Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

[VorZakone]

There's also probably a huge amount of Western battlefield intel being shared with the Ukrainians so I reckon Ukrainian troops are less likely to get ambushed or surprised.

 

[Raoul]

 

[The United]

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?

How many soilders in the UKR troop?

If people believe that offensive takes more lives than defending, what was UKR doing in the last three months?

Just simple questions though to have some some common sense answers.

Even their own commentators don't believe that number.

But my point is that it is just people are a bit obsessed with saying how much Russians are suffering while dismissing that UKR troops would probably have it the same the other end. If someone points out, it is because that person is obsessed with UKR dead..

 

[Raoul]

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.

In my experience, democratic nations tend to be far more accurate with their death counts than totalitarian police states, for obvious reasons.

 

[TwoSheds]

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.

They get killed disproportionately because they are badly equipped, badly commanded, badly trained, in a largely hostile territory and mostly probably don't really want to be there. It's not that hard to understand. The Russians were self-reporting almost 1000 deaths a day not long ago. Unless you think it's some sort of genius plan to exaggerate their own death toll I don't see how you could believe the Russians aren't largely faring worse.

 

[Raoul]

 

[The United]

They get killed disproportionately because they are badly equipped, badly commanded, badly trained, in a largely hostile territory and mostly probably don't really want to be there. It's not that hard to understand. The Russians were self-reporting almost 1000 deaths a day not long ago. Unless you think it's some sort of genius plan to exaggerate their own death toll I don't see how you could believe the Russians aren't largely faring worse.

But what does it have anything to do with I'm obsessed with the UKR dead though?

I could say the same about you with the Russians because you are talking about their loss and how it could happen?

 

[the hea]

If anything I find it odd that people believe Russians are getting killed or wounded in disproportionate amount compared to the UKR.

Documented equipment losses are about 3 times higher for Russia compared to Ukraine. Is it really that odd that the losses of manpower would follow a similar ratio?

 

[The United]

Documented equipment losses are about 3 times higher for Russia compared to Ukraine. Is it really that odd that the losses of manpower would follow a similar ratio?

If all of these are true, the Russians deaths are about 60k at most?

 

[Raoul]

But what does it have anything to do with I'm obsessed with the UKR dead though?

I could say the same about you with the Russians because you are talking about their loss and how it could happen?

No doubt the Ukrainians have needlessly lost a lot of troops in this war, but given the stark disparities in warfighting techniques where the Ukrainans are fighting smartly while the Russians have been clumsy and haphazard, it would appear the Russians have lost far more.

 

[The United]

No doubt the Ukrainians have needlessly lost a lot of troops in this war, but given the stark disparities in warfighting techniques where the Ukrainans are fighting smartly while the Russians have been clumsy and haphazard, it would appear the Russians have lost far more.

Not denying that.

 

[the hea]

If all of these are true, the Russians deaths are about 60k at most?

I have no idea how many have died on either side, neither am I in any position to make a qualified guess about it. All I was saying was that it would not be odd if the losses of manpower and equipment would follow a similar trend for both sides.

 

[Raoul]

An interesting thought experiment as to where this conflict would've gone without significant outside support

 

[harms]

The Russians were self-reporting almost 1000 deaths a day not long ago.

When was that?

 

[Raoul]

Wow

 

[The United]

I have no idea how many have died on either side, neither am I in any position to make a qualified guess about it. All I was saying was that it would not be odd if the losses of manpower and equipment would follow a similar trend for both sides.

I get what you meant.

But I think Russians seem to lose more of their equipment because they have more.

That doesn't exactly translate that manpower will follow the same ratio.

 

[the hea]

An interesting thought experiment as to where this conflict would've gone without significant outside support

This is no surprise. Theres only a few of the smaller countries in Europe who have maintained or built up a trustworthy military during the last 30 years. Bigger nations like Germany, France, Italy and even the UK to some extent have completly neglected the security of Europe despite Russia building up it's armed forces during this time.

 

[Raoul]

This is no surprise. Theres only a few of the smaller countries in Europe who have maintained or built up a trustworthy military during the last 30 years. Bigger nations like Germany, France, Italy and even the UK to some extent have completly neglected the security of Europe despite Russia building up it's armed forces during this time.

