Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

This war did not start in February. Russia first invaded Ukraine in 2014. They invaded Donbas, too. Back in 2014.

https://www.rferl.org/a/british-onl...russian-role-in-donbas-conflict/30116665.html

"A London-based digital forensics agency says it has gathered an enormous body of evidence that Russia’s military was deployed in the August-September 2014 fighting around Ilovaysk, in eastern Ukraine, in which Ukrainian forces were defeated by combined Russian and separatist troops."

Edit: Also see for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ilovaisk
 
Last edited:
it'll either be uninsured or with insurance from someone else.
Doesn’t that open up the door for Russian or Chinese insurance companies to step in? So basically opens up an industry that has traditionally been dominated by western companies.
 
Doesn’t that open up the door for Russian or Chinese insurance companies to step in? So basically opens up an industry that has traditionally been dominated by western companies.

I guess, at least in principle. I don't know much about this market, but apparently the International Group of Protection & Indemnity Clubs insures 95 % of all oil tankers (and 90 % of all sea tonnage). It's a group of London based companies.
 
Ukraine would not be able to defend Kiev, if it wasn't for US help.

Ukraine had recieved some AN/TPQ-36 counter battery radars from the US but besides those, western weapons played a very small role in the early stages of the war, it was mainly 152mm and 122mm tube artillery and 122mm rocket artillery that was used to repel the Russian attacks during the first weeks of the war.

https://rusi.org/explore-our-resear...g-russias-invasion-ukraine-february-july-2022

Despite the prominence of anti-tank guided weapons in the public narrative, Ukraine blunted Russia’s attempt to seize Kyiv using massed fires from two artillery brigades. The difference in numbers between Russian and Ukrainian artillery was not as significant at the beginning of the conflict, with just over a 2:1 advantage: 2,433 barrel artillery systems against 1,176; and 3,547 multiple-launch rocket systems against 1,680. Ukraine maintained artillery parity for the first month and a half and then began to run low on munitions so that, by June, the AFRF had a 10:1 advantage in volume of fire. Evidently, no country in NATO, other than the US, has sufficient initial weapons stocks for warfighting or the industrial capacity to sustain largescale operations.
 
Yes, but you then went on to say that Putin knew they would do nothing. Your post ends with pointing out that he miscalculated the US, so I have to assume you're talking about US aid (and the others "doing nothing") after the invasion.

No, that's not what I was saying.
 
Ukraine had recieved some AN/TPQ-36 counter battery radars from the US but besides those, western weapons played a very small role in the early stages of the war, it was mainly 152mm and 122mm tube artillery and 122mm rocket artillery that was used to repel the Russian attacks during the first weeks of the war.

https://rusi.org/explore-our-resear...g-russias-invasion-ukraine-february-july-2022

You forgot the javelins. But it is not just weapons. It is organization. It is logistics. It is intelligence. It is real-time information. It helps a lot if you know what is coming against you and where exactly they are located and what their capabilities are.

Ukraine in 2014 had a soviet era army. With a lot of corruption. Corruption in an army means that in your books you have two sets of tires for each vehicle, and in reality most of the tires and half of the vehicles have been sold in the black market.

Now we laugh at the Russian army. But in the 2014, the Ukrainian army was actually worse!

And Russia sent their elite First Guards Tank Army against Kiev. And they failed.

How?

How did the Ukrainians transform their army from a joke imitation of the Russian army to a modern force in 8 years?
 
You forgot the javelins.

The first sentence in my quote from the RUSI report: "Despite the prominence of anti-tank guided weapons in the public narrative, Ukraine blunted Russia’s attempt to seize Kyiv using massed fires from two artillery brigades."

It is organization. It is logistics. It is intelligence. It is real-time information. It helps a lot if you know what is coming against you and where exactly they are located and what their capabilities are.

I know very well that Ukraine started to reform their army in 2014 to a more westernized doctrine and they had help from western countries to do so but to say that the only reason they where able to defend Kyiv was because of US help is in my eyes an insult on Ukraine, when the fact is it was done almost exclusively with domestic equipment, manpower and ammunition. It was not until late spring/early summer when heavy weapons and ammunition started to arrive in Ukraine and make up for all the domestic equipment that had run out of ammunition that western weapons started to make a real difference.

