Comments by "UzuMaki NaRuto" (@UzumakiNaruto_) on "Military Summary"
channel.
-
31
-
14
-
10
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@cruiser6260
we don't know that theory of creating diversion is incorrect on the initial incursion. It's classic military strategy to dummy attack and draw forces. Actually advancing in is a bit different. Key points though, There was no battle for Kiev attempting to take the city and no sustained seige, which would be humanitarian disaster anyway. Did it in fact draw a lot of ukr forces to Kiev, if it did then it's not an unreasonable theory.
Saying the Kiev front was a diversion is merely pro-Russian folks trying to explain away the disaster that was the drive to Kiev was. Diversionary attacks ARE NOT meant to destroy your own forces in the process and if that's what happens then you're doing it VERY wrong.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, you don't throw significant numbers of your best troops flying in on helicopters supported by aircraft to try and capture two major airfields just outside of Kiev so that you can fly in thousands more men to open up a forward front and then having tens of thousands of troops racing to link up with them and do all that as a diversion.
You do all that because you have the real intention of trying to take the capital of a nation because historically in war that's ALWAYS been an important objective. Just look at both Chechen wars where the Russians both times made Grozny their primary objective. The Russians did not expect major resistance from the Ukrainians which is why they believed they could occupy major government and military installations in Kiev quickly and take control of the city.
People think you need hundreds of thousands of soldiers to take a major city yet all you have to do is look at Kherson where it was taken at the beginning of the war with barely a fight from the people living there.
People who keep saying this attack was all a diversion are just trying to explain why the Russians took huge casualties and were then forced to retreat and why it was worth it rather than acknowledging the disaster that it really was.
On NATO not wanting direct war with RUS, that's been true since about 1949. In a conventional war, the Pentagon's wargaming shows they can not win a war against Rus in Europe or in the Pacific against China, definitely not both.
There may have been a time during the 1950s, 60s and 70s where the USSR was indeed very strong and NATO definitely didn't want to go to war with them, however that time has LONG PASSED. Even if the USSR existed today, NATO would be more than able to beat them in a head to head conventional war. With the breakup of the USSR there is ZERO CHANCE that Russia could ever beat NATO on its own. The US alone could destroy Russian forces completely in a land war.
The only reason NATO doesn't want to go war with Russia now is because they don't want Russia potentially using nukes when they're getting their asses beat on the battlefield. If Russia didn't have nukes, almost 100% probably a no fly zone over Ukraine would've been implemented by NATO from the beginning of the invasion and perhaps even turns into attacking Russian ground forces if they cross a certain line and don't turn back.
I'll say they're both right on the himars. Not enough have been supplied to make a decisive difference, but you can't say they haven't made any difference at all. On the last round table Dima was saying Rus has a system with the same capability just a lot more. He also suggested lira not underestimate ukr.
Absolutely disagree. HIMARS and later on other MLRS systems have made a MASSIVE difference in this war. Before HIMARS arrived Russia was firing off huge amounts of artillery and missile barrages everyday. That has been drastically reduced now because HIMARS/MLRS systems have made it impossible for the Russians to place large amounts of ammunition close to the front without it getting destroyed quickly.
How many videos of huge ammo dumps did we see go up in a big fireworks display before the Russians finally got their head out of their asses and pulled their dumps farther back and break them down into smaller ammo dumps so that a hit doesn't destroy huge amounts of ammo and supplies?
HIMARS/MLRS would not be such a great strategic weapon with such a major impact if the rockets they were launching weren't so pinpoint accurate and had a decent range. If the Ukrainians were given ATACMS, you could kiss Russian logistics and command centers bye bye and they would be in even worse shape than they are now.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@antyspi4466
This is a war between NATO and Russia, for key strategic areas that are vital for Russia, for NATO gaining a foothold to threaten further vital Russian interests, as well as Russia´s status as a great power and regime change in Moscow.
Russia hasn't been a 'great power' for a very long time and no one would threaten Russia if they didn't threaten others first.
Russia can never back down, as a defeat threatens the very existence of the Russian state. If Russia has to mobilize 10 million men and lead a total war effort, so be it. It can rely on China´s support in that matter, which understands that if Russia gets defeated, exhausted, geostrategically neutered and perhaps even becomes a Western colony like in the early 90´s, Beijing will be the next on Washington´s menu.
That's the problem that Russia created for themselves. They believed invading and taking over Ukraine would be a relative easy operation that would take a few weeks at most and they completely miscalculated and have jumped into the biggest shitstorm that they could ever dream of and now they're stuck.
I hope China is watching and sees how stupid using military force without much thought can place your nation into a giant hole that you don't want to be in and instead find other non-military means to solve issues that you might have with other nations.
So yes, we will most likely see the escalation into WW III and a direct conflict between Russia and NATO, but not because Kiev gets showered with weapons and because of battlefield successes, but because Ukraine is losing and can´t get sufficiently re-equipped. Even temporary Ukrainian successes would just delay the inevitable, as it would force Moscow to double down and increase its war effort to the point where it can break Ukraine´s forces - which brings us again to a NATO intervention.
What is Russia going to double down with if it keeps losing men and equipment at the rate they're going at? They're going to fight with ever increasingly less trained and capable men armed with ever increasingly older equipment. Goodluck to the Russians when Ukraine is going in the opposite direction where more and more NATO is becoming more willing to send ever more modern western equipment to help Ukrainians push back the Russians.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@waynzignordics
Nato soldiers, active or inactive, comprise the entirety of the IL army responsible for the territorial recovery in Kharkiv. Their command structure is comprised of active Nato commanders. Does that fact make you uncomfortable?
I never disagreed that in terms of intelligence and assistance in command and planning etc. that NATO has greatly helped the UA forces. I just dispute that actual NATO soldiers who are actively serving within their own forces are fighting on the ground in Ukraine. As far as I've read pretty much all western volunteers fighting right now are not currently serving in their own country's armies.
Nato didn't "become involved" after Russia invaded, it's been involved since before 2014. Nato has been equipping, training, or financing AFU for nearly a decade.
Unfortunately for Ukraine it wasn't at the pace needed otherwise they should have a much larger NATO trained and equipped force ready at the beginning of the invasion to push back the Russians. Still there was enough that it made a significant enough difference that the Russian invasion was eventually slowed down and now mostly stopped.
Russia invaded Ukraine after the AFU began amassing troops on the Donbas border in preparation of an invasion into the region. The Donbas republics asked Russia for help, and she did so under the UN Charter rules.
Donbas is still apart of Ukraine and this was an internal matter that Russia didn't have to interfere with, but they did anyways. There wouldn't be fighting if some people in Donbas didn't form militias and try to gain independence by force and then when they started losing Russia intervened to help.
Also while many people in the Donbas did want independence or least more autonomy, from what I've read I don't think most residence living there wanted to do it by force and having their people dying and infrastructure destroyed.
The initial move on Kiev had the goal of fixing AFU troops in the north-west and preventing them from reinforcing the Donbas region. It worked so well Russia took more land than they could hold with their limited troop numbers, namely Kharkiv. The hope was Ukraine's government would capitulate like in 2014 in Crimea, and ALMOST DID, until Boris Johnson told Zelenskyy no, Biden backed up Boris, and Zelenskyy became the face of the greatest propaganda project the world has ever seen. Congrats for buying into it.
This makes no sense. You don't waste a significant portion of your troops and equipment in a 'feint' when its completely unnecessary to do so. As I've said elsewhere the Russians could've accomplished the same objective of forcing the Ukrainians to keep forces near Kiev and surrounding areas by simply having their 40k or so troops stay on the Belarus border and do nothing else.
Just sit that Russian force on the border and keep it there and do nothing else and they don't lose equipment and men that's badly needed now. And this doesn't even include all the logistical resources that were wasted supporting that attack that could've been transferred to support the eastern and southern fronts that lost alot of heavy equipment because many Russian vehicles ran out of fuel or broke down and were then abandoned.
Russia hasn't "pushed all their chips in." They haven't fully mobilized. They're fighting a SMO (by legal definition), and appear intent on keeping it that way.
What I'm saying is that the Russians have nearly used up as much of their forces and equipment as they can short of fully mobilizing which is why the talk of mobilization has ramped up so much in recent weeks. If the Russians were winning comfortably there wouldn't be any talk about mobilization at all and the reason why they haven't done it is because it would be open admission that they're failing badly in Ukraine and that short of throwing much more into the fight they're now not only not going to accomplish their goals, but they might lose much of what they've gained.
The Russians believed that what forces they gathered at the beginning of the invasion would be enough and they grossly miscalculated and now they're paying the price.
Russia doesn't want all of Ukraine, it wants everything east of the Dniper river, and the entire southern border through Odessa. Kiev can keep the rest (although Poland is gonna take back Lvov, watch).
If this was the case then they shouldn't have attacked towards Kiev which was a complete waste of forces and supplies. I think the Russians believed that even with NATO help since 2014 that having seen the Ukrainians fight previously in the Donbas and Crimea, they didn't think that UA forces would be a match for them or that they would even have the will to fight.
