrete-piercing shells and we have seen that Russian artillery has not been that accurate.That is probably why it took so long to capture Bakhmut, which was heavily fortified.

The Russians have dropped around 8,000 FAB-500/1000 1/2 ton and 1 ton precision gliding bombs to date, they've run two dozen sorties per day since winter. They've targeted hardened positions and buildings occupied by soldiers. As well apartment buildings can't withstand regular shelling, they have used an average of 20,000 shells per day, throughout this war, astronomical quantities.

I'm not off, but you are claiming that the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency is off and Ursula von der Leyen is correct.

Yes, the US DIA is lying, no question about this. "Massaging the truth" is one of the main tasks of intel agencies.

Just so we're clear, you're saying the US DIA was lying in LEAKED documents that were released without their permission. So they were deliberately lying to . . . themselves?


They wrote it and then they "leaked" it as disinformation.

Don't you know how these conspiracy wingnuts think?


And also apparently went to all the trouble of writing pages and pages of other material just to bury this one critical lie in the middle of it.

Diabolical!
Reply Quote
7
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 3:49a, 7/13/23
sycasey said:
dimitrig said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
dimitrig said:
Cal88 said:
dimitrig said:

Russia, for all its faults, is a large modern country. I don't for a second believe that thousands of its soldiers are dying because of lack of first aid even with the logistical problems they have had.

That said, I also don't believe that the casualty ratio is as lopsided as Putin88 wants us to believe.

Artillery isn't really all that effective against hardened targets. Destruction requires a direct hit with high-explosive or concrete-piercing shells and we have seen that Russian artillery has not been that accurate.That is probably why it took so long to capture Bakhmut, which was heavily fortified.

According to an assessment collated by the U.S. Defence Intelligence Agency, Russia has suffered 189,500-223,000 total casualties, including 35,500-43,000 killed in action and 154,000-180,000 wounded.

Ukraine has suffered 124,500-131,000 total casualties, including 15,500-17,500 killed in action and 109,000-113,500 wounded in action, according to the document entitled "Russia/Ukraine - Assessed Combat Sustainability and Attrition."

Link:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-war-already-with-up-354000-casualties-likely-drag-us-documents-2023-04-12/

These numbers sound much more realistic given that Ukraine is on the defensive and Russia has taken on assault roles but let's allow that these numbers are too low and Ukraine has suffered twice as many casualties. That still puts the number about on par with Russia. To me that seems totally believable given the stalemate on the battlefield. If the numbers were really as lopsided as Putin88 says then Russia would be in much better shape strategically.

Last November, Ursula von der Leyen, head of the EU (and also the former Minister of Defense of Germany, so she is not some dumb paper pusher bureaucrat), publicly declared that Ukraine had already lost more than 100,000 soldiers. So you're off by a factor of 10+ in your estimate of dead Ukrainians.



That part of the video where she states 100,000 dead Ukrainian soldiers was edited out within 24hrs, but as they say, the internet remembers...


Quote:
Artillery isn't really all that effective against hardened targets. Destruction requires a direct hit with high-explosive or concrete-piercing shells and we have seen that Russian artillery has not been that accurate.That is probably why it took so long to capture Bakhmut, which was heavily fortified.

The Russians have dropped around 8,000 FAB-500/1000 1/2 ton and 1 ton precision gliding bombs to date, they've run two dozen sorties per day since winter. They've targeted hardened positions and buildings occupied by soldiers. As well apartment buildings can't withstand regular shelling, they have used an average of 20,000 shells per day, throughout this war, astronomical quantities.

I'm not off, but you are claiming that the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency is off and Ursula von der Leyen is correct.

Yes, the US DIA is lying, no question about this. "Massaging the truth" is one of the main tasks of intel agencies.

Just so we're clear, you're saying the US DIA was lying in LEAKED documents that were released without their permission. So they were deliberately lying to . . . themselves?


