Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

While it is true that the attacking military force will suffer more losses I don't think you can compare the siege of Stalingrad by a starving disease ridden German army dressed in summer clothing, with what's happening in Ukraine. We are only speculating on Russian losses but we can be sure they are being under reported by the state run and controller Russian. media.

I am very sceptical at claims from either side. I don't think the Russian military have the resources to occupy a huge country like Ukraine and as you say they face a country surrounded by a hostile civilian population. I don't see that as part of the Russian plan. My guess, and it's only a guess is for the Russians to create a new neutral area, effectively a buffer zone to protect the Russian border against the further eastern expansion of NATO that would include hostile troops and nukes sitting on the Russian border.

This has never been about creating a military buffer zone. It is only about trying to crush the notion of freedom, democracy, and sovereign statehood independent of Russia - because this is what Putin fears will otherwise infect - via Ukraine - the Russian people. It's about power and control vs freedom and democracy - nothing else.

Nor is it about NATO "expansion", as if NATO was marching eastward and conquering nations as it goes. Instead it's about sovereign nations voluntarily applying to join NATO in order to better protect themselves from Putin's tyranny.

The irony is, of course, that what will emerge from this is a Ukraine that is more pro-West than ever, even if it has less territory. Eventually, however long it takes, this Ukraine will join the EU and NATO. It's an historical inevitability.
 
No one knows what people would do when they get into office but they sure as hell know what they've done when they vote for them again. So, from that point of view, people in democracies certainly have responsibility. If they decide to close their eyes to it, that's still on them and no amount of adjectives like 'disgusting' changes that truth.

As for Russia, the truth of the matter is that there are no ways for people to express their opinion except for widespread discontent on a scale that it simply cannot be ignored. To get to that point, you need the everyday person to feel the heat. Again, you go on about preaching but this the reality of it, just like the reality that women and children, on top of their fathers, sons and brothers are getting killed in Ukraine because he wanted his empire back.

I just need to state this clearly, I don't want people in Russia to be punished but short of all-out war, the West is out of options.
I agree that people have some responsibilty, but equating it with that of an executive leader is what I find shocking. It is border on appology for violence against civilians.

People in office sit on confidential information that we simply do not have access to. All we can do is to trust their judgment and trust the system to keep them from abusing power. There is no candidate who's going to tick all your boxes. We can only compare the offers that parties are putting in front of us and prioritise some issues over other issues. Unfortunately Foreign policy is seldom relevant when the typical taxpayer in a Western country votes on election day. I think it is the justice system that should punish leaders when they abuse power.

As long as you agree that random civilian people in Russia don't deserve to be punished for Putin's actions we are not totally at odds.
 
You are absolutely right, of course.

Just yesterday I was on the metro and this crazy dumbass was shouting on loudspeaker (no mask on, of course), that she'd read a bit of Russian literature, the Ukrainians were fascists and racists because they weren't letting foreign students out of the country and that it was all conspiracy.

And completely on point with your assertions, she was arrested by police as soon as she exited the train, just like Russia. This last bit of course is not true because I don't live in Putin's despotic Russia.

As for your other points, the Russian public has been happy to live under Putin for years. He's done plenty of vile things but they just got on with it (not all but most, implicitly or explicitly). Now it's hitting them directly and we're supposed to feel sorry for them? At what point does a nation have to stand up and take accountability?
Reminds me of a quote from the BBC series "The World at War", where one German said the country had made a deal with Hitler like you would with a gangster, so long as they benefited they would support him. IIRC the person seemed to have a sense the German population bore responsibility, like the Russians do here.
 
Then why have the Russians been so hesitant to commit more of their air force to the war? Because they keep getting shot down (apparently 44 planes, 44 helicopters). If they are so unbothered, why are they resorting to indiscriminate bombardment of civilians from afar? Why can't they get a single column from the border to Kyiv?

Russia wouldn't be leveling cities and murdering civilians if things were going well.

Logically, it doesn't add up to me.

Wikipedia aggregates death tolls from news sources. It currently shows 498 Russian soldiers killed and 110 Ukrainian Soldiers. US estimates have 5.8k Russians killed to 1.2k Ukrainians. Look at equipment losses etc and Russia seems to be losing more than double the amount of Ukraine.

