The sheer amount of cope in the comments. Apparently Ukraine has already beat Russia.
The sheer amount of cope in the comments. Apparently Ukraine has already beat Russia.
Ever since the war in Ukraine started people have been saying that Russia is about to lose because they’re running out of money and there’s...
You're viewing a single thread.
Permanently Deleted
Any peace that does not guarantee Ukraine won't join NATO and becomes a demilitarizated neutral country will not be accepted by Russia. This war started because of that, Putin would have left the russian in the donbass to die if he could have had that.
Permanently Deleted
They will get the missile strikes to stop and the war which has lowered their population by 50% to end. Losers don’t get anything, they surrender and accept terms. Ukraine will get the same thing as Armenia got, nothing.
My issue is that Putin is how do I put this nicely a paranoid boomer high on his own anti western TV propaganda. as such he WILL NOT accept any guarantees of Ukrainian neutrality short of direct physical control over kiev. Any ceasefire will eventually break down because of this
It's something I should have included in my previous comment, but the fact that previous agreements were simply broken by Ukraine and NATO really does make any peace with the Kiev regime just a truce at best.
But let's not pretend like marching all the way to the polish border is the end goal. Occupying western Ukraine would probably be very costly for Russia, and the fascists would resist however they could.
How is Putin paranoid? If anything he was far too trusting and western friendly until the West forced him away. All of the hardliner Russians “paranoia” has been proven correct and it was the trusting comprador faction that got proven to be disconnected from reality. Putin has a more grounded and serious view of this than any Western leaders but apparently he’s “paranoid”?
Sounds like you have been reading too much NYT
I'm Russian myself and in the winter of '22 I was posting how Putin is never going to invade because it would be stupid and against his objective interests (which is still true imo lol) and that all those troops buildups and exercises were intimidation tactics for negotiations. Then he goes and does it, proving right all the American natsec ghouls and ukrainian nazis who were screaming the whole time that he's insane/can't be trusted in negotiations and will invade.
Putin should have invaded in 2014 and he had no choice to invade. I was saying he was going to invade the whole time and was frustrated it took him so long. You just weren’t listening to the right communists
Username checks out
perhaps an absolute greater loss as well.
There’s no perhaps. Russia has had air superiority and 10:1 shell advantage for over a year. Russian losses are around 40,000 while Ukrainian losses are around 400,000. Russia retreats and gives up territory to preserve lives, Ukraine clings to every bit of territory and lost more in their suicidal offensive than Russia has lost during the whole war
They claim in that thread that RU is losing 1k people on the front daily. I think they've learned statistics from the VoC foundation.
Russian losses are around 40,000 while Ukrainian losses are around 400,000
Where are you getting these numbers? I can't find anything that seems reliable, and as I far as I know neither side is releasing their own casualty numbers. A ten to one ratio does not seem like it reflects the mostly frozen lines of the war over the last year, even if Russia is pursuing the strategy you describe.
“Even if Russia is pursuing this strategy you describe”
The fact you would say this shows me you have not been following the minutiae of this war because it’s not conjecture but extremely evident fact
The lines are frozen because Russia is not fighting for territory and isn’t making costly big offensives but instead chipping away slowly and retreating when needed. The lines not moving in fact supports my claim that Russia isn’t fighting for territory but to destroy the enemy army.
Even western media accepts that Ukraine lost 50,000+ men in their counteroffensive and took barely any land whatsoever. Russia doesn’t do shit like that
Where'd you get your numbers?
Pro-Ukraine/Western source can only confirm 40,000 Russian deaths: https://en.zona.media/article/2022/05/11/casualties_eng
Western source states 500,000 Ukrainian losses back in August: https://archive.ph/QQk6w
It's quite evident that Ukraine is losing far, FAR more soldiers by their tactics, by their inability to mobilize anyone other than down syndrome disabled people and 70 year old men & by even their own admitted figures
From the NYT link:
The total number of Ukrainian and Russian troops killed or wounded since the war in Ukraine began 18 months ago is nearing 500,000
They break this down into Russian and Ukrainian figures like this:
Russia’s military casualties, the officials said, are approaching 300,000. The number includes as many as 120,000 deaths and 170,000 to 180,000 injured troops. The Russian numbers dwarf the Ukrainian figures, which the officials put at close to 70,000 killed and 100,000 to 120,000 wounded.
I don't put much stock in these numbers because they're estimations from a source motivated to paint an optimistic picture, but they come out to be about 300,000 and 190,000 casualties for Russia and Ukraine respectively.
The Mediazona source at least provides some information as to how they arrive at their count. It also states this:
The figures we provide are sourced from publicly available information, including social media posts from family members, local media coverage, and official statements from local authorities. However, these figures represent only a partial account and do not reflect the full extent of the casualties.
And later in the page in their methods section, this:
Our standard for confirmed deaths is stringent—it requires an official publication or social media post from a relative with corresponding details, accompanying photos or dates of burials from local messaging groups, or photos from cemeteries.
We exclude casualties sustained by units of the self-proclaimed DPR and LPR republics, and we do not rely on photographs of bodies (even with accompanying documents) published by Ukraine as these are difficult to verify.
