I agree with you. We don't really know what exactly is the condition of either the Russian or the Ukrainian forces. I am also worried about the constant missile attacks by the Russians. For almost a full year now, the Russians have been bombarding Ukraine with artillery and missiles and taking out important infrastructure like the electricity grid. This makes it harder for Ukrainians to function. The West should rush in more help, especially air defenses and long-range missiles to help Ukraine target the Russian military units that are causing them damage. The Ukrainians should be able to hit inside Russia, not to kill civilians, but to destroy the missile bases, the bombers etc. They have already done this on a very limited scale, but long-range missiles will probably help them a lot.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I agree with you. We don't really know what exactly is the condition of either the Russian or the Ukrainian forces. I am also worried about the constant missile attacks by the Russians. For almost a full year now, the Russians have been bombarding Ukraine with artillery and missiles and taking out important infrastructure like the electricity grid. This makes it harder for Ukrainians to function. The West should rush in more help, especially air defenses and long-range missiles to help Ukraine target the Russian military units that are causing them damage. The Ukrainians should be able to hit inside Russia, not to kill civilians, but to destroy the missile bases, the bombers etc. They have already done this on a very limited scale, but long-range missiles will probably help them a lot.
Then bring one of the respectable reports that you quote so we can decide, since I'm not sure you are qualified to decide which ones are respectable and which aren't. But I'm curious, if the RA started an invasion with 200,000 forces one year ago, and six months ago asked for a reinforcement of 300,000 more to control a smaller area than the one they invaded initially, how much do you think their casualties were at that point? Do you think they have increased or decreased since then?
We can say confidently that the RA has lost more military than Ukraine because of military experts and military history that says that invaders do tend to have a higher casualties ratio than defenders, and because of the proxy that visibily destroyed military vehicles provide, and because of the amount of visual confirmation provided by both sides.
Russia ocuppied about 10% of Ukraine's territory 8 years before the war. Since March 1st their major offensives have been Kiev (failed), Kharkiv (failed), Mariupol (succeeded at enormous cost), Odesa (siege failed), Kherson (had to abandon it) and parts of Lugansk (most of which they controlled way before).
I did not mean that you made it up. Just need to feel something positive about the current situation.
What you wrote made much more sense and something positive to look forward instead of reading how the Russian will run out of their resource next week for months.
You had to read a few pages back. There were reports from either Norway or Demark and the U.S general Milley also said it a few times in the last few weeks. The EU woman quoted him saying that the UKR had about 100k causality about a month or so ago only to retract it because the UKR protested about it being their internal affair or something.
If you are not sure that I am qualified to decide which ones are respectable, then what make you think what you read are more respectable? I am sure those military experts say those and the UKR did some offensives as well. Don't forget that. You asked the question about the causality. I think it makes more sense that I ask you that question. If you believe what you see online from some of those sources, the Russians probably don't even have enough troop to defend Moscow. 100k KIA and three time of that would give 400k causality altogether already. I mean come on.
Let's not pretend that the Russians and the whole world didn't think that the UKR would be easy. There were only about 200k Russian troops for that initial offensive which is hardly enough for any type of invasion for the size of UKR. Since then and after a few defeats, the Russians adapted and stabilized their line which is a point that people seem to forget and keep on going about how they were defeated in the past. The situation now is a lot different for better or worse.
Last edited:
Milley talked about 100k casualties (meaning killed and wounded together), von der Leyen misquoted him by talking about 100k dead. That's why she retracted that statement.
We all would agree that the western aid are not as fast as it should. I will raise the point again that the war fatigue of the UKR forces will be real and there would be not much point training them and giving them modern weapons at that point. I am hoping it is not too late at this point.
One poster said that the Western industry is great but I would argue that it is not ready at the moment to supply all the weapons and ammunitions that the UKR need. Putin would just whip the whole country to spend on military as soon as today while the west can't do it instantly.
The point was that Milley said something like both losses were comparable which I quoted because I would think he would know a bit better than us. I doubt that both losses are really close myself but it is not as bad as the 100K Russian KIA information though.
Last edited:
Since you continue to return to the numbers discussion by bringing up numbers that I haven't mentioned, and refuse to bring the respectable reports (save for the debunked Von Der Leyen quote) and/or to answer my question about casualties, I'll assume you have no relevant data on the matter.
My impression is that Ukraine has been losing forces at a 100-150 a day average, and the RA at 250-300 a day (which has probably been increasing since Bahkmut). Considering that the war is now about 330 days long and the 2 or 3 to 1 WIA ratio, it's not far from what we've seen reported.
https://www.businessinsider.com/mil...well-over-100000-casualties-in-ukraine-2023-1
https://www.france24.com/en/live-ne...000-dead-or-wounded-in-ukraine-norwegian-army
https://nypost.com/2023/01/20/russi...ore-than-100000-casualties-in-ukraine-milley/
“The numbers of casualties in war are always suspect,” Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley told reporters in Germany. “But I would tell you that the Russian casualties, the last time I reported out publicly [in November] I said it was well over 100,000. I would say it’s significantly well over 100,000 now.”