With those assumptions the Russians invaded thinking that the UA forces wouldn't put up much of a fight and those units that did resist would quickly be overwhelmed. After the UA forces collapse, Zelensky would have no choice but to flee the country or be captured.
This is why the Kiev attack happened otherwise it wouldn't ever have happened.
Do yourself a favor a listen to at least ONE source of news that isn't funded by Nato's propaganda money. It'll keep you from being so naive about current events.
I look at numerous sources from both sides because unlike the pro-Russian hacks of the Duran and others like them, I care more about facts and knowing what's actually happening in the ground in real life than I care about blindly supporting one side and completely discounting all information that doesn't say my side is winning.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ub210
I understand your point. From the Russian side, also understand that Ukrainian was doing everything it could to wipe out the opposition over the last 8 years, especially in the Donbas.
You do understand that it was the Russians who supplied weapons to the Donbas militia and then they sent troops to help them too. This is despite the fact that very few people living in the Donbas who wanted more autonomy from Ukraine NEVER VOTED to separate from Ukraine by force. That was Putin trying to provoke a situation so that they would have justification to attack and that's exactly what happened.
*If they continue to progress and more territories vote to seek protection from the Kiev govt under the RF, what then? We're not going to support a 10-year war that has decimated Ukraine, NATO stores, and may
further erode Ukrainian territory, are we?*
That's makes no sense. Russians invade an area and Ukrainians flee the region. They then hold elections where everyone who would vote against them have already left and they 'win' the election and claim that that region wants to leave Ukraine? How much of a joke of an election can you hold that no one would ever recognize if they had half a brain?
You're pretty much ethnically cleansing an area so that all opposition against you is gone and then claiming the territory as yours.
Surely, the west sees this? The US military has made it clear that they do not want to get involved. This is clearly overreach by the US State Dept and agencies under it.
If NATO and the US didn't want to get involved, they wouldn't have supported Ukraine for this long and be slowly but surely expanding their support. Sure it would've been great to see NATO step up with tanks and other armored vehicles from the beginning, but the fact that the US and Germany are willing to send Bradleys and Marders now and the UK is willing to send a few Challenger tanks as well is a great start from even a few months ago when such donations were out of the question.
So yes NATO won't put boots on the ground, but they're also not going to let Ukraine fall after being committed to helping them for so long.
When they start respecting each other, we'll get somewhere with nogotiations. If not, with time, respective western govts will be replaced with people who are able to make the tough decisions that will lead to peace.
How can you negotiate with a tyrant like Putin who's already made it clear that he's not willing to budge on much of anything? Giving in to his demands only emboldens him to do it again to Ukraine or other countries in the future. Unless Putin drastically changes his mind, the only way to force him to change his mind is to beat his army to a pulp on the battlefield or else have the Russian people say enough and enough and rise up against him which seems very unlikely.
An uneasy peace is worse than no peace at all as you can see with North and South Korea where even though they're not fighting each other there's a neverending uneasiness between them where violence could break out at anytime. The only long term solution for Ukraine is to join NATO and be under their protection. The Baltic states prove that NATO protection works because without joining, they would've been taken over and fallen back under Russian control long ago.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jay64j
Yes, this can be an aspect of Russian war, but you describe it out of context, like a western propaganda rag. There is strategy underlying the action. Western ways, now also forced on Ukraine, are often with far less strategy, bigger bombs, more death to civilians.
I don't know if you've been following the war since the beginning, but I have and I can tell you it isn't 'western propaganda' at all to say that the Russians have been throwing troops and equipment away recklessly since the beginning of the conflict and things still haven't changed now.
From the first days of the war when the Russians were taking significant casualties as well as having many of their men abandoning their vehicles because of poor logistics and often running out of fuel, so many people thought that this was actually part of the plan to send their low grade units to soak up Ukrainian supplies before the real units went in.
Now we see that this is the actual state of the Russian army and while things have improved since the early days of the war, the Russians are still throwing away men and equipment with very little care as long as they achieve their objectives. If you disagree then please tell me what you believe the Russian strategy is these days?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anceldesingano8687
while Kherson and Kharkiv aren’t minor but the overall of the War effort they may as well be since again they failed to destroy the Russia military units in those offensive of theres and the Ukrainians don’t even have that much bigger disadvantage than the Russians both of them have advantage and disadvantage
As I said while it would've been great to capture more Russian troops, they still lost significant numbers of troops and equipment in their retreat. That's not nothing and also the territory that the Ukrainians have taken back its not likely to fall to the Russians again because of their lack of combat power and competent troops led by competent leaders.
Kherson city and the areas retaken by the Ukrainians are going to probably remain in their hands indefinitely for the rest of this war and beyond. The same probably goes for all the other land retaken in other parts of Ukraine.
If the Russians took only moderate to light casualties escaping the Kherson area, if they ever decide to try and invade and retake that area its going to likely mean heavy losses for them now that the Ukrainians will be ready for any Russian attack in that area.
Even if they have Air superiority they armored spearhead will never going to work infantry based weaponry is bane to all vehicles especially tanks what they need is more infantry which they doing with 300k men after all air superiority is nothing more a factor in overall war this type of conflict is decided by artillery which the Russians have huge abundance off
This is where you're completely wrong. The reason why NATO and especially the US place so much priority in having the world's best airforce is because AIR SUPERIORITY IS EVERYTHING on the battlefield. Once you gain control of the air, you command the battlefield and can attack anything, anytime, anywhere.
What does it matter if you have 300k troops and 1,000 tanks when it can all get wiped out with airstrikes and guided missiles? You say artillery is important and I agree, but airpower is king and when you have air superiority you can bomb the hell out of artillery and missile systems and wipe them off the map. All you need to do is find these units with surveillance drones or perhaps special forces operating behind enemy lines identifying targets and calling it in and boom that target is gone.
Remember that 40km supply column that was headed to Kiev early in the war? The Ukrainians didn't have the weapons to destroy that juicy target. With NATO's airforce that entire column would've been completely wiped out along with most of the troops, tanks, IFVs etc that were on the front as well and it would've been a massive blow that the Russians might never have recovered from and may have ended the war right there. That's how important air superiority is.
Artillery and rocket systems have more importance in Ukraine right now because both sides don't have control of the air and hence neither can launch deep airstrikes into enemy territory without having a high chance of getting shot out of the skies.
Most of Ukraine equipment came from the west not the Russia equipment or else they be have logistics problems which they already have with different components that only belong to Russia factories case in point like MBT like T-80 and T-90 those tanks have different engine and different parts than the T-72 or the T-64 tanks that Ukraine have in abundance making them mostly rarely be
While its true that NATO countries have donated some tanks and armored vehicles to Ukraine, a vast number if not the majority have come from captured Russian equipment and you do remember that Ukraine was a big producer of armored vehicles for the USSR in years past don't you?
'Malyshev Factory - is a state-owned manufacturer of heavy equipment in Kharkiv, Ukraine. It was named after the Soviet politician Vyacheslav Malyshev. The factory is part of the State Concern UkrOboronProm (Ukrainian Defense Industry).
It produces diesel engines, farm machinery, coal mining, sugar refining, and wind farm equipment, but is best known for its production of Soviet tanks, including the BT tank series of fast tanks, the famous T-34 of the Second World War, the Cold War T-64 and T-80, and their modern Ukrainian successor, the T-84. The factory is closely associated with the Morozov Design Bureau (KMDB), designer of military armoured fighting vehicles and the Kharkov Engine Design Bureau (KEDB)[2] for engines. During 1958 it constructed "Kharkovchanka", an off-road vehicle which reached the South Pole the following year.
At its height during the Soviet era, the factory employed 60,000 of Kharkiv's 1.5 million inhabitants.'
As you can see the Ukrainians have plenty of people who can service captured Russian equipment when many of them were involved in building those vehicles many years earlier.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@snagletoothscott3729
Thw Troops in Bakmut aren't pushing hard. most of time time not at all. They only push when their's an oppurtunity. So comparitevly their losses are few compared to the Ukrainian's ,wo are aconstantly shiffling troops in Bkamut to replace thier steady stream of losses as they keep trying to attack to push them out.
The Russians have been attacking Bakhmut for several months and they definitely ARE pushing hard. If you've watched any videos coming out of that battle you'll definitely see that the Russians don't care about their troop's lives with the way they keep throwing themselves at the Ukrainians.
18,000 dead Russians vs 390k dead Ukrainians. Those are the US numbers, by the way. That's not sustainable. At this point, Russian doesnt even need to push. All they need to do is stand their ground for a year and half and Ukraine won't have any troops left at all, as they keep throwiing them into the meatgrinder tat is the Russian Wall.
Can you please show me which US source says that the Russians have only lost 18,000 dead during this entire war so far? Can you link me a legitimate source that actually says this? I'd really like to see it.
If you truly believe that the Russians have only lost 18,000 men after all this time, then no wonder you think they're doing fine. Obviously though if you care about the facts this clearly isn't the case and the Russians have lost far, FAR more men than they've reported.
