Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

the hea said:
Why? A 1/6 loss ration is far from unbelivable when you consider the meat grinder tactics the Russians have been using.
Click to expand...
It's highly unlikely but you can't really blame Zelenskiy for trying to paint this picture.

Meduza & Mediazona estimate Russian losses (deaths specifically) up to the end of 2023 at around 75k (between 66 to 88k). Those numbers are based on the excess mortality data. It's important to note that those numbers don't include deaths of those who were fighting as a part of the so-called Lughansk & Donetsk Peoples Republics forces (but it includes Wagner and other PMC).

Their study is way more detailed than the English article suggests but I don't think that they've translated it in full.
 
Kyonn said:
That just can't be true. During the whole Soviet Afghan war it's thought that about 25K Soviet troops were killed. The US lost about 70K troops in the nearly ten years of the Vietnam conflict. 180k in two years would be insane and is simply unbelievable.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't surprise me if the Russian KIA were over 100,000 because Ukraine isn't Vietnam or Afghanistan. They can fight, and more importantly they have an army to speak of, the equipment that comes with it, plus the support of the West.

What I personally question is the Ukrainian losses.

There's no way they lost just 31,000 soldiers. No way in hell.
 
That_Bloke said:
It's believable because Ukraine isn't Vietnam or Afghanistan. They can fight and more importantly they have a military to speak of, the equipment that comes with it, plus the support of the West.

What I personally question is the Ukrainian losses.

There's no way they lost just 31,000 soldiers. No way in hell.
Click to expand...
One additional point here: according to Ukrainian officials that doesn't include the thousands more who are missing and have (likely) died. It also excludes the wounded.

Nevertheless, it seems rather far away from the US estimates on Ukrainians killed (70K).
 
That_Bloke said:
It wouldn't surprise me if the Russian KIA were over 100,000 because Ukraine isn't Vietnam or Afghanistan. They can fight, and more importantly they have an army to speak of, the equipment that comes with it, plus the support of the West.

What I personally question is the Ukrainian losses.

There's no way they lost just 31,000 soldiers. No way in hell.
Click to expand...

31,000 killed in action. I'm sure there is some massaging going on, especially when it comes to deaths as a result of wounds or disease and so on.
 
VorZakone said:
One additional point here: according to Ukrainian officials that doesn't include the thousands more who are missing and have (likely) died. It also excludes the wounded.

Nevertheless, it seems rather far away from the US estimates on Ukrainians killed (70K).
Click to expand...
I don't trust the US and UK estimates either or the Russian's for that matter. The UK and US have every interest in keeping the Ukrainian losses low.

Frosty said:
31,000 killed in action. I'm sure there is some massaging going on, especially when it comes to deaths as a result of wounds or disease and so on.
Click to expand...
Some massaging indeed.

The West estimates the Ukrainian losses at well over the double of Zelenskiy's official numbers and I'm personally certain that even those are underevaluated.

This is goold old war propaganda, Soviet style. There's nothing in his statement that can be taken at face value.
 
harms said:
It's highly unlikely but you can't really blame Zelenskiy for trying to paint this picture.

Meduza & Mediazona estimate Russian losses (deaths specifically) up to the end of 2023 at around 75k (between 66 to 88k). Those numbers are based on the excess mortality data. It's important to note that those numbers don't include deaths of those who were fighting as a part of the so-called Lughansk & Donetsk Peoples Republics forces (but it includes Wagner and other PMC).

Their study is way more detailed than the English article suggests but I don't think that they've translated it in full.
Click to expand...
The article didn't really go into detail about the methods they used so it's hard to judge how trustworthy those numbers are but at least it seems like they are based on some kind of collected data and not just some trust me bro information from a anonymous Pentagon official.

