O/T:- Ukraine [Incorporating 'Congrats to Russia' thread]

[Jampie]

I'm sure Putin is worried about the expansion of NATO, and the official line (as per Macron's statement) is that it's about the military threat, but the underlying and far more credible concern in the mind of Putin and his key allies is probably the political/symbolic threat of the Eastwards march of Western ideology, especially into former Soviet states, which hits at the heart of Putin's pyschology and may explain his comparative recklessness in recent times, coupled with any illness he may have.

Yeah sure, he feels threatened by western ideology. I am sure NATO's in his thoughts etc, but obviously this stuff is constantly framed as a "reason"/excuse for the attack on Ukraine.

And whatever the actual reasons for attacking Ukraine, NATO is at best a red herring.

I feel like his real reasons had very little to do with "NATO", although definitely competition with the west was on the list. This was largely about cementing his legacy as Russia's great post-USSR strong man. You could also make an argument for strategic military expansionism but I'm a bit dubious about that. From '91 onwards Russia was in a singularly excellent position to make it as a resource superpower, using the huge profits from that to diversify its economy and build out high technology industries.

Putin has unquestionably squandered that opportunity throughout his reign, leaning too much into corruption and in "competition" (wasted resources) with the west, although he was hardly handed an "easy mode" game by his predecessors.

Attacking Ukraine was a very high risk proposition and it's spectacularly backfired. I can only assume he really did have intel indicating a short war (like literally weeks, that's all they seem to have planned on) would have ended with Russia in a position to annex the entire country. And essentially since they gave up on that idea (about April 17th if I recall) they haven't actually HAD a clear objective in Ukraine.

From the moment the invasion failed to defeat Ukraine he seems to have just been flailing about trying to find a way out that doesn't look like the truth: That he just wasted more than half of Russia's ground combat power on a failed campaign that's already triggered massive NATO expansion, weakened Russia immeasurably both globally and domestically (with long term effects slowly beginning to bite both now), and failed to achieve any of its supposed objectives.

Right now he seems willing to pay any price in blood and equipment to seize the remaining bits of the Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts and then hold onto them with his fingernails. Assuming he can pull that off (looks unlikely right now) I doubt it'll be sufficient for him to want to end the war. So as strategic objectives, they're pretty terrible.

[andy6025]

Aaron Maté interviews Nicolai Petrov, professor of political science at the University of Rhode Island, and former US State Dept.’s special assistant for policy on the Soviet Union under President George HW Bush:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5cTxXQsfXkU

“History Legends” YouTube channel attempts to provide an analysis of casualty figures in the conflict:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Bfj2c5racUY&t=1315s

[Jampie]

Let me guess, it's all the west+Ukraine's fault russia invaded and ukrainians are inflating russian casualties who, despite losing ground continuously since march while repeatedly attacking prepared defences (like idiots) have actually taken light casualties?

[andy6025]

Let me guess, it's all the west+Ukraine's fault russia invaded and ukrainians are inflating russian casualties who, despite losing ground continuously since march while repeatedly attacking prepared defences (like idiots) have actually taken light casualties?

Not at all! He says that the Russians have been sending wave upon wave of untrained and unarmed troops into battle against the valiant Ukrainian defenders who weep as they mow the hapless Russians down. Given that there’s only one rifle for every 3 Russian soldiers, they have to wait to pick up the rifle of their fallen comrade. The only thing keeping the Russians going are stolen washing machines, anti-retreat forces that shoot deserters and the fact that they’re all souped up on viagra.

Honest injun!

[BanjoPie]

Not at all! He says that the Russians have been sending wave upon wave of untrained and unarmed troops into battle against the valiant Ukrainian defenders who weep as they mow the hapless Russians down. Given that there’s only one rifle for every 3 Russian soldiers, they have to wait to pick up the rifle of their fallen comrade. The only thing keeping the Russians going are stolen washing machines, anti-retreat forces that shoot deserters and the fact that they’re all souped up on viagra.

Honest injun!

“You need to get yourself off the coke old chap”

[Jampie]

Not at all! He says that the Russians have been sending wave upon wave of untrained and unarmed troops into battle against the valiant Ukrainian defenders who weep as they mow the hapless Russians down. Given that there’s only one rifle for every 3 Russian soldiers, they have to wait to pick up the rifle of their fallen comrade. The only thing keeping the Russians going are stolen washing machines, anti-retreat forces that shoot deserters and the fact that they’re all souped up on viagra.

Honest injun!

For someone so desperate to "both sides" everything when it suits russian propaganda, you sure leap from one extreme to the other here.