I think part of it was post-cold war fatigue coupled with a misguided idea that Putin was an honest broker who could be "brought into the fold" 20 years ago helped create this mentality that completely neglected to prepare for what Putin was planning all along. Europe and the US are equally at fault in this.

 

[Oly Francis]

This is no surprise. Theres only a few of the smaller countries in Europe who have maintained or built up a trustworthy military during the last 30 years. Bigger nations like Germany, France, Italy and even the UK to some extent have completly neglected the security of Europe despite Russia building up it's armed forces during this time.

Is someone under the assumption that a war fought on the ground is possible in Europe? Any country that would attack a Nato member, even if you were to remove the USA, would be bombed and nuked. Then the agressor would bomb and nuke back if he has the technology and that's it, full blown nuclear war. large European armies are only useful is a war is fought outside of Nato.

So yeah, Europe isn't strong enough without the USA to provide weapons to a conflict occuring outside of europe, is it really europe's role though to be armed for foreign operations?

 

[sport2793]

Is someone under the assumption that a war fought on the ground is possible in Europe? Any country that would attack a Nato member, even if you were to remove the USA, would be bombed and nuked. Then the agressor would bomb and nuke back if he has the technology and that's it, full blown nuclear war. large European armies are only useful is a war is fought outside of Nato.

So yeah, Europe isn't strong enough without the USA to provide weapons to a conflict occuring outside of europe, is it really europe's role though to be armed for foreign operations?

I question Europe's ability to be armed for its own security.

 

[the hea]

Is someone under the assumption that a war fought on the ground is possible in Europe? Any country that would attack a Nato member, even if you were to remove the USA, would be bombed and nuked. Then the agressor would bomb and nuke back if he has the technology and that's it, full blown nuclear war. large European armies are only useful is a war is fought outside of Nato.

So yeah, Europe isn't strong enough without the USA to provide weapons to a conflict occuring outside of europe, is it really europe's role though to be armed for foreign operations?

A war is being fought on the ground in Europe as we speak. Europe doesn't end at the french border you know.

 

[demetre]

Is someone under the assumption that a war fought on the ground is possible in Europe? Any country that would attack a Nato member, even if you were to remove the USA, would be bombed and nuked. Then the agressor would bomb and nuke back if he has the technology and that's it, full blown nuclear war. large European armies are only useful is a war is fought outside of Nato.

So yeah, Europe isn't strong enough without the USA to provide weapons to a conflict occuring outside of europe, is it really europe's role though to be armed for foreign operations?

So instead of fighting back you’d rather commit suicide?

And Ukraine is in Europe, have you ever seen a map?

 

[RedDevilQuebecois]

I question Europe's ability to be armed for its own security.

They have the capabilities, but they often lack the political will to do what is necessary.

In that context, I'm glad that Finland is speaking out so Europe stops fecking around.

 

[frostbite]

Wow

It is astounding how many mistakes contributed to where we are now! Only if Ukraine did not surrender its nuclear arsenal, only if the West did not trust a KGB dictator, only if Merkel and Sarkozy allowed Ukraine to join NATO in 2008, only if NATO had a strong, unified response in 2014, only if ... you can find dozens of instances where a small change yesterday would lead to a completely different outcome today. Definitely, it is Putin who is responsible for all these deaths and destruction. But the West in the past could have done so many things to avoid this, only if our leaders had a little more foresight.

 

[Raoul]

It is astounding how many mistakes contributed to where we are now! Only if Ukraine did not surrender its nuclear arsenal, only if the West did not trust a KGB dictator, only if Merkel and Sarkozy allowed Ukraine to join NATO in 2008, only if NATO had a strong, unified response in 2014, only if ... you can find dozens of instances where a small change yesterday would lead to a completely different outcome today. Definitely, it is Putin who is responsible for all these deaths and destruction. But the West in the past could have done so many things to avoid this, only if our leaders had a little more foresight.

No joke. If that tweet doesn't drive the point home that the Ukrainians made a massive mistake in giving up their weapons after the Soviet Union collapsed then nothing will.

