Unless they refer that the professional soldiers + cannon fodder that had been lost the last years equals 90% the initial force. Lets say, you have 200,000 initially, and you lose 50.000 professionals and after, you lose 130,000 of the mobiks. Equals to 180.000 in total, that is the 90% of the 200,000 IN NUMBERS. Just a mathematical trick to confuse people for propagandistic purposes without technically lying
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
Unless they refer that the professional soldiers + cannon fodder that had been lost the last years equals 90% the initial force. Lets say, you have 200,000 initially, and you lose 50.000 professionals and after, you lose 130,000 of the mobiks. Equals to 180.000 in total, that is the 90% of the 200,000 IN NUMBERS. Just a mathematical trick to confuse people for propagandistic purposes without technically lying
From "as long as it takes" to "as long as we can".
Can't do much if voted out of office.
It's 87% of their PRE WAR army size, not the total numbre of soldiers sent to the war. The total numbre of Russian soldiers sent to Ukraine are probably well over 700,000 by now.
I don't see why they couldn't compensate for losses like that when they have millions of reserves to mobilize.
Wirecard was supposed to be Germany's crown jewel in fintech. Didn't work out well either.
A good thread on the implications of Ukraine not winning
I think the most interesting point made there is that the US would have to increase its military presence in Eastern Europe and that would divert resources from other areas.
Seems we might see more unmanned ground vehicles (UGV's) in the war.
https://www.defensenews.com/unmanne...e-on-the-battlefields-of-ukraine-experts-say/
From the Estonian MoD. Essentially it seems the point is (as others have made) 2024 must be a year of strengthening Ukraine to be ready for 2025.
I am not sure if it is wise for Ukrainians to brag that they are supporting Israel. Supporting an obvious aggressor while at the same time fighting of an alleged aggressor does not look good.
They are both democracies who were attacked neighboring by autocracies, so its obvious there will be mutual support. This is also before we get to the fact that Ukraine's President is Jewish, Ukraine and Israel are US allies, and Hamas being directly courted by the Kremlin.
Ukrainians and Israelis have shown their commitment to democracy by how they are treating the minorities in their respective countries. Unlike unlucky Palestinians, Russian minority in Ukraine had someone to fall back on for support.
The so called Russian minority are actually Ukrainians since a large swath of southern and eastern Ukrainians speak Russian, but don't want anything to do with being a part of Putin's Russia. If you're concerned about minorities, perhaps you should begin your analysis by looking at how Crimean Tartars are faring in totalitarian, Putin occupied Crimea.
What the feck are you talking about?
What makes Israel an obvious aggressor but Russia an alleged one?
Really? So you are denying existence of Russian minority in Ukraine? They are just Ukrainians who speak Russian. The attempt to force them to switch from Russian to Ukranian went well.
Well yes. The people you are referring to as Russian minority are actually Ukrainian citizens who speak Russian as their first langauge, but are culturally still pro-Ukrainian. This is why Putin's fabricated excuse of "protecting Russian speakers from Ukrainian fascists" is completely invented to justify a pretext to invading Ukraine and making it part of Russia.
If West likes aggressor - obvious, if West doesn't - alleged.
How is possible that all the might of NATO countries can't match the shell production of Russia after 2 years? Not only match but on a scale 1:7
Because NATO cares leas than Russia and doesn’t really want Ukraine to win, just to degrade Russian military capabilities. They are given enough to survive and nothing more.
If the west was serious, it would nationalise industries and convert to military manufacturing. It hasn’t and isn’t going to. Ukraine is flat broke, it’s domestic industry was largely concentrated in the Donbas region now under Russian occupation. Without continuing western support it isn’t going to be able to compete against the Russian economy on a war footing.
We are talking about 20 countries vs 1 with more powerful economies than russia. Acountimg that is 1:7, it means that is outproducing 140 times. And that without cojnting that thry can scramble around other allies non allies for it. Sorry but no. You dont need NATO to gear up to war economy.
That would mean tanking the economy for a war you're not even involved in. No country would do that.
Saw that Prokopenko, who was at Azovstal, joined Twitter. He posted a long message. I suspect his voice has major clout within Ukraine.
Budanov says mobilization necessary.
EU adopts 12th package of sanctions against Russia
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-adopts-12th-package-sanctions-against-russia-2023-12-18/
Clearing Ukrainian land of dangerous mines, ordinance will take decades, EOD firm says
https://breakingdefense.com/2023/12...es-ordinance-will-take-decades-eod-firm-says/
It doesn’t mean that at all, if NATO countries were all willing to invest 1% of GDP in funding Ukraine the war could be won. There was a recent paper on this by the Estonian government.
The west is unprepared to do even this and Ukrainian will continue to get wrecked.
It's going to come and bite EU, cause Russia doesn't stop with Ukraine, they want a bigger piece of Europe than that.
At some point, there will be direct confrontation between Russia and NATO.
At some point, there will be direct confrontation between Russia and NATO.
Russia doesn't want a fight with NATO. They aren't stupid. In conventional warfare they'd get destroyed and they know it.
But a win in Ukraine would certainly embolden them to continue or escalate hybrid warfare tactics against the West.
1% of GDP does not equate nationalising industry and converting civilian industry to military production. That's something you only do if you're in a major war.
An emboldened Russia could well be tempted into taking a piece of the Baltics, you think NATO, with its lack of comittment to Ukraine, would risk open war, possibly nuclear, over one of its smaller/lesser members? I'm not so sure they would.
At the minimum, they would take Moldova, and start trying to cause instability in Romania in some way.
Wait, did I miss something? Weren't they already under full mobilisation after the initial invasion?