The Official Russian Invasion of Ukraine Thread

936,058 Views | 10264 Replies | Last: 14 hrs ago by Cal88
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dimitrig said:

bearister said:

How Ukrainian civilians defended Kherson, targeted Russians after invasion | 60 Minutes - CBS News

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ukrainian-civilian-resistance-fighters-60-minutes-transcript/

This is why any talk about Russia winning this war can be immediately dismissed. They cannot and will not be able to occupy Ukraine. The best they can hope for is what they already have and as long as they hold it they will be subject to attacks inside Russia and Russian-held Ukraine. What is the point of that again? It took the US two decades to figure that out in Afghanistan. Hopefully Russians learn faster.

Afghanistan is not America, whereas Kherson is an ethnic Russian city. Only 35% of people in Kherson oblast voted for the Kiev government. The people featured in that 60 Minutes piece are part of that minority.

Russia will only annex the ethnic Russian majority regions, they will stay away from the red parts which are largely hostile to Russia. Regions like Mariupol which have already been annexed have not experienced significant resistance, to the contrary.


Ukraine is a failed state on the verge of economic collapse, its currency would crater without continued massive financial support from the EU and US.
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

How Ukrainian civilians defended Kherson, targeted Russians after invasion | 60 Minutes - CBS News


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ukrainian-civilian-resistance-fighters-60-minutes-transcript/

This was a total propaganda piece by 60 Minutes/CBS to put pressure on Congress to continue to fund the war. Hey, I am for funding the war, but let's call a spade a spade.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:

Only people with your viewpoints claim that Russia wants to occupy all of Ukraine and then storm into Europe.

Russia signed a Peace deal and has consistently been focused on culturally Russian Eastern Ukraine. But you purposefully ignore that fact. Sadly, the longer your ilk hold on, the more Ukranian men who will die, and the further west Russia will move.


Russia began the war by trying to take Kyiv. You are lying. Also Bakhmut and the other city are not important battles except for the casualties and Russian propaganda.
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

movielover said:

Only people with your viewpoints claim that Russia wants to occupy all of Ukraine and then storm into Europe.

Russia signed a Peace deal and has consistently been focused on culturally Russian Eastern Ukraine. But you purposefully ignore that fact. Sadly, the longer your ilk hold on, the more Ukranian men who will die, and the further west Russia will move.


Russia began the war by trying to take Kyiv. You are lying. Also Bakhmut and the other city are not important battles except for the casualties and Russian propaganda.

You are wrong on both counts:

-Russia did not intend to take Kiev, they wanted to force Zelensky to sign a peace treaty, which he almost did in March 22 in the Istanbul peace talks, before Boris intervened and scuttled the deal, and this was corroborated by Ukrainian high officials.

-Bakhmut was important, and still is, Ukraine has 20,000 of its best remaining troops on that front today.

Exclusive: Zelensky warns of 'open road' through Ukraine's east if Russia captures Bakhmut, as he resists calls to retreat
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/07/europe/ukraine-volodymyr-zelensky-cnn-interview-bakhmut-intl/index.html
Zippergate
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Btw, Putin is looking pretty spry for a dead man.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

dajo9 said:

movielover said:

Only people with your viewpoints claim that Russia wants to occupy all of Ukraine and then storm into Europe.

Russia signed a Peace deal and has consistently been focused on culturally Russian Eastern Ukraine. But you purposefully ignore that fact. Sadly, the longer your ilk hold on, the more Ukranian men who will die, and the further west Russia will move.


Russia began the war by trying to take Kyiv. You are lying. Also Bakhmut and the other city are not important battles except for the casualties and Russian propaganda.

You are wrong on both counts:

-Russia did not intend to take Kiev, they wanted to force Zelensky to sign a peace treaty, which he almost did in March 22 in the Istanbul peace talks, before Boris intervened and scuttled the deal, and this was corroborated by Ukrainian high officials.

-Bakhmut was important, and still is, Ukraine has 20,000 of its best remaining troops on that front today.