You don't go out and mobilize 300,000+ recruits just to replace 18,000 KIA and more importantly you wouldn't be rushing many of them to the front to try and stabilize things if you've taken so few casualties. You would instead take your time to train and equip your troops properly rather than calling them up and throwing to the wolves almost immediately.
Also if the Russians weren't taking heavy casualties then why do you think that Putin waited for so long and did everything possible to avoid calling for mobilization? During the entire war he tried recruiting men from everywhere to avoid mobilization within Russia and finally when the casualties were too much and the Ukrainian offensives were taking back territory, Putin had no choice but to concede that mobilization was necessary and unavoidable and so he did it.
On the other side if you also believe that the Ukrainians are taking such huge casualties, then in a few months we should be seeing older men and poorer quality Ukrainian troops on the battlefield that the Russians should easily defeat. Time will tell who's facts are actually true.
1
-
@snagletoothscott3729
18,000 is from a recent document, from the Center of War Studies, which is a think tank for the US military and intelligence agencies, as 18,000 dead....which would be about right at known rates.
Again please show me legitimate links that show reputable sources that claim that the Russians have only had 18,000 KIA during the entire war to date. I really want to read it and see how they count casualties to arrive at that extreme low number. Even if you don't believe Ukrainian claims of Russian casualties, there's ZERO CHANCE that the Russians have only suffered 18k dead after all these months of hard fighting.
Wagner pushed hard up into Bakmut, but once they got inside the far eastern suburbs they met stiff resistance. Wagner has since and for quite a while only done attacks of opportunity and probing, largely to keep the Ukraine fixed in Bakmut, while their forces continue to push hard to the north and the south to surround Bakmut. The Wagner forces in Bakmut are there primarily as a thorn, to keep the Ukrainians attacking and draining troops trying to push them out.
Well if these attacks are designed to drain Ukrainian troops its clearly not working when they're still pushing the Kherson and Kharkiv offensives. So either this means the Ukrainians has tons of troops to throw at various fronts and still be able to take large casualties and keep going or else it means the reports of them dying at high rates aren't completely true.
The call up wasn't just to replace loses. It largely because the Russians were severely overstretched. They called up enough to replace losess, to fill the gaps in the line, and to have enough left after that for more offensive to push futher into Ukraine.
If the Russians weren't desperate for more troops at the front then they wouldn't be pushing under trained and under armed troops to the front to be cannon fodder would they? The only reasons you would be doing that is either you've taken heavy casualties and need replacements ASAP to replace those losses and/or your troops are performing so poorly that you need to rely on numbers to try and stop the enemy advance.
On the otherhand if you believe the Ukrainians are taking such heavy casualties then ask yourself why they're not doing the same in rushing more soldiers to the front with little training and under equipped? If the Ukrainians are desperate to replace their supposed high casualties the ask yourself why do they have time to send their new recruits outside to NATO countries to have them spend several months to get properly trained and equipped before having them come back to be sent to the frontlines?
10,000 Ukrainians spent 2-3 months in the UK to be trained by the British and they recently returned to Ukraine to be sent to the front. Ask yourself if the Ukrainians are taking such huge losses why they're able to take the time to have their new recruits to be sent away for months to get trained instead of having them sent immediately to the front?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paulmelonas7263
I'm as serious as a heart attack. IF you can put down your Kool-Aid glass for a moment you might recall that from day 1 Russia said their goal was 1- de-militerize Ukraine and make it neutral. 2. De-Nazify Ukraine. 3- Protect the Donbass. They NEVER said anything about taking all of Ukraine or even taking major cities like Kiev, Kharcov, or Kherson.
Of course Putin never said it outright that taking all of Ukraine was his objective, but its plainly obvious that that was his number 1 plan when he launched a major attack from Belarus directly towards Kiev from the shortest distance possible between the Belarus border to the capital.
How is that apart of the 'Denazification' and 'demilitarization' of Ukraine when he could've done that anywhere else along the front. Heck he could've concentrated his forces in the east and south and completely ignored the western part of Ukraine and the result would've likely been much more successful and Donbas/Luhansk and the southern part of Ukraine maybe perhaps even to Odessa might've all been in Russian hands long ago.
Only reason to launch airborne attacks and a major attack against the capital is if you wanted to take it or at the very least get rid of Zelensky and his government. There's no other reason to attack along that front.
The reason for the annexations was two fold. 1- that makes those territories Russian ( which they traditionally are anyway ) and the citizens can now have dual citizenship if they so choose or they can be either Russian or Ukrainian if they choose.
You don't annex those territories unless you intend to keep those areas and as you said allow the use of mobilized troops in those places. This means that Putin absolutely went into Ukraine with the intention of taking territory and the destruction of UA forces is just a by product of fighting them and taking territory from Ukraine.
I mean what sounds better to the public? That they invaded Ukraine to get rid of the evil nazi elements within the country or that they wanted to take Ukrainian land and perhaps even the entire country and bring it back into the Russian sphere of influence?
Once again try and put down the the Kool-Aid glass concerning losses. I will point to Reuters and The Washington Post and Bloomberg News. ALL western sources that favor Ukraine. They have reported that the differential in losses has been 7 Ukrops killed for every Russian. WHY do you think the Ukrainian Army which began with 600,000 troops has had to mobilize 8 times and Russia who started with 200,000 troops has only mobilized once? Russia is grinding the Ukrainian army into dust. THAT IS THEIR PLAN. DEMILITERIZE UKRAINE.
I find it interesting that all the pro-Russian hacks constantly say that western media is biased, unreliable and is just pro-Ukrainian propaganda, but somehow when casualties are mentioned, they're all of a sudden 100% reliable sources that cannot be disputed? OK. 🤣😂😅🤣😂😅
Seriously if the number of casualties was anywhere near as high as you believe they are, then the Ukrainian ability to launch anymore offensives in the future should be over and done with. Conversely if Russian casualties were so low then they should be able to launch much more larger and effective offensives than they have in the last few months.
The reality on the battlefield is that the things are the opposite of what you say. Namely the Russians haven't launched any major armored offensives ever since the Kiev retreat and even their Donbas offensive was relatively limited and involved mostly infantry because they lost so much of their armored forces.
On the otherhand the Ukrainians have been on the offensive since early September and they haven't stopped since and they've gained significant ground in those attacks. If the casualty rates are as high as you claim, then there shouldn't be anymore major Ukrainian offensives because they've lost so many men.
I don't doubt that the Ukrainians have taken significant casualties during this war, I just doubt that they've taken more casualties than the Russians and their allies and mercenaries have.
Regarding equipment. IF I can put an old but upgraded 1980's tank on the field by the thousands and use up what you have left, WHY should I put out my new and best?
The Russians didn't have many modern tanks to begin with which is why we didn't see many if any T-90s at the beginning of the invasion. Then they started losing tanks and other armored vehicles by the hundreds which is why they had to resort to bringing back Cold War era vehicles to fight with. Could you ever imagine the Americans losing so many Abrams tanks that they had to turn to bringing back M60 tanks into service to make up for their losses? That would NEVER happen.
Yet here we are seeing the Russians fighting with 1960s era tanks on the frontlines. And again the biggest indicator that the Russians have taken a major beating with regards to their armored vehicles is the fact that they haven't launched a major armored offensive since the Kiev retreat. If they weren't hurting so badly for armor they would've used much more in their Donbas attacks rather than resorting to exposing infantry to enemy fire.
Russia doesn't have to even pick up all their broken down tanks from the battlefield they have so many. Ukraine has to try and salvage those derelicts and make them workable again because all they have left is Russias leftovers.
That's kind of a huge problem that you don't seem to understand. The fact that the Russians are losing such large quantities of vehicles and then allowing the enemy to salvage many of those vehicles that were merely broken down or just abandoned and then having them be used against you on the battlefield and you don't see it as being a serious issue? Really??!?!
Its bad enough that the Russians lost those vehicles to begin with, but to have a significant portion of them be salvaged and turned against you is just plain stupidity and incompetence of the highest order.
1
-
@paulmelonas7263
Warning Long reply!
Once again you speculate without using any kind of common sense. Do you honestly think if Russia really wanted to completely level Kiev they would have any trouble doing it?
Putin didn't want to level Kiev, he wanted to TAKE IT. You could see from the very beginning of the war when the Russians invaded that they wanted to keep Ukraine largely intact and outside of a few accidental or intention strikes on civilian targets most of their missile attacks were aimed at military targets.
As the weeks went by and the fighting became harder and it became increasingly clear that they weren't going to take all of Ukraine, then that's when the Russians cared less and less about what they destroyed and recently they've been actively targeting civilian infrastructure likely as a form of punishment in response to their battlefield defeats.
All the facts point to Putin believing that this invasion would be short and sweet and that Ukrainian resistance would be relatively low and would collapse quickly as they did in 2014 in Crimea and later on in Donbas. He was dead wrong and now his army is paying for it and sadly the Ukrainians have to suffer too.