My first thought was that 75k killed seems very low considering the tactics Russia is using, their reported force size and the length of the contact line but maybe that's just my judgement being clouded by the numbers being reported earlier by various sources. I have felt from the beggining that it's almost impossible to make any kind of informed guess about casualties and deaths considering that the contact line is over 1000kms long and we only have anecdotal evidence available. For all i know it could be 30k killed for Ukraine and 80k for Russia but the numbers might as well be double that for any side or both.
 
the hea said:
The article didn't really go into detail about the methods they used so it's hard to judge how trustworthy those numbers are but at least it seems like they are based on some kind of collected data and not just some trust me bro information from a anonymous Pentagon official.

My first thought was that 75k killed seems very low considering the tactics Russia is using, their reported force size and the length of the contact line but maybe that's just my judgement being clouded by the numbers being reported earlier by various sources. I have felt from the beggining that it's almost impossible to make any kind of informed guess about casualties and deaths considering that the contact line is over 1000kms long and we only have anecdotal evidence available. For all i know it could be 30k killed for Ukraine and 80k for Russia but the numbers might as well be double that for any side or both.
Click to expand...
You can try to google-translate the original, it says quite a lot more about their methods. They also send raw data to researchers.
 
Rajma said:

It was all about NATO, right? :lol: :lol: :lol: @Suedesi
Click to expand...


The Russian Army is at NATO's doorstep because NATO has expanded towards Russia, rather than the other way around. For the last 50 years, NATO has functioned as an anti-Soviet (Russian) alliance, making it natural for Russia to view NATO's eastward expansion as a security threat. The continuous advance towards their border was inevitably going to provoke a response. This is pretty basic stuff.
 
Suedesi said:
The Russian Army is at NATO's doorstep because NATO has expanded towards Russia, rather than the other way around. For the last 50 years, NATO has functioned as an anti-Soviet (Russian) alliance, making it natural for Russia to view NATO's eastward expansion as a security threat. The continuous advance towards their border was inevitably going to provoke a response. This is pretty basic stuff.
Click to expand...
Aren't you going to say the funny thing again about how Russia wouldn't mind Ukraine's accession to EU if it wasn't for NATO?
 
Suedesi said:
The Russian Army is at NATO's doorstep because NATO has expanded towards Russia, rather than the other way around. For the last 50 years, NATO has functioned as an anti-Soviet (Russian) alliance, making it natural for Russia to view NATO's eastward expansion as a security threat. The continuous advance towards their border was inevitably going to provoke a response. This is pretty basic stuff.
Click to expand...
If only you would take the final step and acknowledge that countries close to Russia wanted to join NATO because of Russia's aggressive behaviour. Countries joined NATO because Russia threatened them. Blaming NATO for this is a bit like blaming a schoolteacher for protecting a child against a bully. Sure you can do this, but we all know what kind of character you are if you do.
 
Suedesi said:
The Russian Army is at NATO's doorstep because NATO has expanded towards Russia, rather than the other way around. For the last 50 years, NATO has functioned as an anti-Soviet (Russian) alliance, making it natural for Russia to view NATO's eastward expansion as a security threat. The continuous advance towards their border was inevitably going to provoke a response. This is pretty basic stuff.
Click to expand...
I've never understood this argument of a security threat. If Ukraine joins NATO how is that any more danger to Russia than before? What's going to magically happen in Ukraine joins NATO. They level up? Super powers? Makes no difference. The odds of Russia and the West going to War is marginal and if they did Ukraine being in NATO or not will hold little consequence.
 
That_Bloke said:
I don't trust the US and UK estimates either or the Russian's for that matter. The UK and US have every interest in keeping the Ukrainian losses low.


Some massaging indeed.

The West estimates the Ukrainian losses at well over the double of Zelenskiy's official numbers and I'm personally certain that even those are underevaluated.

This is goold old war propaganda, Soviet style. There's nothing in his statement that can be taken at face value.
Click to expand...

Fair to take it all with a pinch of salt, but no need to hyperbole :P Ukraine doesn't ever get remotely close to a fraction of the Soviet/Russian style propaganda the other side pumps out on a daily basis.

Zelensky is a democratically elected head of state, lying about something as sensitive as Ukrainian deaths would be... tricky. Accountability is important, yes it may be misleading by not including missing, but I very much doubt he would lie about such a matter.