If Russian casualties are light, why are the following statements true:

1. They started the war with 150k-200k troops in theatre
2. They have never been able to adequately supply that many for active operations at once, let alone more
3. They been losing ground (net) since March
4. This is despite *constantly* attacking prepared defenses, most recently in Bakhmut but that's been the pattern of Russian "tactics" the entire war
5. They have been recruiting constantly through various means throughout the war
6. They needed 300k conscripts a few months ago
7. They are talking about more conscription in the future.

How do those numbers add up to anything less than "Russia has suffered severe casualties in Ukraine".

[andy6025]

Every “point” you state might very well be true... but then again most of them might not be.

I definitely agree with your first point, that they started with around 150k-200k troops. That seems to “fit” with all the claims I’ve seen made no matter who makes them.

I don’t know if the claim is true that they haven’t been able to adequately supply their troops. I’ve heard western sources claim that Russia is almost out of everything, but I’ve not yet seen that to be true. I saw footage of Ukrainian soldiers supposedly having found a Russian army ration pack and the were begrudgingly impressed with it. But they could have been Russian actors dressed up like Ukrainian soldiers for all I know.

That said, for all either of us know, Russia could run out of everything tomorrow. Then again they might not. They might not be able to carry on fighting until they roll into Paris and then cross the English Channel... you know, to satisfy Putin’s legacy of wanting to take over all of Europe.

I hear plenty of western officials and media saying that the “collective west” is almost out of most weapons and ammunition they’re so far willing to supply Ukraine. But maybe it’s not true and they’re lying. I’m not sure why they would... maybe they’re just getting stingy?

Russia lost a lot of cow pasture around Kharkiv and they withdrew from Kherson in the fall. I’ve heard some analysts say that the Ukrainian army in the northeast essentially ‘punched air’ and took heavy losses in the process. Same thing in Kherson - the Ukrainians threw a lot of troops at it, with the hospitals as far as Odessa getting jammed up with their wounded. And Kherson held until the Russians conducted an orderly withdrawal overnight, and did so to avoid having their troops encircled in the event that Ukraine blew up the damn upstream and flooded Kherson. Maybe that’s all false though and instead the Ukrainians advanced with minimal losses while the Russian bodies piled up and/or thousands were taken prisoner. I haven’t seen any Ukrainian telegram channels posting such images or footage though. But it could be that, aside from the Ukrainian soldier shown on CNN Nazi saluting in Kherson, the Ukrainians are extremely gracious winners. I won’t deny it’s possible!

Since the autumn the Russians have made some marginal territorial gains. It’s not a controversial fact as its confirmed by both western and Russian forces, but I won’t be surprised if you deny it. You could be right should you suggest they’re all lying for some strange reason that’s not yet obvious to me.

The Russians claim that they prioritize the destruction of the Ukrainian army over territorial gain, but that could well be a lie to try to cover up their embarrassment. The western reporters and doctors in Bakhmut that are tending to the Ukrainian wounded have reported horrendous Ukrainian casualty numbers. For all I know though they could be on the Kremlin pay roll and are spreading fake news. Perhaps Russia’s winning the “information war” after all.

As for Russian military recruiting, I don’t think it’s a controversial point that Russia has been recruiting troops and underwent a mobilization of supposedly 300k (I suspect the real number is unknown to the general public - could be lower or higher for all we know). If that’s some indication that Russia is losing or taking higher losses, well, I’m not sure how you’d apply that logic to the fact that Ukraine is also recruiting. In fact, and unless western sources are lying to make the Ukrainians look bad, Ukraine has thus far had 9 mobilization waves (or are we at 10 or 11?). A Ukrainian official announced last week that Ukraine might undergo another wave of mobilization in the new year, while another official denied it the next day. A few weeks ago British officials announced that Ukraine ought to undergo another wave of mobilization.

Russian officials have stated that they aren’t considering another wave of mobilization in the early new year, but they could be lying. I’ve also heard rumours that they could.

As for the “quality” of new recruits, the head of the “Mozart” PMC (Ukraine’s answer to the Wagner PMC) said that around 80% of the new Ukrainian recruits sent into Bakhmut hadn’t fired a single shot in training. And he said that the reports of units losing 70% of their troops as wounded or KIA are not exaggerations. I guess it’s possible that he’s a Putin asset spreading false claims. That would be a tough one to explain and tbh I’m not sure which of these scenarios would be worse? I’ll let you pick!

Meanwhile Russia’s mobilization was *supposed* to be aimed at only those with prior military training. Media on both sides (including both Russian state and private media) reported some people being recruited that didn’t fit this official criteria, even some people terminally ill being sent notices. They later claimed to have “fixed” these problems... but it’s well possible they haven’t and that, like Ukraine recruiters who pull people off the streets and out of nightclubs, the Russians too are just grabbing anybody and everybody.

This is the interesting thing - that it’s quite difficult to ascertain what claims are true and what aren’t.