And Russia sent their elite First Guards Tank Army against Kiev. And they failed.
How?

I already answered this but here you go again: " Despite the prominence of anti-tank guided weapons in the public narrative, Ukraine blunted Russia’s attempt to seize Kyiv using massed fires from two artillery brigades. The difference in numbers between Russian and Ukrainian artillery was not as significant at the beginning of the conflict, with just over a 2:1 advantage: 2,433 barrel artillery systems against 1,176; and 3,547 multiple-launch rocket systems against 1,680. Ukraine maintained artillery parity for the first month and a half and then began to run low on munitions so that, by June, the AFRF had a 10:1 advantage in volume of fire. "
 
Mark Milley, the US's top general, stated a few weeks ago that more than 100,000 Russian soldiers were killed or injured, and probably the same with URK forces as well.

I doubt that many Ukrainians have died. For one, they're not using the WW2 tactic of throwing their bodies into the meat grinder as the Russians are. They are fighting more of a strategic insurgency that minimizes loss of their own troops as well as civilians.
 
I doubt that many Ukrainians have died. For one, they're not using the WW2 tactic of throwing their bodies into the meat grinder as the Russians are. They are fighting more of a strategic insurgency that minimizes loss of their own troops as well as civilians.

It's definitely not 10,000 though. At one point in the summer Zelensky himself said they were losing about 200 men a day. If you guessed they'd averaged 100 a day over the 9 months to date then you'd get to about 27,000 which doesn't sound implausible.
 
I doubt that many Ukrainians have died. For one, they're not using the WW2 tactic of throwing their bodies into the meat grinder as the Russians are. They are fighting more of a strategic insurgency that minimizes loss of their own troops as well as civilians.
I have no doubt about that. However, the popular 1 to 6 or 1 to 7 ratio does not seem to be accurate.
 
It's definitely not 10,000 though. At one point in the summer Zelensky himself said they were losing about 200 men a day. If you guessed they'd averaged 100 a day over the 9 months to date then you'd get to about 27,000 which doesn't sound implausible.
But he included both the dead and the injured. I believe UKR numbers are much higher than what we believe. I'd be surprised if the figure isn't close to 80k.
 
I know very well that Ukraine started to reform their army in 2014 to a more westernized doctrine and they had help from western countries to do so but to say that the only reason they where able to defend Kyiv was because of US help is in my eyes an insult on Ukraine, when the fact is it was done almost exclusively with domestic equipment, manpower and ammunition. It was not until late spring/early summer when heavy weapons and ammunition started to arrive in Ukraine and make up for all the domestic equipment that had run out of ammunition that western weapons started to make a real difference.

I read an article i this thread, where apparently the UA general in charge of the defense in Kiev, didn't accept any help from US and he refuse to give the location of the several equipement that apparently he was moving around to not be static. He didn't trust anyone not even Zelensky becase he was paranoid of filtrations. The initial defense of Kiev was solely done by ukranian strategy, intelligence and tactics with their initial armament and without help. Later on, they gain trust with US and the west and everything changed over time
 
I also believe that Putin is quite smart. So, why did he fail? How could Putin miscalculate so badly? I believe that Putin miscalculated only one thing: Biden.

I think Putin knew that the Germans would not be a factor, they would not help Ukraine. And he knew that the Germans can vastly influence the rest of the EU, so the EU would not be a factor either. Fears of "escalation", of energy dependance, of World War 3, of economy ... the 27 countries of the EU would talk and talk and talk, and do nothing. Then Britain has its problems with Brexit, and it is too weak to do anything anyway.

Putin knew that the only one who can do anything to help Ukraine is America. But America has its own problems, it is divided, Biden is old, he gave up in Afghanistan, actually Biden did not just give up but messed up badly in Afghanistan, Biden is weak, he will have no desire to get involved into another military conflict.