Russia is the side that included mobile fecking crematoriums in its invasion force, in case anyone forgot, the sides are not remotely comparable. Also, anyone thinking a 5:1 ratio is unrealistic must have been watching a different war to me for the last two years, or not watching at all.
 
Simbo said:
Fair to take it all with a pinch of salt, but no need to hyperbole :P Ukraine doesn't ever get remotely close to a fraction of the Soviet/Russian style propaganda the other side pumps out on a daily basis.

Zelensky is a democratically elected head of state, lying about something as sensitive as Ukrainian deaths would be... tricky. Accountability is important, yes it may be misleading by not including missing, but I very much doubt he would lie about such a matter.

Russia is the side that included mobile fecking crematoriums in its invasion force, in case anyone forgot, the sides are not remotely comparable. Also, anyone thinking a 5:1 ratio is unrealistic must have been watching a different war to me for the last two years, or not watching at all.
Click to expand...

Some people have to be cleverer than everyone else, I wouldn't worry about it, you won't change their minds.
 
Simbo said:
Do their figures include the missing?
Click to expand...
Nope. They do specify that (google-translate):
As for the missing, from those point cases where we know about their events, we can conclude that some of them are already included in the loss assessment. Despite the simplification of the procedures for declaring a missing person to the court in 2023 (more on this simplification below), we are not seeing a surge in court cases of this type. That is, a significant number of missing people who might not be taken into account in the calculations most likely does not exist.
Click to expand...
And later
What is the weakest point in the analysis?

Firstly, we cannot say anything definite about either the wounded or the missing. One can always assume that there are a large number of people who were abandoned on the battlefield and were never included in either the name lists or the RND. Our research cannot refute such speculation, however, it itself implies that the missing either had no relatives at all, or that for some reason they decided not to remember their loved ones and did not apply for registration of death certificates necessary to obtain ( quite significant) payments. In April 2023, the State Duma adopted a law allowing a missing serviceman to be declared dead in an accelerated and simplified manner - even if his body is never found.
Click to expand...
 
UpWithRivers said:
I've never understood this argument of a security threat. If Ukraine joins NATO how is that any more danger to Russia than before? What's going to magically happen in Ukraine joins NATO. They level up? Super powers? Makes no difference. The odds of Russia and the West going to War is marginal and if they did Ukraine being in NATO or not will hold little consequence.
Click to expand...
I am not an expert on these things but if Ukraine had joined NATO before having been attacked they might have started to act more "cocky" (in the view of Russia) and provocative, knowing that NATO must get fully involved in case of a military conflict. Despite all the worrying articles I don't think Russia is interested in going toe to toe in a conflict with NATO as I believe that in this point in time a big portion of the Russian population will discard their support as it would have a heavy impact on their daily life. So the timing of the attack against Ukraine makes sense and comes with reasonable risk for the Russian leaders.
 
Cnaiür urs Skiötha said:
I am not an expert on these things but if Ukraine had joined NATO before having been attacked they might have started to act more "cocky" (in the view of Russia) and provocative, knowing that NATO must get fully involved in case of a military conflict. Despite all the worrying articles I don't think Russia is interested in going toe to toe in a conflict with NATO as I believe that in this point in time a big portion of the Russian population will discard their support as it would have a heavy impact on their daily life. So the timing of the attack against Ukraine makes sense and comes with reasonable risk for the Russian leaders.
Click to expand...
Yes but that's not a security issue. You cant call it a security issue when the only risk is that it will be harder to invade you. There would be no increased risk to Russia either way if they just didn't invade
 
Suedesi said:
The Russian Army is at NATO's doorstep because NATO has expanded towards Russia, rather than the other way around. For the last 50 years, NATO has functioned as an anti-Soviet (Russian) alliance, making it natural for Russia to view NATO's eastward expansion as a security threat. The continuous advance towards their border was inevitably going to provoke a response. This is pretty basic stuff.
Click to expand...

Whatever you say, comrade.
 