... yet, they're occupying more and more land? It doesn't add up to me. Russia is just too big to be compared to Ukraine. Without any foreign help, it just isn't a competition. I think the reporting of Russians "resorting" to civilian bombardment is a bit misleading because they'd probably do that anyway.

Again, I think the real issue for Russia are these sanctions and crippling of economy. Militarily, I don't think they will worry (as long as it's just Ukraine)
 
Logically, it doesn't add up to me.

Wikipedia aggregates death tolls from news sources. It currently shows 498 Russian soldiers killed and 110 Ukrainian Soldiers. US estimates have 5.8k Russians killed to 1.2k Ukrainians. Look at equipment losses etc and Russia seems to be losing more than double the amount of Ukraine.

... yet, they're occupying more and more land? It doesn't add up to me. Russia is just too big to be compared to Ukraine. Without any foreign help, it just isn't a competition. I think the reporting of Russians "resorting" to civilian bombardment is a bit misleading because they'd probably do that anyway.

Again, I think the real issue for Russia are these sanctions and crippling of economy. Militarily, I don't think they will worry (as long as it's just Ukraine)

Except that Putin's military campaign is dependent by the amount of pressure he feels to stablize his regime domestically. The two are interdependent on one another.
 
Logically, it doesn't add up to me.

Wikipedia aggregates death tolls from news sources. It currently shows 498 Russian soldiers killed and 110 Ukrainian Soldiers. US estimates have 5.8k Russians killed to 1.2k Ukrainians. Look at equipment losses etc and Russia seems to be losing more than double the amount of Ukraine.

... yet, they're occupying more and more land? It doesn't add up to me. Russia is just too big to be compared to Ukraine. Without any foreign help, it just isn't a competition. I think the reporting of Russians "resorting" to civilian bombardment is a bit misleading because they'd probably do that anyway.

Again, I think the real issue for Russia are these sanctions and crippling of economy. Militarily, I don't think they will worry (as long as it's just Ukraine)

Even if there are no nato troops on the ground, the weapons, training and especially the intel is invaluable. Knowing exactly where, when and how many Russians are coming helps the Ukrainians that much more. Plus there are way too many examples of mistakes being made by the Russians leadership
 
Logically, it doesn't add up to me.

Wikipedia aggregates death tolls from news sources. It currently shows 498 Russian soldiers killed and 110 Ukrainian Soldiers. US estimates have 5.8k Russians killed to 1.2k Ukrainians. Look at equipment losses etc and Russia seems to be losing more than double the amount of Ukraine.

... yet, they're occupying more and more land? It doesn't add up to me. Russia is just too big to be compared to Ukraine. Without any foreign help, it just isn't a competition. I think the reporting of Russians "resorting" to civilian bombardment is a bit misleading because they'd probably do that anyway.

Again, I think the real issue for Russia are these sanctions and crippling of economy. Militarily, I don't think they will worry (as long as it's just Ukraine)

The Russians' initial intent was to orchestrate some fast coup by sending in troops to Kyiv and carrying out precision strikes to knock out Ukraine's air defenses. They failed both of those completely. Their detachments sent into Kyiv early on were destroyed. Russia may have some control of the skies, particularly in Eastern Ukraine, but they don't have complete air dominance. If they did, they'd be using it across Ukraine. Since Ukrainian air defenses remain at least partially intact, Russia is highly restricted in where they can fly.

Russia has lost more materiel because it's an invading force against Ukrainians defending their homeland, their logistics suck, and most of their equipment is very dated. Additionally, their military planning and maintenance of said equipment seems to be deficient with all of the trucks getting stuck, breaking down, running out of fuel, etc. Lots of equipment losses by Russia are because their vehicles are stuck, abandoned, or isolated. The Ukrainians only need smaller groups who can move quickly, launch some Stingers/Javelins and move.

Based on reading tweets from actual military academics, there's doubt about whether Russia even has the forces to effectively encircle Kyiv, much less control the rest of Ukraine. Russia has committed 95% of their forces to Ukraine. There aren't hundreds of thousands more troops ready to deploy or equipment to support them. Videos from inside Russia show them moving ancient equipment from the far east, which doesn't bode well for their effectiveness if they are brought into service.
 
Look at equipment losses etc and Russia seems to be losing more than double the amount of Ukraine.