Milley did not estimate Ukraine’s military losses, but in November he suggested that Ukraine had lost roughly the same amount of forces as Russia."
Sorry, you may be trying to be clear but you've lost me. If you talking about Bakhmut then no, they've not even come close to what they wanted to achieve. If WW2, then just stop comparing this whole thing to WW2, its not remotely a comparable situation.
Oh I was talking about ill equipped and trained troops in this war will still make a difference as Putin will keep throwing the number. As for Bakhmut, it will probably fall soon in the current situation.
" The belief in Washington is that Ukraine has spent considerable resources defending the city of Bakhmut but that there is a high possibility that the Russians will eventually push the Ukrainians out of that town, the official said." - Reuters.
“The Ukrainians are currently suffering huge losses near Bakhmut. The BND briefing informs about “three-digit numbers of casualties per day,” the report said.
According to German intelligence assessments, the entire line of Ukrainian defense would be affected if Bakhmut collapsed. The report further claimed that Russia is currently throwing soldiers like cannonballs because it is not concerned about its losses there.
British intelligence has already indicated that one of Ukraine’s two main supply lines to Bakhmut has been exposed to heavy artillery bombardment. " - eurasiantimes.
Ahhh gotcha. Misread your comment. Apologies!
I know, i just wanted him to explain his: "i dont want civilian casuslties, but i want UA to attack urban areas"
Yes they stablized their line but already lost a lot of ground in Kherson and before that in Harkiv region. Also they're pushing in Bakhmut but cant get through. Not to mention, as it was already mentioned, only big city they occupied is Mariupol.
Of course question need to be asked about UA losses and is it sustainable, how much longer can they hold in Bakhmut and how big of a toll it will take on their forces on the whole.
And that is the biggest problem for the Putin regime. The average Russian conscript is not going to have the same level of motivation no matter how much they brainwash them. Fighting to defend your homeland is not the same as fighting in a foreign country where the question "What am I doing here?" is more difficult to answer.
Russia doesn't have a good record with "smaller wars" over the past century.
They suffered a humiliating defeat against Japan in 1905.
They really suffered against the Finns in the Winter War in 1940. Suffered huge casualties for very small territorial gains.
Afghanistan- we all know how that ended.
First Chechen War
Yes Bakhmut might well fall in the next few weeks, it might not, we've been here before. If it does, it'd be one hell of a stretch to call that a Russian victory. What happens then? They expend another ~40k men trying to break the next defensive line a few km up the road? Bring it on.
Bakhmut does matter, Ukraine obviously would rather not give up any ground and its reportedly a well defensible position, but its also just 40 km2 of abandoned rubble. It's certainly not as important as some are making it out to be. Media have to print something and aside from German shenanigans, this is the only thing going on so the exposure blows it out of proportion a bit in the minds of the casual observer.
Still, I find it very reassuring that despite it being the focal point of Russia's offensive, their inability to take this relative speck of land after so long and at so much cost, can't be seen as anything other than a spectacular failure and sign of their impotence, whether they finally take it or not.
Official request by Poland.
Scholz is on the clock now. I have no doubt that the Germans will end up authorizing other countries the re-export. Question is how long it will take to get that decision.
The following footage appears to be very recent, perhaps the last few days. Watch this and tell me your still unsure if Russia is really losing many more than Ukraine. A hundred or so troops moving unsupported in the open toward Bakhmut. Annihilated by artillary, grads, drones and ultimately finished off by a tank and IFV. There are countless clips like this. Russia has drones up too, they also release footage of their successes when they have them, its just very far and few between in comparison.
At the moment, there is largely stalemate across Ukraine. In some areas e.g. Bakhmut, it is clear that Russia are throwing bodies into the meatgrinder to make marginal gains. I imagine Ukraine casualties here are pretty high, given there isn't a huge amount of defence from artillery and Russia have so many men there. However I think it is extremely obvious that attacking a good defensive position with unsupported and inexperienced troops will lead to a significantly higher casualty rate for Russia. There are plenty of videos supporting this, with Russians advancing in open fields and being easily taken out.
There is clearly a reason why Ukraine needs tanks. With Russia dug in and Ukraine unable to break defensive lines with the current weather/ weaponry, Russia can afford to push their soldiers into a smaller number of positions for tactical, marginal gains. Breaking through less-defended Russian lines would force Russia to reassign soldiers to other areas, blunting their ability to attack Bakhmut, and given what we’ve seen earlier in the war significant Russian retreat.