Germany is Ukraine's largest military supporter in Europe. It stays that way. But one thing is clear: we will not become a warring party - neither directly nor indirectly. These two principles guide all my decisions.
Click to expand...

 
VorZakone said:
Click to expand...

This mindset needs to change. We (the collective west) must admit we are in (cold) war with Russia. By attacking Ukraine, Russia is attacking the entire international order. It is demonstrating that conquest through war is valid course of action. If we do not stop it, then it will happen again, whether by Russia, China or some other power.

Russia and Putin are threatening our way of life. We are at war, maybe not a hot one like Ukraine is, but an ideological one. We need to accept it and change our behaviour accordingly.
 
Jotun said:
This mindset needs to change. We (the collective west) must admit we are in (cold) war with Russia. By attacking Ukraine, Russia is attacking the entire international order. It is demonstrating that conquest through war is valid course of action. If we do not stop it, then it will happen again, whether by Russia, China or some other power.

Russia and Putin are threatening our way of life. We are at war, maybe not a hot one like Ukraine is, but an ideological one. We need to accept it and change our behaviour accordingly.
Click to expand...
:lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Last edited:
I can't believe it is Macron who is asking for action! Of course, from this to actually doing anything meaningful is a loooong way...

I am so disappointed with the EU and US leaders. How is it possible to do so little to actually help Ukraine win the war? Are the Russians paying our politicians, or they are just useless?


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-emmanuel-macron-ukraine-french-ground-troops

Macron refuses to rule out putting troops on ground in Ukraine in call to galvanise Europe

French president admits no consensus exists on such a move as he urges fellow European leaders to take action rather than wait for US aid
 
frostbite said:
I can't believe it is Macron who is asking for action! Of course, from this to actually doing anything meaningful is a loooong way...

I am so disappointed on EU and US leaders. How is it possible to do so little to actually help Ukraine win the war? Are the Russians paying our politicians, or they are just useless?


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-emmanuel-macron-ukraine-french-ground-troops

Macron refuses to rule out putting troops on ground in Ukraine in call to galvanise Europe

French president admits no consensus exists on such a move as he urges fellow European leaders to take action rather than wait for US aid
Click to expand...

I was about to post the exact same story. Macron sure was the most unlikely source if we expected a change in the public discourse about what could happen in the future for Ukraine.

Many players within the western half of the EU need to wake up ASAP here.
 
frostbite said:
I can't believe it is Macron who is asking for action! Of course, from this to actually doing anything meaningful is a loooong way...

I am so disappointed with the EU and US leaders. How is it possible to do so little to actually help Ukraine win the war? Are the Russians paying our politicians, or they are just useless?


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-emmanuel-macron-ukraine-french-ground-troops

Macron refuses to rule out putting troops on ground in Ukraine in call to galvanise Europe

French president admits no consensus exists on such a move as he urges fellow European leaders to take action rather than wait for US aid
Click to expand...
He will never do it, because Germany's not on board and will never be. Nor will the other European countries. It's all bark and no bite. The idea of sending NATO troops to Ukraine thus risking a direct armed confrontation with the Russians, belongs to fairy tales, and anyone believing in and/or supporting it, is clinically insane.

Macron is an opportunistic, self-interested weathercock without any political spine, always has been. The EU is feeling the heat from the US elections, and is working overtime to deprive Trump from ammunition about their lack of engagement in the Ukrainian war and the absence of a clear endgame. Also counter the domestic far-right questioning the rudderless, undecisive european conduct in this war and eating away voters. Macron's chest pumping coincidentally happens just after Ukraine lost Adviikha and is in dire need of at least some moral support, since the West failed to adequately supply them in terms of military material.

Europe will definitely up their military support though.
 
Last edited:
Raoul said:
If you factor in the current aid package in Congress (which will pass sooner or later) and the $300b in frozen Russian central bank reserves that are mostly controlled by European nations, it could easily keep things going for another 4-5 years, during which Putin will almost certainly run out of resources to keep going.
Click to expand...

Are you sure?

First why haven't the 600+ billions USD in frozen Russian assets not yet used to support the Ukraine?

