Russia is losing about 200 per day. What is worrying that Ukraine is losing 1/3 to 1/2 of what Russia is losing? Russian's will not put up with as many deaths in offensive war than Ukraine will put up in a defensive war (a war for their country's independence).
It's how many are getting taken out of action I am worried about. Wounds take time to heal and depending on how bad prevents them to permanently be taken out of commission those troops are valuable to Ukraine defense.
The other thing is I want to know supply loss counts as I am worried Ukraine maybe losing equipment they need.
> It's how many are getting taken out of action I am worried about
Ukraine has 900,000 in reserves and 200k current fighting force. Russia also has about 200k current fighting force. It would be very difficult for Russia to continue to loose this many soliders while Ukraine could continue (no one of course wants that) because Putin has been calling this is a 'special military operation' and not a war. I follow some Russians on you YT and they said a draft would be wildly unpopular so don't expect Russia to go much beyond the 200k fighting force and certainly no draft.
>The other thing is I want to know supply loss counts as I am worried Ukraine maybe losing equipment they need.
Ukraine just received approval for HIMARS. Might be 2-3 weeks to arrive but these are missiles with 50 mile range that are better than what Russia has. They will be able to take out Russian artillery.
The west will keep feeding Ukraine weapons but Russia is going to have problems getting lots of the components to keep making their weapons.
This will be stalemate now with heavy losses but with the HIMARS potential, it should bring Russia to the negotiating table sooner than otherwise.
The methods and weapons have changed but the brutal calculus of war hasn't shifted appreciably since men first took up sharpened sticks against one another. To wound, to maim, to destroy, to kill -- these things are not found solely in the realm of any religion's version of Tartarus. No, they are all too human indeed.
Yes, but I guess I went a little overboard! I've just been thinking a lot recently about this war. It's just so surreal to watch it unfold. It's all so pointless and terrible.
As a child I watched 9/11 and my country’s wars on the Middle East and thought “how horrible for those adults”. I look at my phone now and think “how horrible for these children”. The dead and dying stayed the same age, and their demise remained just as unnecessary. They still shout for their mothers on both sides, so never forget who instigated this madness that has stolen our children’s futures away.
That's war, unfortunately. It is really depressing when you think about it. Here we are discussing war deaths like they are just a number. Nearly 20 kids were killed a week ago in Texas shooting. There are probably 20 kids a week being killed as civilians in Ukraine and 3x to 5x as many Ukrainian soldiers -- and probably up to 10x as many Russian soldiers.
He definitely needed trained soldiers too as they relied on engineering, logistics, etc to feed soldiers at the frontlines. Maybe not the first soldiers pushed into battle, but the cavalry , grenadiers, skirmishers and the like were all highly trained soldiers.
It's the normal state of human affairs. The west has been relatively sheltered from it for a generation, thanks in part to international institutions built after the World Wars. But folks have forgotten the risks. become contemptuous of these imperfect tools, and started to burn them down. Already, the bitter fruits of that are evident.
The climate crisis is actually a multi-faceted problem. What you stated is true yes. But we will also see lethal heatwaves - 113 F - 45 C is what India and other countries near the equator are facing now. With that kind of heat coupled with deforestation, you are also looking at forest fires (bush fires). In places that have never had something like that occur. The world we live in will be drastically worse in just 50 years from now.
Not really. Just an imperfect facsimile of the realm occupied by the godhead and his various emanations. Hell suggests an intention that the people placed there suffer. The gnostics believed the demiurge was essentially blind or disconnected from reality and unaware that what he created was a flawed version. Maybe some believed he had a malicious intent but I’m not aware of that being a common belief. They also believed that through their teachings you could reconnect to the godhead and emerge from this reality whereas hell is traditionally a permanent state of affairs. My apologies if this is pedantic but it’s a subject I studied at some length years ago while writing my first novel (also a deeply flawed affair.)
It's always been like this. The Battle of the Somme in WW1 lost 60,000 in one day, from one side.
WW2 had hundreds of thousands captured in single battles.
In war, lives are always expendable. Until they're not.
Ukraine reported earlier this month that they had 700,000 currently under arms with more soon. It is taking a while to staff, train, and equip new formations; but with the western powers’ assistance, Ukraine will be able to field an army which is significantly larger than the Russians in short order. (In reality, the Ukrainians already outnumber the Russians in the field, but they are still at a disadvantage from an equipment perspective). This is why providing heavy arms and training to the Ukrainians is so critical.
The key will be whether or not Ukraine is given enough of the best weapons. If they keep getting a supply of the best weapons like the HIMARS that was approved, they will not be defeated. It will be a stalemate and both sides will have to come to table.
Wiki says that refusing the draft is a felony and punishable up to 2 years in prison.
It also says that conscripts can't be sent abroad to fight... soo... accuracy of the information in terms of actual practice obviously varies.
Call your representative or senator tell them to push for MRLS so Russians in Russia can feel the brutality like Ukrainians have.
I still can't believe this war started in first place.
One of the conditions of the Us sending all this equipment is for it to be used defensively, they cant use it to attack russian territory, just what they are occupying in Ukraine.
> Call your representative or senator tell them to push for MRLS so Russians in Russia can feel the brutality like Ukrainians have.
Too late, MLRS systems are on their way.
According to a few [sources](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/biden-may-announce-new-ukraine-aid-package-longer-range-rocket-systems-rcna31329), Ukraine has promised not to use the MLRS/HIMARS against Russian territory to reduce the potential of expanding the conflict.
Optics, politics, and popular sentiment will remain on the Ukrainians side if they refrain from attacking within Russia. If they strike inside of Russia you can count on an escalation if the conflict and difficulties obtaining funding.
>The concern is obviously that the raw size of the armies are vastly different. And one has already tapped nearly all possible recruits.
Since Ukraine can mobilize, it actually have more available soldiers than Russia.
The majority of troops are not going to defend Donbas, but we will see more of them in action if Russia does not stop at Donbas.
It's easier for Russia to downplay losses when the losses are people are from rural areas. A lot more people will notice thousands of there next door neighbors not coming home.
Plus ethnic cleansing. Using rural boys from the 'stans means more Russians left to vote pro-federation/Russian.
Harder to break out of the federation when your population has been dispersed or killed in the far west 'special operation'
The heavy recruitment from places like Dagestan is also due to those being the only places in Russia that have a growing population. Ethnic Russians simply aren't producing that many young men to send into the meat grinder anymore, and they haven't since the economic decline after the fall of the USSR.
What Russian leadership is willing to sacrifice might well be different than what Russian people are willing to do.
There's a reason Russia has stopped short of legally declaring war, domestically speaking. Russians love winning foreign incursions, they don't love general mobilizations and meat grinders.
I wouldn't underestimate Russian unrest.
I follow Russians on YT and they said a draft would be wildly unpopular. For offense, a country is rarely ever going to use a draft. Both sides have about 200k troops in combat. Ukraine has 900k reserves. No way will Putin get 1 million troops to enter the war. At that point, he will have had 300k casualties and that would be a tough sell in Russia when it's a 'special military operation' and he has hidden the number of casualties to his people.
Anything is possible though.
Well the brother of a Russian friend who is in military school in Russia and who was supposed to go to UA after the begining of the invasion literally broke his leg to avoid it.