They wrote it and then they "leaked" it as disinformation.

Don't you know how these conspiracy wingnuts think?


And also apparently went to all the trouble of writing pages and pages of other material just to bury this one critical lie in the middle of it.

Diabolical!


What is the buried critical lie?
Reply Quote
2
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oski003 • 6:19a, 7/13/23
oski003 said:
sycasey said:
dimitrig said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
dimitrig said:
Cal88 said:
dimitrig said:

Russia, for all its faults, is a large modern country. I don't for a second believe that thousands of its soldiers are dying because of lack of first aid even with the logistical problems they have had.

That said, I also don't believe that the casualty ratio is as lopsided as Putin88 wants us to believe.

Artillery isn't really all that effective against hardened targets. Destruction requires a direct hit with high-explosive or concrete-piercing shells and we have seen that Russian artillery has not been that accurate.That is probably why it took so long to capture Bakhmut, which was heavily fortified.

According to an assessment collated by the U.S. Defence Intelligence Agency, Russia has suffered 189,500-223,000 total casualties, including 35,500-43,000 killed in action and 154,000-180,000 wounded.

Ukraine has suffered 124,500-131,000 total casualties, including 15,500-17,500 killed in action and 109,000-113,500 wounded in action, according to the document entitled "Russia/Ukraine - Assessed Combat Sustainability and Attrition."

Link:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-war-already-with-up-354000-casualties-likely-drag-us-documents-2023-04-12/

These numbers sound much more realistic given that Ukraine is on the defensive and Russia has taken on assault roles but let's allow that these numbers are too low and Ukraine has suffered twice as many casualties. That still puts the number about on par with Russia. To me that seems totally believable given the stalemate on the battlefield. If the numbers were really as lopsided as Putin88 says then Russia would be in much better shape strategically.

Last November, Ursula von der Leyen, head of the EU (and also the former Minister of Defense of Germany, so she is not some dumb paper pusher bureaucrat), publicly declared that Ukraine had already lost more than 100,000 soldiers. So you're off by a factor of 10+ in your estimate of dead Ukrainians.



That part of the video where she states 100,000 dead Ukrainian soldiers was edited out within 24hrs, but as they say, the internet remembers...


Quote:
Artillery isn't really all that effective against hardened targets. Destruction requires a direct hit with high-explosive or concrete-piercing shells and we have seen that Russian artillery has not been that accurate.That is probably why it took so long to capture Bakhmut, which was heavily fortified.

The Russians have dropped around 8,000 FAB-500/1000 1/2 ton and 1 ton precision gliding bombs to date, they've run two dozen sorties per day since winter. They've targeted hardened positions and buildings occupied by soldiers. As well apartment buildings can't withstand regular shelling, they have used an average of 20,000 shells per day, throughout this war, astronomical quantities.

I'm not off, but you are claiming that the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency is off and Ursula von der Leyen is correct.

Yes, the US DIA is lying, no question about this. "Massaging the truth" is one of the main tasks of intel agencies.

Just so we're clear, you're saying the US DIA was lying in LEAKED documents that were released without their permission. So they were deliberately lying to . . . themselves?


They wrote it and then they "leaked" it as disinformation.

Don't you know how these conspiracy wingnuts think?


And also apparently went to all the trouble of writing pages and pages of other material just to bury this one critical lie in the middle of it.

Diabolical!


What is the buried critical lie?

Try to follow the discussion from the beginning.
Reply Quote
7
AunBear89
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 6:54a, 7/13/23
Yeah - take notes if you are having difficulty keeping up.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- (maybe) Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
Reply Quote
2
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AunBear89 • 7:00a, 7/13/23
AunBear89 said:
Yeah - take notes if you are having difficulty keeping up.