So it's probably not a complete count of casualties. It's the best count we have of Russian casualties without being privy to Russia's internal tracking or using estimation. Unfortunately, without a comparable attempt to count Ukraine's casualties by similar methods, it's very hard to extrapolate from this to give a better picture of the balance of casualties on each side. I'd be very curious to see the same thing done for Ukraine, and if you or anyone knows of such a project, please do share.
https://tass.com/politics/1709329
Russian Department of Defense puts Ukrainian irretrievable losses at 388,000. That's what I was thinking of but got it mixed up with the NYT source when I cited it. You can chose to disbelieve the Russian figures but I actually think these numbers are quite conservative if anything. Nobody disputes Ukraine losing 50,000+ at minimum in their counter-offensive after all. Again, Russia has had a 10:1 shell advantage and air advantage for quite a while, it makes no sense to say Russian losses are higher when Ukraine does massive suicide waves and have far less equipment and ammo.
I don't take either at their word. But if in August the US says 300k Russian casualties and in November Russia says 390k Ukrainian casualties, that leads me to believe that it's been bloody for them both and there isn't such a tremendous difference in casualties between Ukraine and Russia as ten to one.
Ukrainians and the west are massive liars, and have massively lied this entire war. Russia has not, merely rounded things up or down slightly. If you believe both equally I'm sorry you're naive and pro-western biased
Like the goal of toppling the midan regime fell flat
I'd say this is between "jury's still out" and "yet." Assuming an independent Ukrainian government makes it through the war at all (likely, but not guaranteed), it's going to see massive changes as a result of (1) losing a bunch of territory and a war, and (2) having the Zelensky government "lose" the foreign military support on which it is entirely dependent.
It also seems the primary goal was not necessarily to topple the Maidan regime, but to keep Ukraine out of NATO. Russia negotiated with the current government at the start of the war, and absent NATO intervention would have seemingly reached a peace agreement with it.
This is a fact that I think gets overlooked.
By taking the territory in the east, Russia has created a poisoned chalice for the Ukrainian government.
The choice now is to relinquish claims over those territories in order to accede to NATO, which would be an outright political disaster domestically - like coups and civil war tier political instability, or to fight on under the conditions of lukewarm and waning support from the NATO axis but in doing so making them ineligible to accede to NATO.
I could imagine that NATO might consider bending the rules and allowing the Ukraine entry into NATO (anything is possible) but it would almost certainly be under strict conditions that NATO isn't about to trigger a WWI-style disaster where suddenly everyone gets dragged into a regional conflict against Russia via treaty. (Anything less would likely mean the breakup of NATO because I cannot imagine a world where a country like Turkey is simply champing at the bit to get stuck in a forever-war against Russia.)
So either the Ukrainian government gives up and the Ukraine likely ceases to function as a viable state or the Ukraine fights on against Russia under adverse conditions as domestic and international support for the war declines, gradually making the government buckle under the strain.
The Ukraine has serious political and military hardliners and they have already shown just how much appeasement they can extract. Those factions will continue to exert their influence unless they get happen to ground up by the war machine entirely. They won't be satisfied until there's a complete victory and a total reclamation of lost territory (along with the cleansing of ethnic Russians.)
You've got the moderates and the average citizens who want to see an end to the war and a Ukrainian victory, but not at any cost.
Then you've got the opposition types, who have essentially been silenced and neutered.
Capitulating to the moderates when they begin to tire of the war would likely trigger an insurrection by the hardliners who are a hardened, well-armed military force by this point. But continuing to prosecute the war in the face of growing discontent amongst the moderates is going to cause major problems and ultimately destabilisation for the military and civil society in the Ukraine, which will only gain momentum over time.
They can't win this war yet they can't afford to lose it, they can't back down and yet they can't maintain the current tempo for too much longer (especially without anything to show for their efforts and the loss of life.)
The only ways that I can see an exit from this situation with the current Ukraine intact would be by somehow acceding to NATO, by direct intervention from an external country, or by Russia calling it off (which would almost certainly only occur on their preferred terms unless there's a black swan event like a coup in Russia, but then we're going way off into wild speculation - it's not outside the realms of possibility but I wouldn't pin my political objectives on the chances of something like Putin being deposed).
Either the Ukraine fights on and Russia gets what they want, namely to keep the Ukraine out of NATO (Russia wins), the Ukraine fights on and buckles due to internal pressures and lack of external support (Russia wins), or the Ukraine backs down and implodes politically (no NATO accession and Russia is likely positioned to take more territory -> Russia wins).
I'm just not seeing any other probable outcome here. I guess the big irony here is that all of the things that liberal pundits have been prophesying about Russia - military collapse, demographic collapse, economic collapse, collapse of political support - are projection and I see it being far more likely for the Ukraine than for Russia.
Permanently Deleted
This war isn't great for Russia, I highly doubt they were like "Yeah! We want a 2 year long slog that has serious trade ramifications for us!!!" But the idea that are losing or lost is silly.
I doubt that this is their ideal scenario but I also doubt that this isn't inside their reasonable range of expectations. Military planners are by nature pessimists because the optimists end up planning shit like Barbarossa and then having to shoot themselves in disgrace.
Permanently Deleted