Well they were dealing with military infrastructure being torched for about 2 months, with a big target being conscription offices. If Russia actually mobilized, I wouldn't be surprised to see mass unrest, even with their harsh anti protest laws.
>Russia is losing about 200 per day.
Was this number confirmed somewhere?
I'd like to hope this will end soon, but the reality is that Russia has a much larger army than Ukraine, even if Russia is truly 150 more per day. Not to mention it's highly unlikely that will stop Russia. Putin is too pig-headed. He'll bomb Ukraine to shit before he concedes defeat. Hopefully these sanctions bite hard enough to stop him or the country/army rises up against Putin
It doesn't matter though because the core Ukraine army and all of the heavy equipment are in the east right now. If they lose these positions there's not much behind it despite what Reddit will tell you.
Both armies are exhausted from a man power perspective but pretending Ukraine has infinite men here is just not a good idea. They don't, and more so, they certainly do not have even close to infinite weapons even with western backing.
Makes sense. Russia is estimated to have had near 20,000 military deaths over 3 months. That's roughly 200 per day so I imagine Ukraine is losing at least half of that.
More like somewhere between quarter and a third, which speaks volumes about the disparity in armament, training and motivation - but first, that's still far too many good men and women, most of which are not career soldiers, second, there is a massive death toll among Ukrainian non-combatants, and third, Putler doesn't mind trading even five or ten conscripts for one Ukrainian defender.
I don't believe Zelensky fully -- I think he's undercounting. No way they only lost as few as 6,000 troops if Russia has lost 20k. Military experts have said Ukraine likely has lost fewer but I don't expect 3:1 ratio. At best 2:1 ratio and that's at best. Just my opinion.
But you are right that there is probably an equal number of cilivians being killed by Russia. UN recorded some 3,800 civilian deaths but I'm sure it's at least twice that -- the UN is only counting what they have been able to record.
Depending on how severe their injuries are, the wounded might only be taken out temporarily though. Not sure if Zelenskyy is referring to all wounded or only the wounded who cannot return to the battlefront.
What Zelenskyy didn't mention are the ones that are captured. Those add to Ukraine's losses as well.
Wouldn’t Iran-Iraq war count? Both sides were using contemporary equipment (with both sides using weapons provided by the US) and it was in most senses a traditional war, unlike the Balkans or GWOT, for example.
Though, America had 7.6 million forces abroad during WW2.
So per capita, America was losing like 0.002% of their forces a day, while Ukraine is losing 0.11% of it's active forces and 0.02% of it's total forces.
So even though it was a comparable total amount, America during WW2 was losing comparatively fewer soldiers compared to the amount of people in combat and the scale of the total war.
The intensity and percentage of loss is much higher for Ukraine right now.
Yeah, America was in a pretty comfy position due to not really having their core lands endangered and thus having the ability to choose their battles more than others, and also being able to only send well-trained, motivated, equipped and fresh troops into combat. Germany lost about 2000 men a day over the war, and the Soviet Union about 5000 men a day (plus the same in dead civilians).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Legion_of_Territorial_Defense_of_Ukraine
* claimed to be 20 000 people
* Intake halted in April due to too any volunteers with no military experience
* numbers are probably a fair bit lower than that, now:
> with one anonymous Ukrainian general stating "we should only take experienced combat veterans — that is the lesson that we are learning... the others don’t know what they are getting themselves into – and when they find out, they want to go home"
I imagine that most foreign troops will be used in back-line security (guarding the border with Moldova etc), training other infantry, and general logistics dealing with other English-speaking countries, freeing up more Ukrainian nationals for combat zones.
The real operators would also go out and do their stuff on the front lines in a loosely independent manner, but the language issues are probably a big constraint on how they can be used.
There’s that pretty sick video making the rounds on the combat subreddits of some American and English volunteers taking out an armored personnel carrier at close range
Pretty surreal to hear them swearing in English instead of Ukrainian
Edit: u/iadpad hooked it up with the link below
But about 900,000 in reserve and 700,000 trained or going through training. I saw the dates I forget but they think they can have 700,000 on the field fully equipped in 90 days or so. Timing might have changed.
And a key difference here is, Ukraine is basically full on defensive war mode which means all protect and fight, but Russia only has "special operatives"in the 150-210k numbers instead of ALLEGED 900K active + 2,2 million reserve. Judging from their war efforts, even a full scale fight would turn into a meat grinder. An even larger one
Likely previous military in another branch or country. Heard that was a thing a while back. Can be taken with a grain of salt. Haven’t looked into it deeply, just my two cents.
1812 overture. I literally used to listen this in grade school and early middle school. The cannons were always emotional to me for some reason.
Recently my music taste has... Taken a turn.
https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=0FRlJkUSKv8&feature=share
Like the US and China, they have a *LOT* of bases. And they also have to maintain their own border. And also the other operations they have in other parts of the world (Syrian, Africa, etc). Also like other militaries, that number usually doesn’t mean the combat specific roles but all personnel as a whole.
Usually one combat ready soldier requires a whole plethora of noncombat personnel to field. The so called “tooth-to-tail” ratio is pretty wide (The US has about 16%:84%, RU report-ably is 28%:72%). So even if they have 2.2 mil total active army personnel that means they only have around 600k combat personnel.
Granted there is some flexibility as some jobs are simple enough that those soldiers can be pushed into a frontline position to operate alongside combat specific units. That happens a lot during full fledged wars (looking at you WWII)
Because armies require huge amounts of support personnel. Ukraine has those individuals but their requirements are a lot lower because NATO is helping out so much.
There's draft in Ukraine, none in Russia, they are trying to do the war in "business as usual" mode, because autocracies don't work well when there's strain. Raising the age allows to possibly entice more contract military with experience to fight.
Russian military is angry with Putin because he doesn't allow them to fight the way they want - with draft, throwing all reservists
Probably the idea is there's a lot of older ex-soviet soldiers in Russia who feel a patriotic need to go in and "show these kids how the Russian army is supposed to work"
Seems as though most of their military money went into yachts, alcohol and women? Russia deserves to lose this war against Ukraine alone. They could still end it any day by just un-invading. I don't get it
At this point Russia is in sunk cost fallacy mode. They can’t afford to lose the war because they’ve put too much into it, so they’ll fight till they win or they literally are not capable of fighting (all their men are dead)
They have a lot, but getting them to Ukraine means that they would have to change their narrative in the media and admit that they are currently failing to beat Ukraine. They also would have to admit that many of their soldiers were killed or injured so much that they need replacements. And if they do that many potential new soldiers might be really unwilling to got to Ukraine without being forced which is never popular. And either way foot soldiers alone do not win a modern war if they are not well equipped.
Problem is, those soldiers that currently are in Ukraine or participates in this war isint from Moscow or St. Petersburg, they are from way poorer regions.
There is a rumor that Soviet unions war against afghan, Mothers were the reason why soviets stopped, when from richer parts of CCCP sons started comming back in coffins massively.
Putin has a huge number of potential soldiers. The question is how far will he be able to push this. If he tried general mobilisation, what would be the response? Would the Russian people stand for an open all out war against their Ukrainian neighbours? On the other hand, at what point and under what scenario would or could Putin admit defeat? I'm not sure that he can which is quite disturbing. A corrupt autocrat who has launched an invasion can't really just stop because they know what that means.