Alternatively, you can just specify what the one buried critical lie here is.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
tequila4kapp
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 7:10a, 7/13/23
sycasey said:
oski003 said:
sycasey said:
dimitrig said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
dimitrig said:
Cal88 said:
dimitrig said:

Russia, for all its faults, is a large modern country. I don't for a second believe that thousands of its soldiers are dying because of lack of first aid even with the logistical problems they have had.

That said, I also don't believe that the casualty ratio is as lopsided as Putin88 wants us to believe.

Artillery isn't really all that effective against hardened targets. Destruction requires a direct hit with high-explosive or concrete-piercing shells and we have seen that Russian artillery has not been that accurate.That is probably why it took so long to capture Bakhmut, which was heavily fortified.

According to an assessment collated by the U.S. Defence Intelligence Agency, Russia has suffered 189,500-223,000 total casualties, including 35,500-43,000 killed in action and 154,000-180,000 wounded.

Ukraine has suffered 124,500-131,000 total casualties, including 15,500-17,500 killed in action and 109,000-113,500 wounded in action, according to the document entitled "Russia/Ukraine - Assessed Combat Sustainability and Attrition."

Link:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-war-already-with-up-354000-casualties-likely-drag-us-documents-2023-04-12/

These numbers sound much more realistic given that Ukraine is on the defensive and Russia has taken on assault roles but let's allow that these numbers are too low and Ukraine has suffered twice as many casualties. That still puts the number about on par with Russia. To me that seems totally believable given the stalemate on the battlefield. If the numbers were really as lopsided as Putin88 says then Russia would be in much better shape strategically.

Last November, Ursula von der Leyen, head of the EU (and also the former Minister of Defense of Germany, so she is not some dumb paper pusher bureaucrat), publicly declared that Ukraine had already lost more than 100,000 soldiers. So you're off by a factor of 10+ in your estimate of dead Ukrainians.



That part of the video where she states 100,000 dead Ukrainian soldiers was edited out within 24hrs, but as they say, the internet remembers...


Quote:
Artillery isn't really all that effective against hardened targets. Destruction requires a direct hit with high-explosive or concrete-piercing shells and we have seen that Russian artillery has not been that accurate.That is probably why it took so long to capture Bakhmut, which was heavily fortified.

The Russians have dropped around 8,000 FAB-500/1000 1/2 ton and 1 ton precision gliding bombs to date, they've run two dozen sorties per day since winter. They've targeted hardened positions and buildings occupied by soldiers. As well apartment buildings can't withstand regular shelling, they have used an average of 20,000 shells per day, throughout this war, astronomical quantities.

I'm not off, but you are claiming that the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency is off and Ursula von der Leyen is correct.

Yes, the US DIA is lying, no question about this. "Massaging the truth" is one of the main tasks of intel agencies.

Just so we're clear, you're saying the US DIA was lying in LEAKED documents that were released without their permission. So they were deliberately lying to . . . themselves?


They wrote it and then they "leaked" it as disinformation.

Don't you know how these conspiracy wingnuts think?


And also apparently went to all the trouble of writing pages and pages of other material just to bury this one critical lie in the middle of it.

Diabolical!


What is the buried critical lie?

Try to follow the discussion from the beginning.
It is hard to follow, then once you do follow it, it is mind numbing. I applaud those of you who can keep up with C88 and Movielover. It is exhausting…and now in this case, beyond absurd. I think I'm going back to BI…maybe that will help stop me from coming in here to slow down and stare at the car accident.
Reply Quote
3
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Unit2Sucks • 7:14a, 7/13/23
Unit2Sucks said:
dimitrig said:
sycasey said:

Just so we're clear, you're saying the US DIA was lying in LEAKED documents that were released without their permission. So they were deliberately lying to . . . themselves?


They wrote it and then they "leaked" it as disinformation.

Don't you know how these conspiracy wingnuts think?



Don't forget that they gleefully took the laughably fake photoshops which reversed the kill ratios. You will note this pattern of cherry-picking to favor their unsupportable view point is common. We've seen it in other contexts for years and now we have seen it for more than 500 days with respect to this war.