Regarding the annexed land let me ask you this question, what percentage of the people in those areas are Russian? Those people need Russias protection because the UkroNazis were murdering them. It was a genocide against those people only because they are Russian speaking Ukrainians.That's why they voted overwhelmingly to become part of Russia.
Please show me proof that before 2014 that Russians living in Ukraine were getting slaughtered and wiped out Rwanda style? I'd really like to see proof of this so please provide legitimate sources that show this was happening?
Also just saying that even though the Donbas region wanted more autonomy and independence, very few people living there actually wanted to separate from Ukraine let alone wanting to join Russia right?
https://www.iri.org/resources/ukraine-poll-majority-want-donbas-to-remain-in-ukraine/
"A combined 80 percent of Ukrainians nationwide and a combined 73 percent in the Donbas region believe that separatist-controlled areas of the Donbas should remain under Ukrainian control. Only six percent nationwide and four percent in the Donbas believe that these areas should either be separated from Ukraine or become part of Russia."
If the people of Donbas were so mistreated and needed help then why did the majority of them still want to remain as apart of Ukraine?
From time to time I sight western sources for the simple reason that if the Ukrainian propaganda press has to acknowledge that Ukraine losses are brutally higher when compared to Russian losses then maybe it might shake some sense into the fans of Ukraine.
If you include civilian casualties then sure I can believe Ukrainian casualties are higher than Russian losses, but if we're only talking about military losses then I highly doubt that the Ukrainians have lost more people than the Russian forces have.
In most cases the side that is fighting defensively usually takes less casualties and Ukraine for the first few months were on the defense and with the help of NATO weapons largely stopped all Russian advances from going too deeply into their territory except for in the southern region where the Russians made their deepest gains.
With how Russian armored and motorized units were getting mauled in the early parts of the war, there's very little chance that the Ukrainians took more losses than the Russians and you could see this in the decision making of Russia's leadership in abandoning the Kiev front when they realized that they took too many losses to be able to push any further forward and their logistical lines were too far stretched to be able to properly keep that front supplied. Hence they made the decision to leave that front and concentrate their forces more in the east and south.
During the Donbas offensive is when the Ukrainians started taking more casualties because the war was more static and it allowed the Russians to use their artillery and missile system advantage to cause more damage to UA forces. Having thousands of shells and hundreds of missiles fired at your static positions daily as well as more close quarter combat in several cities, its difficult to not take more casualties.
Then during the recent Ukrainian offensives, even though they're on the attack the number of casualties taken is probably still less than what UA forces were taking during the Donbas attacks, mostly because the Ukrainian troops taking part in the offensives were better trained and equipped and also the opposition they faced was relatively weak and ran when the Ukrainians started attacking in larger numbers in Kharkiv area.
The point is I think the UA took their highest losses during Russia's Donbas attacks and now they're somewhat lower thanks to the war becoming more mobile again in some areas and having better trained troops.
I have read the rest of your post and all I can say is wait and see. I don't know how long this war will last but I can assure you that when it does end and especially if it doesn't end soon Ukraine will be left a wasteland.
If Germany that was legitimately devastated after WWII and having lost millions of people can be rebuilt from all that ruble to become the mighty economic power that its become today, then Ukraine can definitely be rebuilt suffering much less devastation and population loss if western and other countries are willing to help them to rebuild.
What Ukraine needs most in order to be able to rebuild is stability, good leadership and a guarantee of safety from anymore foreign attacks. If hypothetically Ukraine is able to join the EU and NATO, then it will have gained that stability and guarantee of safety and there's no reason why other countries won't help Ukraine rebuild and become an even stronger and more stable country than before the war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paulmelonas7263
Ukraine agreed to stop shelling Donbass and to allow a referendum for autonomy to take place. France and Germany swore to make sure the Ukraine stayed true to the Minsk agreement. Ukraine broke their word and so did France and Germany. IF Minsk was enforced this would never have happened.
The thing is why don't you rewind things to much earlier and not mention that Russia in the beginning was supporting a relative small group of separatists in Donbas with arms and encouraging them to turn to violence when the vast majority of people living there didn't want to separate from Ukraine to begin with and certainly almost no one wanted violence.
If Russia stayed out of Ukrainian affairs then none of the events that happened afterwards would've happened to begin with. Ukraine should've been left to resolve its internal issues on its own, but Russia didn't want that and chose to stick their nose into their affairs and stir shit up and why not when they already have taken Crimea so why not keep going?
In reference to neo Nazi groups in Russia, those groups are purged with "extreme prejudice." Russia lost 27 million people to the Nazis in WWII. Russia doesn't tolerate Nazis. They all flee to Ukraine. Ukraine loves Nazis. As for the composer Wagner, He was and is a favorite of millions and I've NEVER heard a weaker apologetic than what you just offered.
The founder of Wagner group Dmitry Utkin is reported to be a fan of the Third Reich and there's a photo of him with tattoos of a Reichsadler eagle on his upper chest and the famous SS lightening bolts and SS rank tattoos around his neck. Hard to deny that he isn't a fan of the Nazis when he has symbols on his body from the most feared and fanatical units of the German army in WWII.
Once again your reading comprehension seems to need fine tuning, I didn't say UkroNazis had "concentration camps" I said "I'm sure if left unchecked Ukrainian Russians would have also started disappearing in the middle of the night." Here's a short list of names of Ukrainian people that UkroNazis DID "disappear" i.e. murder simply because they happened to support Russia or peace with Russia.
You've provided a list of people who are reported to be Russian sympathizers. When you say the Russians are mistreated and things might get worse if it goes unchecked, I thought you meant the average Russian citizen and it doesn't seem like that's the case. Namely your average Russian living in Ukraine isn't going to get randomly murdered or beaten or something.
The funny thing is Russia is famous for disappearing people and having many others mysteriously falling out of windows of tall buildings but who cares about those people right?
The problem is that the offspring of the many Ukrainians that joined HITLER and fought for the Nazis still live in Ukraine too. Not only live there, they are in the military and government. The same military and government that murders the Russian speaking offspring of those patriots that fought Hitler. THAT'S the problem. Ukraine needs to be DE-NAZIFIED.
Again provide me proof that the average Russian has anything to fear living in Ukraine? Also provide proof that the vast majority of the Ukrainian population are fans of Nazism? Seems like that's a tiny minority and again that's an issue that Russia has no business in sticking their noses in.
Communism was and is a vile and murderous system. Russia is NO LONGER COMMUNIST. Russia divorced itself from Communism and from the "Cold War." America is still fighting the cold war with Russia because America must feed it's Military Industrial Complex.
Russia might not be Communist, but it still keeps many communist symbols, traditions and ideals around. Also no one wants Russia as their enemy, it just wants Russia to stop doing dumb shit that causes instability in the world and instead pursue endeavors that promote economic growth and peace.
Russia has become a sad story in that it has so much potential, but because of the wrong kind of leaders being allowed to gain power and turning it down the wrong path it has advanced very little in the past several decades.
You look to China and they too could've easily gone down the same path as Russia has, but fortunately after the disaster of a leader that was Mao, they had Deng Xiaoping become their next leader and he guided the country to the most peace, unity and prosperity that China has seen in probably all its history. It makes me wonder if Russia had its own version of Deng Xiaoping running Russia if they wouldn't be more like China these days instead of the tire fire of a country that it has become.
1
-
@paulmelonas7263
Another long response.
I'm sure we will have opposing viewpoints of how and when this whole thing began. From my viewpoint America is the root cause of the problem NOT Russia. Not even Ukraine. America never stopped fighting the cold war. Russia did stop. Russia made every effort to become a friend to America and the EU. Russia even tried to join NATO and they were refused entry.
The US is responsible for alot of things, but this isn't one of them. And you must be joking to think that Russia ever wanted to be a friend of the west. Right after WWII things started turning cold between the western allies and the Russians and it certainly wasn't the west that wanted that.
Heck even before the war ended why do you think that so many Axis soldiers wanted to surrender to the allies rather than to the Soviets? Because they all knew that they would be treated decently by the west and they would be lucky to survive if they were taken in by the Soviets. So even people who were surrendering already knew how bad things would be if they were taken prisoner by the Soviets.
The short version of causes for this conflict is that Ukraine has been an economic train wreck for many decades.
Why do you think Ukraine and most every other nation in the USSR ended up having poor economies and a crappy standard of living? Because big brother Russia placed them into that position with their dumbass economic, social and political decisions. Even Russia themselves who was at the top of the pile and were the ones running things, for the average Russian their life wasn't very good under their own government's rule either.
The entire Soviet system of running things was corrupt, inefficient and largely a disaster and that spread to all the other nations within the USSR. Why do you think that when given the chance most every nation RAN from Russia's sphere of influence? People and nations don't run from things that they like and are beneficial to them and Russia was neither of those things.
The EU certainly has its share of problems, but in general the nations in that union became prosperous and the standard of living rose for the vast majority of people and its why countries are looking to get into the EU to this day and the UK probably wouldn't have even left if it was for the whole migrant crisis and perceived loss of self-determination.