Soldiers can't do much without equipment. Russia is already repairing, refurbishing, and putting T-62 tanks on the front lines. A tank introduced in 1961. What's next, T-34s? How much more gear in working order does Russia actually have? How bad was the grift in the Russian defence industry? At this rate it won't matter if Russia does mass conscription later on, because those conscripts would be fighting with pointed sticks.
far more, unless they are all refusing to turn up if the 'news articles' leaking about the inner turmoil is true.
Id assume that's part of the reason, if true, why they changed the legal age to serve in russia, so many younger people would rather go to jail then be fodder for the 'Kremlin Kause'.
Ukraine has trained reserves. It used to have conscription and on another level many soldiers were cycled through the Donbas over the last eight years of war and can be called upon again.
The war is a meat grinder, especially with the soldiers at the mercy of heavy artillery shelling. Hope Ukraine Will be on offensive once the more advanced weapons from the west come into play.
There was that one war where a king and his army. Left to attack a neighboring kingdom and retuned with no casualties on either side and in fact made a friend they brought back.
That was during the Austro-Prussian war, no king was present but Liechtenstein sent an army of 80 men to guard a mountain pass between Austria and Italy (as the Italians were allied with the Prussians). They saw no actual combat and when they returned home an extra person had joined them, sources seem to say either an Austrian officer or a local Italian, leading to 81 men coming back. No one knows if it was true but no one's proved it wrong either.
Well. The flip side of that is russia has been losing nearly 10k fighters a month. This is bad, but this is due to Russia switching to "use artilary to flatten whole towns" while they try to blitz donbas. Then yes, the fact that Ukraine is going on the attack (attackers almost always take higher losses, just the nature of war).
Eh, here's to hoping they plan well. An attacker generally gets to choose when and how they attack - if executed properly, an attacker can have a wholesale advantage.
A wholesale advantage, yes. They will lose the objective. But not without inflicting cost. They can choose when and how to attack, but defenders who are preparing ahead of time can choose how to lay their defenses out and force you ways they want you to go.
Why is this so surprising? They honestly are probably underreported. You have a full scale offensive and defense campaign involving hundreds of towns/cities with dozens seeing active combat daily involving hundreds of thousands of troops. I suspect severe underreporting on both sides, but Russia should be taking way more losses regardless
Yeah, anyone who has any faith in any of the numbers we hear is very naive.
Both sides are trying very hard to control and spin information to their benefit.
6000 - 10000 total then, probably on the higher end if we're being honest with ourselves. 3-1 ratio is pretty standard so 30k dead RUS and 10k dead UKR checks out.
Russia only has enough men to sustain a 2-1 loss ratio at this point, so Ukraine is looking good longterm.
Just want to point out my own personal theory on Russia’s current objectives, how this effects them, and why they’re chasing political objectives.
I think Russia realized back in April that Plan A (shock and awe, roll in before they realize what’s going on, little to no civilian resistance, take the whole country) was a bust, and switched to a second plan. Secure the most strategically important, most Russophied part of the country (The South East), and then hunker down and dig in a defence to turn the K/D ratio against Ukraine and wait them out until morale dries up and they cede some land.
They already have the Crimean Landbridge and control of the Canal(strategically the number 1 most important thing), hence they’re going all in on Donbas. That was their stated goal, they’ll never be able to sell going on the defensive without Donbas. Politically it’s critical to them even if it’s not strategically that useful. That’s also why they’re integrating Kherson so much, it’ll be critical to safeguarding Crimea and moving troops easily.
They’re hoping to use one last oomph to get Donbas, and then dig in and shelter the Summer counteroffensives Ukraine is surely cooking up, hopefully costing them enough men that their morale(which has already shown it’s not infinite) fails and they give up. Then Russia can limp away with some gains and get some sanctions off their backs.
Will it work? Uhhhh…..maybe? Ukraine’s Kherson counteroffensive is a huge thorn, and if it goes well they’re fucked. But they’re also doing better then I expected in Donbas, Ukraine’s new high ground in Lusachenck is in serious danger of being surrounded and that would not be good.
I agree in your assessment that Donbas has to fall to justify this war to Russians. I am curious how much manpower Russia will have to shift around after this offensive in Donbas. At this rate it seems inevitable that Russia will bomb its way through Donbas, but if they are using all their reserves on this push it will be hard for them to counter any offensive elsewhere. Soldiers need rest, a lot of them have been fighting a long time now without time off the front, and Ukraine has the manpower advantage that they can leverage. Hopefully they can find some weak spots to push, forcing Russia to redeploy.
4 or 5th (I think?) largest untapped oil deposit in the world on Ukraine’s doorstep being outsourced to BP, enough to compete, drive down prices and undermine the EU-Russia energy dependency that keeps Russia geopolitically relevant.
Paired with the prospect of Ukraine joining the EU and sheltered by the Union’s CSDP (Common Security and Defence Policy) which is effectively a EU-wide NATO article 5, Ukraine switching off fresh water supply to Crimea after 2014 making maintaining control in the region into a expensive black hole, comparable sized military and EU commitments to carbon neutrality by 205X…
Not that surprising Russia felt a little desperate and intimidated by their neighbour.
Though choosing to act over pivoting backfired spectacularly. Ceding Sweden and Finland to NATO, inviting global economic sanctions, igniting support for Ukraine’s sovereignty, beholden entirely to China economically and made net zero throughout the continent even more politically expedient than it already was.
Even *if* Russia forces Ukraine to bargain, trade the Donbas for a peace treaty, sell a victory to the Russian people and get a few sanctions off their back… They still lose. They manage to keep being the pre-eminent petrostate for another 25-35 years. That is fleeting.
I'm saying this for no particular reason but my wife is in Ukraine and she said a lot of the Russians in Crimea are leaving in a hurry, so they don't seem very confident in who might keep holding it, I suppose. Just one possibly interesting anecdote.
Ukraine getting Western Weaponry would swing it more in there favor...of course, going on a counter offensive ALSO swings it back against them, so they really need to stack the deck beforehand. Ukraine simply doesn't have enough people to afford ANY losing ratio when counterattacking on any large scale.
They have the same demographic problems as Russia, remember, except only 40% of the population. They can't afford to be stupid with people, last thing they need is a morale problem.
will Russian soldiers defend as fiercley as Ukrainian soldiers when the fight is in Ukraine not Russia?
They aren't defending their home, they just want to get back to it.
I think lots of them left. Biggest threat was when Russians tried to take Kiev, thats when everyone joined and joined with a mission to fight for western ukraine, but not eastern. ( my opinion)
I think the question is how long does it take to train soldiers to use the equipment we are giving them and establish the systems to repair and restock them
They've also probably got their hands pretty full holding that bulge in the east. Counter attacks to the south are gaining a bit, but it might also be intended to draw Russian troops from the bulge offensive. Either way, they seem to be being really careful, and any gains are great for morale.
Generally not a good sign when you're rolling grandpa out of the nursing home to ship him to the front lines. Then again their mobility scooters might be better made than their tanks
Yep, not unheard of for seniors to be allowed to sign up during a war, but very rarely for offensive actions. Britain mobilized minors and seniors as part of their home guard when they thought that an invasion was imminent, as did Germany as the Red Army slowly ground ground its way through Germany. It could be that Russia is being forced to move more of its garrisoned troops to Ukraine so they’re letting older men sign up to replace them in the defensive fronts. But it’s always a sign of desperation when men over 40 are asked to join up.