Second the Russian economy transitioned to a war economy and is doing actually much better than most European country parts.
Thus, I rather believe Russia can keep this war going for a longtime. Putin's cronies will even become richer and his power is cemented.

The problems will actually star when the war is over and the war economy has to transition again. Then the sanctions will hit and the loss in human resources will show.

Just my thoughts.
 
Enigma_87 said:
Either way if it comes to negotiations, Ukraine (or what's left of it) should become a NATO member to have some future guarantees at least. No way around it.
Click to expand...

If Trump becomes the next president, NATO membership will mean nothing. Worrying times ahead.
 
B. Munich said:
If Trump becomes the next president, NATO membership will mean nothing. Worrying times ahead.
Click to expand...
Part of me - the tinfoil head part - thinks Putin will give Trump a "victory" on Ukraine by allowing him to "negotiate" an end to the end to the conflict that clearly ends up with Russia getting some of it what it wants - which is probably control of some of the natural resources and technology in Ukraine, rather than actual or much occupied land. Russia has now officially encroached on NATO and the EU, Putin and Russia get richer, and Donnie can claim that only bc of him the conflict ended. Or am I reaching a lot here?
 
Suedesi said:
The Russian Army is at NATO's doorstep because NATO has expanded towards Russia, rather than the other way around. For the last 50 years, NATO has functioned as an anti-Soviet (Russian) alliance, making it natural for Russia to view NATO's eastward expansion as a security threat. The continuous advance towards their border was inevitably going to provoke a response. This is pretty basic stuff.
Click to expand...

This is proper Russian propaganda. Do you really believe what you are writing here?

NATO is a pure defensive alliance. Only if one partner country is attacked article 5 will come into play.

Putin sees hates NATO not because it's a threat to Russia but because he can't attack and conquer (and win) any country being part of NATO. Their is zero threat from NATO to Russian sovereignty.

Thus, the biggest mistake, particularly from Merkel and Sarkozy was to veto Ukraine joining NATO. If the Ukraine had joined back then, we wouldn't be in this mess today.

Therefore, the opposite of what your are claiming is actually true.
 
Redplane said:
Or am I reaching a lot here?
Click to expand...

You might well be right. Like with the Taliban in Afghanistan Trump might make a deal with Putin, which will be a win for Putin and terrible for Ukrainians.
Of course Trump will praise himself endlessly as the man who ended the war.
 
That_Bloke said:
Also counter the domestic far-right questioning the rudderless, undecisive european conduct in this war and eating away voters.
Click to expand...

Well he won't win any voters neck from the far right with those statements.
Strangely (or not) most far right parties are openly supporting or in favor of Russia and Putin.

In Germany they demand to stop weapon deliveries to Ukraine, reach a deal with Putin asap and start importing cheap Russian gas and natural resources again.

As our economy is in tatters more and more Germans support this (wrong) strategy.
 
B. Munich said:
Well he won't win any voters neck from the far right with those statements.
Strangely (or not) most far right parties are openly supporting or in favor of Russia and Putin.

In Germany they demand to stop weapon deliveries to Ukraine, reach a deal with Putin asap and start importing cheap Russian gas and natural resources again.

As our economy is in tatters more and more Germans support this (wrong) strategy.
Click to expand...
If Ukraine has such a far-right problem as some brainwashed by Russian propaganda kept telling us at the beginning of the war, how come none of these far-right parties across Europe actually support them? Russian disinformation machine has done such a number (and keeps doing it) on many stupid souls in the world.
 
Rajma said:
If Ukraine has such a far-right problem as some brainwashed by Russian propaganda kept telling us at the beginning of the war, how come none of these far-right parties across Europe actually support them? Russian disinformation machine has done such a number (and keeps doing it) on many stupid souls in the world.
Click to expand...
Cause they represent that part of the population that is not very bright and only interested in its national interests. Helping others affects your wallet and people don't want to do it hence supporting far right parties. That and usually the same far right parties have connection with Russia - either economically or based on historic relationship.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.