That’s what I think the strength of that young fellow’s video is - not his final figures, but that he explains what each side is claiming (including those who are
‘independent’) and shows their *methodology*, in so far as they appear to have any, to back up their claims. And then he shows his own numbers, his own methodology, and invites criticism. To me, that makes for thoughtful viewing.

As for these numbers add up? Well, Ukraine boasts to have recruited a million man army since the war began (I use that as a turn of phrase... I don’t mean to disregard the women they’ve recruited). I’d imagine that it’s well practical for Russia to need more troops than the 150-200k they started with to defeat 1M on the attack, whether Russia’s losses have been light or heavy. I get that you might hold the Russian army in high regard, but even if we go with the higher estimate of 200k attacking 1 million - that’s a 1:5 ratio! That’s astonishingly impressive when they’re both supposedly out of everything and can’t supply their own troops!!! Who are these super-men? Maybe it’s the viagra? Or was that fake news too... I can’t remember.

[Jampie]

Every “point” you state might very well be true... but then again most of them might not be.

They are true and you've failed to refute any of them as usual.

I don’t know if the claim is true that they haven’t been able to adequately supply their troops. I’ve heard western sources claim that Russia is almost out of everything, but I’ve not yet seen that to be true. I saw footage of Ukrainian soldiers supposedly having found a Russian army ration pack and the were begrudgingly impressed with it. But they could have been Russian actors dressed up like Ukrainian soldiers for all I know.

Considering there are plenty of russian sources that say they've had massive logistics issues you need to have been doing some extremely selective reading to believe otherwise.

We know they're using Iranian drones and arty shells from North Korea. What does that tell you?

That said, for all either of us know, Russia could run out of everything tomorrow. Then again they might not. They might not be able to carry on fighting until they roll into Paris and then cross the English Channel... you know, to satisfy Putin’s legacy of wanting to take over all of Europe.

There you go with that insane black and white thinking. No, at least one of us is sure Russia isn't going to "run out of everything tomorrow". But I have been watching the war from day one and from the first week onwards they haven't been able to adequately support offensive operations on more than one of their fronts at once. They pretty clearly can't supply more troops in the field, which brings me back to the original point... if they haven't taken significant losses, where are all their hundreds of thousands of new troops going, and where are the 150k they started with?

I hear plenty of western officials and media saying that the “collective west” is almost out of most weapons and ammunition they’re so far willing to supply Ukraine. But maybe it’s not true and they’re lying. I’m not sure why they would... maybe they’re just getting stingy?

Western officials don't use the phrase "collective west"... that's a kremlin term buddy. Show me evidence for this claim?

US stocks alone could supply Ukraine for all of next year and they will be happy as larry to produce more stuff. It's huge industry over there.

Russia lost a lot of cow pasture around Kharkiv and they withdrew from Kherson in the fall. I’ve heard some analysts say that the Ukrainian army in the northeast essentially ‘punched air’ and took heavy losses in the process. Same thing in Kherson - the Ukrainians threw a lot of troops at it, with the hospitals as far as Odessa getting jammed up with their wounded. And Kherson held until the Russians conducted an orderly withdrawal overnight, and did so to avoid having their troops encircled in the event that Ukraine blew up the damn upstream and flooded Kherson. Maybe that’s all false though and instead the Ukrainians advanced with minimal losses while the Russian bodies piled up and/or thousands were taken prisoner. I haven’t seen any Ukrainian telegram channels posting such images or footage though. But it could be that, aside from the Ukrainian soldier shown on CNN Nazi saluting in Kherson, the Ukrainians are extremely gracious winners. I won’t deny it’s possible!

12k square kilometers liberated in the Kharkiv offensive, and 4.8k near Kherson. That's a lot of cow pasture! Meanwhile Bakhmut is not even 50km from the starting line on Feb 24 and still in Ukrainian hands after ten months of war. Russia's losing the war buddy, look at a map.

Since the autumn the Russians have made some marginal territorial gains. It’s not a controversial fact as its confirmed by both western and Russian forces, but I won’t be surprised if you deny it. You could be right should you suggest they’re all lying for some strange reason that’s not yet obvious to me.

Yeah they've made marginal gains since abandoning the entire north of the country but have lost far more to Ukrainian offensives. And yes, Ukrainians have avoided attacking strong points, preferring to bypass them / hit them with artillery. Meanwhile, every report from the front says Russians are attacking strong positions frontally. That alone explains their catastrophic losses to me.

The Russians claim that they prioritize the destruction of the Ukrainian army over territorial gain, but that could well be a lie to try to cover up their embarrassment. The western reporters and doctors in Bakhmut that are tending to the Ukrainian wounded have reported horrendous Ukrainian casualty numbers. For all I know though they could be on the Kremlin pay roll and are spreading fake news. Perhaps Russia’s winning the “information war” after all.