If you ignore all of the evidence showing how poorly things are going for Russia and you focus entirely on the positives, even if those positives are literal shameless fabrications by Russian state media, they can almost pretend like this war isn't a total debacle for their beloved Putin.

But that's not reality and the reality is that they have been making false predictions for 500+ days (MacDoofus predicted the war would last 72-96 hours months before the invasion) and nothing they're predictions haven't come to pass.

I know I'm a broken record here, but at least I'm a credible one. The people defending Putin are almost as good at predicting the future as Q morons.

Practically everything you've claimed on this thread turned out to be wrong, including:
-the loss of Bakhmut - it wasn't going to happen, and after it happened, wasn't important
-the state of the Russian economy - it's collapsing, or about to, anytime now!
-forced conscription/personnel issues in the Ukrainian army - they don't exist, Ukraine has only lost 17,000KIAs!
-and lately, the complete failure of Ukraine's counteroffensive - "the jury's still out", fog of war, it's barely started really, 5 phases...


From where you stand, reporting on any negative military developments about Ukraine automatically makes one a "Putin shill" or a "Q moron", because your entire mindset is not rooted in reality, but driven by ideology.
Reply Quote
4
2 edits
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oski003 • 7:17a, 7/13/23
oski003 said:
AunBear89 said:
Yeah - take notes if you are having difficulty keeping up.


Alternatively, you can just specify what the one buried critical lie here is.

There is no "buried critical lie", it's the kind of dramatic rhetoric hyperbole that posters like sycasey like to engage in when their arguments fall flat.
Reply Quote
3
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 7:18a, 7/13/23
Cal88 said:
Unit2Sucks said:
dimitrig said:
sycasey said:

Just so we're clear, you're saying the US DIA was lying in LEAKED documents that were released without their permission. So they were deliberately lying to . . . themselves?


They wrote it and then they "leaked" it as disinformation.

Don't you know how these conspiracy wingnuts think?



Don't forget that they gleefully took the laughably fake photoshops which reversed the kill ratios. You will note this pattern of cherry-picking to favor their unsupportable view point is common. We've seen it in other contexts for years and now we have seen it for more than 500 days with respect to this war.

If you ignore all of the evidence showing how poorly things are going for Russia and you focus entirely on the positives, even if those positives are literal shameless fabrications by Russian state media, they can almost pretend like this war isn't a total debacle for their beloved Putin.

But that's not reality and the reality is that they have been making false predictions for 500+ days (MacDoofus predicted the war would last 72-96 hours months before the invasion) and nothing they're predictions haven't come to pass.

I know I'm a broken record here, but at least I'm a credible one. The people defending Putin are almost as good at predicting the future as Q morons.

Practically everything you've claimed on this thread turned out to be wrong, including:
-the loss of Bakhmut
-the state of the Russian economy
-forced conscription/personnel issues in the Ukrainian army
-and lately, the complete failure of Ukraine's counteroffensive.

From where you stand, reporting on any negative military developments about Ukraine automatically makes one a "Putin shill" or a "Q moron", because your entire mindset is not rooted in reality, but driven by ideology.


We absolutely know that there is a war of propaganda, with both sides fielding useful idiots spouting firehoses of falsehoods and concealing information making their cause seem weaker. There shouldn't be any argument against the above statement. Now, what is the one buried critical lie?
Reply Quote
2
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 7:20a, 7/13/23
Cal88 said:
oski003 said:
AunBear89 said:
Yeah - take notes if you are having difficulty keeping up.


Alternatively, you can just specify what the one buried critical lie here is.

There is no "buried critical lie",

Ahh, glad we are finally in agreement that the US DIA did not lie about the Russian casualty numbers and that the ones you've been citing have been wrong. Progress!
Reply Quote
5
First Page Last Page
Page 170 of 294 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.