 

[NotThatSoph]

I don't really get this. Europe might be strong enough withour the US, or it might not, but the position Europe is in is exactly because they're not without the US. If the alliance wasn't a thing then European countries would have stronger militaries. Unless the US is seen as an unreliable ally, why would it matter?

Edit: And if it's important for Europe to be strong enough without the US, what's the point of having a military alliance with the US? It would increase the likelyhood of getting involved in conflicts on the side of US interests, and it would provide little benefit because they wouldn't need American help in their own conflicts.

 

[Raoul]

They have the capabilities, but they often lack the political will to do what is necessary.

In that context, I'm glad that Finland is speaking out so Europe stops fecking around.

Spot on. There seems to be a lingering tepidness and whiff of appeasement in post WW2 Europe that continued well into the Putin regime.

 

[Raoul]

I question Europe's ability to be armed for its own security.

That's why NATO still exists and the EU/CSDP never really took flight.

 

[demetre]

No joke. If that tweet doesn't drive the point home that the Ukrainians made a massive mistake in giving up their weapons after the Soviet Union collapsed then nothing will.

While you’re right, I don’t think we really had a choice at that point. At best, we’d be economically isolated. At worst russia would have attacked then and we wouldn’t got the same level of support like today.

 

[Oly Francis]

So instead of fighting back you’d rather commit suicide?

And Ukraine is in Europe, have you ever seen a map?

Geographical Europe has no legal existence. You can't arm something that doesn't exist. It's either Nato or the EU and Ukraine is a part of neither.

And it's not about comitting suicide, it's called nuclear deterence.

Also, as some people already stated, nato countries didn't increase their military spendings because of the involvement of the US in NATO.

Proxy wars can be fought with conventionnal weapons but if a war had to start between a foreign power and the EU/Nato, it WILL go nuclear and at this point, conventionnal armies wont matter anymore.

 

[frostbite]

Geographical Europe has no legal existence. You can't arm something that doesn't exist. It's either Nato or the EU and Ukraine is a part of neither.

And it's not about comitting suicide, it's called nuclear deterence.

Also, as some people already stated, nato countries didn't increase their military spendings because of the involvement of the US in NATO.

Proxy wars can be fought with conventionnal weapons but if a war had to start between a foreign power and the EU/Nato, it WILL go nuclear and at this point, conventionnal armies wont matter anymore.

No it will not go nuclear. No matter what.

 

[VorZakone]

 

[Rajma]

Couldn’t be happier about Sweden and Finland joining Nato as you can’t rely on the useless clowns that now lead France and Germany. I really hate this moron.

 

[NotThatSoph]

This has been an accepted thing since more or less NATO's inception, NATO and American intelligence, and pretty much everyone else, have recognized that this is a threat to Russia. Now, after the invasion, it's become a taboo.

This isn't an excuse for Russias behaviour, or in any way a moral absolvement. Say you have a criminal organization that operates in an area, and the cops decide to expand their presence there, of course that's a threat to the criminals; it's harder for them to operate the way they want to when more law enforcement is around.

A few months ago Russian soldiers were in Nicaragua for a training exercise, and the American government stated that they viewed this as a provocation. Nicaragua is of course not a threat to American security, neither is a miniscule Russian presence there, so if we are to accept that America views this as an issue, of course increased NATO forces closer to the Russian border is.

I'm trying to be as careful as possible here, because some people tend to be very sensitive to what they see as Russian apologism. It doesn't mean that Russian aggression is in any way justified, it doesn't mean that NATO should reject countries wanting to join, it doesn't mean NATO shouldn't deploy more troops and equipment closer to the Russian border as a response to Russian invasions, it doesn't mean that NATO expanding in the direction of Russia implies that nations aren't joining on their own volition. It means that Russia will view this as a threat, because of course they will.

 

[Balljy]

This has been an accepted thing since more or less NATO's inception, NATO and American intelligence, and pretty much everyone else, have recognized that this is a threat to Russia. Now, after the invasion, it's become a taboo.

This isn't an excuse for Russias behaviour, or in any way a moral absolvement. Say you have a criminal organization that operates in an area, and the cops decide to expand their presence there, of course that's a threat to the criminals; it's harder for them to operate the way they want to when more law enforcement is around.