... yet, they're occupying more and more land? It doesn't add up to me.
That’s pretty standard in warfare. The rule of thumb for attacking a prepared position is that you will need a 3:1 numerical advantage to make up for, among other things, higher losses due to having to expose yourself to fire in order to advance.
 
So the Russian military is funded in exactly the same way it is in the UK and every other country, through tax payers. Unless some western countries raise the revenue by sending out vast numbers of the public, with rattling tins. I don't see the point you are attempting to make. It might have escaped your attention but the western economies ravaged by 2 years of Covid are not in a very healthy position themselves. Claiming that the Russian economy is tanking just not true. Its GDP has increased albeit by a small amount in the period 2020-2021 and is forecast to reach 1943.78 billion dollars by 2026 an increase in growth of 465 billion dollars. Pretty unremarkable. An economy in decline, perhaps, but certainly not tanking by any stretch of the imagination. In additional Russias national debt is peanuts compared to the US debt which currently stands at 23. 3 trillion dollars, that's over $90,000 for every man, women and child living in the USA.

I've never seen sanctions shoot a plane out the sky or stop a bullet or a missile. Just wait until the Russians hit Europes national gas supplies. People in the UK are already facing £3000 a year energy prices and rapidly increasing food prices. I wonder how enthusiastic their support for Ukraine will last when they cant afford to heat their homes or start going hungry. Nice to see you couldn't care less about the effect of sanctions and the suffering it might impose on the Russian people. Sanctions imposed by the West not Putin.

I challenged you to give examples of give some examples of the impartially of the western media and instead of doing that you tap dance around the issue and list the myriad of relatively insignificant western media outlets with little or no influence on mass public opinion. The overwhelming majority of the population get their information from the BBC, ITV, Sky, Fox News, CNN news and and newspapers owned by huge multinational corporations. This is what shapes public opinion. Self censorship may be much smarter than Putins state control but every bit as deceptive and it is naivety in the extreme to think otherwise.

So Putin is a gangster, no shit Sherlock! No need for the bold script. Unless it was for your benefit. Didn't stop the west doing business with him for all these years did it. Putin has so much in common with the corrupt motley crew we have here mis-managing our interests and all the while enabling Putin and his cronies, looking the other way while they launder Russian money plundered from the pockets of ordinary Russian people.

You may choose to take sides in this conflict that is your business I chose to withhold my support for the corrupt protagonists. They started this war not the Russian or Ukrainian people.
 
Losing 5000 soldiers out of 1m or whatever they have might not phase Putin. But losing 5 fighter jets a day might. They only have a few hundred of them.

Its pure humiliation for Putin, which is not coincidentally why he's switching tactics and going after civilians. This entire war feels like it was done on an emotional whim with little to no planning. No wonder the Russians seem to be getting beaten back.
 
Losing 5000 soldiers out of 1m or whatever they have might not phase Putin. But losing 5 fighter jets a day might. They only have a few hundred of them.

I don't think he cares about loss of life. The humiliations of endless military hardware getting destroyed and publicized on TV and social media, are going to bother him imo since he is very big on the propaganda of perception.
 
`Assuming this is true of course. Reports of fuel shortages, with no actual evidence to back this up. So far the western military experts being paraded by the media have got nearly everything wrong. They make assertions with nothing to back those assertions up. Even dreaming up ridiculous stories about the Russians preparing a false flag attack. Using crisis actors as Russian casualties. This sort of nonsense would not look out of place on a QAnon website. What about the capture of Europes largest nuclear power station. These so called experts didn't see that one coming, did they. The trouble is that we in the west are being fed a totally one sided view by a media that is supposed to impartial. About as impartial as the state run TV in Russia. One thing is certain about these sanctions is that it will push the Russians into closer political and economic ties with China and is incredibly myopic.

So, you believe that BBC is as impartial as the state run TV in Russia. Realy???
 
Losing 5000 soldiers out of 1m or whatever they have might not phase Putin. But losing 5 fighter jets a day might. They only have a few hundred of them.
I highly doubt they have 1M soldiers. Maybe if they had a draft they can have they many ready to go. But if they had that many men they wouldn't need to ask Belarus to send their men in, and many of the men in Ukraine right now are from as far as Siberia
 
Wow.