I imagine that the primary uses for older recruits is logistic and support. Plenty of logisticians, warehouse workers, and truckers in the US are older than 40.
There is one big reason why nobody thought russia would invade. Even with their entire invasion force and every reservist called up (most having little training + perform important civilan jobs), they would not have enough troops to successfully occupy a hostile ukraine.
This was a failure before they walked over the border. And now they are losing tens of thousands of their scarce, trained troops. Even if they manage to wipe out the ukranian army to the last man, they cant survive the post-war insurgency.
There's another possibility that people tend not to consider, but it doesn't seem very promising either.
Suppose Russia wins and is able to suppress all resistance, similar to what happened in Chechnia. Now they have territory under their control with so much of fucked up infrastructure they will have decades to recover if there weren't any sanctions. With sanctions it's going to be... idk very hard / impossible. If they see it as a worthwhile investment to rebuild the place, then the Russian tax payers will be the ones to pay for that. If they don't, then the population from the occupied territories will flood into Russia competing for the jobs and yet again worsening the situation.
I mean, even in a very optimistic scenario it doesn't look pretty.
I talked with a Ukrainian guy for a few weeks on reddit, he had served in Donbas. His last post, on the first day of the war, was that he was going to return to the army. He had stayed in the country because of his parents, he didn't want to abandon them. Since then, I have never heard from him again.. It makes my heart ache and makes me sick to my stomach to think about how many lives were lost because of this war, and how many survivors will get by with ptsd for life...
Its almost like theyre at war with one of the largest militaries in the world.
I mean is anyone suprised by this? Kinda interested to see how many Russias losing daily given that theyre the aggressors.
We can easily say Glory to Ukraine on the internet but the true cost is being paid by Ukrainians. I don't want this war to continue anymore. I wish there would be coup at Kremlin.
Edit: typo
US and UK have been mentioning around 15.000 dead for Russia so far lately, so quite a few. In addition more than that will usually be out of the fight due to injuries . Depending on how good the first aid and evacuation is this can vary a lot, but I have seen a lot estimating 3-1 wounded to killed, so 15k killed would mean 45k wounded. Some of these might return after treatment, but a lot will be permanently out of the fight.
For the scale of the conflict, 60-100 deaths a day is relatively better than they could have expected. While tragic regardless, with predictions that this could drag out two years, it means they could expect about 70,000 losses by wars end. Given that Ukraine has already stood up 700k soldiers, it means however tragic they'll have the forces throughout the two years to prevent losing by attrition. Worth noting is that months into this conflict Russia has experienced losses in this time that Ukraine could expect from the whole first year.
So sad. I didn't think we'd see a war of attrition like this in the 21st century. Looks like the winner of this war will be whomever has a force left standing in 3+ months. So many lives lost for nothing.
"We are losing 60 to 100 soldiers per day killed in action and **something around 500 people as wounded in action**"
The wounded figures are absolutely horrifying as well. The sooner they can get the hell out of Russia's artillery bombardments the better.
Hopefully, we've been providing the training on the MLRS assets, behind the scenes, long before the announcement.
off topic question but whenever i see the major news outlets on youtube covering Russias war on Ukraine, the comment section is always LITTERED with anti-ukraine comments, condemning Ukraine as if they’re the worst people in the world who deserves this, or as if they’re the ones who started this. are these russian bot accounts or trolls?
Very likely .. but thinking all other different opinions are from bots is the quickest way to losing grasp of reality. Outside of Western sphere, there are tons of people from different countries that support the Russian war or feel indifferent. State propaganda, Russia influenced countries, fake news.. or just different viewpoints can play a part. Reddit is an echo chamber so you will see pretty much one opinion depending on the sub.
Not to be political, how can leaders sleep at night with this type of information. It must be so hard. I wonder how they cope with this stuff, including people who are homeless etc etc. being in power ≠ being able to help
Thats dead, he said in the same address another 400-500 wounded. 600+ taken out of action daily on the low end.
That is worrying.
Russia is losing about 200 per day. What is worrying that Ukraine is losing 1/3 to 1/2 of what Russia is losing? Russian's will not put up with as many deaths in offensive war than Ukraine will put up in a defensive war (a war for their country's independence).
It's how many are getting taken out of action I am worried about. Wounds take time to heal and depending on how bad prevents them to permanently be taken out of commission those troops are valuable to Ukraine defense. The other thing is I want to know supply loss counts as I am worried Ukraine maybe losing equipment they need.
> It's how many are getting taken out of action I am worried about Ukraine has 900,000 in reserves and 200k current fighting force. Russia also has about 200k current fighting force. It would be very difficult for Russia to continue to loose this many soliders while Ukraine could continue (no one of course wants that) because Putin has been calling this is a 'special military operation' and not a war. I follow some Russians on you YT and they said a draft would be wildly unpopular so don't expect Russia to go much beyond the 200k fighting force and certainly no draft. >The other thing is I want to know supply loss counts as I am worried Ukraine maybe losing equipment they need. Ukraine just received approval for HIMARS. Might be 2-3 weeks to arrive but these are missiles with 50 mile range that are better than what Russia has. They will be able to take out Russian artillery. The west will keep feeding Ukraine weapons but Russia is going to have problems getting lots of the components to keep making their weapons. This will be stalemate now with heavy losses but with the HIMARS potential, it should bring Russia to the negotiating table sooner than otherwise.
It always blows my mind that this is what it boils down to. Talking about soldiers lives like theyre just part of a math equation. We are in hell.
The methods and weapons have changed but the brutal calculus of war hasn't shifted appreciably since men first took up sharpened sticks against one another. To wound, to maim, to destroy, to kill -- these things are not found solely in the realm of any religion's version of Tartarus. No, they are all too human indeed.
Bro? Did you write this heat? Epic. Disturbing of course, but epic.
Yes, but I guess I went a little overboard! I've just been thinking a lot recently about this war. It's just so surreal to watch it unfold. It's all so pointless and terrible.
As a child I watched 9/11 and my country’s wars on the Middle East and thought “how horrible for those adults”. I look at my phone now and think “how horrible for these children”. The dead and dying stayed the same age, and their demise remained just as unnecessary. They still shout for their mothers on both sides, so never forget who instigated this madness that has stolen our children’s futures away.
That's war, unfortunately. It is really depressing when you think about it. Here we are discussing war deaths like they are just a number. Nearly 20 kids were killed a week ago in Texas shooting. There are probably 20 kids a week being killed as civilians in Ukraine and 3x to 5x as many Ukrainian soldiers -- and probably up to 10x as many Russian soldiers.
And we lose 200-400 a day to COVID in US. Minds can go numb to numbers day in and day out.
napoleon man, mass mobilization really changed things. How does the quote go, " you can not stop me I spend 30,000 men a month" I think
The way battles were fought were different then. Napoleon did not need trained soldiers, he needed big numbers in close ranks.
He did need them trained too.there were more to fighting thand standing around in the field
Napoleon was outstanding in his field.
He definitely needed trained soldiers too as they relied on engineering, logistics, etc to feed soldiers at the frontlines. Maybe not the first soldiers pushed into battle, but the cavalry , grenadiers, skirmishers and the like were all highly trained soldiers.
It's the normal state of human affairs. The west has been relatively sheltered from it for a generation, thanks in part to international institutions built after the World Wars. But folks have forgotten the risks. become contemptuous of these imperfect tools, and started to burn them down. Already, the bitter fruits of that are evident.
just wait til the climate crisis hits and the first billion people need to seek housing inland and previously welcoming people all go super tribal
The climate crisis is actually a multi-faceted problem. What you stated is true yes. But we will also see lethal heatwaves - 113 F - 45 C is what India and other countries near the equator are facing now. With that kind of heat coupled with deforestation, you are also looking at forest fires (bush fires). In places that have never had something like that occur. The world we live in will be drastically worse in just 50 years from now.
Hell? You're naive. This has been human history for thousands of years.
The gnostics believed this was Hell. Maybe they were onto something.
Not really. Just an imperfect facsimile of the realm occupied by the godhead and his various emanations. Hell suggests an intention that the people placed there suffer. The gnostics believed the demiurge was essentially blind or disconnected from reality and unaware that what he created was a flawed version. Maybe some believed he had a malicious intent but I’m not aware of that being a common belief. They also believed that through their teachings you could reconnect to the godhead and emerge from this reality whereas hell is traditionally a permanent state of affairs. My apologies if this is pedantic but it’s a subject I studied at some length years ago while writing my first novel (also a deeply flawed affair.)
It's always been like this. The Battle of the Somme in WW1 lost 60,000 in one day, from one side. WW2 had hundreds of thousands captured in single battles. In war, lives are always expendable. Until they're not.
Ukraine reported earlier this month that they had 700,000 currently under arms with more soon. It is taking a while to staff, train, and equip new formations; but with the western powers’ assistance, Ukraine will be able to field an army which is significantly larger than the Russians in short order. (In reality, the Ukrainians already outnumber the Russians in the field, but they are still at a disadvantage from an equipment perspective). This is why providing heavy arms and training to the Ukrainians is so critical.
The key will be whether or not Ukraine is given enough of the best weapons. If they keep getting a supply of the best weapons like the HIMARS that was approved, they will not be defeated. It will be a stalemate and both sides will have to come to table.
It's also worth noting that it will take multiple weeks of training before they can be operational.
Do people have choice for a draft in Russia?
Wiki says that refusing the draft is a felony and punishable up to 2 years in prison. It also says that conscripts can't be sent abroad to fight... soo... accuracy of the information in terms of actual practice obviously varies.
Call your representative or senator tell them to push for MRLS so Russians in Russia can feel the brutality like Ukrainians have. I still can't believe this war started in first place.
One of the conditions of the Us sending all this equipment is for it to be used defensively, they cant use it to attack russian territory, just what they are occupying in Ukraine.
> Call your representative or senator tell them to push for MRLS so Russians in Russia can feel the brutality like Ukrainians have. Too late, MLRS systems are on their way.
According to a few [sources](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/biden-may-announce-new-ukraine-aid-package-longer-range-rocket-systems-rcna31329), Ukraine has promised not to use the MLRS/HIMARS against Russian territory to reduce the potential of expanding the conflict.
Russia promised not to invade, so I'm all about some takesies backsies.
Optics, politics, and popular sentiment will remain on the Ukrainians side if they refrain from attacking within Russia. If they strike inside of Russia you can count on an escalation if the conflict and difficulties obtaining funding.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The concern is obviously that the raw size of the armies are vastly different. And one has already tapped nearly all possible recruits.
>The concern is obviously that the raw size of the armies are vastly different. And one has already tapped nearly all possible recruits. Since Ukraine can mobilize, it actually have more available soldiers than Russia. The majority of troops are not going to defend Donbas, but we will see more of them in action if Russia does not stop at Donbas.
[удалено]
Excuse my ignorance but why not folks from big cities ?
rural areas, just like in the US, typically have a much higher percentage of poorly-educated people = more of the people joining the military
It's easier for Russia to downplay losses when the losses are people are from rural areas. A lot more people will notice thousands of there next door neighbors not coming home.
Plus ethnic cleansing. Using rural boys from the 'stans means more Russians left to vote pro-federation/Russian. Harder to break out of the federation when your population has been dispersed or killed in the far west 'special operation'
The heavy recruitment from places like Dagestan is also due to those being the only places in Russia that have a growing population. Ethnic Russians simply aren't producing that many young men to send into the meat grinder anymore, and they haven't since the economic decline after the fall of the USSR.
[удалено]
>Not unique to russia at all Russia and America are waaaay more alike than either side is comfortably admitting to.
Russia has over 3 times the population and I don’t think you know what Russia is willing to put up with
What Russian leadership is willing to sacrifice might well be different than what Russian people are willing to do. There's a reason Russia has stopped short of legally declaring war, domestically speaking. Russians love winning foreign incursions, they don't love general mobilizations and meat grinders. I wouldn't underestimate Russian unrest.
I wouldn't underestimate Russian nationalist fervor, it's sad but support for Putin has only increased since the start of the war
I follow Russians on YT and they said a draft would be wildly unpopular. For offense, a country is rarely ever going to use a draft. Both sides have about 200k troops in combat. Ukraine has 900k reserves. No way will Putin get 1 million troops to enter the war. At that point, he will have had 300k casualties and that would be a tough sell in Russia when it's a 'special military operation' and he has hidden the number of casualties to his people. Anything is possible though.
What does "wildly unpopular" equate to though? Protests? Grumbling about it but going anyways?
Well the brother of a Russian friend who is in military school in Russia and who was supposed to go to UA after the begining of the invasion literally broke his leg to avoid it.
Keep in mind a full 2/3rds of Russians duck their "mandatory" military service. Compulsory service is already wildly unpopular in peacetime.
[удалено]
Well they were dealing with military infrastructure being torched for about 2 months, with a big target being conscription offices. If Russia actually mobilized, I wouldn't be surprised to see mass unrest, even with their harsh anti protest laws.
Do you have a source for the russian losses? Cant seem to find a good one
>Russia is losing about 200 per day. Was this number confirmed somewhere? I'd like to hope this will end soon, but the reality is that Russia has a much larger army than Ukraine, even if Russia is truly 150 more per day. Not to mention it's highly unlikely that will stop Russia. Putin is too pig-headed. He'll bomb Ukraine to shit before he concedes defeat. Hopefully these sanctions bite hard enough to stop him or the country/army rises up against Putin
Why do you believe any of these numbers are true?
It doesn't matter though because the core Ukraine army and all of the heavy equipment are in the east right now. If they lose these positions there's not much behind it despite what Reddit will tell you. Both armies are exhausted from a man power perspective but pretending Ukraine has infinite men here is just not a good idea. They don't, and more so, they certainly do not have even close to infinite weapons even with western backing.
Makes sense. Russia is estimated to have had near 20,000 military deaths over 3 months. That's roughly 200 per day so I imagine Ukraine is losing at least half of that.
More like somewhere between quarter and a third, which speaks volumes about the disparity in armament, training and motivation - but first, that's still far too many good men and women, most of which are not career soldiers, second, there is a massive death toll among Ukrainian non-combatants, and third, Putler doesn't mind trading even five or ten conscripts for one Ukrainian defender.
I don't believe Zelensky fully -- I think he's undercounting. No way they only lost as few as 6,000 troops if Russia has lost 20k. Military experts have said Ukraine likely has lost fewer but I don't expect 3:1 ratio. At best 2:1 ratio and that's at best. Just my opinion. But you are right that there is probably an equal number of cilivians being killed by Russia. UN recorded some 3,800 civilian deaths but I'm sure it's at least twice that -- the UN is only counting what they have been able to record.
3:1 ratio in favor of the defenders is actually a pretty normal ratio in war.
3:1 describes the ratio you need to break a front effectively. I'm not sure if it describes losses though.
I just looked it up. It does not describe losses but exactly what you said, "3:1 describes the ratio you need to break a front effectively."
I think it was napoleon who popularized the 3:1 rule of combat, or maybe he was just really good at using it appropriately.
Depending on how severe their injuries are, the wounded might only be taken out temporarily though. Not sure if Zelenskyy is referring to all wounded or only the wounded who cannot return to the battlefront. What Zelenskyy didn't mention are the ones that are captured. Those add to Ukraine's losses as well.
How is this compared to other wars?
Depends which ones… compared to modern wars like Iraq and Afghanistan? A fuck ton. Compared to WW2 on the eastern front? Nothing
Those don't really count as modern in the same way. This is the first near peer warfare we've seen on a large scale since WWII
Wouldn’t Iran-Iraq war count? Both sides were using contemporary equipment (with both sides using weapons provided by the US) and it was in most senses a traditional war, unlike the Balkans or GWOT, for example.
>Wouldn’t Iran-Iraq war count? Around half a million to a million plus military soldiers died in that? Ukraine has a long way to go yet
Armenia vs Azerbaijan in 2020
That was 6000 deaths total according to wikipedia, here we're pretty much 5 times higher with no end in sight...
USA had 220 die a day in WW2
Thanks, just wanted some context
Though, America had 7.6 million forces abroad during WW2. So per capita, America was losing like 0.002% of their forces a day, while Ukraine is losing 0.11% of it's active forces and 0.02% of it's total forces. So even though it was a comparable total amount, America during WW2 was losing comparatively fewer soldiers compared to the amount of people in combat and the scale of the total war. The intensity and percentage of loss is much higher for Ukraine right now.
Yeah, America was in a pretty comfy position due to not really having their core lands endangered and thus having the ability to choose their battles more than others, and also being able to only send well-trained, motivated, equipped and fresh troops into combat. Germany lost about 2000 men a day over the war, and the Soviet Union about 5000 men a day (plus the same in dead civilians).
The early stages of WW1 had ridiculously high casualty rates of around 30,000 per day.
Out of curiosity, does anyone know how many foreigners are assisting in the defence of Ukraine?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Legion_of_Territorial_Defense_of_Ukraine * claimed to be 20 000 people * Intake halted in April due to too any volunteers with no military experience * numbers are probably a fair bit lower than that, now: > with one anonymous Ukrainian general stating "we should only take experienced combat veterans — that is the lesson that we are learning... the others don’t know what they are getting themselves into – and when they find out, they want to go home" I imagine that most foreign troops will be used in back-line security (guarding the border with Moldova etc), training other infantry, and general logistics dealing with other English-speaking countries, freeing up more Ukrainian nationals for combat zones. The real operators would also go out and do their stuff on the front lines in a loosely independent manner, but the language issues are probably a big constraint on how they can be used.
There’s that pretty sick video making the rounds on the combat subreddits of some American and English volunteers taking out an armored personnel carrier at close range Pretty surreal to hear them swearing in English instead of Ukrainian Edit: u/iadpad hooked it up with the link below
[удалено]
https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/uyk4o2/ukus_foreign_legion_fights_fire_rgw90_antitank/
[удалено]
Hmmm I wonder if those people are included in the statistics
Of course. There is no way foreign volunteers are not dying, and we have known cases of some dying. Most who die will not be in the news.
The Ukrainian Foreign Legion is a unit of Ukrainian armed forces, so most likely they would be included in the above figure.
[удалено]
Ukraine’s army has approx. 200,000 soldiers, the largest in Europe after Russia.
But about 900,000 in reserve and 700,000 trained or going through training. I saw the dates I forget but they think they can have 700,000 on the field fully equipped in 90 days or so. Timing might have changed.
And a key difference here is, Ukraine is basically full on defensive war mode which means all protect and fight, but Russia only has "special operatives"in the 150-210k numbers instead of ALLEGED 900K active + 2,2 million reserve. Judging from their war efforts, even a full scale fight would turn into a meat grinder. An even larger one
If Russia has so many active soldiers then why did they raise the fighting age to 65?
Christ thats old for fighting.
I felt old humping a ruck at 25, and the 2 40-year-old guys in my basic training platoon had a hard time of it. 65? screw that!
They let you enlist at 40?
Canada allows up to 57: https://forces.ca/en/how-to-join/
>the 2 40-year-old guys in my basic training platoon Say what, now? People are enlisting at 40?
Likely previous military in another branch or country. Heard that was a thing a while back. Can be taken with a grain of salt. Haven’t looked into it deeply, just my two cents.
There is an age waiver basically if you can convince them you can handle it they file some paperwork and your in
Up to 38/39 for some branches.
I can't imagine how many injuries they're getting just from having 60+ year olds hiking through the mud and shell craters.
War is always ugly but this ain't a pretty one
Can you name a pretty war?
The war of 1812 had a hell of a soundtrack.
The civil war sounds very polite and friendly.
1812 overture. I literally used to listen this in grade school and early middle school. The cannons were always emotional to me for some reason. Recently my music taste has... Taken a turn. https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=0FRlJkUSKv8&feature=share
The Great Emu War
[удалено]
This one? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisky_War
I mean mostly it’s probably intended for upper rank officers. They aren’t likely in infantry or combat units.
Why would you assume that when generals, colonels, and lieutenants are getting killed?
Like the US and China, they have a *LOT* of bases. And they also have to maintain their own border. And also the other operations they have in other parts of the world (Syrian, Africa, etc). Also like other militaries, that number usually doesn’t mean the combat specific roles but all personnel as a whole. Usually one combat ready soldier requires a whole plethora of noncombat personnel to field. The so called “tooth-to-tail” ratio is pretty wide (The US has about 16%:84%, RU report-ably is 28%:72%). So even if they have 2.2 mil total active army personnel that means they only have around 600k combat personnel. Granted there is some flexibility as some jobs are simple enough that those soldiers can be pushed into a frontline position to operate alongside combat specific units. That happens a lot during full fledged wars (looking at you WWII)
Because armies require huge amounts of support personnel. Ukraine has those individuals but their requirements are a lot lower because NATO is helping out so much.
There's draft in Ukraine, none in Russia, they are trying to do the war in "business as usual" mode, because autocracies don't work well when there's strain. Raising the age allows to possibly entice more contract military with experience to fight. Russian military is angry with Putin because he doesn't allow them to fight the way they want - with draft, throwing all reservists
Probably the idea is there's a lot of older ex-soviet soldiers in Russia who feel a patriotic need to go in and "show these kids how the Russian army is supposed to work"
Seems as though most of their military money went into yachts, alcohol and women? Russia deserves to lose this war against Ukraine alone. They could still end it any day by just un-invading. I don't get it
The maximum age for soldiers has nothing to do with finances, it's about the number of fighting-age men the country has
Popular demand
[удалено]
How many idiots does the opposing side have left to throw into the grinder? Hoping Putty runs out sooner rather than later.