A few months ago Russian soldiers were in Nicaragua for a training exercise, and the American government stated that they viewed this as a provocation. Nicaragua is of course not a threat to American security, neither is a miniscule Russian presence there, so if we are to accept that America views this as an issue, of course increased NATO forces closer to the Russian border is.

I'm trying to be as careful as possible here, because some people tend to be very sensitive to what they see as Russian apologism. It doesn't mean that Russian aggression is in any way justified, it doesn't mean that NATO should reject countries wanting to join, it doesn't mean NATO shouldn't deploy more troops and equipment closer to the Russian border as a response to Russian invasions, it doesn't mean that NATO expanding in the direction of Russia implies that nations aren't joining on their own volition. It means that Russia will view this as a threat, because of course they will.

That's true and I can see why that would be a viewpoint (at least Russia's), but NATO is only a threat to Russia if it tries to take territory it doesn't have a claim over. NATO would never be a threat to Russia in the historical sense as it's a defensive coalition and even if some members decided to change that there's no way it would get a unanimous decision.

I think the question is why Russia see NATO as a threat, and that's because they don't accept the independence of some countries. It's Russia recognising their independence that's the issue, not an organisation defending their status

 

[stefan92]

That's true and I can see why that would be a viewpoint (at least Russia's), but NATO is only a threat to Russia if it tries to take territory it doesn't have a claim over. NATO would never be a threat to Russia in the historical sense as it's a defensive coalition and even if some members decided to change that there's no way it would get a unanimous decision.

Nicaragua would never be a threat to the US and yet they complain about Russian presence there... to me this truly feels like double standards. If we criticise Russia's claim to deserve a sphere of influence that isn't touched by organisations Russia doesn't like (like NATO), we also have to criticise the US for doing the same thing about Nicaragua. Of course there is a huge difference in the chosen means, as the US don't go to war about it, but the underlying imperialistic view is similar.

 

[Balljy]

Nicaragua would never be a threat to the US and yet they complain about Russian presence there... to me this truly feels like double standards. If we criticise Russia's claim to deserve a sphere of influence that isn't touched by organisations Russia doesn't like (like NATO), we also have to criticise the US for doing the same thing about Nicaragua. Of course there is a huge difference in the chosen means, as the US don't go to war about it, but the underlying imperialistic view is similar.

That's fair, but I'd argue that although there isn't officially a war between the US and Russia, there is a proxy war, so the US (and other countries) are going to be more watchful and aggressive against Russian actions. If the US decide to do that outside of the context of Ukraine it wouldn't be remotely a NATO action and it's up to individuals to decide whether that's OK or not.

 

[stevoc]

This has been an accepted thing since more or less NATO's inception, NATO and American intelligence, and pretty much everyone else, have recognized that this is a threat to Russia. Now, after the invasion, it's become a taboo.

This isn't an excuse for Russias behaviour, or in any way a moral absolvement. Say you have a criminal organization that operates in an area, and the cops decide to expand their presence there, of course that's a threat to the criminals; it's harder for them to operate the way they want to when more law enforcement is around.

A few months ago Russian soldiers were in Nicaragua for a training exercise, and the American government stated that they viewed this as a provocation. Nicaragua is of course not a threat to American security, neither is a miniscule Russian presence there, so if we are to accept that America views this as an issue, of course increased NATO forces closer to the Russian border is.

I'm trying to be as careful as possible here, because some people tend to be very sensitive to what they see as Russian apologism. It doesn't mean that Russian aggression is in any way justified, it doesn't mean that NATO should reject countries wanting to join, it doesn't mean NATO shouldn't deploy more troops and equipment closer to the Russian border as a response to Russian invasions, it doesn't mean that NATO expanding in the direction of Russia implies that nations aren't joining on their own volition. It means that Russia will view this as a threat, because of course they will.

Indeed, they view NATO as a threat to their ability to invade and subjugate neighbouring countries.

 

[NotThatSoph]

Indeed, they view NATO as a threat to their ability to invade and subjugate neighbouring countries.

Yes, and this war being a failure shows that they were more correct that they thought.

 

[Raoul]