The people of Donbass who supported that President and looked forward to improved economics then declared their region to be independent. The vote wasn't just about staying in or out of Ukraine. There were several options offered, but overall 65.5 % supported separation from Ukraine (source) wikipedia plus WAPO and Bloomberg.
If people in the Donbas actually wanted economic improvement then they would be dumb to look towards Russia instead of the west. Also I LOVE that you left out the part above the statistic that you quoted.
The poll did not claim to have scientific precision, but was carried out to get a basis from which to judge the outcome of the referendum, given that independent observers were not present to monitor it.
Also you left out these stats from the same link:
'A poll released by the Kiev Institute of Sociology, with data gathered from 8–16 April, 41.1% of people in Donetsk were for decentralisation of Ukraine with powers transferred to regions, while letting it remain a unified state, 38.4% for changing Ukraine into federation, *27.5% were in favour of secession from Ukraine to join the Russian Federation*, and only 10.6% supported current unitary structure without changes.'
'Another poll, taken by the Donetsk Institute for Social Research and Political Analysis, found that 18.6% of those polled in the region opposed changes to the government structure, 47% favoured federalisation, or at least more economic independence from Kyiv, *27% wanted to join Russia in some form, and 5% wanted to become an independent state*'
'According to a survey conducted by Pew Research Centre from 5–23 April, 18% of eastern Ukrainians were in favour of secession, while 70% wished to remain part of a united Ukraine.'
So its clear that while many people living in the east wanted reforms and change, relatively few people even in the Donbas region actually wanted to leave Ukraine let alone to leave them to join Russia.
The list of names I provided were of journalists and elected Ukrainian officials who were "disappeared" by Ukraines SBU. As far as who's getting murdered. It has been documented that Ukraine has criminalized any citizen who even so much as accepted food and water from Russians. Jailed or killed for accepting humanitarian aid is quite cold.
You make it sound like many of these people weren't Russian sympathizers and weren't actively working towards subverting Ukraine and making it easier for the Russians to conquer them. Look at how Russia has dealt with people who tried to protest the war at the beginning of the invasion? Yet you criticise Ukraine for tracking down and arresting people who are trying to help in bringing on Ukraine's demise? OK.
Regarding any "left overs" in Russia from the Soviet era don't forget the sacrifice Soviet Russia made to defeat Nazism. I don't think you or I can fully understand the depth or length of the scar left from losing 27 million people. I heard it said that during WWII in America if everyone living east of the Mississippi River was killed it would be equal to Russias loss.
Losing 27 million people in WWII is largely because of Soviet incompetence and their complete lack of care for their own people and how little their leadership valued the lives of their own citizens. The kind of things that the Soviets did to their own people and their own troops, the west would NEVER do. Even those internment camps that the Japanese stayed at in the US during the war would be considered luxury resorts compared to how much the average Soviet citizen suffered from both the Axis powers as well as from their own leadership's decisions.
If the Western Allies had fought against the Germans on the Eastern front although their casualties would've been significantly higher, I seriously doubt that the allied armies would've taken the 10 million or so soldiers killed that the Soviets did during the entire war. No way no how.
The way the Russians do things in war hasn't ever changed. Its always been to get the job done no matter what the cost is. We saw it as recently during the Chechen wars and we're seeing it on an even larger scale in Ukraine right now.
Russia has retreated beyond its old borders even though its traditional borders always included Ukraine. On the contray America has advanced towards Russia after promising never to come closer than Germany. America has, is and always will destabalize the world.
Going back to my earlier point, the US and the west DID NOT advance towards Russia. I know it certainly looks that way from the Russian perspective, but it seems like Russians can't just accept that it wasn't the west COMING TOWARDS them, but rather it was Russia's former subjugated nations RUNNING AWAY from Russia as quickly as they could.
Imagine if you were the oldest of 6 brothers and growing up you constantly bullied and abused your younger siblings. Then when all your younger brothers finally turned 18 years they all moved away and never contacted you again. You might feel hurt that all your brothers left you and didn't want anything to do with you ever again, but why don't you remember that it was YOUR ABUSIVE BEHAVIORS that was what drove them away to begin with?
This is the same relationship that Russia had with most of the former countries that were apart of the USSR. Is it any wonder why when they finally had a chance to escape Russia's sphere of influence that many didn't immediately jump at the chance to do so?
As far as advancement in society don't forget Russia went through WWI, a revolution, Stalinism, WWII, The cold war, the fall of the Soviet Union, reconstruction and they are still one of the worlds most powerful and richest countries. Likewise Chinas history is one of struggle.
That's right both China and Russia have had hugely difficult histories with brutal leadership and governing that led to countless millions of deaths and plenty of poverty. The difference is that China finally got a proper leader into power who was able to direct their nation onto a path of peace, prosperity and increased unity and look where they are now. Russia on the otherhand has yet to have that kind of leadership and the Russian people are still suffering as a result to this day.
That's how important it is to have the right people in power to lead a country and China got lucky on that one and Russia didn't and they continue to have a long line of shit leaders who have little to no care about improving the lives of the average Russian and even worse a man like Putin who would take their nation into another major European war that's getting worse and worse for them.
I will make a sad prediction. Before 2050 America will become more like a third world nation but with nukes and Europe will resemble their past feudal era. Russia China and the BRICS allaince will be the big dog on the porch.
I can see China possibly rising to the very top as an economic power, but I don't ever see Russia joining them or being anywhere near their level as long as they have poor, corrupt and self-serving leadership. The US and Europe may or may not be in slight decline, but they'll be fine.
1
-
@paulmelonas7263
Yes America and the Soviet Union were eyeball to eyeball with an "iron curtain" in between, BUT that all supposidly ended in 1990. Russia desolved the Soviet Union. Russia withdrew back to Russia and let their former Warsaw Pact countries free to decide their own fate.
Cmon man. Russia DIDN'T WILLINGLY want the USSR/Warsaw Pact to end EVER. They saw that the USSR was collapsing and they had no way of stopping it and simply accepted the inevitable. If the USSR could keep the whole Warsaw Pact of nations together it would've done so indefinitely. I seriously doubt Russia ever wanted to give up the power and influence it had and its why they're fighting in Ukraine now to prevent them from moving towards the west.
Regarding axis soldiers surrendering to western allies.YES because axis soldiers didn't rape and murder Americans or Brits. They raped and murdered Russians and payback is indeed a bitch.
The vast majority of Axis troops weren't rapists and civilian killers and they knew that their chance of survival would be low and that they would suffer if they surrendered to the Soviets. Why would Axis soldiers expect decent treatment when the Russians didn't even treat their own troops and people well?
Also lets not pretend that Soviet troops also didn't have a long history of raping and pillaging its way westward in revenge to what happened to them. That's apart of war that every country has to deal with and the difference is how well a nation manages their soldiers to minimize these crimes and its clear that the Soviets weren't very good at that.
Regarding the former Soviet Union and the satellite countries and their economies what you don't get is we are talking about the FORMER Soviet Union. Russia hasn't been that since 1990. It's almost like you and America just can't get over the Soviet Union. You DO know that Russia forgave 68 billion in debts owed to the Soviet Union and Russia paid off every debt owed by the Soviet Union. Russia got over being the Soviet Union. Maybe YOU and the west should give that a try too.
When Ukraine and other countries have been apart of a corrupt and largely ineffective system for so long, its often difficult to change those systems unless you're lucky enough to have good leaders to help bring that country out of the past and into a better future. Unfortunately it seems Ukraine didn't have those kinds of leaders when it left the USSR which is why it didn't get much better for so many years.
The funny thing is when many Ukrainians were finally fed up with their previous Russian friendly governments and chose to take action, people like you are calling it unjust and how wrong it is for Ukrainians to overthrow a supposed democratically elected government that clearly wasn't working for them and they were tired of the same bullshit and wanted change.
AGAIN you miss the point because your prejudice demands that you do. REGARDLESS of how Russia lost 27 million people, the people of Russia despise WAR AND NAZIS because they lost 27 million people. What part of that don't you get? I swear you think of Russians like the KKK thinks of black people.
I get that the Soviets sacrificed in WWII and that's not in disputeT, but the sacrifice didn't have to be anywhere nearly as great as it was except for the fact that the Soviets were idiots for so long in how they ran their military and didn't give a damn about their soldiers and their people.
The sacrifice could've been much less if the Soviet leadership actually cared about the people they were ruling and valued their lives and took more care to preserve them, but as we see in the present day war in Ukraine, Russian leadership still doesn't give a shit about its people after all these decades.
Regarding former satellite countries running away and America not moving toward Russia. Why did they need to run? They were released, FREED by Russia from being in the Soviet Union. Russia said decide your own fate. Russia even forgave all debts owed to them by those countries and Russia made no moves against them
Again as I said above all these former countries of the USSR WERE NOT 'FREED', they were allowed to leave because Russia had no more ability to keep them under their rule. If Russia was powerful and wealthy enough do you seriously believe that they would ever want to breakup the USSR/East Bloc that they were the leader of out of the goodness of their own heart? LOL. Of course not. We would still have a USSR today if the Russians had the choice to do so and could hold things together.