In summary, I believe that the German "neutrality" was the most important factor in Putin's decision to go to war. And the second most important factor was the debacle in Afghanistan. If any of these two factors were not present, we'd not have this war. And Putin's major miscalculation was that he did not expect Biden to actually support Ukraine that much.

Americas foreign policy for the last 70 or so years has been to secure and maintain their military and political influence.

Ukraine is a golden opportunity. Even though the state is spending a lot on aid it generates a tonne of financial activity for them, pretty much the whole world supports Ukraine so its a massive PR win and when they win they will not only have broken an old rival, they will gain another extremely valuable ally.

A mix of chauvinism and toxic nationalism made them believe they could stroll into Kyiv in a matter of days and win before anyone else got involved. When the Russian blitz failed they had already shit the bed.
 
Yes, but the conservatives did help Ukraine. Huge difference between Boris and Scholz. USA had to push Germany a lot before Scholz did anything.

But as Simbo said, Brexit was all about preserving their own money. That they are more than happy to spend "OUR" money on supporting Ukraine isn't a hard choice to make for a party that will no longer be in power by the end of the war and also rather nicely deflects away from the real reason Brexit was so championed by people like Rees-Mogg doesn't it?
 
But he included both the dead and the injured. I believe UKR numbers are much higher than what we believe. I'd be surprised if the figure isn't close to 80k.

I wasn't talking to you. I find your obsession with the Ukrainian dead odd.
 
Ukraine had recieved some AN/TPQ-36 counter battery radars from the US but besides those, western weapons played a very small role in the early stages of the war, it was mainly 152mm and 122mm tube artillery and 122mm rocket artillery that was used to repel the Russian attacks during the first weeks of the war.

https://rusi.org/explore-our-resear...g-russias-invasion-ukraine-february-july-2022
Weren’t the javelins very important at the beginning of the war? Remember hearing this (and Lavrov bitching about the US giving them to Ukraine, even before the war started).
 
Ukrainian KIA...


It’s certainly way above that, early on in Donbass Russia had an overwhelming artillery advantage costing many Ukrainian lives. I would put it around 40-50k with nothing to back it up but general feeling.
 
Weren’t the javelins very important at the beginning of the war? Remember hearing this (and Lavrov bitching about the US giving them to Ukraine, even before the war started).

When the invasion started they had received about 150 javelin launchers and a little over 1000 missiles. The stockpiles of domestically produced ATGM launchers and missiles like the Stugna-P and Korsar consisted of close to 1000 launchers and over 9000 missiles. The number of Javelins was just to low to have played any major part.
 
Tucker's influence is known in Ukraine. Ukrainian official addressing Tucker.

 
Tucker's influence is known in Ukraine. Ukrainian official addressing Tucker.



He has no influence in Ukraine. He has some with a minority group of US right wingers who are weary of the seemingly bottomless supply of money and weapons to Ukraine, which is presumably where this guy is seeking to influence. It would also be a mild win against Russian propagandists who routine use Tucker’s comments on their shows.
 
Last edited:
It is, as is the truck itself being driven (apparently) after the hit instead of its occupant getting out of the burning vehicle.
Is it driven or just going in a straight line. Or rather following the terrain without steering input , and some throttle. Like from a dead foot.
 
I wasn't talking to you. I find your obsession with the Ukrainian dead odd.
How am I obsessed with the UKR dead? I am talking about why some people like General Milley making noises about negotiations because he seemed to think that the UKR doesn't have the combat capability to push the Russians all the way. At least not in the near future.

If anything I find it odd that people believe Russians are getting killed or wounded in disproportionate amount compared to the UKR.
 
Last edited:
How am I obsessed with the UKR dead? I am talking about why some people like General Mille making noises about negotiations because he seemed to think that the UKR doesn't have the combat capability to push the Russians all the way.

If anything I find it odd that people believe Russians are getting killed or wounded in disproportionate amount compared to the UKR.
Don’t have a dog in this spat but wouldn’t it be disproportionate simply because Russia are being pushed back out of Ukraine?The fact they need 300k fresh recruits not proof enough?