Exclusive: Zelensky warns of 'open road' through Ukraine's east if Russia captures Bakhmut, as he resists calls to retreat
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/07/europe/ukraine-volodymyr-zelensky-cnn-interview-bakhmut-intl/index.html

lol
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:




Russia began the war by trying to take Kyiv. You are lying. Also Bakhmut and the other city are not important battles except for the casualties and Russian propaganda.
It's really funny when you look back at how Russia's make-believe narrative has shifted over time. Now that they are backing the anti-Jewish Iran/Hamas axis of evil which is pushing for a Jewish genocide, Russia no longer pretends to care about anti-semites in Ukraine.

So much of this war was made for Russian pravda to help with Putin's election, in addition to his revanchism, desire to erase Ukraine from the map, etc.

It's impossible to have a real conversation with people who amplify Russian propaganda. Better off just reading TASS releases to get it straight from the source.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thought I would share another reminder to be very skeptical of any attempt by anyone to estimate combat losses from either RUAF or AFU in the criminal invasion. The only clear answer is that "too many" have given their bodies and lives to Putin's folly.

I think Russian shills have been told to claim that anywhere between 250k and 1M Ukrainians have died. They have no forking idea what they are talking about. What we do know is that the Russian military is dysfunctional, that the command and control structure is such that there are structural impediments to truthful reports making their way up the chain and that Russian military leaders are far more concerned about staying away from 5th story windows than they are at ensuring accurate combat losses are known.

If you want to see one example of how people try to get at the losses, here's a thread below. I don't subscribe to his estimate any more than I do the made up Russian numbers, but it does show the level of detail that needs to be brought to bear to estimate losses. It's far from as simple as counting dog tags. I think AFU probably has a much better idea of their combat losses but they aren't sharing that.



One thing we can safely say is that trends can be indicative of losses. We know that Bakhmut was a very costly win for Russia. Avdiivka is looking to be the same way. We know they will be Pyrhhic victories. Just like Russia pretended that Bakhmut mattered (despite it not making any difference in the war and not leading to any subsequent gains by Russia) we have every reason to believe that Avdiivka is just an attempt to create a narrative Putin can use to pretend things are going well to support his next staged re-election.

One of the tell-tale signs that this is a costly invasion is the massive reliance on waves of convicts (storm Z) in both battles. No one can pretend that those dudes are well-trained or running surgical missions - Russia uses them more like zombie hordes or NPCs attempting to overtake a position.





And if you see someone pretending like Putin is merely trying to help out russian speakers in eastern Ukraine, and you are daft enough to ignore the attempt to take Kyiv initially, you might want to be aware that Russia continues to launch cruise missiles at Kyiv.


Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

Thought I would share another reminder to be very skeptical of any attempt by anyone to estimate combat losses from either RUAF or AFU in the criminal invasion. The only clear answer is that "too many" have given their bodies and lives to Putin's folly.

I think Russian shills have been told to claim that anywhere between 250k and 1M Ukrainians have died. They have no forking idea what they are talking about. What we do know is that the Russian military is dysfunctional, that the command and control structure is such that there are structural impediments to truthful reports making their way up the chain and that Russian military leaders are far more concerned about staying away from 5th story windows than they are at ensuring accurate combat losses are known.

If you want to see one example of how people try to get at the losses, here's a thread below. I don't subscribe to his estimate any more than I do the made up Russian numbers, but it does show the level of detail that needs to be brought to bear to estimate losses. It's far from as simple as counting dog tags. I think AFU probably has a much better idea of their combat losses but they aren't sharing that.

I wonder why that is...

This post above is a prime example of U2S being completely divorced from reality, with a picture based on cultural stereotypes and goofy storyboarding.