I think you're overestimating Russia's position. According to pretty much every expert, the current war is a protracted war of attrition, with some unknowns around future Russian air power and Western government resilience. Bahmut may fall, but this line is moving metres rather than miles each day, and so a month worth of gains could be wiped out with a single, effective counter-attack. After giving Ukraine further NATO weaponry (i.e. tanks and air defence), which surely is the current base case, most experts expect Ukraine to seize significant momentum.
That doesn't mean the war will be over quickly. But it should ramp up the pressure on Putin from Russia's far right, whilst giving Ukraine a significant morale boost (and vice-versa for Russia).
So matching UK numbers, but from what I gather 14 is basically one tank company that then would be supported by other armour and vehicles.
The obvious conclusion being that too much emphasis is being placed on the story will they/won't they get Leopard tanks and that they won't be definitive game changers on the ground.
It is a step forward. It should have been done 8+ months ago.
next level trolling
The 14 tanks from Poland isn't even a step it's just to few to have any meaningful impact. Until a coalition of Leopard users has been formed and they can provide at least 200 - 300 tanks with training, ammunition and spare parts they will not play any meaningful role in the war.
Reports in Germany suggest that the US will finally agree to Scholz request to deliver Abrams, so Germany should deliver some Leopard and allow states like Poland to send theirs.
If true then only Scholz reluctance has gotten Abrams to Ukraine, as the US tried to pressure Germany to just deliver Leopard...
To me that looks like a political maneuvre to put pressure on Scholz. It seems to be a direct consequence of Baerbock's statement a few days ago. Even if the impact isn't too big in a military sense, it might be a step in the right direction from a diplomatic perspective and only increases the chances that Germany will follow through with what you demand.
They can't send 300 tanks all at once. And it is not fair just for Poland to provide 300 tanks. If Poland provides 300 tanks, then Germany, given its size/economy/manufacturing strength etc, should also provide 1000+ tanks. The problem is not the number of tanks, the problem is that Germany does not do anything without a lot of external pressure. This story did not start last week, it has been going on for MONTHS. Germany should have provided the tanks first, and then Germany should pressure others to provide tanks, not the other way around!
I know these propagandists will continue this kind of rhetoric. But does the average Russian viewer never think to himself "you've been threatening the West so much, when are you going to actually do it?"
No country will be able to provide 300 Leopard tanks and keep them up and running on their own, not Poland, not Germany nor anyone else. Thats why I said a coalition needs to form and provide the tanks, the training, the ammunition and the spare parts.
This list is not 100% accurate but it gives you a good picture of what is available in each country, keep in mind that these tanks are a major part of each countries defense capabilty so no one is going to give up a major part of their stock.
The Bundeswehr has 19 active 2A4, used to simulate enemies in combat training. There is a rumour that these could be send quite quickly because they are not part of the active duty inventory/planning.No country will be able to provide 300 Leopard tanks and keep them up and running on their own, not Poland, not Germany nor anyone else. Thats why I said a coalition needs to form and provide the tanks, the training, the ammunition and the spare parts.
This list is not 100% accurate but it gives you a good picture of what is available in each country, keep in mind that these tanks are a major part of each countries defense capabilty so no one is going to give up a major part of their stock.
No country will be able to provide 300 Leopard tanks and keep them up and running on their own, not Poland, not Germany nor anyone else. Thats why I said a coalition needs to form and provide the tanks, the training, the ammunition and the spare parts.
This list is not 100% accurate but it gives you a good picture of what is available in each country, keep in mind that these tanks are a major part of each countries defense capabilty so no one is going to give up a major part of their stock.
Yes, true.
But when talking about "major part of each countries defense capability", we should keep in mind that most of these countries have zero defense needs at this moment. Nobody is going to invade Spain, or Germany, or Canada. Their defense capabilities are needed in Ukraine, that's where the common defense is today. The best defense for Spain or Germany is to make sure that Ukraine wins.
Apologies if posted already
That's oversimplifying the reality. No NATO or EU member should send all it's capabilities to Ukraine because the borders need to be defended. We need a strong military presence in the Baltic states or Poland, and that's why German troops are stationed there. And they need to be fully trained and operational. That's impossible if you don't have enough equipment at home.
It is not about overestimating the Russians. It is about the attrition war that everyone talked about which concerns me. The UKR does not have much of advantage in that especially if the "West" started becoming disinterested in long term.
I said that they stabilized their line AFTER they lost those and gained some (minimal) grounds. It does not matter how much they are losing which they don't care but it has big impact on the UKR forces as well.
Last edited: