Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

DT12 said:
This will sound flippant but I'm being perfectly serious: today is the 2nd anniversary of the invasion. On this day many Western leaders (minus Biden) will do what they love to do more than anything else in the world - they will gather together in Kyiv, get their photo taken with Zelenskiy, and give the exact same speeches they've been giving for 2 years. They will talk about "Russia's brutal and unprovoked aggression". They will talk about "freedom and democracy themselves" being at stake. And, their beloved catchphrase: they will talk about standing with Ukraine "for as long as it takes".

My proposal is this: President Biden gives a live interview, this evening, to Ukraine's main news channel. During this interview he is asked the questions that no American network or newspaper will ever, ever ask him:

1. President Biden, your Administration has said that if Ukraine loses this war, Putin will go on to invade NATO countries such as the Baltics and/or Poland and American soldiers will have to fight Russia. Yes or no, do you seriously believe this?

2. Yes or no: is America's aim in this conflict for Ukraine to win the war and Russia to lose the war? If yes, clearly define "win" and "lose" in this context. If your definition is "That's for Ukraine to decide", then...

3. Any time you are asked what the ultimate aim is in this conflict, you always say: "That's for Ukraine to decide". But we've already decided: our aim is to reclaim all our territory according to 1991 borders. So, yes or no: is America's aim for Ukraine to reclaim all of its territory to 1991 borders?

4. You have said that the 61 billion dollars in aid being held up in Congress will lead to Ukrainian "success" - define "success" in this context. What will 61 billion dollars do this year that 113 billion dollars didn't do over the last 2 years?

5. You have said that Ukraine must secure "a just and lasting peace" - define "a just and lasting peace". If your answer is "That's for Ukraine to decide", please refer back to question #3.

6. Three different reporters asked John Kirby yesterday why your administration continues to say you "haven't taken the long-range ATACMs off the table". Ukraine continues to beg you for them. Why will you only commit to "not taking them off the table", and not simply send them to us now when we're asking for them? If you genuinely believe this is an existential fight for the West, why aren't you giving us everything we need to fight it for you now, when we need it?

Russia asks North Korea and Iran for weapons and they receive a million artillery shells literally the following weak. You mock Putin for this and tell us it is indicative of Russia's "weakness". Ukraine begs a coalition of the world's 54 wealthiest countries to supply us with anything you have, and we're told: "Maaaybe we can get you 300,000 shells by March". This, you tell us, is Ukraine's "strength". Russia's allies are giving Russia what it needs to win the war. Ukraine's allies are not giving Ukraine what it needs to win the war. So which alliance is "weak" here?

7. Yes or no: do you seriously believe Ukraine can win this war - as defined in question #3 - without any NATO boots on the ground AND without Ukraine striking anywhere on Russian territory?

8. Last and most important: you are on record as saying, approximately thirteen thousand times, "we will support Ukraine for as long as it takes". Clearly say now: for as long as it takes to do WHAT? What is the West's strategy here, beyond meaningless prattle about "as long as it takes for a just and lasting peace"?


If Biden does not clearly answer any of those questions, my proposal is that Ukraine unconditionally surrenders to Russia tomorrow morning. The rationale should be: you're asking us to "defend the entire Western world" from Russia but you're not providing us with the means to do it, even though you have these means. And so rather than asking us to fight Russia on your behalf, you can now fight Russia on ours, as you suggested you would in question #1. It makes more sense for us to do this rather than than be slowly murdered as a country in a war we literally cannot win due to your inaction and indecision. The Palestinians are already facing the propsect of Donald Trump being the one to negotiate their fate. We're not waiting to go down the same path.


I wrote earlier in this thread that Ukraine is going to lose this war, and the primary reason is that Russia is absolutely laser-focused on its goals, whereas the West has no idea what it wants out of this conflict. It cannot define "success" for Ukraine and it cannot define "victory" for Ukraine. The West's strategy can be summed up as: "Let's just keep Ukraine in the fight for as long as possible and kind of hope something miraculous happens in Russia to change the situation". That is why it's going to be nauseating today watching all those 'foreign leaders' in Ukraine droning on about how "we will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes to achieve victory", and not one member of the carefully selected media will press them to define what any of it means.
Click to expand...
Ha, it's not quite the post I expected. But I'll just say I sympathize with the idea that Western leaders need to be clearer about their goals and expectations and quit the empty rhetoric.
 
Sly said:
I think he's the FSB mastermind behind the Sims cards plot


FRPytH1WUAAhrb1.jpg:large
Click to expand...

"And make sure to put 3 sims in there, so everyone thinks they were using several phone numbers, real spy shit".

"Got it, three copies of Sims 3"

If this happened in an episode of Veep, everyone would say it's too absurd.
 
The boat has long since passed, but my view was right from basically day one of the war, NATO needed to give Russia an ultimatum - get out of Ukraine within 30 days or we are coming to remove you forcefully. And stick to it.

This was dismissed as warmongering, yet here we are 2 years later with a war still raging and western fatigue setting in. It’s shameful that Russia currently have the advantage, when you look at the resources the west COULD level here.

The answer to everything has always been “but nukes!” - which just proves that Putins nuclear rhetoric has worked absolutely marvellously in shaping western attitudes. Russia isn’t the only country with nukes, and deploying them in a first strike would be at minimum the end of Russia, possibly the end of the world. Would Putin really do that over Ukraine?

the NATO ultimatum would give Putin the opportunity to save face. Give him that “off ramp” that was talked about, and allow him to frame it as Western aggression and the responsible Russia doing what it can to avoid a world war. It’s an easy sell compared with some of the nonsense they come up with.

yet here we are, two years on with a grinding, frozen conflict - exactly the sort of thing that Russia loves. If Ukraine loses this war then it likely has major ramifications for NATO’s perceived strength. Putin will be emboldened and other authoritarians around the world will come to see that actually, the “world police” have been shown to be a bit toothless. This is the problem now - we have a situation where both Russia and the West simply cannot afford to lose, there is too much at stake.
 
Walrus said:
The boat has long since passed, but my view was right from basically day one of the war, NATO needed to give Russia an ultimatum - get out of Ukraine within 30 days or we are coming to remove you forcefully. And stick to it.

This was dismissed as warmongering, yet here we are 2 years later with a war still raging and western fatigue setting in. It’s shameful that Russia currently have the advantage, when you look at the resources the west COULD level here.

The answer to everything has always been “but nukes!” - which just proves that Putins nuclear rhetoric has worked absolutely marvellously in shaping western attitudes. Russia isn’t the only country with nukes, and deploying them in a first strike would be at minimum the end of Russia, possibly the end of the world. Would Putin really do that over Ukraine?

the NATO ultimatum would give Putin the opportunity to save face. Give him that “off ramp” that was talked about, and allow him to frame it as Western aggression and the responsible Russia doing what it can to avoid a world war. It’s an easy sell compared with some of the nonsense they come up with.

yet here we are, two years on with a grinding, frozen conflict - exactly the sort of thing that Russia loves. If Ukraine loses this war then it likely has major ramifications for NATO’s perceived strength. Putin will be emboldened and other authoritarians around the world will come to see that actually, the “world police” have been shown to be a bit toothless. This is the problem now - we have a situation where both Russia and the West simply cannot afford to lose, there is too much at stake.
Click to expand...


I agree with you 100%. I was saying the same thing.

The main problem is that most leaders in EE, and Biden in the US, are basically cowards or classic politicians with no spine, they only care about their own re-election. Actually, that's the main reason we have this war, if Putin believed that there is even a small possibility that the West will go to war, he'd never start. He tested the waters in 2014, Obama and Merkel did nothing, so he did not expect anything else from Biden and Scholz. It is very disappointing.

Now Putin is waiting for Trump.
 
2cents said:
The most likely near-term outcome I can see is a ceasefire and frozen conflict along the lines of those elsewhere in the post-Soviet region, with lines held not significantly different from where they currently stand and no mutual recognition or genuine peace process. In that event, both sides will be waiting to see how long-terms trends and shifts play into their goals, and wait for the right moment to strike, i.e. Azerbaijan last year. But we could be talking decades. Of course the obvious wildcard there is Trump, and I’d be unwilling to even speculate how things might go should he regain the Presidency.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately that won’t work in Ukraine favor. Putin, or whoever it is can regroup and strike again, especially if Ukraine isn’t part of NATO during the cease fire.
It’s a bit of shit situation as without immediate support Ukraine can’t win much of its ground back and Putin already shifted big part of the economy in war supplies.

On the other hand especially if Trump wins USA can back off and Russia will out grind them in long war.

In essence if you are in Ukraine position you can’t really negotiate with terrorists(Putin), yet they can’t be sure come November how much support they will have from its allies ..
 
frostbite said:
Click to expand...


He seems upset about South Africa's stance on Gaza in contrast to thier non-stance on Ukraine. That's a fair point. The seemingly random (or not) rant about "77 virgins in paradise" leads me to think he's probably a racist cnut though.

Racist cnut or not, I do agree western nations (US specifically) should send more arms to Ukraine. They could send all the shit they are giving to the Israelis to the Ukranians. They'd make better use of it fending off Russia than the Israelis do pounding Gaza to dust.
 
Bert_ said:
He seems upset about South Africa's stance on Gaza in contrast to thier non-stance on Ukraine. That's a fair point. The seemingly random (or not) rant about "77 virgins in paradise" leads me to think he's probably a racist cnut though.

Racist cnut or not, I do agree western nations (US specifically) should send more arms to Ukraine. They could send all the shit they are giving to the Israelis to the Ukranians. They'd make better use of it fending off Russia than the Israelis do pounding Gaza to dust.
Click to expand...

Agreed 100% but that won't happen. I've successfully taken my in-laws out the Ukraine because I don't believe western leaders will do what's needed. Ukraine will be drip fed until the eastern front crumbles and the Israelis will receive more arms to finish the ethnic cleansing of palestinian people.
 
the hea said:
Click to expand...

Wow. First time Ukraine has given official numbers on their losses?

Also seems rather low. Last August NYT reported that the US estimated up to 70K killed.

WSJ's Yaroslav Trofimov says it doesn't include thousands who are missing but also likely dead.
 
Last edited:
Walrus said:
the NATO ultimatum would give Putin the opportunity to save face. Give him that “off ramp” that was talked about, and allow him to frame it as Western aggression and the responsible Russia doing what it can to avoid a world war. It’s an easy sell compared with some of the nonsense they come up with.
Click to expand...

I don't think a NATO ultimatum would be perceived in Russia as an off ramp. Rather, it would be perceived and acted upon as an imminent threat from NATO to Russian territory.
 
the hea said:
Click to expand...


That just can't be true. During the whole Soviet Afghan war it's thought that about 25K Soviet troops were killed. The US lost about 70K troops in the nearly ten years of the Vietnam conflict. 180k in two years would be insane and is simply unbelievable.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Given the almost world war one style, indiscriminate way the Russians have thrown their troops into Ukraine, I wouldn't at all be surprised if the number was closer to correct than not. The Ukrainians appear to have been much more measured and conservative in terms of needlessly allowing their troops to get mowed down in combat, so I would be inclined to believe their numbers are also more accurate than not.
 
the hea said:
Why? A 1/6 loss ration is far from unbelivable when you consider the meat grinder tactics the Russians have been using.
Click to expand...
It's highly unlikely but you can't really blame Zelenskiy for trying to paint this picture.

Meduza & Mediazona estimate Russian losses (deaths specifically) up to the end of 2023 at around 75k (between 66 to 88k). Those numbers are based on the excess mortality data. It's important to note that those numbers don't include deaths of those who were fighting as a part of the so-called Lughansk & Donetsk Peoples Republics forces (but it includes Wagner and other PMC).

Their study is way more detailed than the English article suggests but I don't think that they've translated it in full.
 
Kyonn said:
That just can't be true. During the whole Soviet Afghan war it's thought that about 25K Soviet troops were killed. The US lost about 70K troops in the nearly ten years of the Vietnam conflict. 180k in two years would be insane and is simply unbelievable.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't surprise me if the Russian KIA were over 100,000 because Ukraine isn't Vietnam or Afghanistan. They can fight, and more importantly they have an army to speak of, the equipment that comes with it, plus the support of the West.

What I personally question is the Ukrainian losses.

There's no way they lost just 31,000 soldiers. No way in hell.
 
That_Bloke said:
It's believable because Ukraine isn't Vietnam or Afghanistan. They can fight and more importantly they have a military to speak of, the equipment that comes with it, plus the support of the West.

What I personally question is the Ukrainian losses.

There's no way they lost just 31,000 soldiers. No way in hell.
Click to expand...
One additional point here: according to Ukrainian officials that doesn't include the thousands more who are missing and have (likely) died. It also excludes the wounded.

Nevertheless, it seems rather far away from the US estimates on Ukrainians killed (70K).
 
That_Bloke said:
It wouldn't surprise me if the Russian KIA were over 100,000 because Ukraine isn't Vietnam or Afghanistan. They can fight, and more importantly they have an army to speak of, the equipment that comes with it, plus the support of the West.

What I personally question is the Ukrainian losses.

There's no way they lost just 31,000 soldiers. No way in hell.
Click to expand...

31,000 killed in action. I'm sure there is some massaging going on, especially when it comes to deaths as a result of wounds or disease and so on.
 
VorZakone said:
One additional point here: according to Ukrainian officials that doesn't include the thousands more who are missing and have (likely) died. It also excludes the wounded.

Nevertheless, it seems rather far away from the US estimates on Ukrainians killed (70K).
Click to expand...
I don't trust the US and UK estimates either or the Russian's for that matter. The UK and US have every interest in keeping the Ukrainian losses low.

Frosty said:
31,000 killed in action. I'm sure there is some massaging going on, especially when it comes to deaths as a result of wounds or disease and so on.
Click to expand...
Some massaging indeed.

The West estimates the Ukrainian losses at well over the double of Zelenskiy's official numbers and I'm personally certain that even those are underevaluated.

This is goold old war propaganda, Soviet style. There's nothing in his statement that can be taken at face value.
 
harms said:
It's highly unlikely but you can't really blame Zelenskiy for trying to paint this picture.

Meduza & Mediazona estimate Russian losses (deaths specifically) up to the end of 2023 at around 75k (between 66 to 88k). Those numbers are based on the excess mortality data. It's important to note that those numbers don't include deaths of those who were fighting as a part of the so-called Lughansk & Donetsk Peoples Republics forces (but it includes Wagner and other PMC).

Their study is way more detailed than the English article suggests but I don't think that they've translated it in full.
Click to expand...
The article didn't really go into detail about the methods they used so it's hard to judge how trustworthy those numbers are but at least it seems like they are based on some kind of collected data and not just some trust me bro information from a anonymous Pentagon official.

My first thought was that 75k killed seems very low considering the tactics Russia is using, their reported force size and the length of the contact line but maybe that's just my judgement being clouded by the numbers being reported earlier by various sources. I have felt from the beggining that it's almost impossible to make any kind of informed guess about casualties and deaths considering that the contact line is over 1000kms long and we only have anecdotal evidence available. For all i know it could be 30k killed for Ukraine and 80k for Russia but the numbers might as well be double that for any side or both.
 
the hea said:
The article didn't really go into detail about the methods they used so it's hard to judge how trustworthy those numbers are but at least it seems like they are based on some kind of collected data and not just some trust me bro information from a anonymous Pentagon official.

My first thought was that 75k killed seems very low considering the tactics Russia is using, their reported force size and the length of the contact line but maybe that's just my judgement being clouded by the numbers being reported earlier by various sources. I have felt from the beggining that it's almost impossible to make any kind of informed guess about casualties and deaths considering that the contact line is over 1000kms long and we only have anecdotal evidence available. For all i know it could be 30k killed for Ukraine and 80k for Russia but the numbers might as well be double that for any side or both.
Click to expand...
You can try to google-translate the original, it says quite a lot more about their methods. They also send raw data to researchers.
 
Rajma said:

It was all about NATO, right? :lol: :lol: :lol: @Suedesi
Click to expand...


The Russian Army is at NATO's doorstep because NATO has expanded towards Russia, rather than the other way around. For the last 50 years, NATO has functioned as an anti-Soviet (Russian) alliance, making it natural for Russia to view NATO's eastward expansion as a security threat. The continuous advance towards their border was inevitably going to provoke a response. This is pretty basic stuff.
 
Suedesi said:
The Russian Army is at NATO's doorstep because NATO has expanded towards Russia, rather than the other way around. For the last 50 years, NATO has functioned as an anti-Soviet (Russian) alliance, making it natural for Russia to view NATO's eastward expansion as a security threat. The continuous advance towards their border was inevitably going to provoke a response. This is pretty basic stuff.
Click to expand...
Aren't you going to say the funny thing again about how Russia wouldn't mind Ukraine's accession to EU if it wasn't for NATO?
 
Suedesi said:
The Russian Army is at NATO's doorstep because NATO has expanded towards Russia, rather than the other way around. For the last 50 years, NATO has functioned as an anti-Soviet (Russian) alliance, making it natural for Russia to view NATO's eastward expansion as a security threat. The continuous advance towards their border was inevitably going to provoke a response. This is pretty basic stuff.
Click to expand...
If only you would take the final step and acknowledge that countries close to Russia wanted to join NATO because of Russia's aggressive behaviour. Countries joined NATO because Russia threatened them. Blaming NATO for this is a bit like blaming a schoolteacher for protecting a child against a bully. Sure you can do this, but we all know what kind of character you are if you do.
 
Suedesi said:
The Russian Army is at NATO's doorstep because NATO has expanded towards Russia, rather than the other way around. For the last 50 years, NATO has functioned as an anti-Soviet (Russian) alliance, making it natural for Russia to view NATO's eastward expansion as a security threat. The continuous advance towards their border was inevitably going to provoke a response. This is pretty basic stuff.
Click to expand...
I've never understood this argument of a security threat. If Ukraine joins NATO how is that any more danger to Russia than before? What's going to magically happen in Ukraine joins NATO. They level up? Super powers? Makes no difference. The odds of Russia and the West going to War is marginal and if they did Ukraine being in NATO or not will hold little consequence.
 
That_Bloke said:
I don't trust the US and UK estimates either or the Russian's for that matter. The UK and US have every interest in keeping the Ukrainian losses low.


Some massaging indeed.

The West estimates the Ukrainian losses at well over the double of Zelenskiy's official numbers and I'm personally certain that even those are underevaluated.

This is goold old war propaganda, Soviet style. There's nothing in his statement that can be taken at face value.
Click to expand...

Fair to take it all with a pinch of salt, but no need to hyperbole :P Ukraine doesn't ever get remotely close to a fraction of the Soviet/Russian style propaganda the other side pumps out on a daily basis.

Zelensky is a democratically elected head of state, lying about something as sensitive as Ukrainian deaths would be... tricky. Accountability is important, yes it may be misleading by not including missing, but I very much doubt he would lie about such a matter.

Russia is the side that included mobile fecking crematoriums in its invasion force, in case anyone forgot, the sides are not remotely comparable. Also, anyone thinking a 5:1 ratio is unrealistic must have been watching a different war to me for the last two years, or not watching at all.
 
Simbo said:
Fair to take it all with a pinch of salt, but no need to hyperbole :P Ukraine doesn't ever get remotely close to a fraction of the Soviet/Russian style propaganda the other side pumps out on a daily basis.

Zelensky is a democratically elected head of state, lying about something as sensitive as Ukrainian deaths would be... tricky. Accountability is important, yes it may be misleading by not including missing, but I very much doubt he would lie about such a matter.

Russia is the side that included mobile fecking crematoriums in its invasion force, in case anyone forgot, the sides are not remotely comparable. Also, anyone thinking a 5:1 ratio is unrealistic must have been watching a different war to me for the last two years, or not watching at all.
Click to expand...

Some people have to be cleverer than everyone else, I wouldn't worry about it, you won't change their minds.
 
Simbo said:
Do their figures include the missing?
Click to expand...
Nope. They do specify that (google-translate):
As for the missing, from those point cases where we know about their events, we can conclude that some of them are already included in the loss assessment. Despite the simplification of the procedures for declaring a missing person to the court in 2023 (more on this simplification below), we are not seeing a surge in court cases of this type. That is, a significant number of missing people who might not be taken into account in the calculations most likely does not exist.
Click to expand...
And later
What is the weakest point in the analysis?

Firstly, we cannot say anything definite about either the wounded or the missing. One can always assume that there are a large number of people who were abandoned on the battlefield and were never included in either the name lists or the RND. Our research cannot refute such speculation, however, it itself implies that the missing either had no relatives at all, or that for some reason they decided not to remember their loved ones and did not apply for registration of death certificates necessary to obtain ( quite significant) payments. In April 2023, the State Duma adopted a law allowing a missing serviceman to be declared dead in an accelerated and simplified manner - even if his body is never found.
Click to expand...
 
UpWithRivers said:
I've never understood this argument of a security threat. If Ukraine joins NATO how is that any more danger to Russia than before? What's going to magically happen in Ukraine joins NATO. They level up? Super powers? Makes no difference. The odds of Russia and the West going to War is marginal and if they did Ukraine being in NATO or not will hold little consequence.
Click to expand...
I am not an expert on these things but if Ukraine had joined NATO before having been attacked they might have started to act more "cocky" (in the view of Russia) and provocative, knowing that NATO must get fully involved in case of a military conflict. Despite all the worrying articles I don't think Russia is interested in going toe to toe in a conflict with NATO as I believe that in this point in time a big portion of the Russian population will discard their support as it would have a heavy impact on their daily life. So the timing of the attack against Ukraine makes sense and comes with reasonable risk for the Russian leaders.
 
Cnaiür urs Skiötha said:
I am not an expert on these things but if Ukraine had joined NATO before having been attacked they might have started to act more "cocky" (in the view of Russia) and provocative, knowing that NATO must get fully involved in case of a military conflict. Despite all the worrying articles I don't think Russia is interested in going toe to toe in a conflict with NATO as I believe that in this point in time a big portion of the Russian population will discard their support as it would have a heavy impact on their daily life. So the timing of the attack against Ukraine makes sense and comes with reasonable risk for the Russian leaders.
Click to expand...
Yes but that's not a security issue. You cant call it a security issue when the only risk is that it will be harder to invade you. There would be no increased risk to Russia either way if they just didn't invade
 
You must log in or register to reply here.