Here's the real picture, from a real source (as opposed to the Trent and Dmitri clown show), and further below, from a neutral expert:

Almost 80% of Ukrainians have close relatives or friends injured or killed since Russian invasion
https://news.yahoo.com/almost-80-ukrainians-close-relatives-114300303.html

Polish general:
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ukraine Is on the Cusp of Losing This War: 'We're Screwed' DNyuz


https://dnyuz.com/2023/12/12/ukraine-is-on-the-cusp-of-losing-this-war-were-screwed/

…..in other news:

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) -A declassified U.S. intelligence report assessed that the Ukraine war has cost Russia 315,000 dead and injured troops, or nearly 90% of the personnel it had when the conflict began, a source familiar with the intelligence said on Tuesday.

The report also assessed that Moscow's losses in personnel and armored vehicles to Ukraine's military have set back Russia's military modernization by 18 years, the source said."
U.S. intelligence assesses Ukraine war has cost Russia 315,000 casualties - source


https://news.yahoo.com/u-intelligence-assesses-ukraine-war-161649343.html
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

Thought I would share another reminder to be very skeptical of any attempt by anyone to estimate combat losses from either RUAF or AFU in the criminal invasion. The only clear answer is that "too many" have given their bodies and lives to Putin's folly.
Timely follow up to this. In connection with Zelensky's visit to Washington seeking more aid, the US has declassified intelligence estimates of Russian losses to date. They say that 315,000 Russians have been attrited (injured or dead), which numerically matches up almost entirely to the original invasion force. Of course, there have been many more troops sent since then (convicts, etc.) so it's a bit weird that everyone is reporting this as if it represents losses from some snapshot in time of the forces deployed.

We know that the shills will claim that this is false information and as I've stated many times, there is reason to be skeptical of any attempt to estimate.

What we can say conclusively, is that the notion that Russia has gotten stronger or that it's waging war in a way designed to conserve its forces is laughable. Whether Russia's losses are 100,000, 200,000, 300,000 or some other number - it's costly. They've been forced to reconstitute many of their previously highest performing fighting units with inexperienced, worse warfighters.

This intelligence disclosure should also put to rest the idiotic claims from earlier this year based on obvious Russian forgeries of US loss reports in connection with the Texeira leaks. As I shared back then, shills on BI liked to pretend that the US was a source of truth for their completely baseless contention that Russia had suffered far fewer losses than Ukraine. At the time they were claiming 7:1. Maybe now they are claiming 10:1, 20:1, 100:1 or some other ridiculous made up number. None of it was ever true. What is true is that the material leaked shows that Russia had lost more than Ukraine and Russia manipulated the images to show otherwise, and pro-Putin shills offered that manipulated information in order to claim that the US confirmed their lies.

Let it now be clear to everyone who hasn't figured this out already, the shills have been lying to you this entire time and they will continue to do so as long as people are willing to give them the space and attention.



tl;dr no matter what anyone tells you, this has been a costly war with far too many people going to early graves to satisfy Putin's criminal fantasies.

Avdiivka is a perfect example. Russia is gunning for a pyrrhic victory and pretending like it's a walk in the park. Russian soldiers don't feel that way.



And finally, looks like Poland's elections confirmed that they don't want to abandon NATO or Ukraine. A few weeks back all the Russian shills were celebrating like crazy when the former PM said it was time to abandon Ukraine. They are all notably silent now.




bear2034
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DeSantis looks like a giant compared to Zelensky by the way.
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Desantis looks downright diminutive compared to Newsom.
MinotStateBeav
How long do you want to ignore this user?
lol sweatshirt guy is really becoming irritating why doesn't he beg Europe for money..why is he always coming to the US to beg for money?

bear2034
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:


Desantis looks downright diminutive compared to Newsom.

Who do you think Newsom's VP pick will be?
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
And he speaks better Russian, too.

BTW, Willie Brown's decades younger gal pal is Russian. Interesting how many Bay Area Democrats get into bed with authoritarian regimes.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Because our paid for MIC sellers-of-flesh put $$$ over country and peace.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2034 said:

Big C said:


Desantis looks downright diminutive compared to Newsom.

Who do you think Newsom's VP pick will be?


A lesbian black or Latina woman. How does he explain away California's new $68 Billion and growing deficit?
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:

And he speaks better Russian, too.

BTW, Willie Brown's decades younger gal pal is Russian. Interesting how many Bay Area Democrats get into bed with authoritarian regimes.
FYI, Willie Brown is almost 90 and has been out of office for just short of 20 years.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2034 said:


Who do you think Newsom's VP pick will be?


Guilfoyle. No, not the 10 pounds of sh@it packed into a 5 pound bag. Bertram Guilfoyle.

Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
bear2034
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:

movielover said:

And he speaks better Russian, too.

BTW, Willie Brown's decades younger gal pal is Russian. Interesting how many Bay Area Democrats get into bed with authoritarian regimes.
FYI, Willie Brown is almost 90 and has been out of office for just short of 20 years.
Big Willie also love Kamala long time.
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2034 said:

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

movielover said:

And he speaks better Russian, too.

BTW, Willie Brown's decades younger gal pal is Russian. Interesting how many Bay Area Democrats get into bed with authoritarian regimes.
FYI, Willie Brown is almost 90 and has been out of office for just short of 20 years.
Big Willie also love Kamala long time.
Willie refers to Biden and Trump as young whippersnappers, but I see he's still living in your heads rent free.
bear2034
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:

bear2034 said:

Big C said:


Desantis looks downright diminutive compared to Newsom.

Who do you think Newsom's VP pick will be?

A lesbian black or Latina woman. How does he explain away California's new $68 Billion and growing deficit?

California's growing deficit is irrelevant, what's important here is that his VP is a black lesbian.
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2034 said:

movielover said:

bear2034 said:

Big C said:


Desantis looks downright diminutive compared to Newsom.

Who do you think Newsom's VP pick will be?

A lesbian black or Latina woman. How does he explain away California's new $68 Billion and growing deficit?

California's growing deficit is irrelevant, what's important here is that his VP is a black lesbian.
Interesting that you think a VP's sexuality is important.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:

bear2034 said:

movielover said:

bear2034 said:

Big C said:


Desantis looks downright diminutive compared to Newsom.

Who do you think Newsom's VP pick will be?

A lesbian black or Latina woman. How does he explain away California's new $68 Billion and growing deficit?

California's growing deficit is irrelevant, what's important here is that his VP is a black lesbian.
Interesting that you think a VP's sexuality is important.


That's not what he is saying. You play dumb way too much.
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

bear2034 said:

movielover said:

bear2034 said:

Big C said:


Desantis looks downright diminutive compared to Newsom.

Who do you think Newsom's VP pick will be?

A lesbian black or Latina woman. How does he explain away California's new $68 Billion and growing deficit?

California's growing deficit is irrelevant, what's important here is that his VP is a black lesbian.
Interesting that you think a VP's sexuality is important.


That's not what he is saying. You play dumb way too much.
How else am I supposed to interpret "what's important here is that his VP is a black lesbian."? Why bring it up if it's not important to him?
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:


...
Let it now be clear to everyone who hasn't figured this out already, the shills have been lying to you this entire time and they will continue to do so as long as people are willing to give them the space and attention.

Looks like "the shills" have taken over the NYT!



https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/11/us/politics/us-ukraine-war-strategy.html
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:

oski003 said:

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

bear2034 said:

movielover said:

bear2034 said:

Big C said:


Desantis looks downright diminutive compared to Newsom.

Who do you think Newsom's VP pick will be?

A lesbian black or Latina woman. How does he explain away California's new $68 Billion and growing deficit?

California's growing deficit is irrelevant, what's important here is that his VP is a black lesbian.
Interesting that you think a VP's sexuality is important.


That's not what he is saying. You play dumb way too much.
How else am I supposed to interpret "what's important here is that his VP is a black lesbian."? Why bring it up if it's not important to him?



He is saying that Democrats don't care about the deficit and only care about identity politics. I am surprised you couldn't put that together, even after reading some of the other things you seem to not be aware of.
calpoly
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

bear2034 said:

movielover said:

bear2034 said:

Big C said:


Desantis looks downright diminutive compared to Newsom.

Who do you think Newsom's VP pick will be?

A lesbian black or Latina woman. How does he explain away California's new $68 Billion and growing deficit?

California's growing deficit is irrelevant, what's important here is that his VP is a black lesbian.
Interesting that you think a VP's sexuality is important.


That's not what he is saying. You play dumb way too much.
Says the one that plays dumb 24/7.
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2034 said:

Big C said:


Desantis looks downright diminutive compared to Newsom.

Who do you think Newsom's VP pick will be?

Not a white, heterosexual male, that's for sure. Boxes to check:

+ woman and/or person-of color
+ respected for his/her experience in Congress
+ from a state that "compliments" California

Stacey Abrams? Hakeem Jeffries? Those are just off the top of my head. Would need to hear about some of the many other possibilities. Hey, how about Liz Cheney?
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:

bear2034 said:

Big C said:


Desantis looks downright diminutive compared to Newsom.

Who do you think Newsom's VP pick will be?

Not a white, heterosexual male, that's for sure. Boxes to check:

+ woman and/or person-of color
+ respected for his/her experience in Congress
+ from a state that "compliments" California

Stacey Abrams? Hakeem Jeffries? Those are just off the top of my head. Would need to hear about some of the many other possibilities. Hey, how about Liz Cheney?


Wes Moore
AOC

But very likely, since we are talking 5 years from now, nobody on the radar right now

Anybody think the Republicans won't have 2 white male candidates in 2024 and again in 2028 and then have them continue to pretend not to be in identiry politics?
bear2034
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Biden Sucks 7
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:


Timely follow up to this. In connection with Zelensky's visit to Washington seeking more aid, the US has declassified intelligence estimates of Russian losses to date. They say that 315,000 Russians have been attrited (injured or dead), which numerically matches up almost entirely to the original invasion force. Of course, there have been many more troops sent since then (convicts, etc.) so it's a bit weird that everyone is reporting this as if it represents losses from some snapshot in time of the forces deployed.

We know that the shills will claim that this is false information and as I've stated many times, there is reason to be skeptical of any attempt to estimate.

What we can say conclusively, is that the notion that Russia has gotten stronger or that it's waging war in a way designed to conserve its forces is laughable. Whether Russia's losses are 100,000, 200,000, 300,000 or some other number - it's costly. They've been forced to reconstitute many of their previously highest performing fighting units with inexperienced, worse warfighters

dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Genocide Joe said:

Unit2Sucks said:


Timely follow up to this. In connection with Zelensky's visit to Washington seeking more aid, the US has declassified intelligence estimates of Russian losses to date. They say that 315,000 Russians have been attrited (injured or dead), which numerically matches up almost entirely to the original invasion force. Of course, there have been many more troops sent since then (convicts, etc.) so it's a bit weird that everyone is reporting this as if it represents losses from some snapshot in time of the forces deployed.

We know that the shills will claim that this is false information and as I've stated many times, there is reason to be skeptical of any attempt to estimate.

What we can say conclusively, is that the notion that Russia has gotten stronger or that it's waging war in a way designed to conserve its forces is laughable. Whether Russia's losses are 100,000, 200,000, 300,000 or some other number - it's costly. They've been forced to reconstitute many of their previously highest performing fighting units with inexperienced, worse warfighters



Russia won't invade the rest of Europe because the rest of Europe joined NATO - which is why Russia invaded Ukraine before they could also.

Zippergate
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Russia won't invade the rest of Europe because the rest of Europe joined NATO - which is why Russia invaded Ukraine before they could also.

Defense secretary Lloyd Austin informed members that if they don't appropriate more money for Zelensky, "we'll send your uncles, cousins and sons to fight Russia."

Fight where? If it's Ukraine, when did Congress authorize that? And if it ain't Ukraine, Austin is a liar and neocon shill.
First Page Last Page
Page 211 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.