I suspect the numbers will be higher than previously reported, especially given how the Russians tend to suppress their casualty figures from the public.
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 suspect the numbers will be higher than previously reported, especially given how the Russians tend to suppress their casualty figures from the public.
Okay. So what is UA's number? How many populations do both countries have?
I think Ukraine had a pre-war population of 44M but I recall reading that was a 2001 census so very long ago. And now it's likely lower due to the big amount of refugees.
Russia's population is about 140M.
German government confirms the delivery of the second IRIS-T SLM battery last week: https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en/news/military-support-ukraine-2054992
Yeah, I am asking him some questions. It is good to say that the UA wasted so many RA troops, but that is just a one-sided story. We don't know how many UAs were lost in that. Even with 100k casualties, the RA is inching closer to taking the whole city there. There are reports of UA not having enough artillery fire just recently whereas RA were using it like hell. There is no way that UA didn't have to pull a lot of reserves to defend it for ages, resulting in depleting its own manpower and resources. There is not much long-term advantage to it, and sadly, the UA does not have many alternatives.
It is not mentioned that if the city fails, how many men does UA have to use to take it back? Where would the next fight be like this one? My point is that losing that city cannot be called irrelevant. If anything, it is the total opposite in the minds of both UA and RA.
Last edited:
Canadian KIA.
So insightful.
Population is just a number in this sense. Ukraine have a standing army of 688 000 soldiers, and around 400 000 in reserves. It's hard to imagine that Russia anytime soon can employ numbers matching that. Military equipment is more important anyway, and with Russia's financials struggles and with continuing Western aid to Ukraine, time is on Ukraine's side. Whether Ukraine will be able to take back all the occupied areas is a big question, but I doubt Russia will advance more than they already have. It's more likely that Ukraine will take some back in very close future. Basically, Russia's winter offensive has been a huge failure, and the fight for Bakhmut has been especially costly. There are reports today that Ukraine have actually been able to take over some Russian positions in Bakhmut, which might indicate the tipping point is already here. Let's hope.
It might be important symbolically - for the Russians to have something to show for. What I said, is that Bakhmut is rather irrelevant strategically - as pointed out by many, e.g. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64877991
But the UA president pointed out (assuming he got advice from his generals) that it was important because he said that once it failed, it would open up a lot of problems defending the cities behind that line. So it is definitely relevant strategically for them. All of these media outlets and experts have said a lot of things, and they don't always get it right.
And if it was symbolic, it is still very important to hold it, as he stated in his address to the U.S. Congress. You know, morals and all, especially after losing so many men for that.
I've seen a few of these reports of Ukrainians hitting Russian positions behind enemy lines. Wonder if this is the first inkling of a counteroffensive.
War on the Rocks podcast suggested a more Kherson style counteroffensive than a Kharkiv style. ISW uses the term interdiction, which I had to look up last year. I expect a lot of Russian bases and transport hubs to be hit over the next few weeks so they aren't able to respond when the breakthrough comes. (can't remember which lengthy twitter thread that came from)
It could be. They did the same in Kherson. Before the actual push on the ground, they shelled ammunition depots and troop concentrations for days and weeks. Russia couldn't keep up with logistics on the right side of the river, so they retreated. The logistics are key in every battle. If the front line is deprived of reinforcements and weapons, they can't put up much of a fight. I'm pretty sure that is also what Nato is advising them. This way, they also save considerably more troops than Russia with their human wave tactics and that is important for the long run.
He is surprisingly on point more often than not, which is why so many Ukrainians actually read him (without forgetting that he's a war criminal and one of the most influential figures behind the very origin of this conflict). Who knows how he has managed to avoid getting himself arrested up to this point though — there's no doubt about his extremely pro-Russian allegiance but almost any of his summaries can get him like 7 years in prison for the "discrediting of the Russian army".
Girkin is unironically probably more competent than the likes of Shoigu and Gerasimov.
He is a fanatic and genuinely interested in Russia winning. He isn't corrupt and gocused on personal benefits like most of the Russian government.
Which is also why I am not surprised how accurate a lot of his statements are - he is a fanatic, not an idiot.
Except there are no cities nearby. The closest is the village Chasiv Yar with a population of 13 000, 15 km away. I'm no expert in these matters, but Zelensky's comments was made in the context of "please give us more tanks", and maybe also to motivate his soldiers, but the strategical role of the city is quite transparent and probably not that difficult to judge. In one way you could say that every meter the Russians take, matters, but the importance of Bakhmut is not justified by the losses Russia have had taking it. The other cites at the frontline are just as important.
Kramatorsk and Sloviansk are nearby and along a major road that leads out of Bakhmut.
Look at Bakhmut on a map, it is a road hub. Those are always important in warfare.
The only reason I can think of is his influence in the Donbas. You wrote it yourself, he is one of the most influential figures in this region and if Putin arrests him, then he risks trouble in regions where he can't afford it. Girkin knows it too and that's why he enjoys it being the only influential person, who can openly criticize.
Last edited:
That looks like a gun run level on CoD.
The cross road is east of Bakhmut though, and has been under Russian control some time already. The Russians have to make quite some progression to reach Krematorsk and Sloviansk. I understand this could be a worry when Russia started their winter offensive, but as things stand now, my understanding is that whether Russia finally manage to take all of Bakhmut or not is not that important as Ukraine can still put up defence lines outside the city, and Russia also lack the personal needed to advance much further. Let's hope at least.
They've been inching closer since last summer.
A long but interesting thread for anyone interested in the upcoming counter offensive.
The personal in Donbass has changed more or less entirely since 2014 and Girkin never was a politician with a loyal electorate, so it's unlikely. Different people speculate that he has some high-level patron in the FSB (or somewhere else at the very top), hence why he hasn't been arrested/prosecuted yet. The funniest version of events that may indeed be true is that he doesn't have anyone but everyone there assumes that he does so they stay clear off him, which would be a very Russian thing to happen. And him continuing to get away with it only strengthens their suspicions.
Exactly and it showed that it is a big problem for the UA and all these RA will run out of whatever didn't happen.
Also it's a big problem for RA of course.
What you are probably missing is that the UA decided to defend there and had built up a lot of defense lines. That means it was easier to make it their hill. We have no idea how good other cities behind it with their defense. And why the hell would the UA want to keep letting the RA destroy their cities, one after another, especially the ones located closer to their west.
They had to make a stand at some point and go hell on the RA, especially, if their intention is to get all their lands back. They just can't giving up cities.
Last edited:
For those who missed it:
Around 200K Russian troops in Ukraine. I thought it'd be more.
Last edited:
Ben Hodges is very adamant that Crimea is a key factor.
1) the fact that there's a crossroads means there's more than 1 way out of the city to get to Krematorsk and Sloviansk.
2) having to defend 2 roadways to get to those cities means Ukrainian forces will be split up, and as you can see from the image will become more and more stretched as a fallback from Bakhmut happens. That's obviously not optimal, and you'd much rather just deny access to the road hub completely. You can see that the effects of the loss of part of Bakhmut is already becoming apparent in how far up the northern road the Russians have advanced.
3) the Russians wouldn't need to make it all the way to either city. Control of the road hub and the ability to split Ukrainian defenses and push up the road will bring both cities to within Russian artillery range.
Apparently, UAF pushed back Russians in Avdiivka by 1.5km.