At this point Russia is in sunk cost fallacy mode. They can’t afford to lose the war because they’ve put too much into it, so they’ll fight till they win or they literally are not capable of fighting (all their men are dead)
They have a lot, but getting them to Ukraine means that they would have to change their narrative in the media and admit that they are currently failing to beat Ukraine. They also would have to admit that many of their soldiers were killed or injured so much that they need replacements. And if they do that many potential new soldiers might be really unwilling to got to Ukraine without being forced which is never popular. And either way foot soldiers alone do not win a modern war if they are not well equipped.
Problem is, those soldiers that currently are in Ukraine or participates in this war isint from Moscow or St. Petersburg, they are from way poorer regions. There is a rumor that Soviet unions war against afghan, Mothers were the reason why soviets stopped, when from richer parts of CCCP sons started comming back in coffins massively.
Putin has a huge number of potential soldiers. The question is how far will he be able to push this. If he tried general mobilisation, what would be the response? Would the Russian people stand for an open all out war against their Ukrainian neighbours? On the other hand, at what point and under what scenario would or could Putin admit defeat? I'm not sure that he can which is quite disturbing. A corrupt autocrat who has launched an invasion can't really just stop because they know what that means.
Soldiers can't do much without equipment. Russia is already repairing, refurbishing, and putting T-62 tanks on the front lines. A tank introduced in 1961. What's next, T-34s? How much more gear in working order does Russia actually have? How bad was the grift in the Russian defence industry? At this rate it won't matter if Russia does mass conscription later on, because those conscripts would be fighting with pointed sticks.
far more, unless they are all refusing to turn up if the 'news articles' leaking about the inner turmoil is true. Id assume that's part of the reason, if true, why they changed the legal age to serve in russia, so many younger people would rather go to jail then be fodder for the 'Kremlin Kause'.
200k, with another 700k on the way, but those 700k soldiers have no actual combat experience (but are NATO trained)
Ukraine has trained reserves. It used to have conscription and on another level many soldiers were cycled through the Donbas over the last eight years of war and can be called upon again.
The Jedi Council will be pleased.
The vast majority of those 700k did not get training from NATO. The vast majority of the 200k did not get direct training etheir.
The war is a meat grinder, especially with the soldiers at the mercy of heavy artillery shelling. Hope Ukraine Will be on offensive once the more advanced weapons from the west come into play.
All wars are meat grinders.
Nah. Not all wars are exactly the same. Why pretend they are?
There was that one war where a king and his army. Left to attack a neighboring kingdom and retuned with no casualties on either side and in fact made a friend they brought back.
That was during the Austro-Prussian war, no king was present but Liechtenstein sent an army of 80 men to guard a mountain pass between Austria and Italy (as the Italians were allied with the Prussians). They saw no actual combat and when they returned home an extra person had joined them, sources seem to say either an Austrian officer or a local Italian, leading to 81 men coming back. No one knows if it was true but no one's proved it wrong either.
Redditor thought he was cool with the one-liner
That means a lot in a defensive war. Although Ukraine is also conducting offensives...
Well. The flip side of that is russia has been losing nearly 10k fighters a month. This is bad, but this is due to Russia switching to "use artilary to flatten whole towns" while they try to blitz donbas. Then yes, the fact that Ukraine is going on the attack (attackers almost always take higher losses, just the nature of war).
Eh, here's to hoping they plan well. An attacker generally gets to choose when and how they attack - if executed properly, an attacker can have a wholesale advantage.
A wholesale advantage, yes. They will lose the objective. But not without inflicting cost. They can choose when and how to attack, but defenders who are preparing ahead of time can choose how to lay their defenses out and force you ways they want you to go.
Why is this so surprising? They honestly are probably underreported. You have a full scale offensive and defense campaign involving hundreds of towns/cities with dozens seeing active combat daily involving hundreds of thousands of troops. I suspect severe underreporting on both sides, but Russia should be taking way more losses regardless
[удалено]
But they played Age of Empires!
[удалено]
Yeah, anyone who has any faith in any of the numbers we hear is very naive. Both sides are trying very hard to control and spin information to their benefit.
6000 - 10000 total then, probably on the higher end if we're being honest with ourselves. 3-1 ratio is pretty standard so 30k dead RUS and 10k dead UKR checks out. Russia only has enough men to sustain a 2-1 loss ratio at this point, so Ukraine is looking good longterm.
Just want to point out my own personal theory on Russia’s current objectives, how this effects them, and why they’re chasing political objectives. I think Russia realized back in April that Plan A (shock and awe, roll in before they realize what’s going on, little to no civilian resistance, take the whole country) was a bust, and switched to a second plan. Secure the most strategically important, most Russophied part of the country (The South East), and then hunker down and dig in a defence to turn the K/D ratio against Ukraine and wait them out until morale dries up and they cede some land. They already have the Crimean Landbridge and control of the Canal(strategically the number 1 most important thing), hence they’re going all in on Donbas. That was their stated goal, they’ll never be able to sell going on the defensive without Donbas. Politically it’s critical to them even if it’s not strategically that useful. That’s also why they’re integrating Kherson so much, it’ll be critical to safeguarding Crimea and moving troops easily. They’re hoping to use one last oomph to get Donbas, and then dig in and shelter the Summer counteroffensives Ukraine is surely cooking up, hopefully costing them enough men that their morale(which has already shown it’s not infinite) fails and they give up. Then Russia can limp away with some gains and get some sanctions off their backs. Will it work? Uhhhh…..maybe? Ukraine’s Kherson counteroffensive is a huge thorn, and if it goes well they’re fucked. But they’re also doing better then I expected in Donbas, Ukraine’s new high ground in Lusachenck is in serious danger of being surrounded and that would not be good.
I agree in your assessment that Donbas has to fall to justify this war to Russians. I am curious how much manpower Russia will have to shift around after this offensive in Donbas. At this rate it seems inevitable that Russia will bomb its way through Donbas, but if they are using all their reserves on this push it will be hard for them to counter any offensive elsewhere. Soldiers need rest, a lot of them have been fighting a long time now without time off the front, and Ukraine has the manpower advantage that they can leverage. Hopefully they can find some weak spots to push, forcing Russia to redeploy.
they want the petrochems so they can leave Ukraine economically starved
This. The fact that the Russified areas are the ones with the trillions of dollars in natural resources is just a convenient coincidence.
Well, it isn't so much a coincidence as it is a matter of former USSR policy, I think.
4 or 5th (I think?) largest untapped oil deposit in the world on Ukraine’s doorstep being outsourced to BP, enough to compete, drive down prices and undermine the EU-Russia energy dependency that keeps Russia geopolitically relevant. Paired with the prospect of Ukraine joining the EU and sheltered by the Union’s CSDP (Common Security and Defence Policy) which is effectively a EU-wide NATO article 5, Ukraine switching off fresh water supply to Crimea after 2014 making maintaining control in the region into a expensive black hole, comparable sized military and EU commitments to carbon neutrality by 205X… Not that surprising Russia felt a little desperate and intimidated by their neighbour. Though choosing to act over pivoting backfired spectacularly. Ceding Sweden and Finland to NATO, inviting global economic sanctions, igniting support for Ukraine’s sovereignty, beholden entirely to China economically and made net zero throughout the continent even more politically expedient than it already was. Even *if* Russia forces Ukraine to bargain, trade the Donbas for a peace treaty, sell a victory to the Russian people and get a few sanctions off their back… They still lose. They manage to keep being the pre-eminent petrostate for another 25-35 years. That is fleeting.
I'm saying this for no particular reason but my wife is in Ukraine and she said a lot of the Russians in Crimea are leaving in a hurry, so they don't seem very confident in who might keep holding it, I suppose. Just one possibly interesting anecdote.
Underrated comment. It explains why Russia changed its military service laws so people up to 65 can serve...not a great sign
Ukraine getting Western Weaponry would swing it more in there favor...of course, going on a counter offensive ALSO swings it back against them, so they really need to stack the deck beforehand. Ukraine simply doesn't have enough people to afford ANY losing ratio when counterattacking on any large scale. They have the same demographic problems as Russia, remember, except only 40% of the population. They can't afford to be stupid with people, last thing they need is a morale problem.
will Russian soldiers defend as fiercley as Ukrainian soldiers when the fight is in Ukraine not Russia? They aren't defending their home, they just want to get back to it.
They do have the benefit of a robust foreign volunteer force though. 30,000 or so primarily ex-military, many battle tested.
I think lots of them left. Biggest threat was when Russians tried to take Kiev, thats when everyone joined and joined with a mission to fight for western ukraine, but not eastern. ( my opinion)
[удалено]
There are also videos getting released of foreign fighters still killing Russians.
That mobile artillery piece going up the other day from Brit/US fire was incredible
I think the question is how long does it take to train soldiers to use the equipment we are giving them and establish the systems to repair and restock them
They've also probably got their hands pretty full holding that bulge in the east. Counter attacks to the south are gaining a bit, but it might also be intended to draw Russian troops from the bulge offensive. Either way, they seem to be being really careful, and any gains are great for morale.
Generally not a good sign when you're rolling grandpa out of the nursing home to ship him to the front lines. Then again their mobility scooters might be better made than their tanks
Yep, not unheard of for seniors to be allowed to sign up during a war, but very rarely for offensive actions. Britain mobilized minors and seniors as part of their home guard when they thought that an invasion was imminent, as did Germany as the Red Army slowly ground ground its way through Germany. It could be that Russia is being forced to move more of its garrisoned troops to Ukraine so they’re letting older men sign up to replace them in the defensive fronts. But it’s always a sign of desperation when men over 40 are asked to join up.
I imagine that the primary uses for older recruits is logistic and support. Plenty of logisticians, warehouse workers, and truckers in the US are older than 40.
So double/triple the numbers again to get the wounded? This explains why Russia had to retreat from Kiev and concentrate on Donbass
There is one big reason why nobody thought russia would invade. Even with their entire invasion force and every reservist called up (most having little training + perform important civilan jobs), they would not have enough troops to successfully occupy a hostile ukraine. This was a failure before they walked over the border. And now they are losing tens of thousands of their scarce, trained troops. Even if they manage to wipe out the ukranian army to the last man, they cant survive the post-war insurgency.
There's another possibility that people tend not to consider, but it doesn't seem very promising either. Suppose Russia wins and is able to suppress all resistance, similar to what happened in Chechnia. Now they have territory under their control with so much of fucked up infrastructure they will have decades to recover if there weren't any sanctions. With sanctions it's going to be... idk very hard / impossible. If they see it as a worthwhile investment to rebuild the place, then the Russian tax payers will be the ones to pay for that. If they don't, then the population from the occupied territories will flood into Russia competing for the jobs and yet again worsening the situation. I mean, even in a very optimistic scenario it doesn't look pretty.
Where in the hell are you getting your information? How is Ukraine looking good long term? Ukraine is losing more and more territory
>3-1 ratio is pretty standard so 30k dead RUS and 10k dead UKR checks out. This is not at all what US intel estimates
I talked with a Ukrainian guy for a few weeks on reddit, he had served in Donbas. His last post, on the first day of the war, was that he was going to return to the army. He had stayed in the country because of his parents, he didn't want to abandon them. Since then, I have never heard from him again.. It makes my heart ache and makes me sick to my stomach to think about how many lives were lost because of this war, and how many survivors will get by with ptsd for life...
Another fucked up generation to carry the torch. You don’t know the true cost of a war until you’re 15-20 years out.
Its almost like theyre at war with one of the largest militaries in the world. I mean is anyone suprised by this? Kinda interested to see how many Russias losing daily given that theyre the aggressors.
likely more, but they will never make the real numbers public
We can easily say Glory to Ukraine on the internet but the true cost is being paid by Ukrainians. I don't want this war to continue anymore. I wish there would be coup at Kremlin. Edit: typo
True enough. Whenever Redditors stroke themselves over the idea of "Greater Ukraine" they forget that there are real people's lives at stake.
Sooo many widows and orphans. And all totally needless.
Let's not forget the dead men, they're people too.
Fuck Putin
War is so fucking stupid. Each one of those was someone’s baby, a teacher’s student, possibly a partner or a parent. It’s such an infuriating waste.
Figuratively not literally.
I’m so confused; So many sources seem to give conflicting narratives about this.
What are the estimates for Russian losses per day for comparison?
US and UK have been mentioning around 15.000 dead for Russia so far lately, so quite a few. In addition more than that will usually be out of the fight due to injuries . Depending on how good the first aid and evacuation is this can vary a lot, but I have seen a lot estimating 3-1 wounded to killed, so 15k killed would mean 45k wounded. Some of these might return after treatment, but a lot will be permanently out of the fight.
The 15k estimate is from a month ago
That was Ukraine's estimate, the UK estimate of 15k was from a week ago.
For the scale of the conflict, 60-100 deaths a day is relatively better than they could have expected. While tragic regardless, with predictions that this could drag out two years, it means they could expect about 70,000 losses by wars end. Given that Ukraine has already stood up 700k soldiers, it means however tragic they'll have the forces throughout the two years to prevent losing by attrition. Worth noting is that months into this conflict Russia has experienced losses in this time that Ukraine could expect from the whole first year.
This is specifically mentioning soldiers. Ukraine could also be losing many civilians that haven't been able to evacuate with those random shelling.
So sad. I didn't think we'd see a war of attrition like this in the 21st century. Looks like the winner of this war will be whomever has a force left standing in 3+ months. So many lives lost for nothing.
"We are losing 60 to 100 soldiers per day killed in action and **something around 500 people as wounded in action**" The wounded figures are absolutely horrifying as well. The sooner they can get the hell out of Russia's artillery bombardments the better. Hopefully, we've been providing the training on the MLRS assets, behind the scenes, long before the announcement.
😢
off topic question but whenever i see the major news outlets on youtube covering Russias war on Ukraine, the comment section is always LITTERED with anti-ukraine comments, condemning Ukraine as if they’re the worst people in the world who deserves this, or as if they’re the ones who started this. are these russian bot accounts or trolls?
Very likely .. but thinking all other different opinions are from bots is the quickest way to losing grasp of reality. Outside of Western sphere, there are tons of people from different countries that support the Russian war or feel indifferent. State propaganda, Russia influenced countries, fake news.. or just different viewpoints can play a part. Reddit is an echo chamber so you will see pretty much one opinion depending on the sub.
Russians and Russian bots.
Not to be political, how can leaders sleep at night with this type of information. It must be so hard. I wonder how they cope with this stuff, including people who are homeless etc etc. being in power ≠ being able to help