And also YES many former USSR/East Bloc countries DID FLEE FOR THE WEST as soon as they could.
Poland, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia all applied to join the EU within 5 years of leaving the USSR. If that's not considered fleeing than I don't know what is. There are also a number of other former USSR countries who want to join the EU in the past and present, but they haven't met the qualifications at this time otherwise they'd be apart of the EU already.
All these countries willingly applied to join the EU and then eventually NATO. No one forced them to join these organizations. These countries wouldn't be fleeing Russia's sphere of influence if life under Russian rule wasn't so horrible for them. If the former USSR was as successful and prosperous as the EU post-WWII to present day do you really believe the majority of these countries would be leaving? Maybe a few might, but I doubt most would because why would you want to leave an organization that was treating you well and was bringing your country and people prosperity?
Of course that's never been the case and many of these countries who joined the EU post-USSR breakup have enjoyed more success and growth than they've ever had in the USSR and its why more countries continue to apply and want to join the EU.
Regarding China and Russia let me see if I got this right, you think the repressive Communist Chinese government is FAR superior to Russia?
Yes absolutely 100% China's government is 1 MILLION TIMES BETTER than every Russian government in the past few decades. Ever since Deng Xiaoping took control, he laid the foundation for China's future success and growth and they've been steadily improving their economy and the standard of living for their people ever since. Most Chinese people aren't fighting and demanding democracy because the current government is doing its job in providing for its citizens and raising their standard of living. Do you really believe that China's current government would still be standing if it were stuck with Russia's development level or worse in 2022? I seriously doubt it and the Chinese people would likely be up in arms as its done a number of times in its past.
Ask yourself what has any Russian government done for its people in the past several decades? Very little in comparison to what China's done for its people. So yes the Chinese government is VASTLY SUPERIOR to any Russian government.
As for the future let me remind you BRICS means Russia and China are partners. Their goal will be to eliminate America and the E.U. economically and it WILL happen.
I can guarantee this will NEVER happen, EU and the US will still be strong long term. China will be an economic power for many years to come, but its laughable to believe that Russia will be able to join them when they haven't done shit in the past 30+ years since the USSR fell.
1
-
@paulmelonas7263
Regarding the fall of the Soviet Union. haven't you continually said how barbaric and evil the Soviets were? WHY would they accept their fall as "inevitable?" Wouldn't a desparate evil regime like the Soviets just "push the button?"
What 'button' are you referring to that the Soviets could push that could save the USSR when it was about to fall apart? There was no saving it by that time.
Yes, Russia is trying to keep Ukraine from allowing NATO to be on Russias doorstep. What do you think America would do to Mexico if Mexico signed an agreement with Russia allowing Russia to put nukes along the Rio Grande?
This argument makes no sense. Back in the 60s and earlier when nuclear armed missiles had a much shorter range you had two choices. Either have bombers fly nuclear weapons close to or into enemy territory to drop the weapon on them or else have countries bordering your enemy to allow you to put nuclear missiles there to threaten them.
However ever since nuclear ballistic missiles were developed where you could hit almost any place on the planet from your own country or if you want mobility then nuclear ICBM submarines that can park along your enemy's coast and launch on them without them knowing until the missiles were in the air, the need to border your enemy to threaten them became obsolete.
So the Russians saying they're afraid of having NATO on their doorstep is meaningless when 1) NATO never has and never will have any intentions to invade Russia because its a defensive organization and 2) Modern warfare has progressed so much that you never have to border your enemy to threaten them.
Regarding axis troops surrendering you apparently don't understand a simple basic fact. The evil actions of a few invites retribution against all. Not all Germans were rapist and murders ( many were ) but all it takes is a few.
I understand that an eye for an eye is apart of war. If your enemy is brutal to you then you are probably going to be brutal to your enemy in return. However there is plenty of proof that the Russians were brutal to their own civilians and soldiers as well. What kind of leaders do you have to have that would have no problems with brutalizing your own people?? As if the people of USSR didn't already suffer enough from being invaded by the Germans, they also had to deal with the abuses and brutality from their own leaders.
About changes in government re-read what you wrote and apply it to Donbass. Ukraine is known to be a totally corrupt proxy state. Many western politicians have family members sitting on boards of Ukrainaian companies. Their job is to STEAL.
Again Ukraine and many other former Soviet nations are a product of the useless, inefficient and corrupt system that they've been ruled under for many decades. Often its difficult to change overnight from a way of doing things quickly and it takes time for that change to happen.
As I said I find it funny that you criticise Ukrainians for overthrowing a Russia friendly Ukrainian leader that wanted to continue the pattern of corruption and being a lackey to Russia instead of supporting their actions to push for a less corrupt and more accountable government that actually works for the people.
Russia had no other choice than to try and throw everyone they had at them to try and slow Germany down. It wasn't bad strategy it was their only choice. NOW Russia fights to preserve their forces and guys like you still say Russia doesn't know how to fight.
I'm not talking about the beginning of Barbarossa where the Russians were caught off guard and took huge losses. I'm talking about the middle and end of the war where the Soviets continued to throw their soldier's lives away by sending them into battle poorly trained and equipped and ordering them to throw themselves against the enemy regardless of how many casualties they took.
The Battle of Berlin is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. The war was already won and Germany was all but defeated and yet Stalin chose to order his troops to launch a full scale assault on Berlin to grab the glory of taking Germany's capital city and at the end of that battle the Soviets had lost 80,000 killed, 280,000 wounded and over 2000 tanks.
All those losses just to capture your enemy's capital and gain the glory of saying you conquered your enemy and who cares about all the Soviet lives lost who spilled their blood for Stalin to have his victory right? That's what I'm talking about when I say the Russians don't care about their own people.
By the way many of the countries you listed as EU members are equal war criminals with Nazi Germany and Ukraine.
Say whatever you want about all those countries, but the fact is when they were finally freed from Russian dominance they all quickly chose to join the EU and the west because they wanted a chance at peace, prosperity and freedom from oppression. No one ever forced them to apply to the EU and yet they all rushed to do so and a number of countries are still continuing to apply to join. Ask yourself when has any country jumped at the chance at joining the USSR/Warsaw Pact?
I believe Russia will defeat Ukraine by playing the long game. Just dig in and degrade Ukrainian infrastructure, degrade the Ukraine Army and wait. I read today that the Neatherlands is having second thoughts about helping Ukraine. Italy has said they're done.
Well I'm glad you finally admit that the Russians can't beat the Ukrainians on the battlefield and have to resort to terror bombing and destroying infrastructure to really hurt the Ukrainian people.
At the beginning of the war Russia kept much of that infrastructure intact because they believed Ukraine would be under their country in short order so why destroy everything when you need it to keep the country running after you take over? Now the Russians have 100% thrown in the towel on that plan and simply just want to hurt Ukraine as much as possible which is why blowing up infrastructure has become their top priority.
Ukraines BEST hope is to get rid of the cokehead of Kiev and ask Russia to sit down and talk for real. Otherwise Ukraine might as well go back to the dark ages.
No this means the opposite. Ukraine has almost no choice but to decisively defeat Russia on the battlefield or else there will never be long term peace and safety for the Ukrainian people. Ukraine's best choice is to try and take back everything they lost during the invasion and perhaps get back the Donbas as well. Crimea might be the only concession they could make where it either remains Russian or it becomes its own state or something. They should give nothing else though.
After there is some sort of agreement to end of the war, Ukraine HAS TO JOIN NATO and the EU. That's the only way they can ever guarantee long term peace and safety and not have Russia invade them ever again. Anything less means there will always be a chance Russia will do something stupid again against Ukraine.
Also another reason Ukraine needs to be apart of NATO and the EU is because with those guarantees of peace and stability of being protected by NATO nations, rebuilding would be much easier and quicker as companies don't have to be afraid of Russia possibly invading again in a few years or a decade later.
If Ukraine is able to join the EU/NATO I could see their economy and standard of living improving a significant amount in a relative short period of time.
1
-
@paulmelonas7263
I'm trying to not be insulting, BUT try and concentrate.I said "if the Soviet Union was as evil as you claim they were and they were falling apart, wouldn't they just say F- it and "push the button?" That means wouldn't they just have started WWIII instead of saying OK lets go home and just be friends? I mean their evil right? Why not just say F it and blow up the world
The question is why would they start WWIII over the breakup of the USSR? Its not like losing control of other nations within the USSR is the end of the world for the Russians. Sure it hurts alot and its the final nail in their defeat with the Cold War, but Russia is still a major country that can survive on its own. So I don't know why they would start WWIII over the USSR breakup and possibly cause the total destruction of their own country.
IF Hitler had nukes when he was losing the war what do you think he would have done? Heck let's bring it more up to date, IF the cokehead of Kiev E-Lensky had Nukes what do you think he would do. ???