Yes it's obviously a lie since they're using basically all of their deep strike capacity to attack the civilian electricity network which has no discernible impact on the Ukrainian military. Do they think the Ukrainians hide their troops in civilian substations?

The truth as I see it is that they just don't have the ISR necessary to target the Ukrainian military, and the electricty grid strikes are basically dumb window-dressing revenge for the Kersch strait bridge. Basically they can hit substations because they don't move and you can find them using a pre-war satellite map, but they can't target actual Ukrainian military stuff because they can't pinpoint the locations.

As for Russian military recruiting, I don’t think it’s a controversial point that Russia has been recruiting troops and underwent a mobilization of supposedly 300k (I suspect the real number is unknown to the general public - could be lower or higher for all we know). If that’s some indication that Russia is losing or taking higher losses, well, I’m not sure how you’d apply that logic to the fact that Ukraine is also recruiting. In fact, and unless western sources are lying to make the Ukrainians look bad, Ukraine has thus far had 9 mobilization waves (or are we at 10 or 11?). A Ukrainian official announced last week that Ukraine might undergo another wave of mobilization in the new year, while another official denied it the next day. A few weeks ago British officials announced that Ukraine ought to undergo another wave of mobilization.

Russian officials have stated that they aren’t considering another wave of mobilization in the early new year, but they could be lying. I’ve also heard rumours that they could.

Not sure what this rambling screed is about. Ukrainians are taking losses too, yes, and their ongoing recruitment efforts are to be expected.

As for the “quality” of new recruits, the head of the “Mozart” PMC (Ukraine’s answer to the Wagner PMC) said that around 80% of the new Ukrainian recruits sent into Bakhmut hadn’t fired a single shot in training. And he said that the reports of units losing 70% of their troops as wounded or KIA are not exaggerations. I guess it’s possible that he’s a Putin asset spreading false claims. That would be a tough one to explain and tbh I’m not sure which of these scenarios would be worse? I’ll let you pick!

Think about it for ten seconds. If this was true how is Bakhmut still in Ukrainian hands? Wagner's been attacking there since almost day one of the war. Do you really think the Ukrainians, who you say above have a million troops, still don't have enough trained to hold a small town after ten months of war? And if so, why has the mighty Wagner failed to take it?

Link the evidence if you've got it, by all means.

That’s astonishingly impressive when they’re both supposedly out of everything and can’t supply their own troops!!! Who are these super-men? Maybe it’s the viagra? Or was that fake news too... I can’t remember.

Why do you keep bringing up Viagra? What's that about? That's probably something you should discuss with your doctor, not me.

Anyway, in summary, you dismiss Russia's massive losses in controlled territory with a "oh we didn't need that cow paddock anyway" and you ignore any claims of significant troop losses... because you can't deal with the reality. The simple, obvious reality that this war has absolutely not gone according to Putin's plan. It's an unmitigated disaster and that's plain to see.

For the record the regard I hold the Russian army was never high and it's been steadily dropping since February.

How do you imagine this is going to end? Do you think the Ukrainians are just going to give up and let Russia have... anything? Do you think western leaders will get bored of supplying Ukraine and being able to blame Putin for their economic mismanagement?

Personally I think the most likely outcomes are:

1. A return to the February 24 borders
2. The complete rout of Russian forces in Ukraine and the return of all territories, including Crimea

And some options in-between. It's possible Russia will fight Ukraine to a standstill beforehand but I doubt it. Ukrainian public support of the war, including the ultimate aim of returning everything, including Crimea, is still increasing. The attacks on civilian infrastructure will only strengthen Ukrainian resolve. Meanwhile the west will be happy to keep supplying weapons as long as the Ukrainians want to fight.

What's the alternative?

[keldsyke]

Not at all! He says that the Russians have been sending wave upon wave of untrained and unarmed troops into battle against the valiant Ukrainian defenders who weep as they mow the hapless Russians down. Given that there’s only one rifle for every 3 Russian soldiers, they have to wait to pick up the rifle of their fallen comrade. The only thing keeping the Russians going are stolen washing machines, anti-retreat forces that shoot deserters and the fact that they’re all souped up on viagra.

Honest injun!

Can I ask (politely) what makes your allegence to Notts? Born here, watched games then went away or just liked the kit from afar? (Genuinely interested)

[andy6025]

Can I ask (politely) what makes your allegence to Notts? Born here, watched games then went away or just liked the kit from afar? (Genuinely interested)

I used to live in the Uk and have family that live there now. Never got all that interested in the Premier League. Started following Notts in the Munto season. I catch a few games whenever I go over every couple of years, otherwise I’m listening in on Saturday mornings will I do myself a fry up.

Bought myself a fridge magnet from the club shop.

Edit: also got myself a tea towel but it can’t mop up for shît... just swishes it around, so I don’t think that counts.