But don't worry, I'm sure China will step in with their own payment system. 4D chess by Putin and all that.

China will be doing vulture capitalism on Putin after this. So many of the projects that Russia has ongoing will need financing if they are to go forward. The Yamal gas project for example. So little to gain from this Ukrainian Project and so much to lose overall.

Putin might as well get used to being called Pukim very soon.
 
I don't think he cares about loss of life. The humiliations of endless military hardware getting destroyed and publicized on TV and social media, are going to bother him imo since he is very big on the propaganda of perception.

I'm sure he wouldn't care if this war came at the cost of 50k or even 100k conscripts. But the planes and the pilots are pretty much priceless. Must be so humiliating for him to see so many of their planes getting easily dunked out of the sky by western tech, operated by relative amateurs. Their dilapidated tanks are getting wiped out by farmers armed with vodka and lighters. Their support vehicles cant even cover 50km without breaking down.

Russian pride is intrinsically woven into military might and they've showed the world that, nukes aside, they're pretty much impotent.
 
I highly doubt they have 1M soldiers. Maybe if they had a draft they can have they many ready to go. But if they had that many men they wouldn't need to ask Belarus to send their men in, and many of the men in Ukraine right now are from as far as Siberia
Not only that, but even if they did raise 1m conscripts, they’ve proven that they lack the ability to supply them.
 
So, you believe that BBC is as impartial as the state run TV in Russia. Realy???

Yes he clearly does when he says this.
The overwhelming majority of the population get their information from the BBC, ITV, Sky, Fox News, CNN news and and newspapers owned by huge multinational corporations. This is what shapes public opinion. Self censorship may be much smarter than Putins state control but every bit as deceptive and it is naivety in the extreme to think otherwise.

It is beyond delusional to compare the 2. Trump's populism has done some damage.
 
Wow.

But don't worry, I'm sure China will step in with their own payment system. 4D chess by Putin and all that.

Putin is looking more like General Melchett every day.
 
Could you imagine what a cluster feck the international response would have been if Trump were in charge? He would probably have invaded Taiwan by mistake.
 
Last edited:
Could you imagine what a cluster feck the international response would have been if Trump were in charge? He would probably have invaded Taiwan by mistake.

The US would've likely been taken out of NATO

 
Could you imagine what a cluster feck the international response would have been if Trump were in charge? He would probably have invaded Taiwan by mistake.
Bolton's assertion that Putin was waiting for Trump's second term withdrawal of the US from NATO is giving everyone ex post facto cover from the possibility that Putin really didn't invade Ukraine because he viewed Trump as likely to respond in near kind. Trump is/was a kind of US leader that has rarely been seen: a full on American nationalist. Also:
- egomaniacal
- liable to take everything politically as personal
- monomythical
- dangerously impulsive
In other words, someone Putin could understand and relate to. Trump would have seen doing Ukraine like Putin has 'on his watch' as a declaration that he, Trump, and America are now marginal and weak as piss. Trump taking the US out of NATO sounds credible because of Trump's verbal diarrhea. But it would have had absolute zero support amongst Republicans and been no more than a mad bluster to make the Germans cough up. Which Putin has just got them to do.
 
Bolton's assertion that Putin was waiting for Trump's second term withdrawal of the US from NATO is giving everyone ex post facto cover from the possibility that Putin really didn't invade Ukraine because he viewed Trump as likely to respond in near kind. Trump is/was a kind of US leader that has rarely been seen: a full on American nationalist. Also:
- egomaniacal
- liable to take everything politically as personal
- monomythical
- dangerously impulsive
In other words, someone Putin could understand and relate to. Trump would have seen doing Ukraine like Putin has 'on his watch' as a declaration that he, Trump, and America are now marginal and weak as piss. Trump taking the US out of NATO sounds credible because of Trump's verbal diarrhea. But it would have had absolute zero support amongst Republicans and been no more than a mad bluster to make the Germans cough up. Which Putin has just got them to do.

Except he told Mark Esper that he'd do it after he won reelection. Trump sewed discord amongst NATO and between the US and EU. He was constantly antagonizing the countries the US needs most as partners on the world stage. Trump could withdraw the US from NATO without any congressional oversight so there's nothing the GOP could do to stop him. Trump changed his platform to minimize Ukraine and only did anything to benefit Ukraine because overwhelming support in Congress left him no choice. He still tried to delay aid to Ukraine in his attempts to extort Zelensky into helping his campaign.
 