Of course Hitler would've used nukes if he had it because he was desparate and was losing the war and had nothing to lose. Russia has plenty to lose.
E-LENSKY ALREADY TRIED TO START WWIII BY BLAMING HIS POLISH MISSILE MISADVENTURE ON RUSSIA AND HOPING IT WOULD START A NUCLEAR WAR ENDING THE WORLD
Whether the missile was Ukraine's or not Russia is still to blame for launching massive missile strikes into Ukraine that they're trying to defend against and sooner or later accidents will happen. Its kind of surprising that something like this didn't happen earlier.
Also lets be real. NATO wasn't going to respond to this minor incident with some massive retaliation strike on Russia or something. Unlike Russia, NATO will has the ability to show restraint and an incident would have to be much more major for NATO to react in any major way.
Russia on the otherhand has shown that its willing to use any excuse to start a fight with someone and even create an incident themselves and use it as a reason to start a conflict.
Now about NATO, YOU KNOW NATO was designed to defend Europe against the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact ( which it did ) AND their no longer is a Soviet Union and a Warsaw Pact, then WHY is their still a NATO? It's stated purpose is complete.
The Ukraine war has shown EXACTLY WHY NATO needs to continue to exist because Russia at anytime could start a conflict and for many countries that would mean defeat whether it be quick or long term. If Russia has no problem invading a large country like Ukraine with 43+ million people pre-war, then what's to stop Russia from invading and retaking much smaller nations like the Baltic states?
Heck if the Baltic states weren't apart of NATO they probably would've already been invaded and be back under Russian rule by now. Also look at how Russia already had plans to take Transnistria and perhaps Moldova as well. If NATO doesn't exist then who's stepping in to stop these takeovers?
A number of smaller countries are only remaining free from Russian influence because they're apart of the EU and NATO. Without being apart of them these countries would be screwed.
You still didn't answer the question I asked. I'll ask again. IF Mexico asked Russia to join in a defense treaty and Mexico said they would allow Russia to put nukes on the border of America. What do you think America would do?
I already answered your question. If this were the 1950/60s then this would be a major issue no doubt, but this ISN'T the 50/60s, this is 2022 and both the US and Russia can launch missiles from the comfort of their own country and turn each other into glass if they wanted to.
Also the US has about 17 nuclear ICBM subs that they could park all along Russia's coastline and nuke them to hell in a first strike if they really wanted to. If the US can do this secretly, why would they publicly put any nuclear weapons in Ukraine and unnecessary make Russia nervous and escalate things?
Now regarding your idea about how brutal the Soviets were to their own citizens and soldiers why don't you still hold Germany responsible for what Hitler did to his citizens and soldiers?
Here's the thing you're missing. Germany in WWII fought on the Eastern and Western fronts, in North Africa and then in Italy and also the Atlantic Ocean and the bomber war against Allied bombers. Despite them fighting on so many fronts they still only suffered about 5.3 million soldiers killed or about half what the Soviets lost. So no matter how brutal you believe Hitler and his commanders might've been to their soldiers, they still lost half the number of men that the Soviets lost in WWII despite fighting on so many fronts during the war.
So it seems to me that no matter how many sacrifices German soldiers made in WWII the German leadership still cared about their lives to a larger degree than the Russians did about their troops.
Also the other point you forget is that in 2022 if Germany were fighting a war today they WOULD NOT be needlessly sacrificing their soldiers and would be very careful in trying to minimize casualties. Russia in 2022 in Ukraine ARE STILL throwing away Russian lives in how carelessly they're using their troops. Germany has changed while Russia is still doing the same thing it did in WWII. That's the difference.
In regards to Russia not beating Ukraine on the battlefield they don't have to. Russia plays chess and Ukraine and the west play checkers. I will say again UKRAINE IS A BEGGAR COUNTRY AND PEOPLE GET TIRED OF BEGGARS. Russia knows they don't have to waste men in fights for territory. They just need to sit back, dig in and wait.
If that's what you want to believe then go ahead. The reality is that Russia can no longer launch large scale offensives especially if it involves tanks and other armored vehicles because they've lost far too many already.
All these new mobilized troops unless Russia trains and equips them properly, the only thing they will be good for at most is defensive duties and if you try and use them to attack then you're just asking for them to get slaughtered. It seems the Russians have figured this out which is why Wagner is doing much of the attacking right now.
The bottom line is of course Russia is PRAYING that they can last longer than the west is willing to support Ukraine. That's they're only chance for any kind of agreement that doesn't involve them being completely embarrassed. If NATO chooses to support Ukraine for many years if not forever then Russia can never win and Ukraine will only have to worry about how big their victory will be.
1
-
@paulmelonas7263
Of course the Soviet Union wouldn't use nukes and Russia won't use nukes either. The ONLY country that ever has used nukes is America. So no one should worry about Russians using nukes, but America has already proven they would commit a first strike. It's America the world needs to worry about.
US has only used nukes once during a world war. Not even sure why that matters in this discussion when they've never used nukes since and have only had its arsenal as a deterrence because it works. Heck if Ukraine had kept even a few nukes instead of giving them all up and had maintained them to be operational, Russia probably wouldn't have never invaded Ukraine to begin with.
Regarding locations of modern nuclear weapons if you were right America would have no nukes in Europe, but America does have them there so either you aren't right OR America has them there to provoke Russia. Which is it? Are you wrong OR is America provoking Russia?
I looked it up and it says that the US has about 100 tactical nukes in Europe. So while this isn't nothing, its a pretty small number compared to its 5,000+ nukes that the US has and they aren't ICBMs.
IF each mobilization drew only 10,000 guys and their total troop number is still about 650,000 that means Ukraine lost 80,000 guys. WESTERN sources including official Ukraine sources said Ukraine was losing about 300 guys a day. It's about day 267? 267 X 300 = 80,100. Those same western sources said the difference is about 7 ukrainians die for every 1 Russian.
Again I'm happy to be proven wrong and I keep saying I don't doubt that the Ukrainians have taken significant casualties, I just don't believe that they've taken as many as you say they have and I definitely think the Russians have taken far more based on how they're desperately recruiting and forcing anyone and everyone to fight for them.
The reason why I don't believe Ukrainian killed is as high as you say is because:
1) The Ukrainians troops are getting increasingly better trained and equipped thanks to NATO. Better trained troops means fewer casualties on the battlefield and if the Ukrainians can take the time to allow their recruits to be taken out of country to spend several weeks to be properly trained by NATO instructors then that to me means they aren't losing as many men as to be desperate enough to send untrained recruits directly to the front to be cannon fodder.
The same can't be said for the Russians who have sent at least a portion of their new recruits directly to the front to fight against the Ukrainians with substandard equipment. If you look at Ukrainian troops these past few months, most of them are pretty well equipped and look like western soldiers.
2) Ukrainians have better medical care for their wounded. Ukrainians are getting western medical supplies and first aid kits and they seem to be able to get many of their wounded to the proper places to get treated as quickly as possible. Also a number of Ukrainian troops have been sent to NATO hospitals to get long term treatment.
I really doubt the Russians have medical supplies and care that's comparable to what the west can provide and this means Russian casualties have much less of a chance of survival which means higher rates of death.
3) Ukrainian troops are better led and have better intelligence. NATO intelligence is giving Ukrainians great information on the Russians and that reduces casualties on the battlefield. Also Ukrainian troops have better leaders from the bottom up who have shown that they can adapt to the changing conditions on the frontlines and that means you can reduce casualties when you can make snap decisions on the battlefield without waiting for orders from senior officers.
This is apart of NATO training that teaches NCOs and officers that making your independent decisions on the battlefield is allowed and encouraged.
As far as Russian armor and other equipment if you put down the Kool-Aid and look you can find videos of long trainloads of brand new T80s and train loads of artilley leaving Russian factories and holding areas and heading for Donbass Kharcov, Luhansk and Kherson. Ukraine has to try and cobble together junk they pick up off the battlefield.
Except you're wrong. All those tanks that you're seeing that are heading to Ukraine are either tanks pulled from storage and have been refurbished to working condition or they're tanks taken from other units. They're 100% not new tanks that coming off the production lines.
You should read this article if you have the time:
https://www.raamoprusland.nl/dossiers/defensie/2156-one-way-ticket
'Therefore, after four months of war, it would take a minimum of 4 years to restore Russia’s armoured vehicle capacity to early 2022 levels, even with conservative estimates of combat losses. If the war continues, by the end of the year it will take 7−10 years of plant operations (and that’s leaving aside the effect of the embargo on industrial equipment and components, which can be estimated later).'
Its going to be hard for Russia to build new modern tanks when they need so many high tech parts from the west and elsewhere.
The ONLY question left is how long will the west put up with a beggar? If you open your eyes you will see NOT MUCH LONGER. Europe is broke and their warehouses are empty. This winter Europeans are going to be rioting and demanding new governments.
Again lets see what happens in the coming weeks and months. If you're right then we should see a Ukrainian collapse shortly and if you're not then we'll see this war continue and perhaps more Ukrainian advances and retaking more territory back.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kajuken Berli
Tanks are very useful but need to be accompanied by infantry for maximum effect.
This is true which is why the Russians failed so hard when their armored columns ran into significant Ukrainian defenses. With relatively little air support, poor logistics and not enough artillery support and their infantry and tanks not working together properly, they suffered heavy losses that they still haven't recovered from since.
As I've said before there hasn't been a major Russian armored offensive ever since they retreated from the Kiev front. That's how much of a beating they took because their forces couldn't work together properly and perhaps even more importantly their logistical support was a complete disaster.
Seriously its crazy to see how poor the logistics for the Russians are versus the US. Recently Wendover Productions made a couple of videos highlighting Russian vs US logistical support.
US logistics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIpPuJ_r8Xg
Russian logistics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4wRdoWpw0w
The simple truth is that the US can fight anywhere in the world and support their forces properly while the Russians can barely fight beyond their own borders for more than a few weeks at best.
They didn't know how supportive the general population would be of the SMO so they had to minimise casualties
The truth of the matter was that Putin was counting on the Ukrainian forces to collapse quickly the same as they did during the Crimea situation and then later in the Donbas when they defeat Ukrainian forces relatively easily. Also they hoped the Ukrainian population would indeed welcome them or at least be neutral to them and not want to fight back. Both didn't happen and Putin and his generals' miscalculations have cost them dearly.
If a generous 200,000 allied troops could conquer the amount of land they did without a unified command and mow away the UA army while using constant artillery barrages to soften UA defences; imagine what 300,000 more Russian troops can achieve under unified command and a larger budget due to partial mobilisation.
The problem is the new recruits Russia are bringing in now are worse than their original force that they attacked with. On the otherhand thanks to increasing NATO help, new Ukrainian recruits are now getting NATO training and equipment in the UK and elsewhere from various NATO instructors who are ramping up the amount of troops they can train and equip so that they can get on the battlefield sooner.
If Russia's new recruits can even stabilize the lines and stop Ukraine from making anymore significant gains that would be considered a major victory already let alone talking about counter attacks and retaking what they've lost.
UA defences have been getting pounded for months, critical energy infrastructure has recently been targeted and UA troops, not having the luxury of rotation the Russians had, are pretty worn out. From a Russia perspective, now is when the real war is starting.
The Ukrainians ARE rotating their troops out for rest which is why we've been seeing numerous heartfelt reunion videos of Ukrainian service men and women returning home to their families.
In the coming months unless these new Russian troops are getting really good training and equipment, I don't see how they'll be able to stand up against ever increasing amounts of NATO trained and equipped Ukrainian soldiers on the battlefield.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tomk3732
*Its not a belief - its clearly backed by facts on the ground.
Russian allies are moving forward, Ukraine is sending untrained conscripts to patch holes while Russians are turning these conscripts into meat.*
Please provide links to backup your claims that Ukraine is pushing untrained conscripts to the front to fight for them? I'd really like to read about it myself. So please post the links here if you have them.
Also if you truly believe this is happening, then what does it say about the Russian army that they can't even beat these garbage untrained troops and make some major gains in Ukraine? Even with more equipment and supposedly better trained troops how is it possible that the Russians are still doing so poorly against inferior Ukrainian conscripts?
And how many tanks Ukraine lost then??? Why is it so rare to see these tanks
Ukrainians didn't have many tanks to lose to begin with before the war. They're a much smaller army with much less equipment of all kinds which is why the Russians felt they could take all of Ukraine easily and quickly. They found out this wasn't the case very early in the war and now they're paying the price.
Why would fighting low intensity for Russia conflict be actually so bad? They are fighting in Ukraine, they are moving forward, their costs are minimized, winter is coming, Ukraine is devastated in like 10 different ways.
Its bad because it costs tons of money and resources to keep a large army in the field and fighting. Its much cheaper to finish a war quickly and to send many of your soldiers back home than it is to keep them fighting in the field and having them spend tons of ammo and supplies.
The Russians are doing it now because they have no choice. If they could they would've ended this war long ago.
Again, Ukraine lost the war. They cannot take any land back. They are slowly pushed back while their country has zero investment, millions that run away and possible huge food shortages coming not counting having freezing pp in winter. Without any chance of turning this around its madness to continue. Even if it takes Russia say 2 years to reach Dnieper river they still will get there. They can just fortify and enjoy having 50% of Ukraine. What you say to that - Ukrainian victory?
The Ukrainians have the will to fight and all they need is the equipment and the training to do so. As long as western countries are willing to keep Ukraine supplied and are helping them get better then they can't ever lose. Russia would have to throw much more forces into Ukraine to make major gains there, otherwise the Ukrainians can just wait until they get stronger and better trained before they launch a major offensive or if worst comes to worst they can be like the Taliban and outlast the Russians until they tire of losses and of war.
Even today Russia can simply stop. They can just liberate Donbass and stop. What is Ukraine going to do? Seriously - how many years they can keep fighting without moving forward while expense for Russia is minimal?
As I said above the expense for Russia IS NOT minimal as its very expensive to keep a army fighting in the field. This isn't going to turn into the Donbas fight the past 8 years where each side fires a few artillery shells against each other everyday. Its going to be continued large scale warfare until one side gives up and I really doubt the Ukrainians will give up as long as they receive support from around the world.
If I were the Ukrainians I would at most only give up the Donbas and Crimea areas in negotiations for peace and have the borders return to pre-war lines. That's it. Everything else must be given back to the Ukrainians or else the war goes on forever and I don't think the Russians can last forever especially with all the tanks, armored vehicles, helicopters, fighter aircraft they've lost and all the advanced weapons they've used up like guided missiles. You can't build those things overnight and it gets even harder when the sanctions are in place that can hurt you long term.
1
-
@pite9
The idea that Russia would attack with the intent to collapse the government, without having a plan B is crazy talk. Putin would never agree to a plan like that. Putin is an incredibly thorough and responsible person. He's not someone who wouldn't cover his flanks, especially not for something this big, which will define his legacy. If you've paid attention to his actions and politics over the last 20 years you'd know this.
Well in this case he and his military staff were completely wrong. His plan was always to take all of Ukraine and getting rid of Zelensky and replacing him with a Lukashenko type of leader that would be his ally and do as he asked when needed.
If he and his staff didn't grossly overestimate the ability of Russian forces and severely underestimate the Ukrainians will and ability to resist he wouldn't be stuck in this mess right now.
The south did flip over to Russia. Russia destroyed Ukraine's main army during those first 2 weeks in the north. It's Ukraine's army that got crippled, not Russia's. Meanwhile they set up their positions in Donbass and encircled Mariupol. All of this happened very quickly before Ukraine got the chance to properly defend the south and Mariupol, or organize their northern forces properly. So all 3 fronts were very important and successful. The north could have went more smoothly and I'm sure they made some bad decisions along the way, but overall it wasn't a failure.
The south was definitely where the Russians saw the most success and from some reports I've read it might've been helped by some Ukrainian sympathizers although who knows how many and how effective they might've been, but definitely the UA forces weren't as prepared in the south as they should've been and that's where they lost the most territory.
Also even though Mariupol was a defeat and Ukraine lost some very good units in the fight, they did do their job in delaying Russians from further advancing towards Odessa and now that city is completely out of reach. The north however was a complete disaster and there's no sugar coating that one.
The idea that Kiev would back down and welcome Russia, like in Crimea is crazy. You clearly have no clue about the regional politics of Ukraine and where their political and cultural loyalties lies. Crimea was a russian state within Ukraine. Everybody with a basic understanding of Ukraine knew this, and we also knew that Kiev was staunchely anti-Russia, and most definately would go to war in the event of an invasion.
Who said anything about Ukrainians welcoming the invading Russians? The idea was to implement their own version of shock and awe in launching a quick attack into Kiev to either kill, capture or chase away Zelensky and his government. Imagine if that actually happened how different the war might've turned out?
With Zelensky staying in the country that perhaps changed the war significantly in that Ukrainian morale and will to fight was maintained if not boosted and just as importantly if not moreso it convinced western countries that sending more military aid to Ukraine made sense rather than it being wasted. If Zelensky flees or is killed, I question that the west would be so eager to pour so many resources into helping UA forces to continue the fight.
Who knows maybe even if Zelensky is removed the Ukrainian people might continue to fight, but how long can they do so if they're not supplied by the west? The point is the Russians threw a hail mary to try and make this invasion short and sweet and they failed and now they're stuck.
In fact I'm sure that if Zelensky had agreed to some deal early on, the US neocons would have made sure to remove him by any means necessary, replacing him with someone who was willing to fight against Russia. Ukraine was setup to play this part.
How could Ukraine 'play their part' if Russia didn't go insane and invade in the first place? No one wanted Russia to invade and yet they did it anyways and now they're paying the price. Hopefully that price will be so large that it will be many years before they can do something like this again and that you can't go rogue like this and not expect the world to react.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1