Could you imagine what a cluster feck the international response would have been if Trump were in charge? He would probably have invaded Taiwan by mistake.
Trump wouldn't give a shit. He said Russia was in its right taking Crimea. He repeatedly prevented arming Ukraine. And he might have pulled the US out of NATO, which would have incentivized Germany, Italy, and France to arm themselves accordingly.

But Trump's methods could also have worked in another way, bringing Russia closer to a Western block that had become less democratic and a bit friendlier to Putin's authoritarianism.
 
Except he told Mark Esper that he'd do it after he won reelection. Trump sewed discord amongst NATO and between the US and EU. He was constantly antagonizing the countries the US needs most as partners on the world stage. Trump could withdraw the US from NATO without any congressional oversight so there's nothing the GOP could do to stop him.
So now because Trump told someone he'd do something he'd do it? Everything to him was a bizarre portal to negotiations more on his terms. He was also 'very clear", for example, that he wanted to pull US troops from South Korea. Stuff and nonsense to (successfully) get SK to pay more for hosting 28,000 troops.

Edit: Not, by the way, backing his methods or goals. But anyone who claims they absolutely know what Trump's reaction would be to the Ukraine conflict is talking shite.
 
So now because Trump told someone he'd do something he'd do it? Everything to him was a bizarre portal to negotiations more on his terms. He was also 'very clear", for example, that he wanted to pull US troops from South Korea. Stuff and nonsense to (successfully) get SK to pay more for hosting 28,000 troops.

He tried to do it in his first term but was told he couldn't because it would hurt his support. His "negotiations" are the result of him being too stupid to grasp the concept of mutual benefit. He constantly talked about Germany needing to "pay more" to NATO as if the Germans owed the US money, which is complete nonsense. Many things he tried to do were slow-rolled or blocked by his own administration, like his attempts to move troops out of Germany.

Also, he demanded a 500% increase in funding from South Korea and got 8%. Great negotiator.
 


This fecking idiot was President of the United States for four years and got over 70m votes for reelection. Jesus.
 
Except he told Mark Esper that he'd do it after he won reelection. Trump sewed discord amongst NATO and between the US and EU. He was constantly antagonizing the countries the US needs most as partners on the world stage. Trump could withdraw the US from NATO without any congressional oversight so there's nothing the GOP could do to stop him. Trump changed his platform to minimize Ukraine and only did anything to benefit Ukraine because overwhelming support in Congress left him no choice. He still tried to delay aid to Ukraine in his attempts to extort Zelensky into helping his campaign.

:nervous: :nervous: Is that right? Its not like the Paris Accord. The levels of commitment to NATO is vastly different.
 
:nervous: :nervous: Is that right? Its not like the Paris Accord. The levels of commitment to NATO is vastly different.

He withdrew from several treaties with Russia, including the Open Skies Treaty and Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile Treaty. It takes a 2/3 majority to ratify a treaty (hence the US not ratifying the UN Law of the Seas), but it apparently only takes the president to withdraw from one.

There should be congressional approval for withdrawal, imo.
 
He tried to do it in his first term but was told he couldn't because it would hurt his support. His "negotiations" are the result of him being too stupid to grasp the concept of mutual benefit. He constantly talked about Germany needing to "pay more" to NATO as if the Germans owed the US money, which is complete nonsense. Many things he tried to do were slow-rolled or blocked by his own administration, like his attempts to move troops out of Germany.
Also, he demanded a 500% increase in funding from South Korea and got 8%. Great negotiator.
13.9%. But no, he isn't a great negotiator. Nor is he too stupid to grasp the concept of mutual benefit. He just doesn't believe in it. Every man and his dog knew the Germans didn't meet the 2% NATO target, whether Trump garbles the notion as "paying more" to the US or not. They will now. Trump wasn't a multilateralist or ally-cultivator. But we know he believed the US was number one and enjoyed death-consequential stunts like detonating the largest ordinance in the US arsenal when Xi was round for tea. Hence, you have little idea how he would have handled the current war in Europe. Certainly talk of Armageddon would have had more basis in reality.